24th November 2014 Telephone: (01636) 655247E-mail: catharine.saxton@nsdc.info

www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk

Kelham HallKelhamNewark

NottinghamshireNG23 5QX

Dear Sir/Madam,

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Kelham Hall, Newark on Tuesday, 2nd December 2014 at 4.00 pm.

Yours faithfully,

A.W. Muter Chief Executive

A G E N D A

Page Nos. 1. Apologies

2. Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 4th November 2014 1 - 6

3. Declarations of Interest by Members and Officers

4. Declaration of any Intentions to Record the Meeting

PART 1 - ITEMS FOR DECISION

5. Braemar Farm, Station Road, Collingham (12/00895/OUTM)(Site Visit: 12.15pm to 12.30pm)

7 - 48

6. Plot Farm, Thorney, Newark (13/01701/FUL)(Site Visit: 12.10pm drive by)

49 - 90

7. The Brewhouse, May Lodge Drive, Rufford, Newark(14/01323/FUL and 14/01324/LBC)(Site Visit: 10.25am to 10.35am)

91 - 104

8. Hall Cottage, Main Street, South Scarle, Newark (14/01587/FUL) 105 - 116

9. The Bungalow, Staythorpe Road, Averham (14/01715/FUL) 117 - 124

10. 32 Queen Street, Balderton, Newark (14/01729/FUL)(Site Visit: 12.45pm to 1.05pm)

125 - 132

11. Land to the Rear of Millcote House, Southwell Road, Farnsfield, Newark(14/01862/FUL)

133 - 146

PART 2 – ITEMS FOR INFORMATION

12(a) Appeals Lodged 147 - 148

12(b) Appeals Determined 149 - 150

PART 3 - STATISTICAL AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW ITEMS

None

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

NIL

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

NEWARK AND SHERWOOD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the Meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber, Kelham Hall, Newark on Tuesday, 4th November 2014 at 4.00pm. PRSENT: Councillor D.R. Payne (Chairman) Councillor B. Wells (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors: T.S. Bickley, R. V. Blaney, J. Bradbury, Mrs C. Brooks, Mrs G.E. Dawn, G.S. Merry, Mrs S.E. Saddington, M.

Shaw, Mrs L.M.J. Tift and I. Walker.

ALSO IN Councillor R. Shillito ATTENDANCE:

73. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Councillors: J.E. Hamilton and D. Jones.

74. MINUTES

AGREED that the Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 7th October 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

75. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS

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

Members Agenda Item

Councillors: R.V. Blaney and D.R. Payne

Agenda Item No. 8 – Maltkiln Lane, Newark (14/01664/FUL) – Personal Interest – Applicant known to both Members.

Officer

Business Manager – Development

Agenda Item No. 5 – Co-Op Supermarket, Lakeside Shopping Centre, London Road, Balderton (14/01433/FULM) – Disclosable Pecuniary Interest – One of units proposed for demolition is leased by a family member.

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

Having declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest on the following item, the Business Manager – Development left the meeting and did not take part in the debate thereon.

1

77. CO-OP SUPERMARKET, LAKESIDE SHOPPING CENTRE, LONDON ROAD, BALDERTON (14/01433/FULM) The Committee considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive, following a site inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought full planning permission for the demolition of the existing Co-operative Foodstore and three adjacent connected units and the erection of a new Lidl Foodstore (Class A) and formation of a new access to servicing area, new car parking spaces and associated landscaping. A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which included correspondence received after the agenda was published from: (i) the agent/applicant; (ii) the Highways Authority; and (iii) the agent. Members commented and agreed that the proposal would be an improvement and asset to the area.

AGREED (unanimously) that full planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report, as amended by late items to include:

• Car park access control linked to lighting controls in condition 8 • Delivery hours Monday to Saturday limited to 0600-2200 in

condition 9 and applied to new store only. • Range of goods limited to 20% comparison in condition 12. • Condition 10 to refer to ‘amalgamation’ rather than ‘subdivision’ • Highways conditions, as set out in late items, but not including

request for improvements to bus stops, included as conditions 17 &18.

(Councillor Blaney did not take part in the vote as he was not present for the whole of the debate in relation to this item.)

78. FIELD REFERENCE 4340, OFF NORMANTON ROAD, WESTON (13/01742/FUL) This item was withdrawn from the Agenda.

79. HALL COTTAGE, MAIN STREET, SOUTH SCARLE (14/01587/FUL) The Committee considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive, following a site inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought full planning permission for a householder application for the proposed internal alterations and extension between existing outbuilding and main house (amendment to previously approved planning application ref. no. 13/00901/FUL).

Members considered the application following a detailed presentation by Officers which highlighted the amendments to the previous application as noted above. The Chairman of South Scarle Parish Meeting – Mr. David Clarke addressed the Committee to advise of the level of objection to the retrospective application within the village. He stated that the extension had not been built in accordance with the original application and that had it been so the level of objection would have been

2

lessened. Some Members of the Committee were opposed to the application for a variety of reasons e.g. the manner in which the buildings had been joined using a straight line of concrete; the siting of the metal brackets on the wall underneath guttering on the front elevation which were positioned in such a place which could cause injury to a passer-by as there was no street lighting; and the extension appears to have been built around a telegraph pole. All Members agreed that retrospective planning applications were unacceptable but at present Local Planning Authorities must consider them as they would any new application. Notwithstanding the aforementioned view, some Members expressed their disappointment with the retrospective application but felt that they would still support the application. On being put to the vote that the full planning permission be approved (subject to conditions) it fell by 5 votes for with 7 votes against. Following this it was proposed and seconded that the application be refused, contrary to Officer recommendations.

The Chairman adjourned the meeting for a period of ten minutes in order for the Committee to take legal advice and to formulate the reasons for the refusal. On returning to the meeting Officers stated that they had considered the concerns

raised by Members and felt that these could be dealt with by the imposition of additional conditions and/or revisions to the submitted scheme. It was therefore recommended that the application be deferred pending further discussions with the applicant.

AGREED (unanimously) that the application be deferred pending further discussions between Officers and the applicant to address concerns including: the joining of brickwork on the front elevation between the original house and extension, the removal of metal brackets to guttering on the front elevation, the replacement of roof tiles to better match the appearance of existing, and the replacement of the tile missing where the telegraph wire breaches the new roof.

80. MALTKILN LANE, NEWARK (14/01664/FUL) The Committee considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive, following a site inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought permission for the erection of non-food A1 retail unit and A3 (restaurant/cafe) units along with associated parking and landscaping. Members considered the application and agreed that they welcomed the completion of the development in the area as this would add to the assets of the existing units. A Member of the Committee, however, indicated that consideration should be given to

3

the possible inclusion of an additional condition in relation to the issue of litter.

AGREED (unanimously) that full planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report together with two additional conditions in relation to the removal (in which case additional car parking should be provided) or refurbishment of the sub-station and the provision of a litter bin. Recommended condition 11 should also be revised to ensure that deliveries do not take place within anti-social hours.

81. BROOKLYN CARE HOME AT LODGE FARM, HOCKERTON ROAD, UPTON (14/01519/FUL) The Committee considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive which sought permission for the removal of the existing stables and veterinary unit (top barn) and their replacement with a manager’s dwelling in association with the existing business.

A Member commented that they were not unsympathetic with the need for a dwelling to ensure a twenty-four hour, seven days per week presence at the care home, although they considered that the proposed dwelling was too large.

AGREED (unanimously) that the application be refused for the reasons contained within the report.

82. 3 FORESTRY COTTAGES, HAYWOOD OAKS LANE, BLIDWORTH (14/01665/FUL) The Committee considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive which sought retrospective permission for the demolition of a semi-detached dwelling and erection of a replacement detached dwelling. A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which included correspondence, received after the agenda was published from: Nottinghamshire Police. Members expressed their disappointment that they were again being asked to consider a retrospective planning application, given that a permission had been refused in August 2014. Disappointment was also expressed as to the destruction of the maternity roost for bats owing to the removal of internal walls and ceiling prior to any bat survey being undertaken. It was, however, noted that the application must be viewed as presented and that the proposal incorporated measures to provide bat roosting opportunities and the applicant had agreed to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure funding for monitoring of bats.

AGREED (by 10 votes for with 2 against) that full planning permission be approved subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement to fund 5 years monitoring of the site for bats with a commitment to allow ongoing monitoring by Nottinghamshire Bat Group (or other experienced, licensed bat workers) following this initial phase and subject to the conditions contained within the report.

4

83. LAND AT 106 FOSE ROAD, FARNDON (14/01552/OUT) The Committee considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive which sought outline planning permission for a 3/4 bedroom bungalow (rooms in the roof type). A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which included correspondence received after the agenda was published from: i) neighbours (x2); and ii) the applicant. Officers deemed that the correspondence from neighbours was not relevant to the application and therefore should not form part of the Committee’s consideration. A Member commented that it would be pleasing to see the site made tidy but unfortunately the application was not within the Local Planning Authority’s current policy.

AGREED (unanimously) that the full planning permission be refused for the reasons contained within the report.

84. LEYLANDI, MAIN STREET, NORTH MUKHAM (14/01238/FUL) The Committee considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive which sought to change the use from an agricultural to a mixed use agricultural and equestrian/horse grazing and erection of a block of 6 stables of the above site. Members considered the application following a detailed presentation by Officers which highlighted that subsequent to the application being heard at the planning meeting held on 7th October whereby it was resolved that it be approved subject to a Section 106 requiring the repair and/or demolition of the buildings immediately to the west of the application site it had since been confirmed that the buildings in question were not within the applicants ownership and therefore the Section 106 could not be agreed. Officers confirmed that the report and recommendation remained identical to that considered at the October Planning Committee meeting. Members queried whether the proposed tack room would now have to be accommodated within the stable block thereby reducing the number of stables from 6 to 5. Officers confirmed that this was the case and also confirmed that any errors within an application could be quantified in writing by the applicant. It was noted that the applicant would be required to provide evidence of title.

AGREED (by 10 votes for with 2 against) that the application be approved without a S106 providing that the applicant can demonstrate, through evidence of title, that the adjoining buildings are not within their ownership or control.

85. LANDSCAPE COMMISSION – WIND TURBINES The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Development in relation to the latest position with regard to the Landscape Commission seeking independent advice on the visual landscape impacts (both individually and cumulatively) of several wind turbine planning application decisions.

5

The report provided information on advice received from the County’s Landscape Team on 7 of the 12 schemes on which they were commissioned. Also detailed within the report was the number of applications considered and determined in both Group 1 (Bilsthorpe/Farnsfield area) and Group 2 (Weston/Egmanton area). It was noted that further comments were awaited from NCC on outstanding applications and that these would be reported to committee if determined using delegated powers.

AGREED (unanimously) that:

(a) the report be noted;

(b) all agents/applicants and Parish Council’s affected by Nottinghamshire County Council’s comments for Groups 1 and be contacted be approved; and

(c) the District council’s website be updated accordingly.

86a. APPEALS LODGED

NOTED: that the report be noted.

86b. APPEALS DETERMINED

NOTED: that the report be noted.

At the conclusion of the Meeting, the Business Manager – Development advised Members that Nottinghamshire County Council’s Planning Committee would be held at Kelham Hall on 18th November 2014 to determine the proposed development of the Bilsthorpe Energy Centre(BEV), to manage unprocessed and pre-treated waste materials through the construction and operation of a Plasma Gasification Facility, Materials Recovery Facility and Energy Generation Infrastructure together with supporting infrastructure. He further advised that if the Committee wished, a representative could address the meeting to reiterate the Committee’s comments made at their previous meeting on 7th October 2014. Councillor Mrs L.M.J. Tift volunteered to speak at the NCC meeting on 18th November 2014 on behalf of the Council’s Planning Committee. The meeting closed at 5.55pm Chairman

6

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 2 DECEMBER 2014 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Application No:

12/00895/OUTM

Proposal:

Outline application for mixed use development comprising up to 80 dwellings (including affordable housing) up to 60 class C2 extra-care units, up to 0.75ha use class B1 (a) (b) & (c) employment development; and public open spaces; together with associated roads and car parking, drainage, utility services and green infrastructure, with vehicular accesses from Station Road & Swinderby Road.

Location:

Braemar Farm, Station Road, Collingham, Nottinghamshire

Applicant:

Braemar Farm Development Company

Registered: 22 June 2012 Target Date: 21 September 2012

The Site The site comprises c7.02h hectares of land to the east of Collingham within the defined built up part of the village. The site is situated between Station Road to the south and Swinderby Road to the north with the (Nottingham to Lincoln) railway line to the east. Modern dwellings and garage courts on Braemer Road flank the western boundary. Collingham’s railway station (which is Grade II listed) is situated adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the site. A new station car park (erected under planning reference 13/00715/FUL) on the eastern side of the tracks opened late Summer 2014 which provides for a total of 61 parking spaces. The application site itself is green field site which is relatively flat and is bound in the most part by hedgerows and mature trees. An existing landscape buffer comprising broadleaf native trees is planted alongside the railway line and is relatively mature. Aside from a line of semi-mature trees that runs in parallel to the Station Road and is broadly adjacent to Horseshoe Cottages to the west (planted as a community project by the applicant) the field has few features on the ground. South Collingham Drain (an open watercourse) runs the length of the western and northern site boundaries and Scaffold Drain is located along the north-eastern site boundary. There are level crossings over the railway line on Station Road (to the southeast of the site), Cross Lane (to the east) and Swinderby Road (to the north-east). Cross Lane currently links Station Road with Swinderby Road although there is also a more convoluted route through the residential estate to the west of the site along Braemer Road. Station Road links to the A46 trunk road to the east. The site has been allocated for a mixed use site (CO/MU/1) in the Allocations and Development Management DPD 2013.

7

Relevant Planning History 09/SCR/00007 – A Screening Opinion (under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) was sought for a proposed residential led mixed use development (the development that comprised 10/00685/OUTM) at this site. It was concluded that an EIA was not required. 10/00685/OUTM – An outline application for a mixed use village development at Braemar Farm was lodged in May 2010. This application comprised not less than 200 dwellings (including affordable and specialist retirement housing) not less than 1500m2 of Use Class B1 (a) (b) & (c) employment development and Public Open Spaces; together with associated roads and car parking, drainage, service, renewable energy and green infrastructure, with vehicular accesses from Station Road and Swinderby Road. This application was withdrawn in June 2012. The Proposal Outline consent is sought for a mixed use development comprising up to 80 dwellings (this has now been amended from 90 dwellings) to include affordable housing, up to 60 class C2 extra care units and up to 0.75ha use class B1 (a (b) and (c) employment uses. Originally all matters were reserved for subsequent consideration. However the means of access was added (September 2013) and is now part of the consideration. The illustrative Master Plan shows that access would be taken from Swinderby Road to the north and from Station Road to the south. For clarity, C2 uses are generally defined as residential institutions used for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care. The applicant has indicated that this element would comprise up to 60 retirement units with 1 and 2 bedrooms with associated communal facilities. The employment uses could comprise offices, research and development, studios, laboratories or light industry. The agent has indicated that there will be a mix of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom units for the C3 dwellings. The application is accompanied by a Phasing Plan, Master Plan (as both revised) as well as a Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Transport Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment (plus Addendum, July 2014), Noise and Vibration Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal, Phase 1 Desktop Study (Environmental Site Assessment), Ecological Survey, Report for Great Crested Newts, Archaeological Desk Based Assessment, Geophysical Report, Draft Planning Obligation, ‘Continuing Care Retirement Community’ justification and Community Gardens Justification. Further information has been provided in the form of a Viability Appraisal. Following a peer review of this, the agent has now (October 2014) indicated that the application will be limited to 80 dwellings, 24 of which would be affordable units (with a tenure split of 16 shared ownership and 8 for affordable rent) and up to 60 class C2 units and up to 0.75h employment uses. The application has been screened under the Environment Impact Assessment Regulations and it has been concluded that an EIA is not required.

8

Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Occupiers of fifty four neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. Sites notices have been displayed on site and an advert has been placed in the local press. Planning Policy Framework

The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) • Spatial Policy 1 - Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2 - Spatial Distribution of Growth • Spatial Policy 7 - Sustainable Transport • Spatial Policy 8 – Protecting and Promoting Leisure and Community Facilities • Core Policy 1 – Affordable Housing Provision • Core Policy 3 – Housing Mix, Type and Density • Core Policy 6 – Shaping our Employment Profile` • Core Policy 9 -Sustainable Design • Core Policy 10 – Climate Change • Core Policy 12 – Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure • Core Policy 14 – Historic Environment • Core Policy 13 – Landscape Character

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

• Policy Co/MU/1 – Collingham Mixed Use Site 1 • Policy DM1 - Development within Settlements Central to Delivering the Spatial Strategy • Policy DM2 – Development on Allocated Sites • Policy DM3 - Developer Contributions • Policy DM5 - Design • Policy DM7 - Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure • Policy DM9 - Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment • Policy DM12 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Other Material Planning Considerations

• National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and its Technical Guidance • National Planning Policy Guidance Suite, on-line resource (March 2014) • Newark and Sherwood Affordable Housing SPD (June 2013) • Newark and Sherwood Developer Contributions and Planning Obligations SPD (December

2013) • Newark and Sherwood Greenspace Strategy, March 2010 • Greenspace Provision Improvement Plan for Collingham and Meering

Consultations As the application was submitted in June 2012 and additional information has been submitted as the scheme has evolved, there have been several rounds of public re-consultation. Therefore

9

unless otherwise stated only the latest comments from each consultee have been reported in full. Collingham Parish Council – Have consistently raised Objections to the scheme on 13th July 2012, 31st July 2012, 11th January 2013, 13th December 2013 and 10th January 2014. Their latest comments from 11th April 2014 are detailed as follows: “Collingham Parish Council met last night and the above application was discussed. The application was again not supported, concerns were:

• The maintenance of the gardens and other communal areas, how much will this cost, who will be responsible for it and how long for.

• The recent comments made by NCC Highways Department dated 17 February 2014 were endorsed.

• A risk assessment for the proposed swale has still not been received. • Comments from the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board (TVIDB) have still to be received. • Traffic issues at the junction of Swinderby Road and the High Street remain. The Parish

Council has received in excess of 15 complaints about this junction recently. We would kindly ask that we are informed when the risk assessment for the swale and comments from the TVIDB are received and consulted upon. We also look forward to receiving the replies to the questions raised with Mr Lamb at our meeting with him on 13 February.” Highways Agency – No objections The proposed development is not expected to have a material impact on the closest strategic route, the A46. Therefore under Article 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, the Highways Agency has no objections. A TR110 is attached which offers no objection to the proposal. (04/07/12 and 18/12/12) Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – Previous comments have been made on 4th March 2013. The following comments were made on 17th February 2014. “The comments offered relate to the submitted Transport Assessment (TA) dated November 2012. Consequently they relate to a proposal that includes 90 dwellings, 60 C2 extra care units, and 0.75 ha of B1 uses. It is noted however that the application form states “not less than 90 dwellings” and “not less than 0.75 ha of B1 uses”, which leaves potential development open-ended. If this matter has not already been clarified/resolved then approval should only be given on the basis of the TA submission and any increase in the quantities would require a resubmission of a TA for approval prior to development commencing. The results of the Linsig modelling for the Station Road/High Street/Bell Lane junction show a degradation in overall junction performance of -19.6% (down from 32.4% to 12.8% practical reserve capacity (PRC)) in the am peak and -4.5% (down from 23.9% to 19.4% PRC) in the evening peak. These results do not constitute nil-detriment.

10

Morgan Tucker conclude in paragraph 6.5.2 that the traffic signalled junction does not require any mitigation as the overall performance is still positive. This stance is not accepted and would suggest that the junction be converted to MOVA control to better manage the reduced capacity available, due to the extra development flows and retrieve some of the junction performance lost as a consequence. The likely cost would be in the region of £50-60k. Notwithstanding the submitted details, design measures should be employed to deter traffic from being able to travel through the site between Station Road and Swinderby Road and deter ‘rat-running’. This will also ensure that development-generated traffic entering High Street from Swinderby Road is minimised because of the poor visibility at this junction which the applicant does not wish to address, and would be difficult (and potentially unpopular) to do so anyway because of local on-street parking that would need to be banned. The submitted Site Plan (drawing 134-A-07E) shows a traffic calming zone. It should be stressed that simple and conventional calming measures are unlikely to be sufficient to deter through traffic. Therefore careful consideration of this area is required and it may be appropriate to have the access leading to Station Road and the one leading to Swinderby Road misaligned at the point where traffic is to be deterred to provide chicanes and/or priority measures. Details of the proposed access junctions at Station Road and Swinderby Road shown on drawings JN1102-NWK-007 and JN1102-NWK-006 respectively are acceptable.” They then go on to suggest conditions which are shown as conditions 18, 19, 24 and 25 and a note to applicant at the end of this report. 14/01/13 - Further comments were received: Thanks for bringing the drainage issue to my attention. A swale could be acceptable, and if it is to accept highway surface water, the following condition should be applied. In terms of a service strip, I would still expect a 2m wide footway to run between the carriageway and the swale, unless there is good reason to do otherwise. Suggested Condition:

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of the Sustainable Drainage system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Such details shall include maintenance arrangements for the life of the system; provide rights to discharge surface water run-off from the public highway, and; access rights for the Highway Authority. Reason: To avoid the risk of flooding of the public highway. Nottinghamshire County Council (Archaeology) – Made initial comments requesting geophysical survey. On 1st November 2013 further comments were made as follows: “Thank you for requesting me to comment on the additional archaeological information submitted by the applicants in support of their application. I have studied the geophysical report with interest. I note with interest that there appears to be no sign of ridge and furrow, which I might expect this close to the village core. This may indicate that ground conditions are allowing ferrous spikes, modern activity and major geological variations to be identified, but

11

nothing else. Two patches of unusual geological activity have been identified, one to the north of the bonfire site, and a second to the northwest of the site. The one bt th bonfire site is very close to an odd small enclosure shown on Sanderson’s map of 1835. A cluster of positive anomalies, not necessarily of archaeological origin, are located in the northeastern corner of the site. These three areas warrant some further archaeological excavation, but I am reasonably content that this can be undertaken post determination and as a condition of any consent granted. I am therefore recommending that if planning permission is granted this should be conditional upon a programme of archaeological investigation being undertaken. A condition such as the following may be appropriate;

“No development shall take place within the application site until details of a scheme for archaeological mitigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.” “Thereafter the scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved details.” This scheme should be drawn up and implemented by a professional archaeologist or archaeological organisation. I will be happy to advise on the nature and extent of such a scheme, or to provide further advice or comment as required. Nottinghamshire County Council (Lead Flood Risk Authority) – No responses received. Nottinghamshire County Council (Developer Contributions) – 13/12/12 A development of 90 dwellings will yield an additional 19 primary and 14 secondary aged pupils. Based on current pupil projections these additional pupils can be accommodated in existing schools, so we have no request for education s106 funding. No revised comments have been received. Nottinghamshire County Council (Spatial Planning) – 17/12/12 – No strategic planning observations. Office of Railway Regulation – No response received. Environment Agency – Initially objected but on 29th August 2014 they removed their objection making the following comments. “The Environment Agency has NO OBJECTION to the proposed development subject to imposition of the following planning conditions (these conditions form Conditions 15 to 17 of the recommended conditions and are set out in full later in the report. It should be noted that the EA amended Condition 15 on 20/11/14) which is reflected below. Severn Trent Water Ltd should be consulted by the Local Planning Authority and be requested to demonstrate that the sewerage and sewage disposal systems serving the development have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flows, generated as a result of the development, without causing pollution.” Natural England (17/07/12) – Standing advice (planning permission may be granted subject to a condition requiring a detailed mitigation and monitoring strategy for great crested newts) Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust (16/07/13)

12

“Thank you for consulting Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust on the planning application detailed above. Having studied the Ecological Survey of Buildings and Land (Lapwings Consultants 2009), the results of the subsequent Report of Great Crested Newt Survey (Lapwings Consultants 2010) and the Strategy for GCN (Tim Smith 2012) we have no objection to the application in principle and would like to take this opportunity to make further comments on this proposal. Protected Species Great Crested Newts Surveys revealed that Pond 4 contained great crested newts. This water body is located within a garden of a property approximately 90m from the nearest point of the proposed development site and linked to it by a ditch. Based on the Natural England Newt Mitigation Guidelines the newt population is considered to be at the upper limit of a small population. Great crested newts are fully protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and therefore there presence is a constraint to the proposed development. The development will lead to the loss of habitats used by great crested newts for foraging and sheltering. We support the recommendation that a Great Crested Newt licence should be applied for in order for the development to proceed. Appropriate mitigation and compensation will need to be developed in consultation with Natural England. We also therefore fully support all of the recommendations in the Strategy for Great Crested Newt (Tim Smith 2012) which includes proposed newt mitigation strategy, enhancements for newts, potential newt mitigation strategy and potential newt mitigation timetable. This strategy will take the form of removal of newts from within the development site to minimise the risk of harm and installing newt fencing to prevent their return and creating compensatory habitat in the form of rough grassland, new ponds and new hibernation sites. Additional Surveys Reptiles It is considered that areas of grassland, the bases of hedgerows and storage materials within the site have the potential to support foraging and sheltering reptiles. We therefore fully support the recommendation by the applicant’s ecologist for a reptile survey to be undertaken to establish the presence/absence of reptiles during the periods April-June and September-mid October. The survey will help to inform a mitigation strategy in the event that reptiles are discovered. All reptiles are protected from reckless injuring and killing (The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended)). Bats Some of the trees within the site have some features with the potential to support roosting bats. Some of the trees within the site have some features with the potential to support bats. Should any of the trees be felled or have branches removed under the proposals, further surveys would be required to determine whether roosting bats are present. As you will be aware bats and their roost sites are fully protected (The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended) and the Conservation (Natural habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994).

13

Badgers We strongly support the recommendation for a repeat badger survey in order to determine whether badgers have colonised the site as the original survey was completed almost three years ago. Under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 it is a criminal offence to wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or to attempt to do so; to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett. Sett interference includes disturbing badgers whilst they are occupying a sett, as well as damaging or destroying a sett or obstructing access to it. Landscaping We would like to request that features of ecological importance such as hedgerows and mature trees are retained wherever possible as they provide nesting and foraging habitats for birds and act as green ‘corridors’ and stepping stones of habitat that link the site to the wider landscape thereby reducing the loss to biodiversity as a result of the development. It will also help the new development appear ‘established’. We encourage the applicant to create Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitats such as native species rich hedgerows, species rich grassland and ponds. The East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009) Policy 29 - Priorities for Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity which states that Local Authorities, statutory environmental bodies and developers should work with the voluntary sector, landowners and local communities to implement the Regional Biodiversity Strategy, and to deliver a major step change increase in the level of biodiversity across the East Midlands. Measures should include the “Creating, protecting and enhancing features of the landscape which act as corridors and ‘stepping stones’, essential for the migration and dispersal of wildlife. Public open space could be developed and managed with a strong ecological focus so that it makes a positive contribution to the habitat mosaic of the area. We therefore welcome the proposed master plan in the design and access statement. Woodland Planting We request that all new tree and shrub planting for the proposed woodland area be of guaranteed native genetic origin and ideally of local provenance that reflects the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands Landscape Character Area. This would help to maximize the nature conservation benefits of the new development. Ideally, we would wish to see native planting continued throughout the development in order to provide further biodiversity benefits. Hedgerows Wherever possible we would wish to see the retention of all hedgerows within the development footprint and where appropriate, enhanced through additional planting with shrubs of local provenance and incorporated in to the development design as stand alone features, that is, not incorporated in to the boundaries or gardens of housing where they are likely to be intensively managed to the detriment of wildlife or lost as owners grub them out and replace them with wooden fencing. Mature native hedgerows have value to local populations of breeding birds, invertebrates, bats and other small mammals, as places to roost, nest and forage. Sustainable Drainage Scheme (SuDS) We encourage the applicant to create a Sustainable Drainage Scheme (SuDS) to deal with run-off from this development because if designed correctly, they can provide real biodiversity benefits. We feel that there is the opportunity to design a drainage scheme that would be an asset to the community, an amenity used and enjoyed for leisure while providing both improved wildlife

14

habitat and a landscape feature. The creation of such a landscape feature would add value to any housing over looking them. The LPA should ensure that the SuDS scheme is designed following good practice criteria (Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines). Enhancing the built environment We would also ask that consideration is given to enhancing the built environment. We request that brick boxes are incorporated into the new development to provide nesting opportunities for house sparrows and swifts. The house sparrow is on the red list of birds of conservation concern. This list includes those species that have declined by 50% or more in the UK breeding population over the previous 25 years. The swift population in the UK has declined by 26% during the period 1994-2006 and is a bird of conservation concern in Nottinghamshire. This species has a long association with manmade structures and the renovation and demolition of older buildings is likely to have contributed to this decline (see www.londons-swifts.org.uk for further information). We also request that access for bats is incorporated into the new development. A range of bat tubes and access panels are now available that will provide roosting opportunities for those species of bat that inhabit buildings. Swift, house sparrow and bat boxes are available from Schwegler (see www.schwegler-natur.de). Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss the above. We would be grateful if you would keep us informed about the progress of this planning application.” 02/01/13 – No further comments. Network Rail – 23/07/12 “With reference to the above application we have the following comments to make. Firstly we note the revised planning application now no longer has any specific proposal for station car parking. It relies on the following statement: “It is understood that NR have secured panning consent for additional car parking to the east of the station and have provisions on place to acquire the land to implement the scheme. This current application on the reduced land area conferred by the Site Allocation DPD therefore does not include additional dedicated station car parking at this juncture, although the potential remains for such facility on land to the rear of Station House at some future point.” Whilst it is correct that we have now acquired the land in question we do not have the current resources to implement the proposal. It is also apparent that the size of the car park which benefits from planning consent is insufficient for the likely level of patronage, thereby perpetuating the problems we are experiencing with regard to parking in the vicinity of the level crossing. As such we would request that the car park element of the original proposal is retained in this new application and that provision is made in the S106 agreement to facilitate the establishment of the car park for station patrons. In addition the following comments should also be taken into account; much will probably be a matter for the reserved stages of the application but they are repeated here for information and where not related to a specific condition they should be enclosed as an informative.

15

Drainage All surface and foul water arising from the proposed works must be collected and diverted away from Network Rail property. In the absence of detailed plans all soakaways must be located so as to discharge away from the railway infrastructure. Fail Safe Use of Crane and Plant All operations, including the use of cranes or other mechanical plant working adjacent to Network Rail’s property, must at all times be carried out in a “fail safe” manner such that in the event of mishandling, collapse or failure, no materials or plant are capable of falling within 3.0m of the nearest rail of the adjacent railway line, or where the railway is electrified, within 3.0m of overhead electrical equipment or supports. Excavations/Earthworks All excavations/ earthworks carried out in the vicinity of Network Rail property/ structures must be designed and executed such that no interference with the integrity of that property/ structure can occur. If temporary works compounds are to be located adjacent to the operational railway, these should be included in a method statement for approval by Network Rail. Prior to commencement of works, full details of excavations and earthworks to be carried out near the railway undertaker's boundary fence should be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority acting in consultation with the railway undertaker and the works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Where development may affect the railway, consultation with the Asset Protection Engineer should be undertaken. Security of Mutual Boundary Security of the railway boundary will need to be maintained at all times. If the works require temporary or permanent alterations to the mutual boundary the applicant must contact Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineer. Fencing Because of the nature of the proposed developments we consider that there will be an increased risk of trespass onto the railway. The Developer must provide a suitable trespass proof fence adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary (minimum approx. 1.8m high) and make provision for its future maintenance and renewal. Network Rail’s existing fencing / wall must not be removed or damaged. Method Statements/Fail Safe/Possessions Method statements may require to be submitted to Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineer at the below address for approval prior to works commencing on site. Where appropriate an asset protection agreement will have to be entered into. Where any works cannot be carried out in a “fail-safe” manner, it will be necessary to restrict those works to periods when the railway is closed to rail traffic i.e. “possession” which must be booked via Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineer and are subject to a minimum prior notice period for booking of 20 weeks. Generally if excavations/piling/buildings are to be located within 10m of the railway boundary a method statement should be submitted for NR approval.

16

OPE Once planning permission has been granted and at least six weeks prior to works commencing on site the Asset Protection Engineer (OPE) MUST be contacted, contact details as below. The OPE will require to see any method statements/drawings relating to any excavation, drainage, demolition, lighting and building work or any works to be carried out on site that may affect the safety, operation, integrity and access to the railway. Demolition Any demolition or refurbishment works must not be carried out on the development site that may endanger the safe operation of the railway, or the stability of the adjoining Network Rail structures. The demolition of buildings or other structures near to the operational railway infrastructure must be carried out in accordance with an agreed method statement. Approval of the method statement must be obtained from Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineer before the development can commence. Noise/Soundproofing The Developer should be aware that any development for residential use adjacent to an operational railway may result in neighbour issues arising. Consequently every endeavour should be made by the developer to provide adequate soundproofing for each dwelling. Please note that in a worst case scenario there could be trains running 24 hours a day and the soundproofing should take this into account. Trees/Shrubs/Landscaping Where trees/shrubs are to be planted adjacent to the railway boundary these shrubs should be positioned at a minimum distance greater than their predicted mature height from the boundary. Certain broad leaf deciduous species should not be planted adjacent to the railway boundary. We would wish to be involved in the approval of any landscaping scheme adjacent to the railway. Where landscaping is proposed as part of an application adjacent to the railway it will be necessary for details of the landscaping to be known and approved to ensure it does not impact upon the railway infrastructure. Any hedge planted adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary fencing for screening purposes should be so placed that when fully grown it does not damage the fencing or provide a means of scaling it. No hedge should prevent Network Rail from maintaining its boundary fencing. Lists of trees that are permitted and those that are not permitted are provided below and these should be added to any tree planting conditions: Acceptable: Birch (Betula), Crab Apple (Malus Sylvestris), Field Maple (Acer Campestre), Bird Cherry (Prunus Padus), Wild Pear (Pyrs Communis), Fir Trees – Pines (Pinus), Hawthorne (Cretaegus), Mountain Ash – Whitebeams (Sorbus), False Acacia (Robinia), Willow Shrubs (Shrubby Salix), Thuja Plicatat “Zebrina” Not Acceptable: Alder (Alnus Glutinosa), Aspen – Popular (Populus), Beech (Fagus Sylvatica), Wild Cherry (Prunus Avium), Hornbeam (Carpinus Betulus), Small-leaved Lime (Tilia Cordata), Oak (Quercus), Willows (Salix Willow), Sycamore – Norway Maple (Acer), Horse Chestnut (Aesculus Hippocastanum), Sweet Chestnut (Castanea Sativa), London Plane (Platanus Hispanica).

17

A comprehensive list of permitted tree species is available upon request. Lighting Where new lighting is to be erected adjacent to the operational railway the potential for train drivers to be dazzled must be eliminated. In addition the location and colour of lights must not give rise to the potential for confusion with the signalling arrangements on the railway. Detail of any external lighting should be provided as a condition if not already indicated on the application. Standard lighting condition: For the first three months following the installation and operation of the new lighting an assessment will be made to check the effect of the lighting on the nearby railway line. If it is found that there is a problem with driver visibility additional screening/cowling or light adjustment will be employed as appropriate to alleviate the problem, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority in association with Network Rail and the train operating companies Access to Railway All roads, paths or ways providing access to any part of the railway undertaker's land shall be kept open at all times during and after the development. Children’s Play Areas/Open Spaces/Amenities Children’s play areas, open spaces and amenity areas must be protected by a secure fence along the boundary of one of the following kinds, concrete post and panel, iron railings, steel palisade or such other fence approved by the Local Planning Authority acting in consultation with the railway undertaker to a minimum height of 2 metres and the fence should not be able to be climbed. Network Rail is required to recover all reasonable costs associated with facilitating these works. It is realised that much of the above does not apply directly to the application but should be taken into consideration as appropriate. Nevertheless it gives a useful guide as to the considerations to be taken into account in relation to development adjacent to the railway. I would advise that in particular the drainage, boundary fencing, method statements, soundproofing, lighting and landscaping should be the subject of conditions, the reasons for which can include the safety, operational needs and integrity of the railway. For the other matters we would be pleased if an informative could be attached to the decision notice. I trust full cognisance will be taken in respect of these comments. If you have any further queries or require clarification of any aspects, please do not hesitate to contact myself I would also be grateful if you could inform me of the outcome of this application, forwarding a copy of the Decision Notice to me in due course. The method statement will need to be agreed with: Asset Protection Engineer Team Network Rail (London North Eastern) Floor 1B George Stephenson House Toft Green York

18

Y01 6JT Email: assetprotectionlne@networkrail.co.uk” 05/03/13 “Further to the re-consultation on the above subject, I understand the application has not yet been determined; I apologise for the delay in responding to the revised proposal. Our comments remain substantially as before (in an e-message dated 23rd July 2012), particularly in relation to the station car park. Even though we are contemplating an amendment to the existing permission for our car park we do not consider it will be sufficient to cater for the anticipated demand, thereby perpetuating the problems we are experiencing with regard to parking at the existing level crossing. Again we would repeat our contention that the scheme should be revised to include a station car park on the village side of the station as per the original proposal and the S106 agreement should reflect this.” 02/08/13 “Thanks you for your e-message. I’m sorry for the extensive delay in replying but it has been very difficult to get information on the Cross Lane situation, hence the delay. In relation to the car park at Collingham it is acknowledged that we have recently sought to extend the life of the current permission, on the basis that there are no existing funds available to carry out the work but we are hopeful of securing funding in the next control period (2014-18). However the basis on which we feel there is a need for additional car parking at the station over and above the current proposal is through observation of casual parking around the station, which can reach a maximum of around 45 current users. Although 58 spaces would give a small buffer it is considered, with long term trends on rail usage to increase, that the planned car park will be at capacity within a year or two (especially as we are uncertain at this time over what service improvements may emerge on the back of the new East Midlands franchise due during the next control period – currently October 2017). As such, for the longer term needs of the station it would be prudent to reserve an area of land for car parking of around an additional 20 or 30 spaces for additional car parking; this would also help to alleviate the level of future station traffic using the level crossing. If trends show that there is no increase in usage (after the new franchise) the land reserved for a car park can be put to an alternative use. In terms of Cross Lane level crossing, it remains a longer term aspiration to close the crossing but at present there is no set timetable for implementation.” Internal Drainage Board - Initially objected (July 2012 and January 2013) but have now removed their objections (2 August 2013). “…Following further discussions with the developer, the Board are now in a position to remove the previous objection. The site is located within the Board’s district and is served by the Board maintained South Collingham Drain and the Scaffold Drain, both of which are open watercourses and are located along the western, northern and eastern site boundaries. The Board note the applicant’s intension to divert the Boards maintained South Collingham Drain

19

through the development site. The applicant has provided the Board with drawing 134-A-07 Rev B which indicates proposed accesses for the Board’s machinery and the indicative watercourse diversion route. Whilst this drawing is acceptable to remov the objection, it is expected that further refinements may be required as the design of the development progresses. The applicant must mote that the works to divert, infill or culvert watercourses must not be undertaken without the Board’s prior written consent. The Board must also note the applicant’s intention to discharge surface water to soakaways. The Board recommend that the suitability of soakaways is ascertained with BRE Digest 365 and to the satisfaction of the Local Authority. If the suitability of soakaways is not proven the applicant should resubmit amended proposals demonstrating how surface water will be drained. The applicant is reminded that any discharge to the Board’s drainage will only be permitted at the greenfield rate with any flows above this rate being fully attenuated on site. Your authority should consider imposing a condition on a planning consent which requires the developer to submit a full drainage scheme, which demonstrates how the site is to be sustainably drained without affecting third parties, prior to the development commencing. If the applicant requires further assistance with the matters referred to above they should liase with the Boards Planning and Byelaw Officer, Mr A Dale.” Severn Trent Water (2/10/14) - No objection subjection to a condition being imposed relating to the disposal of surface water and foul sewage. They have also confirmed (30/10/14) that the public foul water sewerage system has sufficient capacity to accommodate foul flows from the proposed development without the need for any capacity improvements to the sewerage system or sewage treatment works. NSDC (Parks and Amenities) (02/01/13 & 26/04/13)- “I note, and welcome, the provision of areas of public open space in the form of children’s playing space, amenity open space, community green and allotments. The children’s playing space requirement for 90 houses is 1,800m2 and I note that this has been met by the provision of a larger Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) of around 1,300m2 and 2 smaller Local Areas for Play (LAP). Given the requirement for 20m buffer zones around the activity zone of the LEAP to ensure that neighbouring properties are not unduly affected by noise I would prefer to see the LEAP increased in size to 1,800m2. I believe one larger, centrally located, play space will provide a better solution to the children’s playing space requirement than 3 smaller areas. It may also be preferable to include the proposed community green into this area to create a sizeable multi-use public space for all ages. ” NSDC (Community Sports and Arts Development) 23/04/2013 “My understanding of community buildings attached to care provision/supported housing offers very little wider community benefit, there are many such examples that can be offered such as Beaumond Walk and Cleveland Green, these buildings are important to the residents of the supported housing complexes but serve no significant benefit to the wider community as they are generally large lounge areas and are integral to the community offer of such schemes. I think it is fair to say that the 60 units would be provided for through the community facility but the 90 units would require a contribution. Schemes could include the developments at the Football Club,

20

Cricket, Tennis and Bowls Clubs, the Scout Hut and Village /Community Halls. Of the former schemes I know that there are developments currently in the planning or delivery phases. In terms of community buildings I would need to speak to the Parish Council regarding priorities for investment but investment in the existing infrastructure would be the preference in my opinion, improve what you have got. I can speak to the Local members if necessary.” NSDC (Environmental Services - Contamination) With regard to the above development, I have received a Phase I (Desk Study) Environmental Assessment report carried out by Hughes Craven dated November 2009 (job no HC/0711/01). This document provides a detailed account of the site’s environmental/historical setting and establishes a suitable conceptual site model. The report identifies several potential pollutant linkages in three specific areas of the site, the former sidings area, land adjacent to the railway close to the north east corner and the south western area of the paddocks. The concluding sections recommend intrusive investigations to further characterise the contamination in these areas. I am generally satisfied with this approach and look forward to further consultation as these works proceed. In the meantime, I would request that conditions should be attached to the planning consent. These conditions are shown in full at the end of this report. NSDC (Environmental Services) 22/01/13 –“I have looked at the noise and vibration report accompanying this application. If I read it correctly it is dated 2009. It would be wise to require that the report is revisited to take in to account any changes in noise sources. Also the planning guidance has changed so it would be wise to consider the report findings in accordance with the latest guidance.” (This was re-visited in July 2013) 03/10/13 – Confirm no comments to make in relation to noise or Housing Act matters. NSDC Strategic Housing – Originally made comments on 25/09/13 setting out policy requirements. Following receipt of the viability report and reduction in numbers to 80, the following comments were received. “Strategic Housing’s comments on the applicant’s proposal to provide 30% affordable housing (24 Units) with a tenure mix of 75% shared ownership and 25% affordable rent are as follows: Core Policy One (of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy) seeks to secure a tenure mix of 60% social rented housing and 40% intermediate housing (shared ownership). This policy is supported by evidence in the District Wide Housing Needs Survey (2009) (and emerging update) which identifies the above tenure mix as the most appropriate to meet need and also in the Parish Housing Needs Survey (2006) which identified a tenure mix of the same proportions. Therefore, bearing in mind that the applicant considers viability to be an issue, the Strategic Housing Business Unit would support a scheme that provides 60% shared ownership properties and 40% for social rent (affordable rent is acceptable providing the Housing Association has a contract with the HCA to deliver this tenure). For example a proposed type and tenure for the affordable could be:- 6 x 2 bed rent 10 x 2 bed shared ownership

21

3 x 3 bed rent 5 x 3 bed shared ownership” Since then the applicant has made an alternative offer of 8 x 1 bed affordable rent, 12 x 2 bed shared ownership and 4 x 3 bed shared ownership which Strategic Housing are satisfied with. NSDC Access Officer (14/12/12) – Makes general observations. NHS England – No responses received. Adrian Kerrison (Consultant) Independent Viability Advice - This appraisals are attached to this report as an Appendix. Representations from 35 local residents, neighbours and interested parties have commented on the application. Of these, 32 object or raise concerns/issues and 2 support the scheme. It should be noted that these comments were all made between July 2012 and early 2013. Despite a full re-consultation given the time that has passed, no further additional comments have been received. The comments are summarised below: Objections/Concerns Principle

• Loss of countryside • It is too big. • Identified net requirement for 82 houses and this identifies 150 including assisted care. • This could increase population by 20% or 30% or even more. • Elderly people would not like to live so far from village facilities it is unlikely the proposal

would stand up to a viability test and these houses would ultimately find themselves on the open market.

• Concerns raised regarding the planning departments open support of the need to adjust the settlement boundary and this application.

• Outside the original village boundary and there is no need to enlarge the village boundary as there is ample land within the village to accommodate all the housing needs for the next 25 years.

• There is no need for 150 units to be built within the village especially 60 C2 units. • Permission has been granted at Pitomy Farm • There are plenty of houses for sale in Collingham without the need for more • Doesn’t feel like a village anymore it is getting to big, • We don’t need employment development of an industrial estate • Prematurity being submitted in advance of the adoption of the Allocations DPD • NSDC have a 5 year land supply so this site is not required • Size of the planned houses is too big and expensive for 1st time buyers etc as requested by

the government. Transport

• Concern at the potential future use of the road through the proposed site connecting Swinderby Road and Station Road as will become at rat run and potential danger to residents.

• Possible movement of agricultural machinery along the new through road.

22

• Traffic calming will be needed on Station Road between the proposed development and the traffic lights at the junction with the A1133if development does ahead and should be funded by the developers

• Plans show link from new development to Windsor Close but this would not cope with increased traffic

• Increased traffic and speed of traffic causing more chaos and danger for the village • Number of users from station may be increased but train services may not match demand. • Bus services may not be enhanced • Being on the edge of the village it increases the likelihood that residents will use their cars,

rather than walk to the village • Sustainable transport has not been adequately addressed • Any increase in railway train frequency will negatively impact the lives of road users in the

vicinity. • Collingham is buttresses by 4 level crossings, an increase in railway usage will negatively

impact the quality of life of residents as increased closures at the level crossings will delay road and pedestrian traffic

• The link roads to the A46, including the A1133 are not currently fit for purpose. Any increase in road usage will compound the inadequacy of the road links for village residents.

• Potential for congestion at a busy level crossing. • If access is granted from Cross Lane there is a similar risk of congestion at the busy Cross

Lane level crossing • If vehicular access is granted to the site from Braemar Road, a residential road, there will

be an unnecessary and unacceptable increased risk to people in the vicinity. • Construction traffic will affect the health and safety of the area • Public rights of way are well used over the site which would become urban pathways • Station Road is a quiet residential road which already serves many facilities including the

football Club, the Scout and Guide hut, the School and service access to the new Co-op Capacity

• Concern that there may be capacity issues with the foul sewerage system • John Blow Primary School has no capacity at all for more pupils • Concerns about added capacity to the electricity supply. The electricity connectivity to

residences in the north Collingham is woefully poor. Power outages are commonplace throughout the day and night. Any additional demands placed on this abysmal system will have further detrimental impact on current subscribers.

• Existing services (schools, doctors etc) will struggle to cope under increased pressure Sustainability

• Whilst there is a mention of provision for housing for the elderly and assisted living, it is unlikely that these residents will be able to walk the distance to use the amenities in the centre of the village.

Character • Plans are overdeveloped and alien in design • More sensible to spread houses in smaller sites across the village • This 90+ unit development will do nothing to promote the 'distinctive vernacular style' and

traditional character of a small rural community, • Recent developments have weakened "the overall character and integrity" of rural

developments such as Collingham. • Edge of a village adjacent to countryside

Natural Environment

• Tree survey should be provided at reserved matters stage

23

• Who will manage the green space on site? • Will green space be allotments? • Ecological report is now out of date and does not take into account biodiversity issues • There are several old trees on site contrary to the Planning Report • Fields are designated as main open areas, western fields are conservation area which are in

keeping with the village. Once lost they are gone forever • Loss of habitat and wildlife (owls, pheasants, hares, bats, hedgehogs, butterflies,

amphibians, great crested newts, birds etc) • Concern regarding the welfare of fish in adjacent ornamental pond from dust and

construction Flooding

• The site floods and many concerns regarding drainage/flooding impacts for wider area have been raised;

• Rainwater harvesting is proposed but this would be overwhelmed • Some occasions when ducks swim on the site

Amenity • Quality of life will be adversely affected • Object as we look onto the site loss of view • Overshadowing • Overlooking • Increased noise • Concerns regarding a possible biomass plant as part of the C2 accommodation and its

impacts • Disturbance from construction phase that will last a considerable time • Viewpoint Analysis is inaccurate/misleading as view from first floor windows to the site are

more than short/medium distance views. Comments regarding the C2 Uses

• Concern that the C2 units could be adapted to normal C3 dwellings with little intervention. 2 hours of personal care per week is not considered to be inherent level of care as claimed. Independent living (a choice within the Planning Statement) is a C3 use.

• C2 units are exempt from Planning Obligations and could be sold on the open market and avoid financial costs.

• How can C2 be monitored and controlled? Other

• Who will use offices and workshops? • Allegations of vested interests • We need sensible size properties that don't spoil the view and help bring young people into

our village. • Too many get out clauses and opportunities for aspects of the scheme to be dropped. • This could trigger campaign to move Collingham into Lincolnshire’s jurisdiction • In the spirit of 'Localism' the thoughts, wishes and feelings of these occupants should be

considered in primacy to those of Planners, local residents, councillors and, most especially, developers.

• Missing documents from website • Discrepancies between planning statement and D&A Statement over sizes of site etc • From section Health of SA – no attached correspondence as suggested • Missing pages of Appendix A of FRA • Men in Shed workshops should be kept for retirees • The ‘local imbalance in population structure’ as suggested by the Sustainability Statement

24

may simply be a lifestyle choice of single adult occupation. • Methods used in the submission surveys need more justification/evidence • Green credentials are questioned given that code for sustainable homes 4 would be used in

some • Only benefits the developers and not the village • Good will/feeling of villagers could be jeopodised by this scheme

Support • Best option for Collingham to meet the remaining additional requirement for Housing

under the PA&DMDPD. • Road access from Newark and to Lincoln can be made without passage through the village,

other road traffic will be shared between Station and Swinderby Roads and rail travel will be encouraged by its proximity to the station.

• The site offers no amenity value and is overlooked only by a very small number of properties.

• Current open land is less likely to come under pressure for development and the current character of Collingham will remain largely intact.

• Fully complies with local and national planning policies. • Will meet the village needs by an acceptable alteration to the village envelope. • Mix of housing, supported accommodation and commercial development is excellent. • Intention to use sustainable energy production and water use is outstanding.

A Petition against the development with 109 signatures was submitted on 16 July 2012 objecting on grounds of:

• Effect on wildlife • Increase Road traffic on Swinderby Road which is very congested at school opening and

closing times • Loss of privacy to bungalows 87,89,91,93,95 and 97 Swinderby Road • Effect on School Provision, Health Care etc.

Comments of Business Manager, Development Background and Context This application was submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration in June 2012. At that time the Council had an adopted Core Strategy (March 2011) and the A&DM Options Report (October 2011) had been out for public consultation. The Publication A&DM had been published in the May and consultation on this was running until the end of July 2012. Rather than potentially refuse the application on prematurity grounds (it was a green field site outside of the defined village settlement at that time) the Council, in agreement with the developer, held the application in abeyance. Since the Examination into, and eventual adoption of the A&DMDPD, the application has been resurrected and progressed. Outstanding matters have been addressed, further information submitted and a further round of public consultation has been carried out given the passage of time. The application is now at a stage where a recommendation can be made to the Planning Committee. The appraisal of the application is set out in detail below. It should be noted that many of the representations from local residents/interested parties have been made in the context of the site being a green field site and unallocated at that time.

25

The Principle Collingham is defined as a ‘Principal Village’ in SP1 of the Core Strategy and SP2 provides that this settlement is expected to accommodate 10% of Principal Village growth (which equates to c141 dwellings) over the Development Plan period. Collingham has a primary school, several retail and convenience stores (the largest being The Co-op) a doctor’s surgery, dentist, pharmacy, library, train station and various community facilities including halls and sports grounds. The application site now lies within the defined built up part of the settlement (as defined by the Proposals Map 4) and has been allocated within the A&DMDPD as a ‘Mixed Use Site’ subject to Policy Co/MU/1. This policy allocates the site for ‘…mixed use development providing around 80 dwellings, allotments, up to 0.75ha of employment uses in the north eastern part of the site, public open space and the potential for a station car park…’ It goes on to say that ‘land to the east has been identified for future development within Use Classes B1 and C2 under designation CO/RL/1 on the Policies Map. This area does not form part of the application site although the land is outlined in blue being land within the control of the applicant. The scheme that the applicants have asked the LPA to now consider is an outline scheme for up to 80 dwellings (including 24 affordable dwellings) plus up to 60 class C2 units (extra care units) plus up to 0.75h employment uses all located within the allocation site. An indicative Master Plan has been submitted to accompany the outline. This shows the disposition of uses within the site, the means of accesses, the broad locations of public open space and the provision of allotments/community gardens between the employment and C2 uses comprising approximately 0.15ha of land. Whilst the site is not specifically allocated for C2 uses (the adjacent site edged in blue is potentially) the policy implies that there could be C2 uses on the site as it states that ‘Land to the east of the allocation has been identified for future development within Use Classes B1 and C2 under designation CO/RL/1 on the Policies Map. This area will be considered for development, as part of any planning application, subject to a confirmation of demand for B1 and/or C2 development use that cannot be accommodated within Co/MU/1…’ Indeed should the application not have included the C2 uses, then the densities of the dwellings (even having taking off the employment land and appropriate land for public open space and allotments) would be in the region of 15 to 20 houses per hectare which would not equate to an efficient use of land and would be contrary to CP3. The policy has clearly been drafted with flexibility in mind. I therefore conclude that the principle of the development put forward is broadly established through the A&DMDPD and the proposal complies with the Development Plan in this regard. Disposition and Appropriateness of Uses and Impact on Amenity Given that the scheme is outline, many of the details are for consideration at reserved matters stage. However the disposition of land uses is shown on the Master Plan with phasing shown on the Phasing Plan enabling a broad assessment regarding the disposition of land uses and timings.

Phase 1 would relate to the main vehicular accesses into and through the site (roughly centrally

26

located along each roadside frontage, curving through the site). Its early delivery is necessary to ensure the infrastructure is in place to serve the development that will follow. Phase 2 would relate to the C2 Units (residential accommodation with extra care) to the north-east of the site (on the eastern side of the spine road). It is considered that the location of the use and an early delivery is appropriate, given the demonstrated need for the use (which is discussed further later in this report). Phase 3 would relate to the dwellings (C3) and these would be located to the western side of the spine road and to the eastern side of it where it fronts Station Road. The residential uses are closest to the existing dwellings within the settlement and along the frontage with Station Road which are considered to be appropriate. Phase 4 relates to the B1 employment land which would be located to the eastern side of the spine road between the residential and C2 uses. Whilst the policy states the B1 uses would be in the north-eastern part of the site, and the use as proposed is located centrally to the east I consider that this is appropriate located as it would be adjacent to the train station and its location here would provide good employment links with public transport. B1 uses are generally accepted to be compatible with residential uses and I therefore do not consider that a noise assessment is necessary to accompany the reserved matters application. Furthermore this leaves the site allocated as Co/RL/1 (reserve land) as undeveloped and giving greater flexibility for plan making moving forward. A Strategic Landscape Buffer is shown on the Master Plan alongside the eastern boundary of the site (albeit this actually follows the route of the site also allocated under CO/RL/1). This buffer of native broadleaf trees (between 12 and 15 metres in width) has already been provided on site (1999) so is well established. The retention of this will continue to provide an appropriate soft edge to the village and help with reducing noise from the train line to the development, a matter to be controlled via condition. In terms of noise (and vibration) from construction the applicants report on the subject concludes that existing levels are considered insignificant and it is not considered that they would adversely affect the occupants of the proposed dwellings or C2 units. I concur with this and note that our EHO has raised no objections on these grounds. It is not considered that the disposition of the development hereby proposed would in principle have an adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring dwellings. It may be appropriate to remove permitted development rights from the residential dwellings hereby approved but this is best assessed at reserved matters and this is considered a reasonable approach given its outline nature. There would be a clause within the S106 Agreement setting out that the C2 uses would remain as such unless express planning permission is granted otherwise. CP3 (Housing Mix, Type and Density) indicates that housing developments should not normally be lower than an average of 30 dwellings per hectare, taking into account individual site circumstances. The Master and Phasing Plans indicate that housing densities within the C3 element of the site would be in the region of 25 dwellings per hectare (dph) if 80 dwellings were delivered (when taking off the minimum land required for public open space) with the C2 units being around 30 units per hectare (not taking into account any communal facilities again which would potentially increase densities). There are a number of reasons why the market housing scheme does not achieve the usual 30 dph, including site constraints (particularly with the

27

drainage regime and the requirements for 9m unobstructed easements to ditches bordering and bisecting the site). The required ‘link’ road also bisects the site north/south and effectively creates long and relatively narrow development parcels which combined with the boundary stand-off to the drainage requirements, restricts layout options. Furthermore this is an edge of settlement location and densities of the nature of the Braemer Road development to the west are not considered to be appropriate. It is also noted that the NPPF does not set minimum standards. I consider that these factors justify a slighter lower density than we would ordinarily seek. I am therefore satisfied that the quantum of development is not such that it constitutes an inefficient use of land in the context of this policy. In conclusion I consider the broad disposition of land uses and phasing to be appropriate and it is recommended that the development should be conditioned to require that the reserved matters applications broadly reflect the illustrative phasing plan and Master Plan. The C2 Use The applicant has provided evidence of the need for C2 uses within the district and more specifically Collingham as part of the application. Their submissions state that the population is an ageing one, with one fifth being of retirement age. Indeed the Council’s Housing Needs Survey indicates that the over 60’s year group represents 45% of the population and the adopted Core Strategy identifies that a growth of older persons households with those of 65 years and over particularly those of 85 years are resulting in a greater need for supported living and adaption of dwellings. Members may recall that a dementia care unit was considered in September by the Planning Committee on a site the other site of the railway line at Mulberries at Potter Hill Road (14/00932/FULM), a scheme ultimately refused. Nottinghamshire County Council (Adult Social Care, Health and Public Protection) advised as part of the refused scheme that the strategic direction for them is to reduce the number of people that they fund in care homes and shift resources into supporting people to remain in their own homes or supported living such as Extra Care schemes. Given this apparent direction of travel, and given the facilities and services on offer in Collingham, I concur with the applicant’s persuasive argument that this would be a good site for a retirement community. The model (a relatively new concept in the UK) that is proposed and described in the applicants submissions is that of a continuing care retirement community, essentially a retirement village of individual units (of one and two bedrooms – two bedrooms to allow couples or sole occupants and a carer if required) with supporting communal facilities and a range of care packages available to meet existing and future needs. The units would be designed to be fully wheelchair accessible. There would be various elements of the scheme that make it different from standard dwellings, including the communal facilities that would support the individual units which will include communal lounge, hobbies room, gym, visitors suite and communal kitchens. In addition, a management company would retain ownership of the overall freehold selling the individual properties on long leases (a detail also secured by the S106 Agreement). All services on site would be centrally managed including a district heating system connected into all properties so that there is no requirement for individual boiler servicing. In my professional view, it is considered that the model described does fall within the definition of a C2 use. In any event the description of what will constitute a C2 use will also be defined within any S106.

28

Whilst the detail of the C2 development will be matters for a reserved matters submission, should the reserved matters come forward in a different form to the one suggested, it would be open to the LPA to consider at that time if they proposals are genuine C2 uses that can comply with any outline consent. It is noted that some residents have questioned whether packages of only 1 hour of care per week (all units would be offered with a minimum of at least this element of care) would meet the definition of C2 and whether this ought to be considered as regular housing. This query is an understandable point/concern given that the site is allocated for around 80 houses (and if these were considered houses it would take the quantum of house to 140) and that C2 uses do not attract the same level of developer contributions (such as education and public open space) as houses and are zero rated for CIL. However given the model described and the fact that occupants would be 60 years of age or more (a matter to be controlled by the S106 along with details of the care packages), even if all residents only had the basic care package at the start of their occupancy, over time it would self-regulating in that as occupants age, it is more likely that the care packages they receive will increase. Furthermore express planning permission would be required to change the use from C2 to regular dwellings (a matter that will also be inserted into the S106 Agreement) and at that time it would be possible to require developer contributions as appropriate. Therefore for all these reasons and given the level of controls to be secured through the S106 Agreement and the conditions shown at the end of the report, it is considered that the proposal for C2 uses on site is acceptable. Highway Matters SP7 seeks to provide that developments should provide safe and convenient accesses for all, be appropriate for the highway network in terms of volume and nature of traffic generated, to ensure highway safety, convenience and free flow of traffic using the highway are not adversely affected, provide appropriate and effective parking and servicing provision and to ensure that new traffic generated does not create new or exacerbate existing traffic problems. The points of vehicular access into the site are fixed on Station and Swinderby Road(s). The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment. The Highways Authority have concluded that the application would put further pressure on the traffic signalled junction of Station Road/High Street/Bell Lane. Consequently mitigation is required in the form of an upgrade to MOVA control to better manage the capacity. This cost of the works would be born by the developers (the HA have estimated its cost to be between £50k to £60k). The Highways Authority suggest that the mechanism for securing this mitigation be a condition that prevents occupation of any of the development until the works have been undertaken. This would require the developers to commission the HA to undertake the works at their expense at an appropriate time and is considered to be reasonable. Policy Co/MU/1 provides that development on the site is subject to ‘Provision of access points off both Station Road and Swinderby Road, linked by vehicular access through the site suitable to accommodate the vehicle movements associated with the sites development and established farm traffic in the area…’ A proposed link road is also annotated on the accompanying Proposal Map 4. The policy was drafted in the knowledge that Network Rail plan to close the railway crossing at Cross Lane. As in this event it would render Swinderby Road a cul-de-sac, the policy sought to provide an alternative route for traffic (including farm vehicles) to continue to allow movement at

29

this eastern part of the village rather than direct all traffic back onto High Street and back onto Station Road. County Highways Authority raised no objection to this approach at Allocation stage. Opinion on the link road through the development site appears to be mixed. The Highways Authority have expressed some reservations regarding the link road during the course of this application (a view echoed by some residents) and have stated that notwithstanding the submitted details, design measures should be employed to deter traffic from being able to travel through in terms of ‘rat-running’. They say that such measures will also ensure that development-generated traffic entering High Street from Swinderby Road is minimised because of the poor visibility at this junction which the applicant does not wish to address, and would be difficult (and potentially unpopular) to do so anyway because of local on-street parking that would need to be banned. They also advise that simple traffic calming measures are unlikely to be sufficient to deter through traffic. They go on to say that ‘careful consideration of this area is required and it may be appropriate to have the access leading to Station Road and the one leading to Swinderby Road misaligned at the point where traffic is to be deterred to provide chicanes and/or priority measures’. I am satisfied that such matters can be controlled by condition. Representatives from Network Rail have advised that they are currently considering the provision of an alternative link road. Should this come forward the need for a link road through the development would in that event become superfluous to requirements. However at the present time there is no certainty regarding this alternative link road. I therefore consider that a condition to allow some flexibility for the developer should be utilised so that if an alternative (and suitable) link road does come forward, they are not bound to provide a second linkage through the development site. In my view this would still accord with the intentions of the policy. Neither the Highways Agency nor the County Highways Authority have raised objections regarding highway safety and are satisfied that the development is safe subject to the use of conditions which are shown in the recommendation section and subject to the upgrade works to be secured by S106 Agreement. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposal accords with SP7, Co/MU/1 and DM5 in this regard. Flood Risk/Hydrology The site lies in flood zone 1, which is at lowest risk of flooding. However as the site represents development of over 1 hectare, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required. The Sequential Test is not required for Allocated sites and in any event the site is in FZ1, the lowest risk zone. The development therefore has to ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and that development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant as set out in the NPPF. The South Collingham Drain (SCD) runs alongside the western and northern boundaries of the site and the Scaffold Drain lies to the north-eastern boundary. The illustrative Master Plan indicates that part of the SCD will be decommissioned as part of the application and re-routed (in the form of a swale) alongside a green corridor and the main spine road through the development. The Environment Agency initially objected to the scheme as it did not address the flood risk posed by surface water and the South Collingham Drain SCD (with or without blockages) or a Sustainable Urban Drainage scheme. However following further modelling work having been undertaken, more detail provided in the topographical surveys and the submission of an Addendum to the FRA, they have now removed their objection subject to the imposition of a range of conditions.

30

These conditions include a requirement to provide a minimum 9m wide unobstructed easement from the top of the embankment of any minor watercourses/drains including the re-routing of existing drainage ditch. Finished floor levels would also need to be raised.The control of surface water disposal is also subject to a condition. Subject to conditions to secure the requirements of the Environment Agency, I consider that the proposal would not increase flood risk elsewhere and is flood resilient as required by CP10, DM5 and the NPPF, a material consideration. Policy Co/MU/1 states that “development on this site will be subject to…localised sewer or pumping station improvements.” However Severn Trent Water have confirmed (30/10/14) that the public foul water sewerage system has sufficient capacity to accommodate foul flows from the proposed development without the need for any capacity improvements to the sewerage system or sewage treatment works. As such, it would unreasonable to require a developer to undertake unnecessary works. A condition to control the means of surface water disposal and foul sewage disposal would be imposed as requested by STW. Ecology Some local residents have raised concerns regarding the impact upon wildlife through the loss of a green field. It should be noted that the principle of development (and implicitly the loss of the green field) is established through the Allocations DPD which has been found Sound by an Examinations Inspector. An Ecological Survey and Report for Great Crested Newts accompanied the planning application. These have been reviewed by Natural England (who refer us Standing Advice) and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust. No objections have been received. Whilst it has not be raised by either consultee, I consider that prior to commencement of any development new surveys should be undertaken and submitted to the LPA for approval, given the passage of time and the likely gaps due to phasing, in order to ensure the safeguarding of protected species at the site. This matter can be controlled by condition. The Surveys revealed that Great Crested Newts (GCN) were present in a pond within a garden approximately 90m from the nearest point of the proposed development site and linked to it by a ditch. Based on the Natural England Newt Mitigation Guidelines the newt population is considered to be at the upper limit of a small population. GCN are fully protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Habitat Directive and therefore their presence is a constraint to the proposed development. The development will lead to the loss of habitats used by GCN for foraging and sheltering. A licence from Natural England would be required in order for the development to proceed, irrespective of any planning permission. Appropriate mitigation and compensation will need to be developed in consultation with Natural England, who support this approach. NWT fully support all of the recommendations in the Strategy for Great Crested Newt (Tim Smith 2012) which includes proposed newt mitigation strategy, enhancements for newts, potential newt mitigation strategy and potential newt mitigation timetable. This strategy will take the form of removal of newts from within the development site to minimise the risk of harm and installing newt fencing to prevent their return and creating compensatory habitat in the form of rough grassland, new ponds and new

31

hibernation sites. I am satisfied that there is ample land on the site for this compensatory habitat and consider that these matters can be adequately addressed through conditions. The site has potential to support foraging and sheltering reptiles and a reptile survey would need to be undertaken (during the periods April-June and September-mid October) prior to commencement of development to establish what, if any, impact the development would have any mitigation measures this will require. This can be controlled by condition. Given that some of the trees on site have some features with the potential to support roosting bats, it is considered necessary that where these are to be felled or pruned, a Bat Survey is submitted to and approved in writing to assess the likely impacts and mitigation required. A repeat badger survey is recommended by the applicants Ecologist in order to determine whether badgers have colonised the site as the original survey was completed some time ago in order to afford adequate protection and mitigation to this protected species. Again this can be controlled by condition. Features which have ecological importance and value such as hedgerows, mature trees are expected to retained where possible (although this will largely be a matter for the reserved matters approval) to provide habitat on the site for nesting and foraging. NWT consider that these could act as green ‘corridors’ and stepping stones of habitat that link the site to the wider landscape thereby reducing the loss to biodiversity as a result of the development. It will also help the new development appear ‘established’. They state that public open space could be developed and managed with a strong ecological focus so that it makes a positive contribution to the habitat mosaic of the area and they therefore welcome the proposed master plan. NWT request that all new tree and shrub planting for the proposed woodland area be of guaranteed native genetic origin and ideally of local provenance that reflects the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands Landscape Character Area. Hedgerows should also be enhanced through additional planting. These measures would help to maximize the nature conservation benefits of the development. As landscaping is a reserved matter, this is a matter that can be dealt with by future applications. There is potential for the SUDs scheme (as illustrated on the Master Plan) to provide biodiversity benefits as well as providing attractive green corridoors through the site which would also have visual amenity benefits. In any event a scheme for ecological enhancements is considered necessary for each phase, and could include bird boxes (for house sparrows and swifts) and bat boxes. This can be controlled by condition. Having assessed the impacts of the proposal upon nature conservation and protected species, it is considered that subject to detailed mitigation and monitoring strategies for GCN, subject to the requirement for further surveys as outlined above for each phase and subject to detailed schemes for detailed ecological enhancements, I consider that the scheme would not have significant detrimental impacts that would warrant a reason for refusal. I consider that subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report the development would comply with CP12 and DM7 of the Development Plan. I have considered the impacts of the proposal against the Habitats Directive, as advised by Natural England. The Directive relates to nature law conservation and the establishment and implementation of a strict protection regime for animal species listed in Annex IV(a) of the

32

Habitats Directive within the territory of EU Member States. I do not consider that the proposal would offend Articles 12(1) of the Directive. Developer Contributions and Viability The developer submitted a Viability Appraisal (July 2014) stating that the development could not afford all of the developer contributions (in particular the affordable housing) normally expected. This has been independently reviewed and the Council’s position is that whilst the C3 dwellings taken independently show that the scheme could only stand the provision of 23% affordable housing, this should and could be cross subsidized by the C2 uses which show a greater profit. Given that we are being asked to consider the scheme as a whole the applicant has conceded this. The policy requirement, the offer and our position is set out below for each of the developer contributions with a discussion on viability that follows. Affordable Housing CP1 requires that 30% on-site affordable housing is provided which should reflect local housing need and viability on individual sites, overall reflecting a mix of 60% social rent and 40% intermediate. The applicant’s initial position was that the scheme could not afford to provide 30% on-site affordable housing to the usual policy compliant tenure split. Given our stance that the scheme is viable when considered as a whole, the applicants have now agreed to provide 30% affordable housing but have requested that this be amended from that normally sought. Details are as follows:

• 8 x 1 bed @ 550 ft2 – Affordable rent • 12 x 2 bed @ 750 ft2 – Shared ownership • 4 x 3 bed @ 950 ft2 – Shared ownership

The applicants had initially requested a split of 75/25% but we have now settled on 60% intermediate housing and 40% affordable rented (it is usually the other way around). Strategic Housing colleagues have advised that this represents an appropriate mix for this area and this would be secured by way of a S106 Agreements. Education and Libraries The Council’s SPD on ‘Developer Contributions and Planning Obligations’ provides that contributions towards primary school education can be sought from planning applications for 10 or more dwellings. However Nottinghamshire County Council (as the Local Education Authority) have confirmed that the local school has existing capacity and are not seeking any financial contribution in this instance. This is also the case in respect of the library contributions that may also be sought. Health For developments over 65 dwellings (or where a development places an extra demand upon local health care) a contribution towards health can also be sought through the planning application as set out in our SPD. However NHS England have not requested any such contribution. It is therefore

33

assumed that there is sufficient capacity within the healthcare system to cope with the development. Community Facilities The C2 units will be expected to provide a range of communal buildings which will serve the residents of the associated C2 care units. The detail of this can be adequately controlled through reserved matters submissions and Condition 7 will explicitly require the applicant to justify the level of building to be provided. It may well be that the buildings will be used by the wider community (for instance when family and friends visit and for the wider community for financial viability reasons) although it would be expected that occupiers of the C2 units would be given first priority, a matter which can be secured via S106. I am therefore satisfied that community facilities will be adequately provided within Phase 2 of the scheme. For developments of 10 or more dwellings a contribution to community facilities can be sought which is based upon £1,181.25 per dwelling, equating to £94,500 for the 80 units. There are many schemes in Collingham that would benefit from enhancing such as the Football Club, Cricket, Tennis and Bowls Clubs and the Scout Hut. It is intended that discussions would take place with the Parish Council should planning permission be granted to ascertain priorities for spending. At this financial contribution would come forward with the housing (which is Phase 3) and would be triggered upon occupation of the 20th dwelling, it is considered sensible to not restrict the spending of the monies to any one specific project as priorities and available projects may well have changed. This would be reflected by the S106 Agreement and secured as such. Public Open Space The Council’s SPD requires that Public Open Space (POS) should be provided on-site for residential development. In this case the requirements are for the ‘Provision for children and young people’ (triggered at 10 or more dwellings) of 18m per dwelling (amounting to 1,440 square metres) and ‘Amenity green space’ (triggered at 30+ dwellings) of 14.4m per dwelling (amounting to 1,152 square metres) thus totalling a requirement of 2,592sq m of POS. This minimum amount of POS will be delivered within Phase 3 (housing) at an appropriate trigger (upon occupation of the 20th dwelling) and will be maintained by a Management Company, both of which will be secured by a Section 106 Agreement. It is expected that the C2 units will have provide its own amenity space within Phase 2. There is no policy requirement to secure a set amount and I am satisfied that this matter can be dealt with as a reserved matter, in the same way that one would take a view whether the amount of space proposed was commensurate. Allotments/Community Gardens Allotments are usually only expected on developments of 400 dwellings or more. However the site has been allocated for allotments as part of Policy Co/MU/1 and this was partially based on the deficiency in allotment provision for ‘Collingham and Meering’ (includes other villages in the wider area) of 0.97ha as set out in the NSDC Green Space Improvement Plan. This sets out that the shortfall amounts to 39 plots based on a national average plot site of 0.025ha. The application indicates that an area of Allotments/Community Gardens (CG) of c0.15ha would be provided on site. The applicant has advised that the Community Gardens would serve the

34

community to grow fruit, vegetables and decorative plants but clarifies that the space is not necessarily intended to be divided into individual plots but rather used on a communal basis within a controlled environment. Two thirds would be divided into differing plot sizes according to need and allow small groups take on areas. Given that the allotments are to deliver a wider community benefit, it is considered that these should be provided on site prior to first occupation of the 40th C3 dwelling and released on a cascade basis, firstly to residents of Collingham parish, then residents of Collingham and Meering Ward’ and finally residents of Newark and Sherwood District Council. This would be secured through the S106 Agreement. The remaining one third (0.05h) of the Community Gardens would be provided prior to first occupation of the 10th C2 unit and would comprise raised beds with pathways in between to cater for the C2 Units. The CG would be managed by a private Management Company, which can be secured through the S106 Planning Obligation. I consider that the Community Gardens, which are similar to allotments but offer more flexibility to users, would go some way to plugging the existing deficiency in allotment provision for the community and the proposal is acceptable in this regard. Other Matters Station Car Park Policy Co/MU/1 states that the development would be subject to the ‘…The provision of a station car park on the site as part of any planning application or developer contribution to off-site provision if required following discussion with Network Rail…’ (my emphasis added). Network Rail have previously made comments on the scheme expressing concern that the application did not expressly contain a station car park. However these comments were made in the context of them having consent for their own car park (10/00088/FUL for a 28 space car park) but prior to them having the funds to implement it. In August 2013 they commented again to state they considered there is a need for additional car parking at the station over and above the current proposal (which at that time was 61 spaces as proposed by application reference 13/00715/FUL) and that given the long term trends with rail use it would be at capacity within a year or two. Since these comments were made Network Rail have now constructed this 61 space station car park. My observations of this car park is that whilst it is utilised, some cars still park on the grass verges and there is currently ample capacity. I note that Network Rail comment upon longer term needs being for around further 20 -30 spaces and to alleviate the level of future station traffic using the level crossing and that they also state that if trends show that there is no increase in usage (after the new franchise) the land reserved for a car park can be put to an alternative use. Network rail have been asked to clarify their views in light of the passage of time and since the car park has been operational although no response has been received. The developer has not been averse to providing a station car park on the site. However there remains no convincing demonstrable need (and which also satisfy the tests of Developer Contributions as set out in the CIL Regulations) to which I feel I can attach weight for the development proposal which is now before us for consideration. I therefore do not consider it reasonable to require the applicant to provide a car park for the station and note that the policy allows this flexibility in any event.

35

Archaeology Policy Co/MU/1 provides that development will be subject to ‘Pre-determination archaeological evaluation submitted as part of any planning application and post determination mitigation measures secured by condition on any planning consent are likely to be required’. An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment and Geophysical Survey have been submitted in support of the application which the County Archaeologist has reviewed and commented upon. They have confirmed that the information provided is acceptable and a condition is requested for archaeological mitigation and its implementation. This is shown in the recommendation section below and I am satisfied that the proposal will adequately address the requirements of Policies CP14, DM9 and Co/MU/1. Design and Setting of Grade II listed Station House These matters are not being considered at this time and I am satisfied that they can be adequately addressed by any reserved matters application. Conclusion In conclusion I am satisfied that the proposal broadly accords with the Development Plan and taking into account other relevant material considerations (such as viability) the proposal is acceptable. This scheme will deliver housing in a very sustainable settlement, contribute to providing the Council’s 5 year + housing supply, bring about a retirement ‘village’ in a settlement with an ageing population, contribute to the allotment deficiencies identified in this ward, make a contribution to enhance existing community facilities and would not have any significant harmful impacts as set out above. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions shown below and subject to the execution of a S106 Agreement. RECOMMENDATION That outline planning consent is granted subject to:

(a) the conditions shown below; and (b) the signing and sealing of a Section 106 Planning Agreement to control the matters set

out in informative no. 1 below. 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved on any phase, whichever is the later. Reason: To conform with Section 92 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 02 Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of seven years from the date of this permission. Reason: To conform with Section 92 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

36

03 The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the Phasing Scheme (shown on drawing 134-A-06 Rev E) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site is developed in a satisfactory manner and for the avoidance doubt. 04 Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale ('the reserved matters') for each phase of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before development in that phase begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. Reason: This is a planning permission in outline only and the information required is necessary for the consideration of the ultimate detailed proposal. 05 Reserved matter submissions for any phase or any use shall be substantively in accordance with the Master Plan (reference number 134-A-07 Rev H) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site is developed in a satisfactory manner and for the avoidance doubt. 06 The development hereby permitted authorises the erection of no more than 80 dwellings (Use Class C3), no more than 60 Use Class C2 extra care units and not more than 0.75 hectares of Use Class B1(a) (b) and (c) employment land.

Reason: To define the planning permission and in line with the applicants submissions.

07 Any reserved matters application for any phase of the C2 units shall include full details of the associated supporting communal facilities and shall be accompanied by a detailed justification as to how the size, scale and disposition of the communal facilities are appropriate and commensurate for the overall size of the scheme. This shall also include details of how the space will be used giving priority to residents of the C2 units. The approved communal facilities shall be provided prior to first occupation of the C2 units or to another alternative timetable which shall be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The communal uses approved shall be retained as such for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate communal facilities to support the C2 units and that this is provided at appropriate points in the development. 08 The C2 units hereby approved shall contain no more than two bedrooms unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority through a non-material amendment. Reason: To define the permission and in order to retain the C2 as retirement homes (with the potential for a partner or carer to live in) with the provision of care.

37

09 No tree(s) on site shall be felled until a Bat Survey has been carried out of the tree(s) to be felled by a suitably qualified person or organisation to ascertain if there are any bats or bat roosts within the tree. The Bat Survey shall include a scheme of mitigation as necessary to re-locate any bats or roosts and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority as part of this Survey. The approved mitigation scheme shall be thereafter 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: Some of the trees on site have the potential to support roosting bats and this condition is necessary to protect bats that may be roosting in the trees in accordance with the advice received from Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust. 10 In the event that prior to the approval of any reserved matters application for any phase an alternative highway to Cross Lane is made available that links Swinderby Road with Station Road, then the reserved matters submission shall assess whether there is a justified need to provide a link road through the application site, giving due regard to the size and design of the alternative road and whether this could meet the aspirations of the Allocations policy Co/MU/1. Reason: To provide the developer flexibility on the delivery of the link road through the site, should the requirement for a link road become superfluous. 11 Prior to commencement of any development on any phase pursuant to Condition 3, an up-to-date Reptile Survey and Mitigation Scheme (RSAMS) shall be carried out on site by a suitably qualified person or organisation to establish the impacts upon any reptiles on site and any mitigation measures necessary to protect them from harm. The RSAMS shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval and shall include a timetable for any mitigation work that is required. The approved development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In order to afford adequate protection to Reptiles that may be utilising the site and in line with the recommendations of the Ecologist report that accompanies the planning application. 12 No development shall be commenced on any phase pursuant to Condition 3 unless detailed measures to mitigate harmful impacts to Great Crested Newts occupying/foraging on the site have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved mitigation scheme shall be fully implemented to an agreed timetable prior to works commencing on site. Reason: In order to ensure adequate protection is given to Great Crested Newts, a protected species that has been found in the vicinity of the site. 13 Prior to commencement of any phase pursuant to Condition 3, a repeat Badger Survey and Mitigation Scheme (BSAMS) shall be carried out on site by a suitably qualified person or organisation to establish the impacts upon any badgers on site and any mitigation measures necessary to protect them from harm. The BSAMS shall be submitted to the Local Planning

38

Authority for approval and shall include a timetable for any mitigation works that is required. The approved development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In order to afford adequate protection to badgers that may be utilising the site and in line with the recommendations of the Ecologist report that accompanies the planning application. 14 No development on any phase pursuant to condition 3 shall take place within the application site until details of an archaeological scheme of mitigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme should be drawn up and implemented by a professional archaeologist or archaeological organisation. Thereafter the scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory account is taken of the potential archaeological interest of the site. 15 The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) report reference: MT/NWK/VRG/1102V4 prepared by Morgan Tucker Consulting Engineers in January 2014 and the Hydraulic Modelling Study (HMS) report reference: 2014s1040 Braemar Farm – Final v1.0.doc prepared by JBA Consulting in May 2014:

1. Internal finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 10.19m Above Ordnance Datum (mAOD) as recommended in section 4.7 of the approved HMS.

2. A minimum of an 9m wide unobstructed easement from the top embankment of any minor

watercourses/drains including the re-routing of existing drainage ditch shall be incorporated within the proposed development as shown on the Site Master plan Overview drawing reference 134-A-04 – Rev F, (unless otherwise agreed with the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board and the Lead Local Flood Authority).

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason(s)

1. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.

2. To allow for future maintenance of the watercourses/drains. 16 No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency and Highways Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme to be submitted shall:

39

Demonstrate that the surface water drainage system(s) are designed in accordance with CIRIA C697 and C687 or the National SuDS Standards, should the later be in force when the detailed design of the surface water drainage system is undertaken. Limit the discharge rate generated by all rainfall events up to and including the 100 year plus 30% (allowance for climate change) critical rain storm to the Greenfield runoff rates for the site. Demonstrate the provisions of surface water run-off attenuation storage in accordance with the requirements specified in ‘Science Report SC030219 Rainfall Management for Developments’. Demonstrate detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details of any attenuation system, and outfall arrangements. Calculations should demonstrate the performance of the designed system for a range of return periods and storm durations inclusive of the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 2 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods. Confirm how the on-site surface water drainage systems will be adopted and maintained in perpetuity to ensure its long term operation at the designed parameters. 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. 17 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to treat and remove suspended solids from surface water run-off during construction works has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To reduce the risk of surface water pollution. 18 No development shall be commenced for any phase pursuant to Condition 3 until full details of the parking and turning facilities, internal access road details including alignments, widths, surfacing, visibility splays, street lighting, structures, and drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). All details submitted to the LPA for approval shall comply with the Highway Authority’s 6C’s Design Guide (or equivalent at the time of submission) and shall be implemented as approved. Details shall include design measures to deter extraneous traffic from using any link road between Station Road and Swinderby Road, and to minimise development-generated traffic using the High Street/Swinderby Road junction.

Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety, and to ensure the development is constructed to adoptable standards. 19 No part of the development for any phase pursuant to Condition 3 shall be occupied until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Travel Plan shall set out proposals (including targets, a timetable and enforcement mechanism) to promote travel by sustainable modes which are acceptable to the local planning authority and shall include arrangements for monitoring of progress of the proposals. The Travel Plan shall be

40

implemented in accordance with the timetable set out in that plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To promote sustainable travel 20 Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence on any phase pursuant to Condition 3 until parts 1 to 4 (below) have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination. 1. Site Characterisation An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

• human health, • property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets,

woodland and service lines and pipes, • adjoining land, • groundwaters and surface waters, • ecological systems, • archeological sites and ancient monuments;

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. 2. Submission of Remediation Scheme A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. 3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme

41

The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. 4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 3. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 21 No development shall be commenced for any phase pursuant to Condition 3 until a scheme for ecological enhancements has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This could include (but shall not be limited to) bird and bat boxes at appropriate points within the site. This shall also include details of a timetable for implementation of the enhancements. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In order to provide ecological enhancements in line with the CP12 of the Development Plan and the advice contained in the NPPF. 22 No part of the development for any phase pursuant to Condition 3 shall be commenced until drainage plans for the disposal of foul sewage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of foul sewage disposal.

42

23 Any trees/shrubs within the Strategic Landscape Buffer already in situ (and as shown on drawing number 134-A-10 received 20th November 2014, which, within a period of five years of the date of the consent die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the current or next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the work is carried out within a reasonable period and thereafter properly maintained, in the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 24 No part of the development shall become occupied unless or until traffic signal control improvements (i.e. MOVA or its equivalent) have been made to the Station Road/High Street/Bell Lane junction to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of protecting highway capacity and reducing traffic queuing and delays resulting from the development. 25 No part of the development shall be commenced until details of the Sustainable Drainage system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Such details shall include maintenance arrangements for the life of the system; provide rights to discharge surface water run-off from the public highway, and; access rights for the Highway Authority.

Reason: To avoid the risk of flooding of the public highway. 26 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in accordance with the following approved plans, references Site Master Plan Phasing 134-A-06 Rev E Site Master Plan Phasing 134-A-07 Rev H, Site Location Plan 134-A-05 (01/06/2012) Site Plan Indicating Rerooting of Drainage Ditches 134-A-04 – Rev F (for the purposes of drainage matters only) 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. Notes to Applicant 01 A S106 Agreement (Planning Obligation) accompanies this permission. This controls the following matters:

• Delivery of 30% affordable housing and timings of delivery; • Financial Contribution for Community Facilities to be paid upon first occupation of the 20th

C3 dwelling; • Provision of minimum quantum of Public Open Space (not to include any of the flood

mitigation land) to be provided prior to first occupation of the 20th C3 dwelling plus maintenance arrangements;

43

• Provision of minimum quantum of Community Gardens/Allotments, triggers for provision of 0.1ha upon occupation of 40th C3 dwelling with 0.05ha triggered prior to first occupation of 10th C2 unit and maintenance arrangements;

• Definition of C2 extra-care uses; • C2 units to be retained freehold by a management company and leases to be made

available on long lease; • C2 uses will remain in perpetuity with any change of use needing express permission; • C2 units to be occupied by at least one person over 60 years of age or their widow,

widower (or recognised co-habitee, main carer or dependant) • Range of care packages to be agreed with LPA and then made available to residents of C2

units for the lifetime of the development with any revisions to the care packages to be agreed with the LPA.

02 This application has been the subject of pre-application discussions and has been approved in accordance with that advice. The District Planning Authority has accordingly worked positively and pro-actively, seeking solutions to problems arising in coming to its decision. This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended). 03 The applicant's attention is drawn to those conditions on the decision notice, which should be discharged before the development is commenced. It should be noted that if they are not appropriately dealt with the development may be unauthorised. 04 The applicant is advised that the decision notice should be read in association with the legal agreement made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 05 The Highways Authority advised that in order to carry out the off-site works required you will be undertaking work in the public highway which is land subject to the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and therefore land over which you have no control. In order to undertake the works you will need to arrange for works to be carried out by Nottinghamshire County Council on your behalf (or maybe enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Act). Please contact D.Albans Tel 01623 520735 for further details. 06 The Environment Agency advises that they do not consider oversized pipes or box culverts as sustainable drainage. Should infiltration not be feasible at the site, alternative sustainable drainage should be used, with a preference for above ground solutions. Surface water run-off should be controlled as near to its source as possible through a sustainable drainage approach to surface water management. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) are an approach to managing surface water run-off which seeks to mimic natural drainage systems and retain water on-site as opposed to traditional drainage approaches which involve piping water off-site as quickly as possible.

44

SuDS involve a range of techniques including methods appropriate to impermeable sites that hold water in storage areas e.g. ponds, basins, green roofs etc rather than just the use of infiltration techniques. Support for the SuDS approach is set out in NPPF. Any works in, over or under an ‘ordinary watercourse’ may require a Flood Defence Consent and therefore we recommend that you contact the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board and the Lead Local Flood Authority at your earliest convenience to seek their approval 07 NSDC Enviornmental Health (Land Contamination) advise that an advisory booklet is available – “Developing Land in Nottinghamshire: A guide to submitting planning applications for land that may be contaminated”. This is available from Planning Services, the Proactive Team of Environmental Services or the NSDC website using the following link: http://www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/pp/gold/viewGold.asp?IDType=Page&ID=7895. Prior to undertaking an intrusive site investigation the applicant is advised to consult with: Natural England Block 6 & 7 Government Buildings Chalfont Drive Nottingham NG8 3SN Tel: 0115 929 1191 Fax: 0115 929 4886 Email: eastmidlands@naturalengland.org.uk English Heritage Ancient Monuments Inspector 44 Derngate Northampton, NN1 1UH Tel: 01604 735400 Fax 01604 735401 E-mail: eastmidlands@english-heritage.org.uk Heritage Planning Specialists Nottinghamshire County Council Trent Bridge House Fox Road West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 6BJ Tel: +44 (0)115 977 2162 Fax: +44 (0)115 977 2418 E-mail: heritage@nottscc.gov.uk to prevent damage or harm to the historic environment.

45

Where the presence of contamination is found or suspected the developer and/or his contractor should have regard to Health and Safety Executive guidance - “The Protection of workers and the general public during the development of contaminated land”. 08 Network Rail comments are attached for information 09 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL IS PAYABLE on the development hereby approved. The actual amount of CIL payable will be calculated when a decision is made on the subsequent reserved matters application. BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Clare Walker on extension 5834 K Cole Deputy Chief Executive

46

47

48

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 2 DECEMBER 2014 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 Application No:

13/01701/FUL

Proposal:

Erection of a single 500kW wind turbine with a hub height of 50 metres, a rotor diameter of 54 metres and a height to tip of 77.3m.

Location:

Plot Farm, Thorney, Newark, NG23 7DN

Applicant:

Mr Caleb Arden – P A Arden & Son.

Registered: 10th December 2013 Target Date: 4th February 2014

The Site

The application site is an agricultural field in open countryside with the proposed turbine located approximately 470m south of Plot Farm. The site lies in an open flat landscape with hedgerow field boundaries and mature trees. There is a natural drainage channel running along the eastern boundary of the field. The site is accessed from the field access from Plot Farm to the north of the site. Plot Farm is located to the north of the application site and the site would be accessed from Brown Lane to the north-west of the site. There are no properties (other than those in the control of the applicant) within 600m of the application site. The nearest property is Highfield approximately 620m to the east of the application site. Station Farm is located approximately 650m south east from the proposed turbine and comprises of a farm house and outbuildings. Fir Tree Farm is located approximately 780m north-east of the application site and comprises of a farm house with modern outbuildings. Just beyond this are other residential properties within close proximity of Fir Tree Farm. In a wider context the turbine is located well outside of any defined settlement, lying approximately 1.2km north of Harby, 2.4km north-east of Wigsley and 1.8km south-east of Thorney. Although not in immediate view of the application site, there are some turbines beyond 3km from the application site, the nearest of which is at Ferry Farm, Kettlethorpe (77m to tip) within West Lindsey’s district. There are 6 turbines consented or constructed within a 6km radius of the site (only one, at Wigsley, within the Newark and Sherwood District), although the ones constructed are not experienced within the vicinity. The Authority has also received an application, which is pending consideration, for a single turbine up to 80m in height (14/01257/FUL) located approximately 2.6km due west from the application site.

Relevant Planning History

13/SCR/00018 - Screening Opinion for Proposed Single Wind Turbine – Not EIA development 25.07.2013

49

The Proposal Planning permission is sought for a single wind turbine with a 500kW output. The turbine is a EWT DirectWind 54*500 model which is of triple blade design manufactured as a single composite unit 54m in rotor diameter. The base of the turbine is 3.6m in diameter and it will be mounted on a concrete base. The height to the hub is 50m and it would have a rotor diameter of 54m giving a blade tip height of 77m. The colour of the turbine is yet to be confirmed. Additional works includes the turbine foundations which would take the form of reinforced concrete foundations with a central plinth into which the turbine is anchored. The construction traffic would utilise the existing junction off Brown Lane, Sand Lane and Drinsey Nook, turning up the existing access track towards Plot Farm. There is an existing access through the site with approximately 260m of new access track being built to access the turbine itself and the associated infrastructure. The turbine is required as a direct socio-economic benefit to the existing farm owned by the applicant at Plot Farm. Any additional or surplus energy produced will be sold back to the grid and together with the Feed in Tariff payments, will give a guaranteed income to the farming business. The turbine will connect to a transformer via an underground cable. The grid connection itself is the subject of a separate application to the District Network Operator. Construction would typically take place over a 2 month period and once operational would be subject to routine maintenance. Decommissioning would take place over a similar time frame after a 25 year operational period. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure

Occupier of 1 property has been individually notified by letter. A site notice has also been displayed near to the site and an advert has been placed in the local press.

Planning Policy Framework The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Spatial Policy 3: Rural Areas Spatial Policy 7: Sustainable Transport Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design Core Policy 10: Climate Change Core Policy 12 Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Core Policy 13: Landscape Character Core Policy 14: Historic Environment Allocations & Development Management DPD Policy DM4 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation

50

Policy DM5 – Design Policy DM7 – Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Policy DM8 – Development in the Open Countryside Policy DM9 – Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment Policy DM12 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Other Material Planning Considerations

• National Planning Policy Framework 2012 • Planning Practice Guidance 2014 • Wind Energy SPD, adopted March 2014 • Newark and Sherwood Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development, March

2014 Consultations

Harby Parish Council 02/01/2014 – Object to the proposal. “The Parish Council currently objects to the proposal on the basis of requesting a further 2 weeks (16 January) to speak with residents affected by the proposed development in order to submit an informed and final response.” (23/01/2014) – “The application is objected to on the basis of the visual and noise impact to the properties local to the site. In addition there is a notable wider visual impact due to the flat landscape of the area.” North Clifton Parish Council – No comments received. South Clifton Parish Council (20/01/2014) – Object to proposal. “The Parish Council takes the view that the benefits of the proposal are far outweighed by the costs in terms of visual impact. This proposed turbine is just as big as the one recently refused at Wigsley just a few miles away. The proposed turbine will tower over not just the local villages in NSDC but also stand out in the local landscape and be clearly visible to all of the 1000s of homes on the Lincoln Edge.” Thorney Parish Council (24/01/2014) – Object to the proposal. “1. Planning policy – whilst government policy is in favour of renewable energy generated from “on land wind turbines” there is a great deal of inconsistency in the implementation. Until policy is clarified applications shown to be of concern/to affect the immediate environment/local residents should be deferred. 2. Planning policy – whilst Newark & Sherwood District Council complete their “Draft Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document Consultation” the determination of wind turbine applications should be deferred. Policy should also take into account the outcome of those applications currently under appeal. 3. General Concern – Whilst individual planning applications are considered at the point of submission, it is apparent that, dependent on the planning outcome, other applications may be forthcoming. This could lead to a proliferation of turbines to the further detriment of the local landscape. 4. Subject to the outcome under points 1 & 2 above:- Planning consent should not be granted for wind turbines located within a radius of 1000 metres of any residential property. This is required to protect concerns over visual impact, noise, vibration & flicker. Conditions (without prejudice to the decision above)

51

In the event of the detailed points of objection being overruled & planning consent granted strict conditions should be attached:- 1. In the event of noise being above the stipulated level, the turbine should be shut down until it can operate below such level 2. If light flicker becomes an issue, the turbine should be non-operational during the time conditions are conducive to the effect. 3. During construction/transportation of equipment & materials the structural safeguard of all properties must be assured. 4. The District Council should assist in the setting up of a bond to ensure the safe decommissioning & removal of the turbine at the end of its productive life ~ max 25years. Comments Within the planning supporting statement, reference is made to a “direct community benefit” for the direct benefit of the local community. Further detail as to how this would operate in practice & the financial benefit available should be confirmed.” Additional comments received 03/02/2014 raising attention to the Wind Energy SPD. Wigsley Parish Council (01/01/2014) – Wigsley Parish Council objects to this application on the following grounds: “From the verbal and written responses we have received the conclusion we have reached is that over 90% of the residents are against wind turbines being erected in populated areas for numerous reasons of which all have substance. One of the objections is that once one is passed the flood gates will open and diminish our living environment. As tax payers not only subsidise then but not having to live with them for no real reason other than someone to get a subsidy. The reason for this is their inconsistency to make a real difference.” (23/01/2014) – Still object to the proposal. North Kesteven District Council (05/06/2014) – No objection – “The single wind turbine would not have an unacceptable harmful visual impact along the Cliff villages. The turbine would be sited around 15km west of the Lincoln Cliff LCA and would be read against urban development in North Hykeham and the City of Lincoln in the intervening short and mid distance views, which reduces the visual impact and prominence of the turbine, which is further restricted by its (comparatively) reduced height of 77m to tip. The turbine would not have a harmful impact on the setting or appearance of Doddington Hall by virtue of its position oblique and distant (3km) to the primary view due west from the rear façade of the Hall, including along the formal parkland vista.” West Lindsey District Council (21/01/2014) – “The turbine will be most prominent from the A1133 and Broadholme junction. However the impact of the turbine is considered not to be significant and will not be seen from any areas of special or high scenic quality. The cumulative impact of another large single turbine within this locality is a concern and although the installation of a smaller turbine would be preferred the proposal does not warrant a formal objection being made to the application.”

52

Nottinghamshire County Council (Landscape Architects in the capacity as Landscape Consultants) – No objection on landscape or cumulative impact grounds. See full detailed comments appended to this report. Conservation (NSDC) (10/02/2014) – Overall, the scheme is not considered to have a significantly harmful impact on the setting of any heritage asset within Newark and Sherwood District. Any adverse impacts should be treated as less than substantial (for the purposes of paragraph 134 of the NPPF), and the decision-maker is entitled to weigh the public benefits of renewable energy against any adverse impacts identified. Their comments are included in the appraisal section of this report. English Heritage (15/01/2014) – “In this case the site within a 5km radius there are 10 Grade I and II* listed buildings, 4 Scheduled monuments, the Grade II* registered historic park and garden at Doddington Hall, and the conservation areas of Saxilby and Doddington - both of which are within North Kesteven District Council area. We would also draw particular attention to the impact of the turbine on the setting of the Grade II* listed Church of St Helen at Thorney. The Grade I listed Doddington Hall lies two miles SE of the proposed turbine site which is a very important Elizabethan house and part of the 3% of listed buildings which are of exceptional architectural or historic interest. Part of the significance of this highly graded heritage asset are the key views from within the Grade II* registered park and garden and from principle points in the Hall itself (including the upper rooms and turrets/lead flats). There is stair access to the flat leaded roof which has a parapet. There are three domed, octagonal cupolas on the roof which are large enough to be used as ‘summer houses’. Historically visitors would have had access to the roof and cupolas from where they could be entertained and admire the views of the gardens and setting of Doddington Hall. One of the principal rooms in the house is a long gallery on the second floor, with projecting rectangular bays with large windows, which was remodelled in the 18th century and extends along most of the west front. A key focal point of the long gallery, and the house itself, is the central bay which provides important views to the west over the formal gardens, parkland (including the long west avenue which is aligned on the centre of the house and central bay) and the wider rural setting. Doddington Hall registered park and garden (grade II*) is a designed landscape which includes an early 18th century parkland and formal gardens and spaces immediately to the north, west and east of Doddington Hall on the site of former 16th and 17th century formal gardens. The views from the house of the gardens, parkland and wider rural setting are an important part of the designed relationship created over many years between these designated heritage assets, and are an important part of their setting and significance, particularly views looking towards the west from the roof and the long gallery. The views are an important part of the experience of these designated heritage assets which form an aesthetically pleasing landscape which is in large part a remarkable survival from the design illustrated in the Kip engraving of 1705. Doddington Hall and its setting are enjoyed today by the many visitors to the house which is open to the public. It is also used as a wedding venue and provides considerable benefits to the local area. The views and impacts will need to be assessed in line with NPPF para’s 128 and 129 which treat the understanding of significance and impacts with regard to heritage assets. This information and analysis is we believe vital in order for your authority to come to a safe determination. Staunch Hill and wood lie on a line between the proposed turbine site and Doddington Hall but the hall stand on rising ground. Due to the topographic relationships between the sites, turbine blades may be visible over the top of the wood when viewed from the park and gardens. Furthermore the turbine

53

may be fully visible from upper stories of the hall. We advise your authority will need to satisfy itself that the impact upon the setting of Doddington Hall (G1) and its associated GII* Walls and Gate, GII* Gate House and GII* registered Park and Gardens and the Grade I listed Church of St Peter is not harmful to the setting of these assets and thus their heritage significance. In assessing this impact we would remind your authority of potential impact on the wider setting of heritage assets should be fully considered. We advise your authority would need to consider if the significance of the heritage assets as a group, is also derived from any relationship with the rural landscape in assessing if the turbine will cause any harm. It is unlikely that there may be potential issues with intervisibility between the scheduled monuments though there is the potential for impact on the intervisibility and landscape rural setting between a number of the surrounding villages with designated conservation areas with the prominence of church spires within the landscape. The turbine may be seen from numerous locations and will impact on the experience of moving through the landscape and the character of this area. This would be exacerbated by potential cumulative impact with other considered/consented turbines and in this respect, we note there is a pre application being considered by your authority for a wind turbine at field reference 3420. Whilst impact is considered less than substantial harm of the above planning application, it is nevertheless harmful and we draw your attention to relevant paragraphs within the NPPF as set out below. Thus in determining the planning application, your authority should seek further advice from both your archaeological adviser, and your conservation officers and take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets (paragraph 131, NPPF). Recommendation In line with the NPPF, in determining the application for planning permission your local authority must weigh the harm caused to the heritage assets including Doddington Hall and associated heritage assets, against any public benefits deriving from the proposed scheme, and must consider whether sufficient information and clear and convincing justification has been provided - paragraphs 128, 129, 131, 132 and 134 refer.” Environmental Health – No objection - I refer to the above application and would confirm that I have read the noise report. On the basis of the information provided I do not think that noise levels would be excessive. NCC Highways Authority – 02/01/14 “It is considered that the proposal will neither generate a road safety concern, nor a highway capacity issue. Once constructed the site will only generate low level maintenance traffic. During construction, however, abnormal load vehicles will be involved and the applicant is advised to contact the Nottinghamshire County Council Abnormal Load Officer, Malcolm Goodhall, tel. 0115 977 4490 to agree routes. In terms of the turbine’s position and effect on the local public rights of way, I have sought the views of the NCC’s Countyside Access team and will report further. In order to protect the highway construction and drainage at the access point it will be necessary for the mouth of the access and part of Sand Lane in that vicinity to be strengthened and constructed in a tarmac finish to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. In order to determine the area of construction necessary, the applicant should submit vehicle swept path diagrams.

54

Subject to the views of the Countryside Access team which are awaited, this Council has no objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions:

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the access is surfaced in a bound material for a minimum distance of 15m from the carriageway edge in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in liaison with the Highway Authority. Such details will need to include drainage and local carriageway resurfacing. Reason: To protect the structural integrity of the highway and to allow for future maintenance.

NOTE TO APPLICANT: In order to carry out the off-site works required you will be undertaking work in the public highway which is land subject to the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and therefore land over which you have no control. In order to undertake the works you will need to enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Act. Please contact David Albans tel. 01623 520735 david.albans@nottscc.gov.uk and/or see Part 6 of www.leics.gov.uk/index/6Csdg The applicant is advised to contact the Nottinghamshire County Council Abnormal Load Officer, Malcolm Goodhall, tel. 0115 977 4490 to agree routes.” Ramblers Association - This turbine is too close to Thorney Footpath 7. NCC Rights of Way (28/01/2014) – “Thorney Footpath No.7. This is:

1. Located on a section of the proposed access road: - In which case the affected section of Footpath No.7: a. Must not be disturbed or excavated without prior authorisation in writing from the

County Council’s (NCC’s) Countryside Access Team. b. Must be repaired by and at the cost of the applicant if the surface of this public right of

way is damaged in the process of constructing or maintaining the single wind turbine and/or its accompanying apparatus.

2. Located at more than falling distance plus 10% from the single wind turbine:- NCC’s Countryside Access Team requires that a wind turbine should be located at, at least the height of the turbine to its blade tip plus 10% from a public footpath. The planning consultation documents that have been provided with this application state that the single turbine will have a height to blade tip of 77 metres. The falling distance will, therefore be 84.7 metres. Our records indicate that Thorney Footpath No.7 is located at a greater distance from the turbine than 84.7 metres. This meets the requirements of the Countryside Access Team.

The applicant must apply to temporarily close this public right of way for the duration of any construction works that are likely to cause a hazard to the users of Thorney Footpath No.7. Application for temporary closures of this kind must be made to this office at least 6 weeks in advance of the commencement date of the works and this will incur a cost to the applicant.”

Environment Agency (20/12/2013) – “The site is protected up to the 1 in 200 year flood event by an earth embankment flood defense adjacent to The River Trent. The Flood Risk Assessment

55

analyses the flood risk to the site against local flood data, however, Environment Agency modeled flood data identifies that the breach level of The River Trent is 7.1mAOD. Therefore, the proposed development will only meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework if the following measures as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of the following planning conditions on any planning permission. Condition The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted as part of this planning application (Ref. 13/01701/FUL) which was prepared by R.M. Associates on the 1st August 2013 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

1. The concrete base is to be constructed with a 50mm fall to the edges and will have a 1.0m3 French drain constructed around its perimeter. 2. The crane hard-standing and access track is to be constructed using a permeable material and the finished floor levels are to be flush with the existing ground levels. 3. The spoil excavated from the formation of the turbine base, access road and permanent crane must be spread thinly across the site.

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason:

1. To encourage the increased surface water from the concrete base to percolate into the ground. 2. To mimic the existing drainage regime by preventing any additional increase of surface water runoff and to permit overland flows to follow the natural topography towards the existing field drains. 3. Stockpiling of excavated material would limit flood water flows in the unlikely event of a flood defence breach.

The mitigation measures listed above shall be fully implemented prior to the turbines operation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Condition The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to demonstrate that flood resilient measures including raising all electrical components as high as practically possible has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Reason To prevent damage to water susceptible components in the unlikely event of a flood defense breach, therefore, reducing the consequences of flooding and facilitate quicker recovery.” NCC Archaeology – I have looked at the potential for impact on buried archaeological remains, and am content that nothing is known in close proximity which concerns me. I have looked at the comments provided by EH and your own conservation officers and am happy to accept that the

56

settings issues potentially raised are not so significant as to preclude the principle of the development. Accordingly, I have no recommendations to offer. NCC Ecologist – No response received Natural England (23/12/2013) – Offer Standing Advice on protected species and make the following detailed comments: “Statutory nature conservation sites – no objection This application is in close proximity to the Doddington Clay Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England. Local sites If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local site, e.g. Local Wildlife Site, Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site (RIGS) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local 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 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 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’. Landscape enhancements This application may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and access to and contact with nature. Landscape characterisation and townscape assessments, and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for planners and developers to consider new development and ensure that it makes a positive contribution in terms of design, form and location, to the character and functions of the landscape and avoids any unacceptable impacts.” In response to the amended site plan – (16/01/2014) – No amended comments. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust – 06/01/2014 – “Our comments on the ecological report are as follows:

• We support the approach to the assessment, which comprises desk study, extended phase 1 survey, detailed species-specific surveys for birds (breeding bird surveys to CBC methodology and wintering bird surveys) and bats (roost identification, transects and automated survey), evaluation and mitigation proposals.

57

• We note and welcome that all of the recommended further surveys (e.g. emergence surveys of potential tree roosts within 200m of the turbine) have been completed. • We suggest that the recommendations summarised in the executive summary and presented at paragraph 6.1 and 6.2 are secured via an appropriately worded condition in the event of the application being approved. In brief, these would comprise: o Working practices to protect habitats and species groups such as badgers, birds, bats, amphibians etc (6.1) during installation phase. o Enhancements proposed at section 6.2, which should comprise:

Winter feeding stations established to target red listed bird species recorded at the farm

Installation of barn owl box at a suitable distance away from turbine location as guided by a suitably experienced ecologist.

As commented previously, we would like to see a strategic approach to wind energy generation being adopted by LPAs in Nottinghamshire. This would help avoid wind turbines being positioned in potentially ecologically sensitive locations, such as near to ancient woodland, bird migration corridors such as the River Trent, core areas for nightjar and woodlark, or known bat hot-spots, such as in the vicinity of bat roosts of county-level importance. We also wish to see potential cumulative ecological impacts of wind turbine schemes being considered more carefully in future. We are aware that a multitude of applications have been made for single turbines in the Newark and Sherwood District and, considering this more locally we note that LVIA (Figure 4) identifies six single turbines within 5km of Thorney, although we are unsure of the status of these. In conclusion, if the application is approved we would wish to see the proposed mitigation being fully implemented. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me.” In response to the amended site plan – 13/01/2014 - no further comments to make. National Police Air Service (NPAS) (23/12/2013) – “This unit neither supports nor objects to the above proposal. However, given its total height is 52 ft higher than our minimum daytime operating height and only 247ft below our minimum night operating height, we would strongly recommend that it is fitted with an aviation warning light. Emergency services helicopters are required to maintain 500ft separation from all structures at night and this can only be achieved if those structures can be seen.” In response to the amended site plan – 10/01/2014 – no additional comments to make. MOD (27/01/2014) – “In the interests of air safety, the MOD requests that the turbine is fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared aviation lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point. The principal safeguarding concern of the MOD with respect to the development of wind turbines relates to their potential to create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and cause interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations. Defence Infrastructure Organisation Safeguarding wishes to be consulted and notified of the progression of planning applications and submissions relating to this proposal to verify that it will not adversely affect defence interests. If planning permission is granted we would like to be advised of the following;

· the date construction starts and ends; · the maximum height of construction equipment; · the latitude and longitude of every turbine.

This information is vital as it will be plotted on flying charts to make sure that military aircraft avoid this area.”

58

NATS (21/01/2014) – “Object - The proposed development has been examined by technical and operational safeguarding teams. A technical impact is anticipated, this has been deemed to be unacceptable.” (20/11/2014) – Confirmation has been received that the impact of the turbine can be mitigated against and a contract has been issued to the applicant to agree to those mitigation works. NATS have confirmed that they have no safeguarding objection now on this basis. Suggested conditions

1. No turbine shall be erected until the Developer has agreed a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme (PRMS) with the Operator (NATS) which has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the Primary Radar Installation at Claxby.

2. No turbine shall be erected unless and until the approved Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme has been implemented and the development shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with such approved Scheme. For the purpose of conditions [1 and 2] above; “Operator” means NATS (En Route) plc, incorporated under the Companies Act (4129273) whose registered office is 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hants, PO15 7FL or such other organisation licensed from time to time under sections 5 and 6 of the Transport Act 2000 to provide air traffic services to the relevant managed area (within the meaning of section 40 of that Act). “Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme” or “Scheme” means a detailed scheme agreed with the Operator which sets out the measures to be taken to mitigate at all times the impact of the development on the Claxby primary radar and air traffic management operations of the Operator. CAA (29/01/2014) – Offer standard advice Robin Hood Airport (04/02/2014) – “No objections to this proposal in relation to Aerodrome Safeguarding.” Joint Radio Co Ltd (on behalf of the UK Fuel & Power Industry and the Water Industry in north-west England) (06/03/2014) – “JRC does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data you have provided.” DLRAA/NEMA/LNAACT/MAM - No response received from any of these helicopter units British Horse Society – No response received National Grid Plant Protection – No comments received 38 representations have been received from Local Residents/Interested Parties Support – 11 Against – 27 Reasons against the proposal:

• Turbines produce less energy than solar panels; • Detrimental to human health; • Too close to Sustrans, Harby Primary School and properties; • Villages of Wigsley, Thorney and Harby will become encircled by turbines if accepted; • No benefits to the community i.e. employment or monetary; • Negative visual impact;

59

• Will set a precedent for future applications; • Harm to ecology; • Noise pollution & vibration effects; • Shadow flicker; • Increase in traffic movements; • Detrimental to views of Lincoln Cathedral and Harby Church spire and heritage assets in

general; • Contrary to Section 2 of the Wind Turbines (Minimum Distance from Residential Premises)

Bill [HL] 2012-13. This Bill had its first reading in the House of Lords on 14.05.2012, the second reading has yet to be scheduled and can be afforded little/no weight for this reason.

Duty to consult Members will be aware of the Statutory Instrument (SI) No.2932 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure and Section 62A Applications) (England) (Amendment) Order 2013, which sought to introduce a pre application consultation procedure for developers to consult with the local community for planning applications involving more than 2 turbines or turbines with a hub height of greater than 15 metres. The SI was enacted on 17th December 2013 and only effective for turbine applications submitted after this date. This application was submitted on 10th December 2013 and therefore there is no legal requirement for the developer to carry out formal consultations in this instance. Comments of the Business Manager 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

The United Kingdom is legally committed to meeting 15% of our energy demand from renewable sources by 2020. The Climate Change Act also commits to reducing greenhouse gasses substantially (for example by 2050 it is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account is at least 80% lower than the baseline in 1990) and these targets are challenging. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) suggests more than 30% of electricity should be generated by 2020. In setting this target it is recognised that to deliver this it will be heavily dependent upon the exploitation of wind energy in conjunction with other renewable sources. The NPPF provides that LPA’s should design their policies to maximize renewable and low carbon energy development whilst ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily. Applications that meet these conditions should be approved and the NPFF is clear that there is no requirement for the applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy. 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. Policy DM4 provides that planning permission will be granted for renewable energy where the benefits are not outweighed by detrimental impacts. In determining this application, I therefore consider it is necessary to balance the strong policy

60

presumption in favour of wind turbines against the site specific impacts. Environment Impact Assessment The proposal has been considered against The Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 under application (13/SCR/00018). The proposed wind turbine meets the criteria and thresholds of Part (3)(i) of Schedule 2 of the 2011 Town and Country Environmental Impact Regulations insofar as it includes a wind turbine that exceeds 15m in height. The Local Planning Authority applied the selection criteria set out by Schedule 3 of the Regulations and made reference to the guidance set out in Circular 02/99. Taking all matters into account, the Local Planning Authority considered EIA was not required for the proposed development. Landscape and Visual (including Cumulative Impacts) The impact upon the landscape is a key consideration for this scheme and Members will see that the application has attracted local opposition. The host Parish and neighbouring Parishes have objected to the proposals. At 77m to tip height, the turbine will be visible in the landscape to differing degrees dependent upon locations and the significance of these impacts and the harm has been carefully considered in assessing this application. The Environmental Statement (ES) includes a comprehensive assessment of the visual impacts and a set of computer generated images which illustrate the proposal from a total of 11 viewpoints. A Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) has also been submitted, which shows the extent of land where the turbine could theoretically be visible from. Following assessments and consultation responses, further photomontages were requested to illustrate impacts on the landscape and heritage assets from a number of vantage points. In response a further 3 photomontages/wire-lines have been submitted, bringing the total to 14 images. 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 of the impacts upon the landscape to be undertaken. Landscape setting Core Policy 13 of the Core Strategy addresses issues of landscape character. A Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) was adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document in December 2013 to inform the policy approach identified within Core Policy 13. The LCA provides an objective methodology for assessing the varied landscape within the district and contains information about the character, condition and sensitivity of the landscape. The LCA has recognised a series of Policy Zones across the 5 Landscape Character types represented across the District. The proposed turbine is located within the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands Policy Zone and specifically within the Wigsley Village Farmlands with Plantations character area (ES PZ 02) as defined within the LCA. Within the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands Policy Zone there is a chapter referring to ‘Renewable Energy’ which acknowledges the need for sources of renewable energy such as wind turbines within the planning policy and how they have “the potential to change the landscape character of the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands, particularly in the more sparsely settled northern areas” (para 5.2.7). Policy Zone ES PZ 02: Wigsley Village Farmlands and Plantations is characterised by a generally flat topography with medium to long distance views towards wooded rising ground and views of the

61

Marnham power station and associated power lines can also be seen. The area, although dominated by arable agriculture, small areas of historic pastoral fields also exist. Commercial agriculture is prominent to the north of the policy zone which includes poultry houses and piggeries etc. This policy zone includes the settlements of Thorney, Thorney Moor, part of Harby, Wigsley, part of Spalford and Besthorpe. The policy zone is described as having a moderate landscape condition. The landscape actions are a low sensitivity, poor condition with a policy action of create ‘new features or areas where existing elements are lost or are in poor condition.’ The sensitivity is defined as very low within a moderate landscape condition. The sensitivity is derived from having a weak sense of place overall with an insignificant landform with intermittent areas of woodland giving a low visibility value. Core Policy 13 of the Core Strategy indicates that development proposals should positively address the implications of the Landscape Policy Zones in which the proposals lie and demonstrate that such development would contribute towards meeting the Landscape Conservation and Enhancement Aims for the area. The Newark and Sherwood Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development (NS LCS) was published in March 2014 following public consultation. The study examines the sensitivity and capacity of the district’s landscape to wind turbine development at a range of scales. It has been prepared to help inform planning application decisions for wind turbines, and will play a role in steering wind energy development to the most appropriate locations within the district boundary. Landscape sensitivity to wind turbines is defined as follows in the NS LCS: ‘Sensitivity is the relative extent to which the character and quality of the landscape is susceptible to change as a result of wind energy development.’ The turbine proposed at Plot Farm is described as medium typology (51 to 80m) with a moderate sensitivity. The landscape advice received from Nottinghamshire County Council in their capacity as appointed consultants, acknowledges the submitted landscape assessment by the applicant and states the methodology used was unclear but the level of analysis and terminology suggests it is Edition 2 of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. It does not state that this is inappropriate or the incorrect methodology to use. The proposal has been assessed at its differing stages of development against the impact on the landscape character of the site. The assessment submitted by the application characterised this as follows:

• Construction phase – negligible significant of impact • Operational phase – moderate-slight adverse significance of impact • Decommissioning phase – negligible significance of impact

NCC consultants generally agree however the process of determining the outcomes has not been explained as during the construction phase the applicant states there will be cranes on site for 2 days and construction vehicle movements for longer periods. Overall the construction phase has not been defined. The landscape reports submitted does not allow for mitigation planting for adverse effects on the landscape character. The consultants advise that given the landscape designation of ‘create’ there should be some additional landscape improvements to ensure beneficial effects in the long term. The LVA submitted by the applicant identifies 4 of the 14 viewpoints submitted to be of the greatest level of effect upon the landscape. These are Viewpoint 1, 5, 6 and 11 and all of which are described as having a slight to moderate significance of effect upon the landscape. Overall the

62

consultants agree with the findings. Cumulative Visual Impacts Planning Practice Guidance describes cumulative visual impacts as being ‘the degree to which proposed renewable energy development will become a feature in particular views (or sequences of views), and the impact this has upon the people experiencing those views. Cumulative visual impacts may arise where two or more of the same type of renewable energy development will be visible from the same point, or will be visible shortly after each other along the same journey. Hence, it should not be assumed that, just because no other sites will be visible from the proposed development site, the proposal will not create any cumulative impacts’. The LVA shows the location of both operational wind turbines and those in the planning system within 10km of the proposed wind turbine up to September 2013 when the report was prepared. However in assessing the cumulative impact, the list within the LVA has been updated by NSDC to include more recent turbines within the locality. This includes the submitted turbine at Moor Farm, Moor Lane, Thorney (14/01257/FUL) which is proposed at 80m high and located within 3km of the application site. This decision is still pending with the Authority and the closest consented turbine is at Wigsley Old Airfield approximately 3.7km from the application site and is consented at 77m high. This was approved on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. It is considered that the proposed turbine, taking into account consented wind turbine schemes to date, would not contribute to an adverse cumulative impact upon the landscape character and the overall impact is negligible although in localised area this will be low. The NSDC LCS sets out the levels of wind energy development within the landscape. These are:

• A landscape without wind energy; • A landscape with occasional wind energy; • A landscape with wind energy; • A wind farm landscape.

In terms of the level of development likely to be acceptable, the Character Area has been assessed as a landscape with occasional wind energy and there is some capacity to accommodate this wind turbine development. Depending on the size, cluster size and position, further wind turbine development may start to have cumulative impact on the surrounding area. Landscape and visual conclusion Having considered the Landscape advice provided to the Council and the reports received from the applicant’s submission, I conclude that the landscape character would not be adversely affected by the development and there is capacity within the existing landscape to accommodate the turbine without unduly impacting on the landscape character of the area. When considering the turbine cumulatively alongside the Wigsley consented turbine I do not consider that they would be viewed as an adverse visual and cumulative impact within the landscape. The applicant’s agent has agreed, in light of the landscape comments and the landscape character that they are willing to include some landscape enhancements to improve the hedgerows where necessary, and a condition has been imposed on that basis. It is therefore considered that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the landscape character of the area in accordance with Core Policy 13 which requires that development positively addresses the implications of Landscape Policy Zones and that such development

63

contributes towards meeting Landscape Conservation and Enhancement Aims for the area. Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

The NPPF sets out the policies for dealing with heritage assets, which is reinforced by Policies CP14 and DM9 of the Development Plan. There are 10 high grade listed buildings (Grade I and II*) within a 5km radius of the proposed site as well as 4 scheduled monuments, a Grade II* registered historic park and garden (at Doddington Hall) and the conservation areas of Saxilby and Doddington (both within the County of Lincolnshire). There are also significant landmark structures at Lincoln including the cathedral and castle within 10km. Within 6km of the site there are 6 committed wind turbines which have been granted permission all at 77m to tip but only one within the Newark and Sherwood District (Wigsley, granted on appeal). The impact on the historic environment has been carefully considered in conjunction with our specialist Conservation Officer. Our Conservation makes the following observations; “Within Newark and Sherwood District, impact of the proposed turbine on the setting of the Grade II* listed Church of St Helen at Thorney is worthy of special consideration. This parish church dates to 1850 and was designed by Cottingham. Constructed in coursed ashlar with a stone slab roof, ashlar carvings and dressings. The church consists of a nave, chancel, vestry, bellcote, and sanctus bellcote. The structure replaces a 13th century church (the remains of which are to the east, and are listed Grade II). The church has additional group value with a number of listed buildings, including a 17th century manor house (Grade II), a former servant’s wing to Thorney Hall (Grade II) and a cottage at Thorney Hall (Grade II). Former fish ponds to the manor house remain evident to the east and west of the historic core of the village (these may have archaeological significance). Taking into account the scale and form of the 1850 church and intervening woodland, it is felt that the proposed turbine will not significantly harm the setting of the church or group of listed buildings adjoining the church. View Point 2 in the submitted photo montages gives a sense of this impact, and whilst it is felt that the turbine will have some impact on the way in which the church and surrounding area is experienced, the impact is not perceived to be significantly harmful. Any adverse impact in this context should be treated as less than substantial harm therefore. In the wider area, but within Newark and Sherwood District only, I have considered a number of heritage assets, but have found no other specific impacts which might lead me to consider the proposal harmful to the historic environment. I have also considered cumulative impact and potential inter-visibility between heritage assets in reaching this view. However, Doddington Hall, which is Grade I listed, is two miles southeast of the proposed turbine site. The surrounding parkland is Registered Grade II*. It is considered that the proposal could have a degree of adverse impact on views from within the grounds and from the Hall (notably from the upper parts of the building). Although Staunch Hill and intervening woodland significantly mitigates this impact (as intimated in View Point 9 of the submitted photo montages), the blades could appear over the top of the trees when viewed from parts of the grounds and the turbine may be more fully visible from upper stories in the Hall. Nonetheless, these heritage assets fall within North Kesteven District, so I defer to any expert opinion from their Conservation Team and from English Heritage.”

64

The Officer concluded that overall, the scheme is not considered to have a significantly harmful impact on the setting of any heritage asset within Newark and Sherwood District. Any adverse impacts should be treated as less than substantial (for the purposes of paragraph 134 of the NPPF), and the decision-maker is entitled to weigh the public benefits of renewable energy against any adverse impacts identified. North Kesteven District Council (NKSC) initially objected to the scheme due to the impact upon Lincoln Cliff Landscape Character Area and Doddington Hall. However following the submission of additional photo montages NKDC has now removed its objection stating the turbine would not have a harmful impact upon the setting or appearance of Doddington Hall by virtue of the position and distance (3km). In addition the proposal is not considered to have a visual prominence or impact from the Lincoln Cliff LCA. Colleagues at Nottinghamshire County Council Archaeology have assessed the application for the potential impact on buried archaeological remains and subsequently they do not consider the site to have any impact. Whilst English Heritage has raised issues with regards to potential archaeology they do not consider the issues to be so significant as to preclude the principle of development. Accordingly they have no objections to the proposal. Amenity Noise

Local residents have objected on the grounds of turbines being noisy in a general sense. 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. Government guidance is that ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-1997) should be used when assessing noise from turbines. This 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. The recommended noise limits proposed in ETSU –R-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 38dB from 43dB(A) L90.

The application is accompanied by a Noise Assessment stating the noise levels at the receptor properties are within the derived limits for both daytime and night-time noise levels thus meeting with the recommendations of the ETSU-R-97. This remains the case when taking into account cumulative noise impacts. Your Environmental Health Officer has 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 the proposal in this regard accords with Policy DM4 plus ETSU 97 the NPPF and PPG which are material planning considerations.

65

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. The Companion Guide to PPS22 (now defunct but still a useful tool) 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 approximately 540 metres. There is one property within this circumference, namely Plot Farm, which is located to the north of the turbine and therefore the experience of shadow flicker will be limited and I am satisfied that this matter does not require any further assessment. I do not therefore consider it necessary to impose any conditions relating to this issue. Highway Issues

The majority of traffic associated with this development would be at construction phase, which in this case would last for around 2 months. The applicant has provided details of a turbine delivery route. This would take the form of two route options as outlined below. Option 1

a. A1 to the A57 junction with Markham Moor; b. A57 to the River Trent Crossing at Dunham Bridge (Toll Bridge); c. A57 (Toll Bridge) to the A57/A156 Gainsborough Road junction at Newton on Trent; d. A57 Gainsborough Road to the B1190 Tom Otter Lane Junction; e. B1190 Tom Otter Lane to (Unclassified) Sand Lane junction; f. Sand Lane to the application site.

Option 2

g. As route a. to d. above; h. A57 West Bank to Broadholme Lane; i. Broadholme Lane to Sand Lane; j. As f. above.

The option of which route is chosen would be the decision of the Abnormal Load Officer at Nottinghamshire County Council prior to installation, although either route has been agreed as acceptable in principle. The proposed routes would be along principle public roads within Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) has not raised any concern from a road safety point of view nor a capacity issue during the construction phase. Once constructed the site would only generate a low level of maintenance traffic which is also not a concern. The applicant would need to contact the Abnormal Load Officer at NCC to agree the routes in more detail. NCC colleagues have recommended the imposition of a condition to protect the highway construction and drainage at the access point at Sand Lane. This would need to be strengthened and constructed in tarmac to satisfy the highway authority.

66

The turbine is located adjoining Footpath No.7 in Thorney, however the turbine is located a distance of more than 10% of the falling distance of the turbine from the footpath (84.7m) which is to the satisfaction of NCC Rights of Way Officer. They advise however that the applicant must apply to temporarily close the public right of way for the duration of the construction works. As such I do not consider the proposal to cause any significant detrimental impact upon the existing highway network or to the designated public footpath adjoining the site. The proposal therefore accords with Spatial Policy 7 of the Adopted Core Strategy. Ecology and Nature Conservation

The turbine is sited within an arable field. The most sensitive ecological features at the site is a species-poor hedgerow surrounding the field and the proposed siting maintains a minimum 50m 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 Ecological Appraisal dated October 2013 by EMEC Ecology has identified the area to be limited value for bats and only a small number of observations were made and foraging behaviours were closely associated with the hedgerows and Ox Pasture Drain. Monitoring of the site identified minimal bat activity passing the turbine location and those within the area were species considered to be at low risk. The site is also considered to be of low importance to wintering birds species and the potential effects of the turbine are considered to be minimal. It is recommended that additional feeding stations are placed around Plot Farm to support the farmland species. Barn owl evidence has been found on the site with potential roosting sites around the main farmhouse and barns. The site is irregularly used by barn owls, the turbine is positioned on unsuitable foraging habitat and the collision threat to barn owls is low due to low foraging flight, the proposed turbine is not considered to impact upon the barn owl population. However due to the presence of barn owls it is recommended that a barn owl box is sited within Plot Farm or on a mature tree away from the turbine. Other breeding birds identified on the site are not considered to be detrimentally impacted upon by the turbine due the small scale development and low bird activity on the site. All trees and hedgerows will remain unaffected by the proposed work and as the turbine is located beyond 200m from the Ox Pasture Drain, it is not considered that the habitat around this area would be affected by the development. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust supports the assessment made within the Ecology Report (dated October 2013) which comprises of a desk study, extended phase 1 survey, detailed species-specific survey for birds and bats, evaluation and mitigation. They also support the recommendations made within point 6.1 and 6.2 of the submitted report and these would need to be secured through the imposition of a condition. The conditions relate to mitigation and enhancement recommendations within the Ecology Report. Most notably during construction of the turbine and the specifically the working areas should be kept to a minimum on the grassland areas and the storage of plant and machinery should be on hardstanding areas and away from any areas containing trees. The mitigation relating to faunal species are again during construction works and to ensure animals can gain access out of any trenches, moved from the grassland areas prior to construction and works to be carried out outside of bird nesting season where possible. 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, DM4 and DM7 of the Development Plan and the NPPF which is a material

67

consideration. Aviation Impacts, Telecommunication Links and Electromagnetic Interference

Members will note from the consultation section of this report that various organisations have been consulted with regard to aviation safety. NATS had raised an initial safeguarding objection however the impact of the turbine has now been confirmed by NATS that it can be mitigated against with regard to air traffic safety. A contract has been issued to the applicant to agree to and NATS have stated they are happy for NSDC to approve the application on that basis, subject to the imposition of suggested conditions. I therefore consider the original safeguarding objection and the impact upon air traffic control is no longer of concern as the impact can be mitigated against to the satisfaction of NATS. Some consultees have suggested the imposition of an aviation warning light to ensure the structure is visible, and this has now become standard practice amongst turbine installations. No mitigation is required for electromagnetic interference and the proposal is not considered to have any adverse impacts on telecommunications. Flooding The site is located within flood zone 2 and 3 as defined by the Environment Agency maps, indicating the site is at highest risk from flooding. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted to accompany the application. Core Policy 10 and Policy DM5 seek to steer new development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding. Wind Turbines are deemed as Essential Infrastructure within the Planning Practice Guidance and are only acceptable within flood zone 3 where the exception test has been successfully met. I am mindful that the publication of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), the PPS 25 – Practice Guide has been cancelled and the PPG does not discount essential infrastructure from requiring a sequential test. In this case the turbine is justified as being necessary to subsidise the energy requirements of the existing farming business between this site at Thorney and Newton on Trent. The entire site is located within Flood Zone 2 and 3 and there is no opportunity to relocate the turbine within other land at lower risk of flooding within the parameters of the ‘business’. As the turbine is specifically benefitting the energy needs of the business, whilst also providing a local benefit, I consider the these matters outweigh the requirement for a sequential test. The Environment Agency have stated that a condition could be attached to any consent requiring the measures as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment undertaken by RM Associates dated 1 August 2013 submitted with this application to be implemented. The FRA states that whilst an element of undeveloped area will be taken up by the infrastructure this area is limited and the base of the turbine will be designed with a 50mm fall to the edges which will have a 1.0m3 French drain constructed around the perimeter. Therefore the discharge of surface water from the site would have a negligible effect on surface water flood risk. The access track will be constructed of crushed stone to the minimum width necessary for reasonable access to mimic the existing drainage regime, and discharge surface water to ground. As there is a drainage system to cater for the run-off caused by the development, the proposal is not considered to have any adverse impact on the wider area with regard to increased flood risk.

68

Given the above, specifically that flood risk can be mitigated and the preceding advice on the sequential approach in PPS 25, I am mindful to conclude that whilst the Sequential Test has not, in my opinion, been fully and robustly demonstrated by the agent, a refusal on this ground alone would be difficult for the Authority to sustain when taken in the wider planning balance. In any event the Exception Test is passed in that the development does provide wider sustainability benefits (by making the business more environmentally sustainable and providing a surplus energy requirement for a wider sustainability benefit) and the development is safe. Public Rights of Way The proposed turbine would be a sufficient distance away from the nearest right of way so as not to present any safety hazards to the users of the nearest public rights of way.

Climate Change The agent has confirmed that 50% of the energy produced by the turbine will be used at the farm with remaining 50% surplus being fed back to the national grid. The agent has stated that the proposed turbine would produce approximately 448,553MWh surplus which is sufficient to supply 235 homes. Based on average consumption, the turbine would save 897,066kg (897.066 tonnes) of CO2 pa or 22,426,650kg (22,426.65 tonnes) over the life of the turbine (budgeted for 25 years). However the surplus alone (approximately 50%) is expected to save 11,213,325kg of CO2 over the lifespan. This is obviously a positive environmental benefit that would be in accordance with the Council’s commitment to helping to tackle climate change as set out in Core Policy 10 and the UK to reach the Climate Change Act 2008 carbon budget targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Decommissioning The applicant has expressed reluctance to enter into a bond to secure funds for decommissioning which would see funds tied up for 25 years. They have asked that Members consider that granting permission without the presence of such a bond. Property Values Although not in this case some residents may consider the presence of a wind turbine to 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. Balancing Exercise and Conclusions The majority of the concerns raised by both the Parish Councils and neighbouring residents have already been addressed, however the outstanding matters that were raised are answered below:

• Concerns have been expressed by objectors that the granting of planning permission

might set a precedent for other turbines within the wider surrounding area. Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 clearly states that each application

69

should be determined on its own merits.

• Concern was expressed that the turbine would be too close to the Sustrans route. ROW colleagues have not raised any objections and the turbine is beyond the topple distance of the footpaths.

• The devaluation of property, the efficiency of turbines, the level of profit for interested

parties, impact on energy bills, maintenance costs and the operational safety of turbines are not a material planning considerations in this instance.

• The Government has not produced any planning policy guidelines in respect of the

impact of wind turbines on human health. Whilst the impact of noise and shadow flicker can be considered (see above) no other adopted guidelines are available to Local Planning Authorities when considering such schemes.

I acknowledge that the proposal will have some localised significant effects on the landscape character, however I consider in the wider context the landscape character has capacity to accommodate the turbine without causing a significant, unacceptable or cumulative change to the character of the area. I have also had regard to the need to provide renewable resources which in my view carries considerable weight. There had been concern raised with regards impacts on heritage assets, however this has been shown to be less than substantial harm and the harm caused would not be of significance to justify a refusal of planning permission, when weighed in the balance with the other issues. Therefore having taken in to consideration all the comments raised during the application process, I consider the proposal to be acceptable and recommend approval of the application. RECOMMENDATION That full planning permission is approved subject to the conditions and reasons shown on the attached recommendation sheet. Conditions 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans reference L-ARD-054-SLPP Rev A (Site location plan-proposed), L-ARD-054-BP Rev A (Boundary Plan), 1000900 Rev 02 (General Arrangement), L-ARD-054-SLPP Rev 1 (Site layout – Proposed), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in order to define the permission.

70

03 The turbine installed shall be of the specifications as set out within the planning application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as a non-material amendment. No part of the structure shall carry any logo or lettering other than as required for health and safety reasons. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 04 No development shall be commenced until precise details of the location within the application site plus types and colours of materials to be used on the external elevations of the transformer cabinet and turbine 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. 05 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority setting out the protocol for the assessment of shadow flicker and noise in the event of any complaint being received, including the remedial measures to be taken. Operation of the wind turbines shall be in accordance with the approved protocol. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of residential properties in accordance with the aims of the NPPF and Policies DM4 and DM5 of the DPD. 06 Within 21 days from receipt of a written request of the Local Planning Authority, following a complaint to it alleging disturbance from shadow flicker and/or noise from the turbine at a dwelling that is lawfully occupied and lawfully existing at the time of this consent, the wind turbine operator shall at its expense provide a scheme for the investigation and alleviation of shadow flicker and/or noise in accordance with the protocol required by Condition 5. The scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved mitigation measures shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme thereafter. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of residential properties in accordance with the aims of the NPPF and Policies DM4 and DM5 of the DPD. 07 At least 6 weeks prior to the start of construction, the applicant/developer shall provide written confirmation of the following details to the Ministry of Defence (MOD), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and Local Planning Authority: i. Location of turbine (latitude and longitude) ii. Height of turbine (maximum height to blade tip)

71

iii. Lighting status of the feature/structure iv. The estimated and actual dates of construction (when it will start and end) v. The maximum height of any construction equipment to be used In the event that the anticipated date of completion of the construction varies from that which has been notified to the MOD and CAA, an update shall be provided in writing to both parties prior to construction extending beyond the date of which they have been notified. Reason: In the interests of air traffic safety. 08 The noise emitted from the wind turbine subject to this consent shall be no greater than as detailed within the Noise Assessment by Acute Acoustics Ltd dated 17th September 2013 (Ref: 1573 Thorney Wind Turbine) which forms part of this permission. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of residential properties in accordance with the aims of the NPPF and Policies DM4 and DM5 of the DPD. 09 The turbine installed on site shall comprise a “EWT DirectWind 54 HH 50” wind turbine (as shown on drawing number 1000900 Rev 02) which shall be no larger than the maximum dimensions submitted as part of the application and no part of the structures shall carry any logo or lettering other than as required for health and safety reasons. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the amenity of nearby residential occupiers in accordance in accordance with the aims of the NPPF, Spatial Policy 4B, Core Policies 9, 10 and 13 and Policies DM4 and DM5 of the DPD 10 Before development is commenced, precise details of the means of surfacing to the turbine including any temporary access to be laid during the construction period shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the development shall be completed in accordance with these details. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area in accordance with the aims of the NPPF, Core Policies 9, 10 and 13 and Policies DM4 and DM5 of the DPD. 11 All electrical cabling between the turbine and the transformer station shall be located underground unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area in accordance with the aims of the NPPF, Core Policies 9, 10 and 13 and Policies DM4 and DM5 of the DPD.

72

12 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 equipment 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 the appearance of the development is satisfactory in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area in accordance with the aims of the NPPF, Core Policies 9, 10 and 13 and Policies DM4 and DM5 of the DPD. 13 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 in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area in accordance with the aims of the NPPF, Core Policies 9, 10 and 13 and Policies DM4 and DM5 of the DPD. 14 Not later than six months before the date on which the planning permission hereby granted expires, the wind turbine and external housing shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land reinstated to its former condition in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval prior to the commencement of the development. The scheme to be submitted shall include the dismantling and removal of the turbine and external housing above existing ground levels and the removal of the turbine base and foundations. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the aims of the NPPF, Core Policies 9, 10 and 13 and Policies DM4 and DM5 of the DPD. 15 No hedge or shrub 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 in accordance with Core Policy 12 of the Core Strategy and Policies DM4 and DM7 of the Allocations & Development Management DPD. 16 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

73

thereafter be installed as approved. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety and at the request of the MOD. 17 The area 54 metres outside of the rotor diameter indicated by the hatched circle on drawing no.L_ARD_054-SLPP shall be kept free from new tree or hedge planting, soil mounds and pools of water at all times. Reason: To reduce the attractiveness of the area around the turbine to foraging bats and minimise the risk of collision with the turbine, in the interests of nature conservation and in line with Core Policy 12 of the adopted Core Strategy. 18 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the access is surfaced in a bound material for a minimum distance of 15m from the carriageway edge in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in liaison with the Highway Authority. Such details will need to include drainage and local carriageway resurfacing. Reason: To protect the structural integrity of the highway and to allow for future maintenance. 19 The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in complete accordance with the Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations (Section 6) stated within the Ecological Report dated October 2013 carried out by EMEC Ecology. Reason: In the interests of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. 20 No development shall be commenced until full details of soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include;- a schedule (including planting plans and written specifications, including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) of trees, shrubs and other plants, noting species, plant sizes, proposed numbers and densities. The scheme shall be designed so as to enhance the existing hedgerow boundaries of the site and improve the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of locally native species. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 21 No turbine shall be erected until the Developer has agreed a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme (PRMS) with the Operator (NATS) which has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local

74

planning authority in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the Primary Radar Installation at Claxby. Reason: In the interests of Air Traffic Safety. 22 No turbine shall be erected unless and until the approved Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme has been implemented and the development shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with such approved Scheme. Reason: In the interests of Air Traffic Safety. 23 No development shall be commenced until a scheme for ecological enhancements (which should include but may not be limited to barn owl boxes at a suitable location) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall also include details of a timetable for implementation of the enhancements. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In order to provide ecological enhancements in line with the CP12 of the Development Plan and the advice contained in the NPPF. 24 The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted as part of this planning application (Ref. 13/01701/FUL) which was prepared by R.M. Associates on the 1st August 2013 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: 1. The concrete base is to be constructed with a 50mm fall to the edges and will have a 1.0m3 French drain constructed around its perimeter. 2. The crane hard-standing and access track is to be constructed using a permeable material and the finished floor levels are to be flush with the existing ground levels. 3. The spoil excavated from the formation of the turbine base, access road and permanent crane must be spread thinly across the site. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason(s) 1. To encourage the increased surface water from the concrete base to percolate into the ground. 2. To mimic the existing drainage regime by preventing any additional increase of surface water runoff and to permit overland flows to follow the natural topography towards the existing field drains. 3. Stockpiling of excavated material would limit flood water flows in the unlikely event of a flood defence breach.

75

25 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to demonstrate that flood resilient measures including raising all electrical components as high as practically possible has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Reason: To prevent damage to water susceptible components in the unlikely event of a flood defence breach, therefore, reducing the consequences of flooding and facilitate quicker recovery. Notes to Applicant 01 The application as submitted is acceptable. In granting permission the District Planning Authority is implicitly working positively and proactively with the applicant. This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended). 02 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable on the development given that the development comprises a structure(s) and/or buildings that people only enter for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery. 03 The applicant's attention is drawn to those conditions on the decision notice, which should be discharged before the development is commenced. It should be noted that if they are not appropriately dealt with the development may be unauthorised. 04 In order to carry out the off-site works required you will be undertaking work in the public highway which is land subject to the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and therefore land over which you have no control. In order to undertake the works you will need to enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Act. Please contact David Albans tel. 01623 520735 david.albans@nottscc.gov.uk and/or see Part 6 of www.leics.gov.uk/index/6Csdg The applicant is advised to contact the Nottinghamshire County Council Abnormal Load Officer, Malcolm Goodhall, tel. 0115 977 4490 to agree routes. 05 For the purposes of conditions 21 and 22: “Operator” means NATS (En Route) plc, incorporated under the Companies Act (4129273) whose registered office is 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hants, PO15 7FL or such other organisation licensed from time to time under sections 5 and 6 of the Transport Act 2000 to provide air traffic

76

services to the relevant managed area (within the meaning of section 40 of that Act). “Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme” or “Scheme” means a detailed scheme agreed with the Operator which sets out the measures to be taken to mitigate at all times the impact of the development on the Claxby primary radar and air traffic management operations of the Operator. 06 NCC Rights of Way/Countryside Access Team advise that the developer must apply to temporarily close this public right of way for the duration of any construction works that are likely to cause a hazard to the users of Thorney Footpath No.7. Application for temporary closures of this kind must be made to this office at least 6 weeks in advance of the commencement date of the works and this will incur a cost to the applicant. BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Lynsey Tomlin on ext 5840. All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. Kirsty Cole Deputy Chief Executive

77

78

1

This matter is being dealt with by: Alison Stuart Reference: G403 N and SDC 13/01701/FUL 0115 977 2169 alison.stuart@nottscc.gov.uk www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk Martin Russell Planning Officer Newark and Sherwood District Council Kelham Hall Kelham Newark Nottinghamshire NG23 5QX 14th November 2014 Dear Mr Russell Application reference No: 13/01701/FUL Proposal: Erection of a single 500kW wind turbine with a hub height of 50 metres, a rotor diameter of 54 metres and a height to tip of 77.3m Location: Plot Farm, Thorney, Newark, Nottinghamshire Applicant: P A Arden & Son The following comments have been prepared by Alison Stuart of Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) Landscape and Reclamation Team who are acting as Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) consultants to Newark and Sherwood District Council (NSDC). These comments have been formulated on the basis of the submitted documentation. Due to the time period between the submission of the application and the preparation of these comments, I have not had the opportunity to clarify or request further information from the applicant. The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA) was submitted to Newark and Sherwood District Council on the 10th December 2013 as part of planning application 13/01701/FUL. Paragraph 1.1.4 of the Planning Supporting Statement states that a screening opinion dated 25th July 2013 confirmed that the application did not require a formal Environmental Impact Assessment to be submitted with the application. The LVA sets out the desk based tasks that were involved in the preparation of the assessment. This included consultation with the Local Planning Authority within the detailed study area regarding; methodology, key views and view point locations (Page 7, paragraph 2.23). Photo montages and wire frame drawings were produced for eleven viewpoints were provided by the applicant with a further 3 viewpoints representative of longer views out from land to the south west of the application area. The following planning application documents and drawings have been assessed in order to provide the comments within this report: Documents • Landscape and Visual Assessment, September 2013 prepared by Galpin Landscape

Architecture • Planning Supporting Statement Volume 1, November 2013 prepared by JH Walter LLP

79

2

Drawings

• Plot Farm Site Location Plan (no drawing number) • Site Layout Plan - Proposed Drawing number L-ARD-054-SLPP • Landscape and Heritage Figure 1 • Landscape Character Figure 2 • ZTV and Viewpoints Figure 3 • Cumulative Wind Turbine Sites Figure 4 Rev 1 • 14 viewpoints each made up of an OS locations plan, photomontage and a wire line

diagram.

1. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology

It is not clear which edition of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment) this assessment has used. The Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA) implies that it has been prepared with reference to the GLVIA 2002 second edition as well adopting methodology in the GLVIA 2013 third edition. The methodology is set out in Section 2 of the LVIA and should have followed either GLVIA Edition 2 or Edition 3 in its entirety. The level of analysis and terminology used in this assessment suggests that it is Edition 2. A significant effect in terms of the Environmental Assessment Regulations is generally defined as one which is above moderate. Within the methodology of this LVA the level of significance considered to be significant is defined as moderate. In these comments I have made reference to the Newark and Sherwood Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development, commissioned by NSDC and prepared by Land Use Consultants in March 2014. Study Area The study area for this LVIA has been defined as a 10km radius from the proposed development for both landscape and visual receptors. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility was also defined as a 10km radius. A smaller study area of 5km was used for the appraisal of effects on landscape features and landscape character. A Cumulative Zone of Zone of Theoretical Visibility (CZTV) was not mapped but the location of other consented turbines shown within a 10km radius of the site (Figure 4 Rev 1). 2. Existing Site The application site is located on farm land to the south east of the village of Thorney. The large agricultural field is predominantly flat, at an elevation of approximately 7m AOD and is currently used for the production of garden turf. The field is enclosed by hawthorn hedges within which are many mature hedgerow trees, principally oak. These hedges are generally outgrown with occasional gaps in places. Narrow strips of rough grassland form field margins that border some of these hedge lines. To the south west boundary of the field is Ox Pasture Drain. The field within which the application site lies is accessed from an existing farm track to Plot Farm at the junction of Sand Lane, Brown Lane and Drinsey Nook Lane to the north west of the site. An existing Public Right of Way PRoW (Thorney FP7 159/7/1) runs from Sand Lane past Plot Farm through an adjacent field to the west of the application area, before crossing the field, within which the proposed wind turbine is to be located, to link up with a small footbridge across Ox Pasture Drain. The cycleway NCN 647 runs in an east - west direction along a dismantled railway approximately 450m to the north of application area. Both the cycle route and Ox Pasture Drain are locally designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC sites). In the wider landscape the application site lies approximately 1.7km south east of the southern edge of Thorney and 0.9km north-west of the northern edge of Harby, and 1.7km north east of Wigsley.

80

3

Small belts of woodland are found to the south with larger woods and plantations Glovers Wood Crow Wood, Thorney Brown and Plot Wood to the west of the site. Views within the immediate area around the application area, within 1km, tend to be a medium range views over low lying flat landscape agricultural interspersed with farm steads and occasional residential houses. Woodland blocks and hedgerows with mature hedgerow trees often enclose and frame horizons. Pylon and pylon lines fringe the skyline further out to the south east of the site. 3. Proposed development The applicant seeks consent to erect a single three bladed 500kW wind turbine (EWT Direct Wind 54*-HH 75) 50m high to hub with a blade diameter of 54m. The overall height is 77.3m to tip of blade. It is sited at an elevation of 7m AOD. The colour of the turbine has not been specified The auxiliary works include:

- Concrete hard standing for construction cranes (35m x 15m) and presumably for maintenance though this is not detailed within the application.

- Concrete turbine base pad 10m x 10m - Turbine foundations (design and specification to be determined following

geotechnical survey) - Temporary site working area - Electricity substation and transformer. The size has not been specified but the

location is shown on drawing-ARD-054-SLPP Site Layout Plan- Proposed. Underground cabling works not specified.

- Access tracks - approximately 260m of new access track will be constructed. This is 4m wide and to be constructed of recycled crushed concrete planings.

This development is classed as a medium sized wind turbine (height range 51 - 80m) by Newark and Sherwood Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development although 77m high at the larger end of this range. 4. Physical impact of the proposed development on the landscape The location plan, drawing number L-ARD-054-SLPP Revision 1, shows the position of the proposed wind turbine and the new access road. Existing hedgerows and trees have not been shown on this drawing and any removal has not been quantified within the LVA. There also no information as to if vegetation removal will be carried out on the transport of the turbine components to the site. The LVA appendices (page 7) describes the access as being via an existing farm track to the site and therefore avoiding the need to remove hedgerows. Having compared the site location plan and the aerial photography for the site there will be a loss of agricultural land to accommodate the turbine foundations, access track and ancillary works. The access road runs parallel to an existing hedge along the north-west edge of the field. An adequate standoff from this and the hedgerow trees within it should be allowed in accordance with BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction: Recommendations Overall, although the direct physical impacts on the landscape during the construction phase have not been quantified within the LVIA I would assess the direct physical impact on the existing landscape as negligible. 5. Impact of the proposed development on landscape character The site lies within the National Character Area NCA 48 Trent and Belvoir Vales as defined by Natural England. Approximately 10km to the east of the site is the NCA 45 Northern Lincolnshire Edge and NCA 47 Southern Lincolnshire Edge. The applicant’s LVA identifies the Trent and Belvoir Vales National Character area on Figure 2 over the 5km study area.

81

4

At a regional level the East Midlands Regional Landscape Character Assessment 2010 (Natural England) defines the application area to be within Group 4a Unwooded Vales. At a county level the Nottinghamshire Landscape Character assessment 2009 defines countywide landscape character areas and the site lies within the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands. Within Newark and Sherwood district this character area has been divided into six policy zones. The application site is within the Wigsley Village Farmlands with Plantations (ES PZ 02) as described in the Newark and Sherwood Landscape Character Assessment which was adopted by NSDC as SPG in 2013. This sets out the characteristic features of this area, its landscape sensitivity, condition and actions in greater detail. The characteristic features of this policy zone include:

• Flat with occasional undulating landform around villages. • Medium distance views to frequent shelterbelts and mixed plantations. • Dominant views to the west of power stations and power lines. • Mixture of intensive arable fields with strongly trimmed hedges and some low intensity farming

with permanent improved pasture. • Numerous fragmented blocks of mixed deciduous woodland, coniferous plantations and some

remnant parkland. • Watercourses drain land to the east, (Ox Pasture Drain and Wigsley Drain).

The baseline landscape character assessment for Terrace Sandlands has been described on page 12 - 15 of the LVA. This description has been taken from the Nottinghamshire Landscape Guidelines (1997) and whilst still relevant this document has been superseded by the Newark and Sherwood Landscape Character Assessment 2013. This applicant’s landscape character description also covers a much wider area than the 5km study area as shown on Figure 2. The adjacent landscape character areas within the 5km study area have not been described although they have been listed in paragraph 3.22. I note that the Till Vale character areashould also be added under West Lindsey as on Figure 2 - Landscape Character. Within the Newark and Sherwood Landscape Character Assessment the landscape condition for Wigsley Village Farmlands is defined as moderate. Within the LVA the sensitivity of the different landscape character areas is set out within Table 2 pages 2 - 8 (Potential Landscape and Heritage Features and Landscape Character Areas: Sensitivity of Landscape Receptors and Summary of Magnitude of Change and Significance of Effects). All the landscape character areas have been described as having a medium sensitivity. I agree with this level but some written explanation as to the sensitivity of the landscape with specific reference to wind turbine development would have been useful in this section. Table 2 of the LVA (pages 2 – 8) all the landscape character areas have been described as having a magnitude of change defined as none which gives a significance of effect as none. Whilst there is likely to be no effect for most of character areas I consider the effect on landscape character may have been under estimated for Harby Village Farmlands to the east and Wigsley Village Farmlands with Plantations. During the operational period the magnitude of change is more likely to be low to negligible for these areas giving a slight to negligible significance of effect. The Newark and Sherwood Landscape capacity study for wind energy development by LUC, shows the proposed development lying within D2 - Village Farmlands with Plantations Landscape Character Type of the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands Regional Character Area. This area is shown to have a medium sensitivity to medium wind turbines height 51 - 80m (Refer to Figure 5.3 Newark and Sherwood Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development.)

82

5

Impacts on Landscape character of the site The applicant has provided an overall assessment of the impact of the proposal on the landscape character of the site itself. The site area has not been defined on a plan so it is not clear if this is the area of land which is shown on the proposed site layout plan, or the red line boundary. I have taken this to be the area on the site layout plan and more immediate vicinity around 1km of the proposed turbine location. Their summary is as follows:-

1. Construction phase – negligible significance of impact on landscape character.

2. Operational phase - moderate – slight adverse significance of impact on landscape character

3. Decommissioning phase - negligible significance of impact on landscape character

I generally agree with these conclusions although the explanation given in the text and Table 2 does not provide the analysis as to how these levels have been determined. For the construction phase the applicant states that there will be cranes on site for 2 days but there is also likely to be movement of construction vehicles over a longer period for the construction of associated development, such as the access road, electricity substation, foundations and areas of hard standing. The overall construction phase has not been defined. If mitigation planting for adverse effects on landscape character were to be carried out at the time of the development on land in the applicants ownership then post 25 years there should be some slight beneficial effects due to the retention of this now mature vegetation. 6. Visual Impacts of the proposed development The proposed development would comprise the installation of a 500kW wind turbine measuring 77.3m from a tower that is 50 m tall with a 54m rotor diameter. The design and height of the proposed turbine is therefore known and the visual impact can be predicted.

Fourteen viewpoints have been produced which have been assessed within Table 4 Viewpoint Locations, Sensitivities, Magnitude of Change and Significance of Effects. It would have been useful if the location of these receptors had been identified on the 10km study area showing the Zone of Theoretical Visibility. Although the receptors have been described in detail within the text the location in relation to the wind turbine location a plan would have allowed for easier interpretation of the results (e.g. distance to development would be readily visible). There are no visual receptors that the LVA has identified as having significant adverse effects. The LVA has identified that the greatest level of effect is from the following viewpoints: Viewpoint 1: Entrance to Plot Farm, 0.98km from development. Receptors are primarily road users at the junction of Sand Lane/Drinsey Nook Lane and Brown Lane which have a medium sensitivity. The magnitude of change has been described as medium giving a moderate/slight significance of effect. I note that the wind turbine at Old Farm (which was pending a planning decision when this LVA was being prepared) has been shown on the photograph montage but is not discussed as a cumulative impact later in the LVA. Viewpoint 5: Wigsley Road east of Wigsley Road, 1.87km from development Receptors are residential receptors with a medium sensitivity, and a low magnitude of change with a slight significance of effect.

83

6

Viewpoint 6: National Cycle Route northwest of Harby, 0.57km from development Receptors are recreational receptors from NCN 647 who have a high/medium sensitivity, and a medium magnitude of change with a moderate/slight significance of effect. Viewpoint 11: View from Gibbet Lane Cottages/B1190 1.53km from development Receptors are from Gibbett Lane Cottages and B1190 who have a medium sensitivity, and a low magnitude of change with a slight significance of effect. The sensitivity of residential receptors is normally higher than those of receptors from roads and although some of the views from Gibbett Lane Cottages are screened by surrounding farm buildings to the rear there may be views of the turbine from the south west from upper windows and garden. From my site observations isolated properties (Fir Tree Farm, Manor Farm and Station Farm) west of the wind turbine along Station Road may get some views of the upper section of the wind turbine from first storey west facing windows. However existing vegetation and agricultural buildings to the rear of these farm properties are likely to limit the extent of views from several locations. The majority of views of the turbine development from surrounding settlements of Wigsley, Harby and Thorney will be contained by existing vegetation including woodland blocks, (Glovers Wood, Thorney Brown and Plot Wood) shelter belts and hedgerow trees. Overall, I generally agree with the findings in the LVA. It would have been useful if the visual analysis had also addressed the receptors not covered by the viewpoints and the visual assessment summary informed by this. 7. Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment The Landscape and Visual Impact includes an assessment of cumulative impact assessment on page 25-27 where cumulative impacts are discussed in a generalised way. The cumulative impact assessment determines any additional effects the proposed development would have on landscape character and visual receptors when considered together with other wind turbine developments. Within the LVA drawing “Cumulative Wind Turbine Sites Figure 4 Rev 1” shows the location of both operational wind turbines and those in the planning system within 10km of the proposed wind turbine up to September 2013 date of LVA preparation. In paragraph 4.84, page 25 of the LVA the applicant states that: “all other wind turbines are over 3km away from the proposed turbine and all except Furrowlands are also proposed turbines and currently in planning.” This is no longer the case as wind turbines at Lodge Farm and Ferry Farm have now been approved. There is also a group of screening requests to the west proposed turbine site which are within 3km of the site (refer to NCC drawing LR/PRRH062/24 All Wind turbines in the planning system over 30m). Should these sites progress to become full applications and consented there is likely to be a greater cumulative impact with the proposed development. The following list shows sites within a 10km radius of the site, which have been submitted as a planning application for a wind turbine which is over 30m in height. This list has been compiled by NCC using the information obtained from NSDC in July 2014 and other planning authorities. Within Newark and Sherwood District, Nottinghamshire:

- 13/00742/FUL Trent Holme Farm, North Clifton – Height 46m (Approved)

- 12/01415/FUL Trent Holme Farm, North Clifton – Height 46m (Approved)

- 13/00682/FUL Wigsely Old Air Field, Wigsely – Height 77m (Approved)

84

7

- 13/01701/FUL Plot Farm, Brown Wood Lane, Thorney – Height 77.3m (Application)

- 14/01257/FUL Moor Larm Lane - Height 80m (Planning decision pending) Screening stage 14/SCR/00032 Clifton Lane Thorney (Environmental Impact Assessment not required) 14/SCR/00030 Birkland La South Clifton (Environmental Impact Assessment not required)

13/SCR/00003 Moor Farm Moor Lane Thorney (Environmental Impact Assessment not required)

14/SCR/00018 Grange Farm Homefarm Lane Thorney (Environmental Impact Assessment not required)

Within Bassetlaw District, Nottinghamshire:

- 13/00434/FUL -Main Street Ragnall - 80m (Planning decision pending)

Within West Lindsey District, Lincolnshire:

- 129323 Furrowland , Newton on Trent - Height 77m (Approved)

- 128536 Ferry Farm Ferry Lane, Kettlethorpe - Height 77m Date (Approved)

- 128502 Lodge Farm House Kettlethorpe Lane, Kettlethorpe - Height 77m (Approved)

- 130061 Lincoln Lane Farm, Lincoln Lane, Kettlethorpe - Height 77m (Planning decision pending )

Within North Kesteven District, Lincolnshire:

- Planning ref? Old Farm – Height 77m Refused

The LVA does not include a cumulative zone of theoretical visibility. The wind turbine at Wigsely Old Air Field, (13/00682/FUL) is now currently the closest consented wind turbine which is around 3.7km away. In Paragraph 4.89 the LVA states that: “The separation distance and intervening screening between these other proposed and existing wind turbine and the proposed turbine sites means there would not be a cumulative effect on the landscape character.” Intervening outgrown hedgerows and hedgerow trees and the relatively flat landform help to reduce adverse impacts but the presence of other wind turbines within the Wiglsey Village Farmlands with Plantations Landscape Policy Zone, and surrounding character areas within Lincolnshire means that there will be some other cumulative effects particularly sequential cumulative effects. For assessing the cumulative effects on visual amenity the LVA has analysed the following viewpoints: Viewpoint 9 View from Doddington Hall with proposed wind turbine and Furrowland Wind turbine (magnitude of change - none) Viewpoint 10 Footpath on Clay Lane north east of Harby to Wigsley wind turbine (magnitude of change - low)

85

8

Viewpoint 11 View from Gibbet Lane Cottages on B1190 which includes the proposed turbine and Wigsley turbine in the distance (magnitude of change – negligible but low on page 24 set out in Table 4 Viewpoint Locations, Sensitivities, Magnitude if Change and Significance on Effects) Consideration into if there is a combined view in succession, (when observer is able to see 2 or more developments from one viewpoint by turning through 360º) has not been assessed. However, from my site observations and on the basis of consented wind turbine schemes to date, it is unlikely that that this will be experienced within 3km of the proposed turbine due to existing woodland blocks and existing vegetation. The applicant summarises the cumulative effects in paragraph 4.108 stating that there would not a cumulative effect on the landscape character with other wind turbines in the study area and 4.109 The cumulative magnitude of change on the visual amenity would be mainly negligible. I consider that the overall is negligible although in localised areas this will be low (Viewpoint 10).

Sequential Cumulative Visual Impact

There has been no assessment of sequential views from the surrounding roads that connect village settlements or along the A57 for example or Public Rights of Way such as the NCN 647 cycle way Lincoln to Worksop via Tuxford. A description of these and the length that these would be experienced over and the nature of the receptor travelling along these routes would be useful. Although the actual visibility of the current pattern of wind turbine development is limited I consider that there would be a low cumulative effect on landscape character with other wind turbines when taking into account the sequential impact when travelling through the study area. 8. NSDC Landscape Capacity Study On a strategic level the NSDC Landscape Capacity Study sets out an overall aim for each of the identified landscape character types. Within the NSDC Landscape Capacity Study Table 2.5 (Page 14) sets out levels of wind energy development within the landscape.

These are:

A landscape without wind energy is considered to be an LCT within which no wind energy developments are located. There may, however, be in views of wind energy developments located in neighbouring types of landscape. Some landscapes in this category may be able to accommodate small scale turbines, for example associated with farm buildings, and this is clearly set out where this is the case.

A landscape with occasional wind energy is considered to be an LCT within which a very small number of wind energy developments are located. In this landscape, the wind energy developments are usually clearly separated and whilst each development influences the perception of the landscape at close proximity, they do not have a defining influence on the overall experience of the landscape (developments would not result in a significant cumulative impact on the LCT as a whole) The LCT would not be dominated by wind turbines.

A landscape with wind energy is considered to be an LCT within which several wind energy developments are located; where the landscape may be perceives as having wind turbines visible in more than one direction; and/or where wind energy developments have a strong influence on the character of the landscape but are not the defining characteristic of the landscape character. It will still be possible to appreciate the character of the landscape without wind turbines dominating every view in the LCT.

A wind farm landscape is considered to be an LCT where turbines are the defining influence on the landscape character of the area. All other landscape features are seen in the context of extensive wind energy development

86

9

The proposed turbine development is located in Landscape Character Type D2 Village Farmlands with Plantations whose overall aim has been assessed as a landscape with occasional wind energy in terms of the level of development likely to be acceptable. In this landscape, the wind energy developments are usually clearly separated and whilst each development influences the perception of the landscape at close proximity, they do not have a defining influence on the overall experience of the landscape (developments would not result in a significant cumulative impact on the LCT as a whole)

Having reviewed the guidance within the NSDC Landscape Capacity Study in relation to this proposed development and the surrounding landscape I conclude that there is some capacity to accommodate this wind turbine development.

Depending on the size, cluster size and position further wind turbine development may start to have a cumulative impact on the surrounding landscape.

9. Mitigation Whilst it is not possible to mitigate against the majority of visual impacts for a wind turbine development there is scope to strengthen the landscape character area of the Wigsley Village Farmlands with Plantations LPZ. I note that the LVA does not provide any mitigation proposals for any adverse impacts on landscape character. The overall action for the Wigsley Village Farmlands with Plantations is to ‘Create’ and specific landscape actions are:

• Create new hedgerows and restore existing, seek opportunities to recreate field pattern where feasible, contain new development within historic boundaries.

• Seek opportunities to restore arable land to pastoral and/or introduce field margins to link habitats and increase biodiversity.

• Enhance tree cover and landscape planting generally, in particular along A1133, to create increased visual unity and habitat across the Policy Zone. Conserve the ecological diversity and biodiversity of the designated SINCs

• Maintain water courses and manage land either side of them to provide flood relief and promote biodiversity. Carry out maintenance operations in a way that works alongside the biodiversity objectives for the area where possible

Core Policy 13 of Newark and Sherwood District Councils Core Strategy indicates that development proposals should positively address the implications of the Landscape Policy Zones in which the proposals lie and demonstrate that such development would contribute towards meeting the Landscape conservation and enhancement aims for the area.

I consider that there is some scope to provide some mitigation, with planting works on the surrounding farmland within the applicant’s ownership. This could include to create new hedgerows and restore existing, and to seek opportunities to recreate field pattern which would help to deliver some key actions for the Policy Zone. Plant species should be suitable for the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands Character Area. 9. Summary

• The landscape and visual assessment of the proposed development has been broadly carried out to the appropriate methodology. The level of detail given indicates that edition 2 of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was followed. Whilst study areas have been defined analysis on the different types of cumulative impact assessment was lacking.

• The direct physical impacts on the landscape during the construction phase have not been quantified within the LVIA. There is no information as to if vegetation removal will be carried out to allow the transport of the turbine components to the site. No hedgerows or trees have

87

10

been identified for removal within the assessment. Therefore, overall I would assess the direct physical impact on the existing landscape as negligible.

• Effects on the landscape character of the immediate site surroundings at the operational stage are assessed as slight - moderate adverse. I agree with this view.

• Effects on the landscape character of the wider site surroundings at the operational stage are also assessed as none. I am not in total agreement with this view as the site is in close proximity to Policy Zones 5B Harby Village Farmlands and The Till Vale in West where there may be some slight adverse effects.

• The overall effects on the visual amenity have been summarised as negligible to slight for surrounding visual receptors. I consider that there is an overall slight effect. Viewpoint 1 and viewpoint 6 from the National Cycle Route northwest of Harby, have been identified with a moderate/slight adverse significance of effect. I agree with this view.

• Cumulative Impacts have been assessed in the LVIA. Intervening outgrown hedgerows and hedgerow trees and the relatively flat landform help to reduce adverse impacts but the presence of other wind turbines within the surrounding character areas, (Wiglsey Village Farmlands with Plantations Landscape Policy Zone, and surrounding character areas within Lincolnshire) means that there will be some sequential cumulative effects. There has been no detailed sequential analysis of the views from the surrounding road network and public rights of way.

• This development is classed as a medium sized wind turbine (height range 51 - 80m) by Newark and Sherwood Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development although, at 77m, at the larger end of this range. This area is shown to have medium sensitivity to medium wind turbines height 51 - 80m (Refer to Figure 5.3 Newark and Sherwood Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Development.)

• The recommendation in the LUC report is that area D2 Village Farmlands with Plantations

whose overall aim has been assessed as ‘a landscape with occasional wind energy, in which turbines may locally influence landscape character, but collectively do not affect perception on the landscape”.

• This low lying, flat landscape with its broad floodplain and flat horizon is generally screened by hedges and woodland and therefore has some capacity to accommodate this wind turbine development.

10. Conclusion On balance taking all the above points into account I conclude that the proposed development should be considered for approval due to:

- no overall significant landscape and visual effects being brought about by this development.

- the capacity to accommodate some medium sized wind turbine development due to a combination of both low lying landform and the partial screening offered by existing woodland hedges and hedgerow trees.

- the current distribution of consented developments within the 10km of the proposed site Should planning permission be granted planting works for mitigation to address impacts on landscape character should be carried out on land within the applicant’s ownership. This would help to deliver some key actions for the Policy Zone – East Nottinghamshire Sandlands Wigsley Village Farmlands with Plantations.

Yours sincerely,

88

11

Alison Stuart Landscape Architect Landscape and Reclamation Team Nottinghamshire County Council

89

90

PLANNING COMMITTEE- 2 DECEMBER 2014 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 Application No:

14/01323/FUL and 14/01324/LBC

Proposal:

Extension to an existing listed Water Tower within the grounds of 'The Brewhouse' incorporating a change of use from holiday let to residential accommodation and creation of a new access point.

Location:

The Brewhouse, May Lodge Drive, Rufford, Newark, NG22 9DE

Applicant:

Mr Mike Turner

Registered:

28.07.2014 Target Date: 22.09.2014

The Site The site as existing comprises the residential curtilage of the two storey grade II listed property known as The Brewhouse. The built form within the site is principally along the eastern boundary and consists of the principal dwelling house, the associated Bothy and the grade II listed Water Tower to which the current applications relate. The site is well vegetated with some mature trees. There is an undulating gradient within the site. The site is within the main built up area of Rufford and forms part of the grade I listed Abbey complex. The complex includes a number of individually listed buildings including the orangery immediately to the east of the site and the stable block and coach house to the north. The site is directly adjacent to the registered park and garden for Rufford Abbey. Surrounding development is otherwise largely residential. At five stories, The Water Tower is a visually significant building within the wider grouping of designated heritage assets. It is built of brick with Ashlar dressings. The Water Tower is on the Nottinghamshire Buildings at Risk Register although it is acknowledged that works in line with recent planning permissions (as outlined below in the site history) have been implemented and thus the description on the Register is no longer accurate. Relevant Planning History 08/01648/FUL and 08/01649/LBC - Conversion of water tower to form ancillary one bedroomed holiday accommodation. Applications approved. The applicant has also engaged in pre-application discussions prior to the submission of the current applications. The Proposal The proposal seeks both full planning permission and listed building consent to extend the Water Tower and change the use of the building from holiday let to a separate residential unit. There would also be the creation of new vehicular access point.

91

Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Nine neighbours have been notified directly by letter with site notices posted on 07.08.2014 and adverts placed in the local press on 06.08.2014. The overall expiry date for comments was 28.08.2014. Relevant Planning Policies 14/01323/FUL The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Adopted March 2011 Spatial Policy 1 – Settlement Hierarchy Spatial Policy 3 – Rural Areas Spatial Policy 7 – Sustainable Transport Core Policy 9 – Sustainable Design Core Policy 14 – Historic Environment Allocations and Development Management DPD Adopted July 2013 Policy DM5 – Design Policy DM9 – Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment Other Material Planning Considerations

• National Planning Policy Framework 2012 • Planning Practice Guidance 2014 • English Heritage ‘Historic Environment Practice Guide’

14/01324/LBC The Development Plan The Courts have accepted that Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 does not apply to decisions on applications for Listed Building 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, such as Sections 66 and 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the NPPF and its Guidance. Other Material Planning Considerations The National Planning Policy Framework and its Guidance. These documents state the Government’s objectives for the historic environment and the rationale for its conservation. They recognise the unique place the historic environment holds in England’s cultural heritage and the multiple ways it supports and contributes to the economy, society, and daily life. Tests are identified to ensure that any damage or loss against the historic environment is permitted only where it is properly justified.

92

Consultations Rufford Parish Council – Object to the proposal. The proposed extension is a separate building and is therefore a new residential property. Cannot build two houses on one plot. The new residential building would not be in keeping with the adjoining listed building. NSDC Conservation – Detailed comments discussed below in the appraisal. NCC Highways – May Lodge Drive is an un-adopted private drive accessed from the A614. The proposed alterations will not have any impact on the public highway, therefore, there are no highway objections to this application. NSDC Access Officer – Observations relating to Building Regulations. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust – Initial comments requesting an up to date protected species survey but following confirmation that bat mitigation has been implemented in line with previous planning approvals it has been confirmed that no further internal surveys are necessary. A follow up response was then received advising that a protected species survey of the trees is undertaken. This has been carried out during the life of the application and additional comments received have been received as follows: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above application. We welcome that an additional protected species survey has been undertaken. We are satisfied with the survey and strongly support the report’s recommendations. We would advise that the recommendations in paragraph 5.2.2 of the September 2014 report are applied as conditions. These include: - To soft fell tree T6 and to inspect all potential features in the process. - No light to be directed onto the tower. Any light spillages associated with the development, or

during construction, should be placed as far as possible from the garden boundary. Light spillage onto hedgerows to be avoided by placing shields over the lights and to use low intensity lights. Light columns to be as low as possible, and a sensor to be used, to allow dark periods on site.

- As instructed in Appendix 2 of the report, if during works bats are discovered, then work must stop immediately and a qualified ecologist (licensed bat worker) contacted.

- Removal of vegetation should take place outside of the bird breeding season between March and September, or a competent ecologist should undertake a careful, detailed check for nesting birds and for active birds’ nests immediately before the work is conducted. Written confirmation should be submitted to the local planning authority that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site. As you will be aware all birds, their nests and eggs (except pest species) are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended).

- Any trenches or other holes during construction should be covered at night, or a sloping end/ramp placed to allow mammals to climb out. Pipes with a diameter greater than 200m should also be covered at night to prevent mammals entering.

93

Further to this, we would advise the following enhancement measures to increase the ecology onsite post development: - Bat and bird boxes could be installed on any retained mature trees. The boxes should be

situated facing in different aspects, at least 4m+ from the ground in order to prevent predation and/or vandalism. Further details can be found at: www.schwegler-natur.de and www.nhbs.com

- The planting of native shrub and tree species in conjunction with the landscape character area would also benefit local wildlife species such as hedgehogs and birds. All new planting should consist of plant stock of guaranteed native genetic origin and ideally of local provenance.

- If possible, to plant a wildflower seed mix on the proposed “green roof bank”. A suitable seed mix to enhance habitats for invertebrates onsite would be EM3 Emorsgate. Further information can be found at http://wildseed.co.uk/mixtures/view/4.

Neighbours/Interested Parties Three letters of objection have been received, details of which can be summarised as follows: • No objection in principle but there are ongoing issues with respect to foul drainage • Loss of privacy for neighbouring properties with the grass roof offering an elevated vantage

point • A further residential property would be out of character with the rest of May Lodge Drive • The Brew House garden is small in relation to the size of the dwelling and making it even

smaller would be out of character with the neighbourhood • Squeezing another property into a smallish garden with mature trees also has heritage impact • There is no clear statement regarding the use of floors above level 2, use of the upper floors

could lead to a loss of privacy • The condition of the access roads around the property is already very poor • The description of the building as being at risk is outdated • The application documents have missing information including a tree survey Comments of the Business Manager, Development Principal of Development The application site is located within the settlement of Rufford which is defined as an ‘other village’ in the settlement hierarchy contained within Spatial Policy 1 of the Core Strategy. Development within these areas needs to be considered against Spatial Policy 3 which states that local housing needs will be addressed by focusing housing in sustainable, accessible villages. It goes on to say that beyond Principal Villages, proposals for new development will be considered against five criteria; location, scale, need, impact and character. With specific reference to the listed status of the Water Tower the intentions of Core Policy 14 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM9 of the ADMDPD are also of relevance. These policies seek the continued preservation and enhancement of designated heritage assets. Assessment against Spatial Policy 3 The site is considered to be within the main built up area of Rufford with good access links to the larger service centre settlement of Ollerton and smaller principal villages such as Edwinstowe. As the proposal relates to the conversion and extension of an existing building which has been

94

accepted as habitable accommodation (albeit as a holiday let facility) the impact of an additional dwelling in terms of impact on local infrastructure and the highways network has largely been established. The guidance note referred to above confirms that the scale criterion relates to both the amount of development and its physical characteristics, the latter of which is discussed further in the Character section of the appraisal. One additional dwelling is considered small scale in numerical terms and it is not anticipated that this would have a detrimental impact on local infrastructure. In terms of need, policy SP3 states that proposals for new housing will be considered “where it helps to meet identified proven local need”. During the life of the application the agent has submitted further details qualifying a need for the dwelling based on the argument that the approved holiday let use is no longer viable and would therefore give potential for the listed building to revert to a state of disrepair. I consider the assessment of this criterion differs to that which would be employed on the basis of a new build. I attach significant weight to the retention of the existing building as a designated heritage asset and consider that the importance of establishing a long term use of the currently vacant building satisfies the need for an additional dwelling. Impact on Character including Designated Heritage Assets The comments of internal conservation colleagues are particularly significant in the context of the above assessment: The proposal seeks to change the use of the water tower from holiday let to residential, incorporating a new access and an extension. The water tower and boundary wall is Grade II listed. The adjacent Brewhouse is also listed (including the boundary wall and bothy), and there are a number of other designated heritage assets within the vicinity (notably the Abbey complex and the Registered Park and Garden). As such, sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 apply and the LPA must have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their setting and any architectural features that they possess. In addition, paragraphs 132 and 137 of the NPPF applies, as does Policy DM9 of the Council’s Allocations & Development Management DPD. Additional guidance is available in the PPG and the English Heritage document, Historic Environment Practice Guide (notably paragraph 178). The water tower is a significant structure within the Abbey complex. It was designed by John Birch in the late 19th century and forms part of a significant Victorian phase at the Abbey. The structure is 5 stages high, and therefore a noticeable landmark within the Abbey complex, and indeed the wider Parkland. The structure is identified on the 2004 County Buildings at Risk Register. The principle of residential conversion has to some extent already been considered in the previous approved scheme (ref 08/01648/FUL) for a holiday let which has been implemented. Conservation has no objection to the change of use in this context, and it is acknowledged that the proposed interventions within the water tower are modest and consistent with advice previously given by the Council. Given the time that the structure has been on the BaR Register, a viable new use that will arrest deterioration is material in this case. The proposed extension will project from the modern extension to the water tower. The design approach seeks to assimilate the mass of the extension into the landscaped grounds beyond the curved wall section, incorporating matching masonry wall sections with a green roof. On balance, the scheme will preserve the special interest and setting of the water tower. In addition, no harm is perceived to the setting of other designated heritage assets. The proposed

95

extension is very subservient and will sit comfortably within the grounds of the water tower and Brewhouse. The form and appearance of the extension has been very carefully designed so as to preserve the primacy of the water tower, and whilst it is acknowledged that the solid side walls reflect the architectural detailing of the host building, the shaped green roof allows the extension to have a more natural appearance within the attractive landscaped grounds to the south. The wall extension will sit comfortably within the existing arrangement and result in no unduly harmful impacts on the setting of the listed building. The scheme is therefore considered to be compliant with sections 16 and 66 of the Act, as well as DM9 of the LDF DPD and paras 132 and 137 of the NPPF. I would concur entirely with the above assessment and consider that, subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions, there will be no harm to the character of the surrounding area or indeed the designated heritage assets both within and adjacent to the site. Impact on Amenity An assessment of amenity relates both to the provision of amenity for the proposed occupiers of the new dwelling as well as the impact on neighbouring residential properties. Being related to the conversion of a building within an existing residential curtilage, the proposed dwelling will inevitably share a close relationship with the host dwelling; The Brewhouse. Separation of residential curtilages has been considered and demonstrated by the site plan submitted to support the application. It is intended that a new wall will be constructed to match the existing wall within the curtilage. This will provide a legible separation between the two residential curtilages. I concur with the comments received during consultation that the garden size of The Brewhouse is relatively modest in comparison to some of the other residential plots along May Lodge Drive. The separation of the Water Tower curtilage would further reduce the private amenity space available to the host dwelling. Nevertheless in approving the holiday let it has already been accepted that The Brewhouse will to some degree share its private amenity space. The current application does concisely divide this space. In terms of the quantity of amenity space I consider that this in on the cusp of acceptability. I am mindful that the occupiers of The Brewhouse are the applicants for the current application. If they were to sell the property in the future then any future occupiers would be aware of the site constraints prior to purchase. Of greater concern is the quality of this remaining amenity space in terms of its ability to provide privacy in the context of The Water Tower extension and conversion. The plans submitted demonstrate a raised grass bank roof to the extension which connect to the roof of the extension surrounded by a 1.1m high wall. It is therefore presented that the roof of the extension will act as part of the amenity space to serve The Water Tower. Clearly the ability to use this area of the space, at such an elevated height would present the opportunity to overlook the amenity area of The Brewhouse. Whilst this has been raised as a concern from other neighbouring properties during consultation, I consider that the height of the original Water Tower and the mature vegetation within the site would restrict a detrimental impact solely to the occupiers of The Brewhouse. This matter was raised with the agent during the life of the application and has been the subject of an on site meeting. Following this meeting I concede that the occupiers of The Brewhouse will have limited privacy to the west of the property anyway because of the gradient within the site whereby there is already a raised bank which would allow overlooking to this space. I therefore do not consider it reasonable to try and negotiate additional screening along the raised

96

bank. In usual circumstances this amount of overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy may amount to a reason to refuse planning permission. However the assessment of this application requires a careful consideration and a balance of the accepted constraints of the site. Clearly the conversion and extension of The Water Tower offers the opportunity to bring the building back into a viable use and prevent its deterioration back to the state described by the Buildings at Risk Register. Whilst the scheme has not met objection from the current occupiers of The Brewhouse, I am mindful that they are the applicants for the conversion. There would have to be an element of acceptance from any potential purchaser of The Brewhouse that due to the site constraints and the previous connection with The Water Tower the degree of privacy afforded would never reach that expected for a scheme for a completely new dwelling. In addition it was pointed out during the site meeting that the occupiers of The Brewhouse also have an enclosed courtyard to the south east of the property which would weigh in favour of supporting the scheme since there would still remain an element of private amenity space available elsewhere within the site. As the design and access statement confirms, the previous permission relating to the conversion of The Water Tower for holiday let imposed conditions requiring that the first and second floor windows of the south and east elevations of the tower were fitted with obscure glass to retain neighbouring privacy. This has already been implemented and I consider it would be reasonable to attach a condition requiring retention of this obscure glass. Again, the windows present the opportunity to affect the privacy of the amenity space intended for The Brewhouse. At first floor The Water Tower would accommodate a bedroom and at second floor a study. Having viewed the outlook of the windows from internally within The Water Tower I feel it would be difficult to resist the application purely on the basis of an overlooking impact. Firstly as the above discussion confirms, it has already been accepted that the relationship between The Brewhouse and The Water Tower would amount to overlooking from external areas. Principally however the size of these windows and the recessed nature of the window internally give a depth that would reduce the opportunity to view the amenity space associated with The Brewhouse and in the same regard decrease the feeling of being overlooked when using this space. As detailed in the above discussion I do acknowledge that the impact on amenity is a finely balanced matter, however it is my view that the matters discussed weigh in favour of the scheme and would not justify a reason for refusal of their own right. Impact on Highways May Lodge Drive is a private road accessed via the A614. The proposal demonstrates that separate parking areas can be provided for The Brewhouse and The Water Tower both allowing for off-road parking. I appreciate the comments received during consultation regarding the condition of the road but given that this is not a public highway I consider that the maintenance of this is a private matter which can be given little weight in the determination of this application. The intensification of the use of the shared driveway has been accepted through the approval to holiday let and I do not consider that a private residential dwelling would have a materially worse impact on the highways network. Impact on Ecology Although the application was accompanied by a bat survey, it is acknowledged that this was dated August 2008 and was prepared in relation to the previously approved planning application. It was established in 2008 that bats were using the upper two stories of the Water Tower for roosting. As such a condition was attached to the 2008 permission requiring appropriate mitigation measures. These measures have been implemented and the agent has been in contact with Nottinghamshire

97

Wildlife Trust during the life of the application to confirm that the details of the September 2014 Protected Species Survey and the subsequent Tree Survey are acceptable. Subject to conditions relating to the recommendations within these documents I have identified no detrimental impact on protected species arising from the proposal. Impact on Trees Although the design and access statement states that the proposal necessitates the removal of three trees, further details have been submitted during the life of the application conceding that following the completion of a tree survey it is now proposed to remove five specimens. The quality of these specimens has been assessed by a qualified aboroculturist. Of the five specimens identified for removal one is classed as ‘Category U’ unsuitable for retention, three are ‘Category C’ trees of low quality and one is ‘Category B’ trees of moderate quality. The ‘Category B’ tree is a mature Yew with an estimated remaining contribution of over 20 years. Clearly the loss of this specimen is undesirable but on balance I find it acceptable to the progress of the scheme. This is particularly since the agent has confirmed an intention to replace the tree with a new Yew tree elsewhere on the site and in acknowledgement that its removal will allow the adjacent Yew tree (also of moderate quality) to grow. The tree survey also identified that there are two Cedar trees within the site which represent mature examples of high quality specimens. The development is outside of their root protection zone and subject to a condition relating to their protection during construction I am confident that the development will not detrimentally affect these specimens. Other Matters The original 2008 permission relating to the conversion of the Water Tower was subject to a legal agreement to agree that the tower would not be used as a separate residential premise. Given that the current proposal intends to establish this it has been necessary to enter into a new legal agreement to revoke this previous agreement. This has been negotiated throughout determination of the application. Comments received during consultation have made reference to drainage issues in relation to the site. These comments have been brought to the attention of the agent and it has subsequently been confirmed that the applicant is intending the use of a bio-disc system to be combined with a soakaway resulting in no additional foul or surface water drainage to the existing system. As with the previous application details of this system can be agreed by the discharge of condition. Conclusion In line with the Parish Council objection I appreciate that the scheme presents an unusual site arrangement introducing a new residential curtilage into an existing curtilage. This has implications in terms of the level of private amenity space that can be achieved for the occupiers of the existing dwelling; The Brewhouse. Whilst being a finely balanced assessment I am minded to attach significant weight to the benefit of the scheme in terms of securing a viable use for the designated heritage asset which has previously been identified as a Building at Risk.

98

RECOMMENDATION 14/01323/FUL Approve, subject to the following conditions Conditions 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans reference: Extension to Water Tower Site Plan – 06 Rev. B Extension to Water Tower – Proposed Plans – 05 Rev. B unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: So as to define this permission. 03 The first and second floor window openings on the south and east elevations shall be retained as obscured glass unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard against overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. 04 The development shall not be commenced until representative samples of all facing materials, including the facing bricks and stone to be used in the development of the water tower and specification for the grass roof have been deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development has a satisfactory appearance by virtue of the materials used, and enhances or is suitable for use on this listed building. 05 Development shall not be commenced in respect of the details identified below until the following such details at a scale of not smaller than 1:20 (or as may be otherwise agreed) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All types of external window and doors and their immediate surrounds (including, if necessary for clarification, notes on glazing)

99

Rainwater goods Vents and Flues Stone window surrounds and parapet Internal floors Internal Insulation Repairs to the brickwork Reason: To ensure that the details (including where appropriate the materials used) are satisfactory. 06 All pointing of existing or proposed brickwork shall be flush jointed using a lime based mortar mix, joint width and finish that shall be first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) following an inspection on site by the LPA’s representative, of a sample panel of no less than 1 metre square prepared as the first pointing/re-pointing work to take place associated with the works/alterations hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the detail finish to the development is satisfactory. 07 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of foul drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To reduce the risk of groundwater pollution. 08 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the Recommendations within Section 5 of the Protected Species Survey carried out by Andrew P. Chick MPhil dated September 2014 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the protection of protected species and in the interests of maintain and enhancing biodiversity. 09 No development shall be commenced until the trees marked 10 and 12 (one mature Deodar and one mature Atlas Cedar) shown on Appendix A of the submitted Tree Survey carried out by AT2 and dated 25th August 2014 have been protected by the following measures: a) a chestnut pale or similar fence not less than 1.2 metres high shall be erected at either the

outer extremity of the tree canopies or at a distance from any tree or hedge in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority;

b) no development (including the erection of site huts) shall take place within the crown spread of any tree;

c) no materials (including fuel and spoil) shall be stored within the crown spread of any tree; d) no services shall be routed under the crown spread of any tree e) no burning of materials shall take place within 10 metres of the crownspread of any tree. The protection measures shall be retained during the development of the site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

100

Reason: To ensure that existing trees and hedges to be retained are protected, in the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation. Informative 01 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable on the development hereby approved as the development type is rated zero in this location. 02 This application has been the subject of discussions during the application process to ensure that the proposal is acceptable. The District Planning Authority has accordingly worked positively and pro-actively, seeking solutions to problems arising in coming to its decision. This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended). 14/01324/LBC Approve, subject to the following condition(s) Conditions 01 The works hereby permitted shall begin within a period of three years from the date of this consent. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans reference: Extension to Water Tower Site Plan – 06 Rev. B Extension to Water Tower – Proposed Plans – 05 Rev. B 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 consent. 03 The first and second floor window openings on the south and east elevations shall be retained as obscured glass unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard against overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

101

04 The development shall not be commenced until representative samples of all facing materials, including the facing bricks and stone to be used in the development of the water tower and specification for the grass roof have been deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development has a satisfactory appearance by virtue of the materials used, and enhances or is suitable for use on this listed building.

05 Development shall not be commenced in respect of the details identified below until the following such details at a scale of not smaller than 1:20 (or as may be otherwise agreed) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

All types of external window and doors and their immediate surrounds (including, if necessary for clarification, notes on glazing) Rainwater goods Vents and Flues Stone window surrounds and parapet Internal floors Internal Insulation Repairs to the brickwork

Reason: To ensure that the details (including where appropriate the materials used) are satisfactory.

06 All pointing of existing or proposed brickwork shall be flush jointed using a lime based mortar mix, joint width and finish that shall be first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) following an inspection on site by the LPA’s representative, of a sample panel of no less than 1 metre square prepared as the first pointing/re-pointing work to take place associated with the works/alterations hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that the detail finish to the development is satisfactory.

Informative

01 This application has been the subject of discussions during the application process to ensure that the proposal is acceptable. The District Planning Authority has accordingly worked positively and pro-actively, seeking solutions to problems arising in coming to its decision. This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended).

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application case file. For further information, please contact Laura Gardner on 01636 655907.

All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk.

K Cole Deputy Chief Executive

102

103

104

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 2 DECEMBER 2014 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 Application No:

14/01587/FUL

Proposal: Householder Application for Proposed Internal Alterations and Extension between existing outbuilding and main house. (Amendment to previously approved Planning application Ref No: 13/00901/FUL)

Location: Hall Cottage, Main Street, South Scarle, Newark, NG23 7JH

Applicant: Mr & Mrs S & S McLaren & Adlam

Registered: 05.09.2014 Target Date: 31.10.2014

UPDATE Following Planning Committee on the 4th November 2014 Members were concerned with the extent of some of the works taken place on site due to the retrospective nature of the development. Following negotiations with the applicant and their builder I now seek to alleviate those concerns. BT line – The works to remove the BT line from the extension roof have been resolved and the line has now been removed and the roof completed. Lean-to roof – It has been agreed that the newer tiles on this lean to will be replaced by weathered tiles from the rear of the extension to help the extension ‘blend-in’. The applicant states this will be completed week commencing 24th November 2014. An update will be provided at Committee. Gutter brackets – The brackets installed were installed to match those on the existing dwelling. They will be changed by the end of the month to brackets which are less protruding on to the public footpath. An update will be provided at Committee. Velux roof lights – These rooflights are located on the former barn outbuilding and whilst they do not require formal planning permission the applicant has stated that the black lining will be covered up and the tiles re-done so they are straight. An update will be provided at Committee. Join between the extension and barn – Having been inspected by the applicant and the builder the works to the join between the single storey barn and the extension are not built on the same foundations (in fact due to the age of the house, there is no concrete footing). All buildings will naturally move over time and in potentially different ways. When the link extension was built, under building regulations it has to have these footings and if you tried to tooth the 3 buildings together (house, extension and barn), it would not allow the buildings the flexibility to move. The result is that the bricks would crack. The work has been inspected by Turton Building Control who has not raised an issue with the structural capability of the work. The builder has had to use stainless steel wall starters to tie the two walls together and again these were signed off by Turtons. However due to the age of the barn and house the bricks would never be an accurate match as modern bricks are constructed of different sizes and therefore toothing them in to the barn would not be acceptable and movement means they would fall out of alignment.

105

The gap to which Members alluded to, between the barn and the lean-to will be re-pointed to ensure a cleaner finish. In addition to the above information the applicant has arranged for the whole roof to be re-laid which includes the lead flashing and the ridge tiles. The above work is considered acceptable to the local planning authority and whilst the application is retrospective the applicant has gone to appropriate and acceptable lengths to ensure the development now meets the standard the Council would expect within the Conservation Area. I consider the proposal and the proposed additional works are acceptable and ensure the appearance of the development would not cause any detrimental impact upon the character or appearance of the surrounding area. Having regard to the above update there is no change to the original recommendation detailed below. This application is before Members for a decision as the application has been called to Planning Committee by Councillor Shaw, the Ward Member, should the officer recommendation be for approval. The Site The application site is located within the built up area of South Scarle which is defined as a rural area within the Adopted Core Strategy. South Scarle does not have a defined village envelope and does not feature within the settlement hierarchy as defined by Spatial Policy 1 and 2, it is therefore classed as an ‘other’ village for consideration of proposals under Spatial Policy 3. The application site is located within the defined conservation area. The building is a two storey detached dwelling with a single storey outbuilding located on the back edge of the public footpath. Directly in front of the dwelling and running adjacent to the footpath, is a low brick wall with iron railings above up to a height of 1m. There are existing residential dwellings surrounding the property on all sides. Relevant Planning History

13/01599/NMA - Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission 13/00901/FUL for a proposed lean to single storey extension to front of property – Refused 20.11.2013 – It was deemed that the degree of alterations were material and a separate planning application was required.

13/00901/FUL - Householder application for proposed internal alterations and two storey extension to link outbuilding and main house – Approved 16.09.2013

10/01322/FUL - Householder application to construct a new linkway extension between the existing dwelling and outbuilding – Approved 11.11.2010 07/00870/FUL - Internal alterations to outbuildings & single storey extension to dwelling – Approved 20.07.2007

900292 - Two storey extension – Approved 23.04.1990

821005 - Extension to existing cottage – Approved 27.01.1983

106

The Proposal Full part retrospective planning permission is sought to extend the property with a two storey side extension and a single storey front lean-to. The extension would link to the existing brick outbuilding and continue the existing roofline of the outbuilding to the lean-to. The application is part retrospective as the lean to element of the extension was not on the original approval (13/00901/FUL) and so this has been added to the extension without prior planning approval. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Occupiers of 6 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter, a site notice has been displayed near the site and a notice has been published in the press. Relevant Planning Policies

The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) (CS) Policies relevant to this application:

• Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design • Core Policy 14 – Historic Environment

Allocations and Development Management DPD (adopted July 2013) (ADMDPD) Policies relevant to this application:

• DM5 – Design • DM6 – Householder Development • DM9 – Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment

Please Note: All policies listed above can be found in full on the Council’s website. Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 2014 Consultations

South Scarle Parish Council : The Council opposes the above application because:-

1. Additional velux windows fitted to single storey extension, not previously part of the application;

2. Poor brickwork and uneven bonds to existing structure; 3. Inappropriate windows to front of extension; 4. Unease with retrospective applications in principle.

107

NSDC Conservation Officer – The host building contributes positively to the character and appearance of the South Scarle CA (the CA was designated in 1994), and has group value with The Hall (Grade II) and Hall Farm. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that LPAs shall pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Paragraphs 132, 134 and 137 of the NPPF also apply. The NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, noting that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or development within its setting. Policy DM9 of the Council’s LDF Core Strategy & Development Management Policies DPD, furthermore, gives a presumption against development that would be detrimental to heritage assets. Further advice on considering development within the historic environment is contained within the PPG, PPS5: Historic Environment Practice Guide and in the draft Historic Environment Advice Notes (particularly Notes 2 & 3). The PPS5: Historic Environment Practice Guide reminds us: “The main issues to consider in proposals for additions to heritage assets, including new development in conservation areas, are proportion, height, massing, bulk, use of materials, use, relationship with adjacent assets, alignment and treatment of setting. Replicating a particular style may be less important, though there are circumstances when it may be appropriate. It would not normally be acceptable for new work to dominate the original asset or its setting in either scale, material or as a result of its siting. Assessment of an asset’s significance and its relationship to its setting will usually suggest the forms of extension that might be appropriate (para. 178).” Having reviewed the submitted plans and details, I can confirm that Conservation has no objection to the proposal. The extension will appear as a subservient element, and it will possess appropriate architectural elements visible on other agricultural vernacular buildings within the CA. The enclosure to the street furthermore is sustained, and in views along the street, the CA will be unharmed by the proposal. Neighbours/Interested Parties - Six neighbour letters have been received objecting to the proposal on the basis of:

• Windows on the original plan were much more visually acceptable; • Velux rooflights appear unfinished showing a large amount of black rubber seal at the

bottom and large gaps at the sides; • Lower section of the roof construction is shoddy and unsightly; • Quality of the brickwork is very poor; • Flaunting of planning rules; • Ground floor window is out of keeping with the rest of the property; • First floor window has not been installed and leaves a blank area of brickwork; • Inappropriate for a conservation area.

Comments of the Director The main planning considerations in the assessment of this application are; 1) Principle of development and 2) impact upon the conservation area.

108

How the Application has Emerged Firstly I consider it pertinent to explain how the situation with the application has come about and how the extent of the works will be assessed. The original application (13/00901/FUL) was approved by this authority in September 2013 and this was for a two storey side extension (without the lean-to) with the principal elevation to align with the principal elevation of the original dwelling. An application for a non-material amendment was submitted by the agent post decision, which included amending the design to include the lean-to. This was deemed to be a material change to the decision and therefore the Council was unable to agree to this alteration through this process and a formal planning application was requested. This process does not assess the acceptability of the proposal, unlike a planning application it purely assesses whether the alterations proposed are a ‘material’ alteration or not. Therefore the Council has not, in refusing the non-material amendment application, stated it was inappropriate, just that it was material and warranted a new planning application to allow appropriate consideration of the amendments. The works carried out by the builder following the decision on the non-material amendment application being issued by the Authority were therefore not permitted by the Council, however the applicant’s representatives have acknowledged that this error occurred as a result of an oversight on their part and not on the part of their client or contractor. Work commenced on site without any pre-commencement conditions being discharged and subsequently it was noted that the development was not built in accordance with the approved plans and a new application was requested by the Authority to rectify the development. Principle of Development The site is located within the built up residential area of South Scarle and within the conservation area. Members will note the proposed plans originally submitted with this application, did not adhere to what has been constructed on site. The agent has now submitted revised plans to show the alterations proposed to correspond with what will be the final ‘as built’ extension to ensure it is more acceptable. These include the insertion of the window at first floor on the western elevation and the alteration of the ground floor window on this elevation from a side hung plain casement window to a window more akin to the original dwelling. Members should note that the rooflights have been shown on these plans and many residents have raised objection to these. The rooflights do not form part of this application as they are classed as permitted development under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) and so despite their location within a conservation area, would not require formal or express planning permission. As the application site is located within the conservation area and the main built up area of the settlement, the proposals should ensure they adhere to the character of the area, do not cause any unacceptable impact upon neighbour amenity and preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The extension is subservient to the main dwelling by it having a stepped down ridge height and eaves showing an obvious addition to the main dwelling, which is compliant with the Council’s Adopted SPD.

109

The lean-to to the front of the dwelling continues the roofslope angle and detailing of the existing brick outbuilding and ensures the continuity of this front aspect. The main two storey extension, with regard to its form and scale adheres to the former approval (13/00901/FUL) and I have no objections or concerns with this. Policy DM6 of the ADMDPD states development will be granted providing the extension respects the design, materials and detailing of the host dwelling and the character of the surrounding area. I consider that the proposal is acceptable and the addition of the lean-to to the scheme ensures the resulting development preserves the character and appearance of the conservation area. I therefore consider the principle and the design of the extension to be acceptable and accords with Core Policy 9 and 14 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM5, DM6 and DM9 of the ADMDPD. Significant concern has been expressed by the parish council and by residents over the quality of the construction of the extension. Members will note an email has been submitted by the Building Control Inspector from Turton Building Control who has inspected the works. This email has been appended to this report and states the works have been inspected. Having spoken further with the Building Control Inspector he has raised an issue with the lean-to roof to the front, namely the building has not used the manufacturer specified overlap on the tiles leading to too few tiles on the roof. They have basically stretched the tile construction to fit the roof. This is not acceptable and hasn’t been signed off as acceptable by Turtons and the Officer is working with the builder to rectify it. This will involve the roof being taken off and relaying correctly using the correct method appropriate for the tiles. The brickwork is not covered by building regulations, however the building is structurally sound and built (with regards to the foundations and structural capability) in accordance with the building regulations legislation. Members should be aware that it is not the appropriate method through the Planning Application to approve or refuse an application based on the quality of the workmanship in the brickwork or roofing, but how the resultant development with regard to the design and scale impacts upon the character and appearance of the conservation area. Turton Building Control have been appointed by the applicant to inspect the development to ensure it accords with their regulations through the method of construction, and ensure it is structurally sound and constructed appropriately. The letter from the Approved Inspector confirms that they have no objections or concerns relating to this. Impact upon conservation area The site is located within the defined conservation area and due to the resulting scale, form and design of the extension it would not cause any harm to the appearance or character of the conservation area. Residents have stated the work is inappropriate for the conservation area, although I consider the design is appropriate and accords with the design of the dwelling and the surrounding conservation area. The Council’s Conservation Officer has not raised any objections to the proposal and I consider the amendments to change the windows on the western elevation will ensure the resulting building preserves the appearance of the conservation area. I consider to ensure the applicants install the windows as agreed to the western elevation, a condition shall be imposed ensuring the windows are amended within 6 months of the date of the decision should Members resolve to approve the application.

110

The method or quality of the construction as stated previously is not a material consideration to oppose the application and it is the scale and design which forms part of the deliberation for discussions. As such I consider the proposal accords with Core Policy 14 of the Core Strategy and policy DM9 of the ADMDPD. Neighbour Amenity There are windows to the front of the proposed extension and to the rear, both at first floor, however I do not consider the location of these windows would significantly increase the degree of overlooking to the detriment of neighbouring occupiers. The rear elevation is as approved on the original application and the front elevation mimics (with regard to the window layout) the previous approval. I have carefully considered the proximity of the neighbours surrounding the site, however I do not consider the proposal would result in significant overlooking to the detriment in their amenity. I have considered the concerns raised by the Parish Council and residents but I see no significant detrimental harm caused by the proposal upon neighbour amenity, design or character to warrant a refusal on that basis. I consider the proposal accords with policy DM5 of the ADMDPD. Conclusion I have taken account of all the issues and I have carefully considered the comments of the neighbours and the Parish Council and I consider that the proposal does not raise any significant detrimental impacts to the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is considered to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and is appropriate in terms of the degree of alterations and design. Each material planning consideration has been discussed in detail above and I conclude that the proposal accords with National Planning Policy Framework, Planning Practice Guidance, Core Policy 9 and 14 of the Adopted NSDC Core Strategy and DM5, DM6 and DM9 of the ADMDPD and I therefore recommend that the application be approved planning permission subject to conditions. RECOMMENDATION That full planning permission is approved (subject to conditions). 01 The remaining development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans, reference 2215M.13.04Y (Proposed floor plans), 2215M.13.05Y (Proposed elevations and section), 2215M.13.06Y (Proposed elevations) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: So as to define this permission

111

02 The windows to the western elevation at ground and first floor level of the extension hereby approved, as shown on drawing no.2215.13.05Y, shall be installed within 6 months of the date of this decision and the method of construction shall first be agreed in accordance with condition 3. Reason: In order to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. 03 The proposed windows to the western elevation as described in condition 2 shall not be inserted 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. Details shall include the specification of glazing and glazing bars. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In order to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. Note to Applicant 01 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable on the development hereby approved as the gross internal area of new build is less 100 square metres. 02 This application has been the subject of discussions during the application process to ensure that the proposal is acceptable. The District Planning Authority has accordingly worked positively and pro-actively, seeking solutions to problems arising in coming to its decision. This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended). REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2011) CP9 – Sustainable Design CP14 – Historic Environment

112

The Allocations and Development Management DPD (ADMDPD) DM5 – Design DM6 – Householder Development DM9 – Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Lynsey Tomlin on 01636 655840 All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. Kirsty Cole Deputy Chief Executive

113

APPENDIX 1 Subject: Hall Cottage, Main Street, South Scarle - 13/1076 Date: 2014-10-17 09:50 From: Shane Stone Shane@turtonbc.co.uk To: "Ursula@ursulabradwellarchitects.co.uk" Ursula@ursulabradwellarchitects.co.uk Ursula, With regard to the above project, I confirm that a Building Regulations application has been received in respect of a two storey extension and internal alterations, and site inspections have been carried out. Regards, Shane Stone Building Control Surveyor Tel: 01949 838 277 Mobile: 07961 022802 Email: shane@turtonbc.co.uk Turton Building Control Ltd Harris House Moorbridge Road East Bingham Nottinghamshire NG13 8GG www.turtonbc.co.uk

114

115

116

PLANNING COMMITTEE- 2 December 2014 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 Application No:

14/01715/FUL

Proposal:

Householder Application for Proposed extension and Alterations to Existing 1 ½ Storey Dwelling

Location:

The Bungalow, Staythorpe Road, Averham, NG23 5RA

Applicant:

Mr D White

Registered: 29 September 2014 Target Date: 24 November 2014

The application has been called to Committee by Councillor Saddington to fully assess the impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The Site The application site lies to the west of Staythorpe Road and comprises a detached 1.5 storey dwelling which has benefitted from a single storey side extension to the dwelling, as well several outbuildings. Adjacent dwellings lie to the NE and south of the site which are screened by vegetation and fencing approximately 2m in height. To the front of the dwelling the boundary is treated with a low picket fence which separates the curtilage from the highway to the east. Relevant Planning History 06/00204/FUL- Change of use of existing domestic workshop to commercial workshop/light engineering use (Retrospective). Permitted 4th April 2006. The Proposal The proposal is for the erection of a 1.5 storey rear extension and a first floor side extension to the dwelling. Both elements of the scheme will be constructed of materials to match the host dwelling. The rear extension will measure 10.2m in length, 6.85m in width and will have a ridge height of 6.3m. The extension will include 4 Velux windows and 1 dormer window. The first floor side extension will be located above the existing single storey extension to the SW elevation of the dwelling. The extension will measure 6.9m in depth and 3m in width with a ridge height to match the main dwelling. Public Advertisement Procedure Occupiers of 5 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter.

117

Relevant Planning Policies The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design Newark and Sherwood Publication Allocations & Development Management DPD Policy DM5: Design Policy DM6: Householder Development Please Note: All policies listed above can be found in full on the Council’s website. Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 2014. Consultations Averham Parish Council- Object to the proposal for the following reasons, N&SDC Local Plan 1999, policy H21: Planning permission will be granted for residential development provided the amenities of nearby residents properties are not adversely affected. The amenities of nearby properties would be affected and adversely affect local residents quality of life. Paragraph 6.1 The housing needs of the wider areas within which rural areas lie have, and will continue to be, taken into account in the allocations within Principal Villages. The need necessary to satisfy this policy must be related to the individual settlement. As with all planning policy, Spatial Policy 3 is intended to serve the public interest rather than that of individuals and consequently the proven local need to which its refers must be that of the community rather than the applicant. It is accepted that the two may align where, for example, a lack of a particular type of housing in a community also reflects the needs of an applicant. The Policy is not intended to cater for individuals desire to live in particular locations or in particular types of accommodation. For example a family’s desire for elderly relatives to live nearby would not in itself constitute a local need. The Parish Council considers that the application is identifying the above paragraph as a case of individual NEED. It does not therefore meet the need of the community or serve the public interest but caters for individual desire. We note from the application that provision for a disabled person has been included in the planning application. We would however consider that other areas or properties would meet the needs of individual requirements without extensive building alterations. The proposed extension would adversely affect the neighbouring property with the new roof window looking directly into the garden of the neighbouring property will the result of loss of privacy. The proposed building materials do not reflect on the area or alternative properties. The existing materials i.e. the roof of concrete tiles have been painted and not of a cosmetic acceptable level with properties bordering onto the conservation area.

118

The hedge bordering the neighbouring property for this planning application states two metres high this is not correct. The Parish Council have received objection for this planning application from local residents. Neighbours/Interested Parties - 1 representation has been received raising the following concerns, • The proposed development of The Bungalow would result in such a loss of privacy and be

overbearing, which would be against local policy; • The proposed extension nearly doubles the size of the building and is too large and; • The plans show the following errors:

a) “Holly Cottage has been incorrectly identified as "Highclere" b) The hedge between The Bungalow and Glendene is a 1.6m high privet hedge not a 2m high hawthorn hedge.

Comments of Business Manager, Development Principle of Development The proposal relates to a householder development which is accepted in principle by Policy DM6 of the DPD subject to an assessment against a number of site specific criteria including the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenity. In this instance, the design of the proposal in relation to the dwelling and street scene, and the impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties will be of particular relevance. Further to this, Averham has no village envelope and therefore consideration is also necessary of any impact upon the rural area. The Parish Council have raised concerns regarding the need for housing within Averham. Given that this application relates to an extension of a dwelling rather than a housing development, the policies they have referred to in their objection are not relevant to this application. Further to this, the NSDC Local Plan 1999 has been superceded. Impact of the design on the character of the dwelling and surrounding area Staythorpe Road is characterised by a mixture of dwellings of various sizes and as such is not considered to have a uniformed appearance. In addition, many of the dwellings within the vicinity have benefitted from extensions, therefore the principle of extensions to the dwelling is considered to be acceptable. The proposed first floor extension to the SW elevation will be prominent within the street scene as the existing boundary treatments offer little screening. However, given the mix of designs along the street, I do not consider the extension will have an adverse impact upon the appearance of the street scene; the design will be in-keeping with the host dwelling and whilst the ridge height will not sit subservient to the main dwelling, in this instance I consider the proposed extension to be the most appropriate design for a first floor extension to a chalet bungalow. Additionally, I am of the view that the side extension is unlikely to be overbearing upon the host dwelling or the character of the area. To the rear, the proposed 1.5 storey extension is a considerable mass. However, the ridge height will sit lower than that of the host dwelling and will have a marginally narrower gable width than the existing dwelling, resulting in an extension which appears subservient. The addition of a dormer window to the SW side elevation of the extension will also complement the design of the proposed dormers to the principal elevation.

119

In terms of the scheme’s impact upon the rural area (as defined by SP3), the site is situated within the built-up area of the village thereby the dwelling is enclosed by other residential buildings. In addition to this, the proposed rear extension does not extend beyond the existing built up area of the site, the adjacent site or the building line of the row of properties along Staythorpe Road. I note that the proposal will almost double the size of the property, however I consider the extensions are appropriate within the plot and cause no unacceptable impacts. The impact upon Amenity Policy DM6 of the DPD states planning permission will be granted for the extension of dwellings provided it would not adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining premises, in terms of loss of privacy, light and overbearing impact. An objection to the proposal has been raised by a local resident and the Parish Council with regards to impact upon neighbour amenity, which is assessed below. The existing dwelling is set in from the boundaries of the site and the rear is relatively well-screened. The proposed rear extension will be situated approximately 14m from the boundary to the south and approximately 3m from the northern boundary. The dwelling beyond this boundary is a further 44m away. On this basis, I consider the separation distances to be sufficient so as to reduce the impact upon the privacy of the neighbouring properties; additionally, the proposed dormer window will face directly opposite the large outbuilding along the boundary of the neighbouring property to the south, therefore the window would not look directly on to the garden area of this neighbour. I am therefore of the view that the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact upon the privacy of neighbouring properties. The installation of windows at first floor level will be conditioned to ensure this remains the case. With regards to overshadowing and overbearing impacts as a result of the extensions, again the distance between the extensions and the neighbouring properties are sufficient and therefore I do not consider the proposal likely to harmful to neighbour amenity in this respect. Overall, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable adverse impact upon the occupiers neighbouring dwellings virtue of any loss of privacy, light or overbearing impact in accordance with Policy DM6 of the DPD. Conclusion I am satisfied that the proposed extensions are acceptable in terms of design, scale and mass in relation to the principal dwelling. With regard to neighbour amenity, I have concluded that the scheme is unlikely to result in significant harm upon the neighbours in terms privacy, light loss and visual amenity, complying with the criteria set out in policy DM6. Subject to conditions, I recommend that planning permission is granted. RECOMMENDATION Approve, subject to the following conditions: 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

120

02 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans references: DWKC-01 DWKC-05 DWKC-06 DWKC-07 Reason: So as to define the permission. 03 The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the material details submitted as part of the planning application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 04 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no windows including dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed on the SE elevation of the development hereby permitted. Reason: To safeguard against the overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. Informative 01 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council’s website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council’s view that CIL IS PAYABLE on the development hereby approved as is detailed below. Full details about the CIL Charge including, amount and process for payment will be set out in the Regulation 65 Liability Notice which will be sent to you as soon as possible after this decision notice has been issued. If the development hereby approved is for a self-build dwelling, residential extension or residential annex you may be able to apply for relief from CIL. Further details about CIL are available on the Council’s website: www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ or from the Planning Portal: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil

121

A B C Dev Types Proposed

floorspace (GIA in Sq.

M)

Less Existing (Demolition or Change of Use)(GIA in Sq. M)

Includes % splits

Net Area (GIA in Sq. M)

CIL Rate Indexation at date of

permission

CIL Charge

Residential (C3)

112.63 N/A 112.63 £75 235 £9023.20

Totals 112.63 N/A 112.63 £75 235 £9023.20 Notes: As a Reasonable Authority we calculated this CIL liability figure utilising the following formula which is set out in Regulation 40 of the CIL Regulations

CIL Rate (B) x Chargeable Floor Area (A) x C (BCIS Tender Price Index at Date of Permission) 220 (BCIS Tender Price Index at Date of Charging Schedule)

CIL payments are indexed in line with the "All-in Tender Price Index of Construction costs" produced by the Building Cost Information Service which is a measure of building costs inflation. The figure for (C) in the above calculation is based on the figure for 1st November of the preceding year. Therefore an application granted in 2013 would use that for 1st November 2012. Where the BCIS information says that the level of indexation is a forecast the District Council refer to the most upto date confirmed figure. As a Reasonable Authority the Council have calculated the amount of CIL payable based on the information about the level of new floorspace to be created contained within the planning application form that was submitted to the District Council Your attention is drawn to the attached CIL Liability Notice which confirms the amount of CIL payable. It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the person(s) who will pay the charge to serve an ‘Assumption of Liability Notice’ on the Council prior to the commencement of development. If this does not occur under Regulation 80, the Council may impose a £50 surcharge on each person liable to pay CIL. You may request a review of the chargeable amount set out within the Liability Notice however this must be done within 28 days from the date of which it is issued.

02 The application as submitted is acceptable. In granting permission without unnecessary delay the District Planning Authority is implicitly working positively and proactively with the applicant. This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended). REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010

122

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2011): Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design From the Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document: Policy DM5: Design Policy DM6: Householder Development National Planning Policy Framework Adopted March 2012 National Planning Practice Guidance February 2014 Supplementary Planning Document ‘Extensions to Dwellings’ Adopted 2005.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Nicolla Ellis on 01636 655 533. All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. Kirsty Cole Deputy Chief Executive

123

124

PLANNING COMMITTEE- 2 December 2014 AGENDA ITEM NO. 10 Application No:

14/01729/FUL

Proposal:

Householder application for the erection of a two storey side and rear extensions

Location:

32 Queen Street, Balderton Newark NG24 3NR

Applicant:

Mr & Mrs Streeter

Registered: 29.09.2014 Target Date: 24.11.2014

The application has been called to Committee due to Mrs Streeter being employed by Newark and Sherwood District Council. The Site The application site lies to the south of Balderton within a primarily residential street. The detached dwelling is set back approximately 5m from the roadside with a gravelled driveway to the front and a dwarf brick wall marking the boundary. The house is of L shaped construction with a prominent gable marking the front elevation of the property. The dwelling is constructed of red brick with a dark grey concrete pantiled roof. To the side (south) of the dwelling is a carport and beyond that a painted block garage building. On the rear of the property is a single storey extension which spans ¾ of the width of the property and was approved in 1981 with a flat roof. An application was subsequently approved in 1996 to replace this roof with a pitched roof. The garden extends approximately 17m to the west beyond the existing extension. The boundary treatment is denoted by approximately 2m high close boarded fencing to the north and 2m hedging to the south and west. Within the surrounding area, the property to the north forms one half of a pair of semi-detached properties and the property to the south is detached. On the opposite side of the road to the development site is a playing field and scout hut. Furthermore, Balderton Foot Path 6 runs along the southern boundary of the site. Relevant Planning History 96/50110/FUL- pitched roof over existing flat roofed rear extension. Approved 1996 03818196 Single storey rear extension. Approved 1981 The Proposal The proposal is for the erection of a two storey rear extension, the erection of a first floor extension above the existing single storey rear extension and the erection of a two storey side

125

extension which would incorporate a garage. As part of the proposal the existing car port and garage would be demolished. A first floor element would be built on top of the existing single storey extension and a new two storey extension built to the south of this to infill the remaining gap to the edge of the existing rear elevation. The two storey rear extension in its entirety would occupy the full width of the property and have a ridge height marginally lower than that of the existing dwelling. The two storey side extension would be set back from the front of the dwelling by approximately 2.8m, have a gabled roofline on the front elevation and a cat slide roof on the rear. In discussions with the agent the proposed rear extension roofline has been amended to incorporate a hipped design to in an attempt to reduce the potential bulk of the development. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure

Occupiers of 4 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter.

Relevant Planning Policies

The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Policies relevant to this application:

• Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design Newark and Sherwood Allocations & Development Management DPD (adopted July 2013) Policies relevant to this application:

• Policy DM5: Design

• Policy DM6: Householder Development Please Note: All policies listed above can be found in full on the Council’s website. Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 2014. Supplementary Planning Document ‘Extensions to Dwellings’ Adopted 2005. Consultations Balderton Parish Council- Object. Members believe the extension will result in a loss of sunlight to the neighbouring property.

126

NCC Highways- No objection Neighbours/Interested Parties – One letter of representation was received raising objections to the proposal. Concerns raised were as follows, First floor extension which is adjacent to the northern boundary will severely impact on the amount of natural light into the kitchen & hallway resulting in overshadowing and loss of light.

Comments of Business Manager, Development Principle of Development Policy DM6 accepts householder development subject to an assessment of numerous factors including that the proposal respects the character of the dwelling and surrounding area, as well as protects the amenity of neighbouring residents. Impact upon the Character of the Area The property is a red brick two storey detached dwelling located on a residential road. In terms of design, Policy DM6 and the NPPF seek to ensure that householder development respects the character of the local area and remains subservient in scale, with appropriate use of materials. The proposed two storey extension to the rear of the dwelling is considered to be a large extension, which in combination with the proposed two storey side extension would almost double the existing floor space of the dwelling. The side addition is set back (by approximately 2.7m) from the front elevation, reducing to an acceptable level any perceived impact upon the street scene. Equally the design, incorporating a pitch and gable, mirroring that already present is satisfactory. The rear extension would project no further beyond the original rear wall of the dwelling than the current rear extension and will have a lower hipped ridge line than that of the host dwelling. The rear addition would be visible from neighbouring properties situated to the north and south and possibly by members of the public using the public footpath to the south of the development site. However, given that this footpath is relatively narrow and bound by approximately 2m high hedging on either side it is considered that any views would be relatively restricted. The existing car port and painted block garage on the southern boundary of the property would be demolished to accommodate the proposed side extension. The garage is considered to be of little architectural merit and its loss and replacement with a structure more in keeping with the host dwelling is welcomed. The materials proposed will match that of the existing dwelling and it is recommended that a condition be added to this effect to any forthcoming permission. Overall whilst it is accepted that the proposed extensions are relatively large in scale and would result in a substantial increase in footprint of the dwelling, they are unlikely to unacceptably

127

impact upon the character of the surrounding area. As such the proposal is considered to accord with policy DM6 of the DPD. Impact upon Amenity Policy DM6 of the DPD states planning permission will be granted for the extension of dwellings provided it would not adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining premises, in terms of loss of privacy, light and overbearing impact. An objection has been raised by the Parish Council and a neighbouring dwelling, with regards to the impact upon neighbouring light levels and possible overshadowing. The proposed rear extension would project no further than the existing single storey extension which currently abuts the boundary to the north. It would however have a ridge and eaves height 3.3 metres higher than the existing single storey rear extension. The development site and properties to the north follow the same building line, with the edge of the proposed extension projecting as far west as the neighbouring single storey flat roofed extension on the property at no. 30. Concern have been raised that construction of a two storey element so close to the boundary would result in loss of light to a kitchen window at ground floor and landing window at first floor in the side elevation. No. 30 contains three windows in its side elevation facing towards the application site. These comprise a landing window which is not considered to be a main habitable room window, an obscure glazed bathroom window and a kitchen window which is the main habitable window serving this room. The room benefits from light from a glazed door which provides access to the flat roof conservatory to the rear. The kitchen window is orientated due south and there is a separation gap of approximately 5.5m to the 1.8 metre high boundary fence, which would be retained. The kitchen window currently also affords a view of the flat roofed garage which serves the property and the ridge of the existing neighbouring single storey rear extension which abuts the boundary. Discussion has been entered into with the agent to seek to minimise the impacts on no. 30. The applicant has agreed to amend the design of the extension from a gabled roof to a hipped roof which it is considered will reduce the bulk of the roofline and to a degree the potential for loss of light and overbearing to the neighbouring dwelling. Notwithstanding this change it is accepted that the proposed extension may result in the loss of some day light from the closest windows to the extension in the dwelling to the north. However, on balance (and it is a finely balanced case), it is not considered that the 3.3 metre increase in height above and beyond the height of the existing extension would be so materially worse than the existing as to justify refusal of the application. No first floor windows are proposed on the northern or southern elevations of the proposed extensions and as such no overlooking of neighbouring properties will occur. It is proposed that a

128

condition be added to any forthcoming permission to remove permitted development rights for the installation of glazing on either of these elevations. New windows are proposed on the rear (west) elevation, however given the presence of a number of existing windows at first floor height the additional openings are not considered to detrimentally impact on neighbouring amenity.

On the basis of the above, I am satisfied that the proposal complies with Policy DM6 and the NPPF in terms of impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties. Conclusion I am satisfied that the proposed extension is acceptable in terms of design, scale and mass in relation to the principal dwelling. With regard to neighbouring amenity, I have concluded on balance that the scheme incorporating the revised hipped roofline on the rear extension is unlikely to result in significant unacceptable harm upon the neighbours in terms privacy, light loss and visual amenity, as well as unlikely to have an overbearing impact, therefore complying with the criteria set out in policy DM6. Subject to conditions, I recommend that planning permission is granted. RECOMMENDATION Approve, subject to the following: 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plan references Proposed extensions for 32 Queen Street (received 26th October 2014), Proposed Block Plan, Site Location Plan (received 29th September 2014) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: So as to define this permission. 03 The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the material details submitted as part of the planning application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

129

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 04 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no windows including dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed on the northern or southern elevations of the development hereby permitted. Reason: To safeguard against the overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. Notes to Applicant 01 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council’s view that CIL is not payable on the development hereby approved as the gross internal area of new build is less 100 square metres. 02 The application as submitted is acceptable. In granting permission the District Planning Authority is implicitly working positively and proactively with the applicant. BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact James Mountain on 01636 655841. All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. Kirsty Cole Deputy Chief Executive

130

131

132

PLANNING COMMITTEE- 2 DECEMBER 2014 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11 Application No:

14/01862/FUL

Proposal:

New dwelling with proposed access (design and layout amendments to planning permission 13/01417/FUL)

Location:

Land to the rear of Millcote House, Southwell Road, Farnsfield, Newark

Applicant:

Mr L Evans

Registered: 15.10.2014 Target Date: 10.12.2014

The Site The land is located to the rear (north) of Millcote House which is located within the defined built up area of Farnsfield and adjacent to the conservation area as defined within the Council’s Adopted Allocations and Development Management DPD. The host dwelling is accessed by a vehicular access from Southwell Road and the land where the proposed dwelling is located is relatively flat although raised from the host dwelling by approximately 1m. The site has a hedge approximately 1.5m high to the eastern boundary, a 1.8m high hedge to the western boundaries and a timber fence approximately 1.8m high to the northern boundary with a substantial hedge within the grounds of Orchard Lodge increasing the northern boundary to approximately 2.5m high. There is a large mature tree to the north-western boundary and other smaller trees to the other boundaries. There are residential dwellings located beyond the western, northern and eastern boundaries and these range from two storey to the north (Orchard Lodge) and single storey to the east (Fern Lodge). The host dwelling is two storey and located to the south of the site. Relevant Planning History 13/01417/FUL - New Dwelling with Proposed Access (resubmission) – Approved (by Planning Committee) 17.12.2013 13/00658/FUL - Construction of a new dwelling with proposed access – Withdrawn 18.07.2013 09/00025/FUL - Erection of two storey house with internal garage – Approved 04.03.2009 FUL/990712 - Erection of a bungalow – Refused 15.11.1999

133

890621 - Erection of 3 no. dwellings – Refused 12.07.1989 The Proposal Full planning permission is sought for the revised design to the previously approved detached dwelling with the erection of a single storey double garage to the southern elevation and internal changes to the previously approved garage to form a play room. The proposal is now for the erection of a two storey (first floor within the roofspace) detached dwelling located to the north of Millcote House. The accommodation comprises of living room, study, W.C, open plan kitchen/dining room/snug, utility, play room and double garage on the ground floor. On the first floor there are three bedrooms, one bathroom and an en suite. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure

Occupiers of 5 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter, a site notice has been displayed and a notice has been placed in the press.

Relevant Planning Policies

The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Policies relevant to this application:

• Spatial Policy 1 - Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2 - Spatial Distribution of Growth • Spatial Policy 7 - Sustainable Transport • Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design • Core Policy 14 - Historic Environment

Allocations and Development Management DPD (adopted July 2013) Policies relevant to this application:

• DM1 – Development within settlements central to delivering the spatial strategy • DM5 – Design • DM9 – Protecting and enhancing the historic environment

Please Note: All policies listed above can be found in full on the Council’s website. Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 2014

134

Consultations

Farnsfield Parish Council: Object proposal: • Backland development; • Noise pollution from drive to adjacent properties.

NSDC Environmental Health – No objections NSDC Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) - The proposed development is in a Radon Affected Area. These are parts of the country where a percentage of properties are estimated to be at or above the Radon Action Level of 200 becquerals per cubic metre (Bq/m³). Given the above I advise that it would be prudent for the applicant to investigate if the proposed development will be affected by radon and incorporate any measures necessary into the construction to protect the health of the occupants. Further information is available on the council's website at: http://www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/radon NSDC Access and Equalities Officer – Observations Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways): This proposal is for a new dwelling with amendments to the previously approved layout under ref. 13/01417/FUL, including the access onto Southwell Road. There are no gates shown on the plans submitted. As such, there are no highway objections to this proposal subject to the following: 1. The access shall be constructed and surfaced in a bound material in accordance with the approved plan and no other part of the development shall be commenced until the access has been completed in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 2. Pedestrian visibility splays of 2m x 2m shall be provided on each side of the vehicle access. These measurements are taken from and along the highway boundary. The areas of land forward of these splays shall be maintained free of all obstruction over 0.6m above the carriageway level at all times. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety. Note to applicant The development makes it necessary to construct a vehicular crossing over a footway of the public highway. These works shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. You are, therefore, required to contact the County Council’s Highways Area Office tel: (0115) 993 2758 to arrange for these works to be carried out. Following the submission of access details NCC consider the visibility splay condition is not necessary due to the width of the proposed access. Neighbours/Interested Parties One letter has been received from a neighbour objecting to the development. This states the following:

• Extra noise from the driveway; • Concern over the position of the gates with regard to amenity; • Position of gates out of character with Southwell Road; • Location of neighbours existing hedge will require protection from traffic.

135

Comments of the Business Manager, Development The main planning considerations in the assessment of this application are; 1) the principle of development, 2) design and impact on the character of the area and 3) impact upon amenity. Principle of development The site is located within the main built up area of Farnsfield which is identified within the Council’s Core Strategy as a Principal Village where they 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. Principal Village functions such as Farnsfield are to act as a secondary focus for service provision in each area, in this case it would be for Southwell Area. I am therefore satisfied that the principle of residential development in Farnsfield is acceptable and the site is located within the main built up area of the settlement. With regard to the acceptability of the location, the proposal is for housing which complies with policy SP1 and SP2 of the Core Strategy and DM1 of the ADMDPD. In addition the proposal is a revision to a previously approved scheme which is still extant (13/01417/FUL). I therefore consider the principle of development to be acceptable in this location due to the adopted development plan policies and the site history. Design and Impact on the Character of the Surrounding Area and Streetscene Concern has been expressed that the site proposes backland development which is out of character with the surrounding area. It is accepted that the site is greenfield or garden land and therefore not previously developed and therefore not preferential in terms of development. However the location within a sustainable location such as Farnsfield does carry significant weight and as previously explained the principle of residential development in Farnsfield is acceptable. Nonetheless the proposal also has to address the Development Plan in terms of design and character. As Members will see from the site location plan, this area of Farnsfield does not have a defined urban grain and over some time there has been a sporadic infill growth of backland development with Burford (Southwell Road), Fern Lodge and Halycon (Brickyard Lane) being of particular local examples. Policy DM5 of the Allocations and Development Management DPD states “inappropriate backland and other uncharacteristic forms of development will be resisted.” Due to this locality not having a defined local distinctiveness in terms of the grain of development and that backland development is a particular character I consider the proposal for backland development accords with policy DM5. The design of the main dwelling has not significantly changed from the previous approval with the position of windows and scale being comparable. The main alteration between the two applications is the addition of an attached garage to the southern elevation and whilst this increases the footprint of the dwelling it does not significantly increase the scale so it is out of proportion or character to the plot or the surrounding area. The site is not located within the defined conservation area although the boundary runs along the western edge of the site with Cotton Mill Cottage forming the extremities of the conservation

136

area. The close proximity of the site to the boundary will still have a bearing on the setting of the conservation area and this is a material consideration with regard to views in to and out of it. The site is located to the rear (north) of Millcote within a highly concentrated residential area but not within a highly prominent location within the public realm. The surrounding area is not greatly characterised by uniformity of the built development and it is considered that due to the variation in the design of the built environment, the resulting design of the amended dwelling is acceptable and would add to the already varied character in the surrounding area. The existing host dwelling is two storey although the vicinity varies between single storey bungalows, dormer bungalows and two storey detached dwellings. I consider the two storey proposal, albeit with the first floor within the roofspace, is acceptable in terms of character and accords with the general scale of the surrounding area. The NPPF, Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy and DM5 of the ADMDPD all place significant weight on the quality of design created by new development and the character of the resulting area. While policy’s CP14 of the Core Strategy and DM9 of the ADMDPD ensure development preserves and enhances the character, appearance and setting of conservation areas. Having considered the concerns of the neighbour and the parish council, I consider the design is acceptable and would provide a neutral impact upon the setting of the conservation area and therefore not detracting from the character of the surrounding area. The proposal accords with the development plan taking in to account all the material planning considerations. Residential Amenity The design of the main dwelling is not proposed to change so the degree of overlooking would not increase or decrease through this planning application. As described above the principle of development on this site has already been established through the previous application and Members should be aware that the only change is the erection of the attached double garage. I will therefore not rehearse the issue of overlooking or the perception of overlooking from the new dwelling as this has not changed since the previous approval. One neighbour and the parish council have raised the issue of noise from the development mainly from the driveway to access the site. The previous application did not state details of materials for the access and indeed this was a condition imposed on the subsequent approval. The applicant for this application has shown an access to the entrance gates in a bound material, followed by approximately 45m length of gravel and then natural cobble sets around the dwelling and for the vehicular access. I consider the use of gravel on the driveway would not cause any unacceptable detrimental impacts upon neighbour amenity given the use of the site and the scale of the dwelling. It is not anticipated that the site would be intensively used to the detriment of neighbour amenity. The position of the access gates as shown on drawing no. 032-GATE Rev A, are considered acceptable and have not raised any objections from Nottinghamshire County Council highways. Their proximity to the nearest neighbour at Carisbrooke is not considered harmful upon their amenity and was not previously raised as an issue on the previously approved application. I do however accept the neighbour’s comments on the position of the gate but do not consider that their siting or any noise from them would cause significant harm to their amenity. Turning now to the impact of the development from the new garage, there is one new window proposed on the western elevation of the ground floor of the proposed garage. However it is not

137

considered that the addition of this window would cause significant detrimental impacts upon neighbour amenity due to the location and proximity to neighbouring occupiers. The additional double garage by reason of its scale, design and siting is not considered to cause significant detrimental impacts upon neighbour amenity. The nearest dwelling (the host dwelling) is located approximately 20m south of the proposed garage which I consider is a distance to ensure no unacceptable amenity harm. Policy DM5 states “The layout of development within sites and separation distances from neighbouring development should be sufficient to ensure neither suffers from an unacceptable reduction in amenity including overbearing impacts, loss of light and privacy.” It is considered that the distance between the properties, the orientation, scale and the position of windows ensures the development would not cause significant unacceptable impacts upon neighbour amenity. It is considered that the proposal accords with policy DM5 of the ADMDPD. Highway Safety The proposal includes a new vehicular access from Southwell Road, east of the existing access for Millcote and approximately 3m from the dwelling to the east called Carisbrooke. The driveway runs along the western boundary of Carisbrooke with the access gates sited approximately 6.5m from the public highway. Concern has been expressed by neighbours regarding the proximity of the driveway to the nearest neighbour and the coming and going of vehicles. Nottinghamshire County Council Highways have not raised any objection to the application in terms of highway safety subject to the gates located as stated and the access surfaced in a bound material. Details of the finishing of the driveway have been submitted and their impact has been explained in the section above. Whilst I have carefully considered the concerns of residents with regard to noise from the driveway and the gates, the sporadic vehicular movements caused by one 3 bedroomed dwelling is not considered to be significantly harmful so as to have a detrimental impact upon neighbour amenity. Impact on Trees and Landscape Features The applicant has proposed additional landscaping with particular regard to the eastern boundary where they propose trees. Concern has been expressed by residents of the close proximity of the trees to the boundary and the subsequent impact of root damage to drainage. No details have been submitted on the species of proposed trees and should Members resolve to approve the application, a soft landscaping condition would be required with particular focus on reinforcing the boundaries with trees, especially the eastern and southern boundaries with a specific focus on evergreen trees and trees which would not cause damage to drainage from roots. It is noted that the trees indicated on the block plan are only indicative and would be subject to approval by condition. Their position should be off the boundary so as not to overhang the boundary at Fern Lodge. One neighbour has raised a concern that the holly hedge along the driveway would be impacted upon by the development. The applicant has confirmed within their design and access statement that the existing boundary hedgerows would be retained. If the hedgerows are not within the control of the applicant then legally they would have to seek consent of the appropriate land

138

owner, however this is outside of the planning legislation and a civil matter between land owners. I do not consider it necessary to impose a condition relating to the retention of the hedgerows. There are no trees within the site that are considered to be directly impacted by the development and the additional landscaping would help to enhance the site and subject to proposed species, would not cause any detrimental impacts upon neighbour amenity. Other issues Due to the constrained nature of the site and the proximity to neighbours, to manage the degree of future overlooking it is necessary to remove permitted development rights to install additional windows. Without defined guidance produced by this authority relating to minimum sizes for amenity spaces for new dwellings it is inappropriate to state what size is required as this is all relative to site circumstances. However due to the separation distance and the space around the host dwelling the resulting amenity space is considered adequate. The proposed private amenity space for the new dwelling is confined mainly to the north and west of the dwelling with circulation space to the east for pedestrians and vehicles. To enable the retention of adequate amenity space and ensure no unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers I consider that permitted development rights should be removed to restrict extensions. It is noted that the ground levels of the site are to be reduced as currently they step up from Millcote by approximately 1m. The finished floor levels have been outlined on the plans and will reduce the ground level by approximately 700-900mm below the existing ground levels to make it on par with the host dwelling. Conclusion I have taken in to consideration all the issues and I am of the opinion that the addition of the garage and the conversion of the former proposed garage to a play room would not result in significant harm to the surrounding area or to the amenities of neighbours. I thereby conclude that the proposal accords with National Planning Policy Framework, Spatial Policy 1, 2 and 7, Core Policy 9 and 14 of the Adopted NSDC Core Strategy and DM1, DM5 and DM9 of the ADMDPD. RECOMMENDATION Approve, subject to the following conditions: 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

139

02 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried except in complete accordance with the following approved plans, 131-001 Rev B, 032-GATE Rev A, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: So as to define this permission 03 No development shall be commenced until details of the materials identified below have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Facing materials Bricks Roofing tiles Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 04 No development shall be commenced until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These works shall be implemented as approved. These details shall include;- • a schedule (including planting plans and written specifications, including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) of trees, shrubs and other plants, noting species, plant sizes, proposed numbers and densities. The scheme shall be designed so as to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of locally native plant species. • existing trees and hedgerows, which are to be retained pending approval of a detailed scheme, together with measures for protection during construction. • hard surfacing materials (emphasis on reducing surface water run-off). Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 05 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

140

local planning authority. Any trees/shrubs which, within a period of five years of being planted die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the work is carried out within a reasonable period and thereafter properly maintained, in the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 06 The access shall be constructed and surfaced in a bound material in accordance with the approved plan (032-GATE Rev A) and no other part of the development shall be commenced until the access has been completed in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 07 The first floor roof dormer window openings on the east elevation and the first floor window opening on the south elevation shall be obscured glazed to level 3 or higher on the Pilkington scale of privacy or equivalent. This specification shall be complied with before the development is occupied and thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To safeguard against overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties 08 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (and any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), other than development expressly authorised by this permission, there shall be no development under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Order in respect of: Class A: The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, including

extensions to the property and the insertion or replacement of doors and windows. Class B: The enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its

roof. Class C: Any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse. Reason: To ensure that any proposed further alterations or extensions are sympathetic to the design and layout of the properties and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents.

141

Note to applicant

01 The proposed development is in a Radon Affected Area. These are parts of the country where a percentage of properties are estimated to be at or above the Radon Action Level of 200 becquerals per cubic metre (Bq/m³). Given the above I advise that it would be prudent for the applicant to investigate if the proposed development will be affected by radon and incorporate any measures necessary into the construction to protect the health of the occupants. Further information is available on the council's website at: http://www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/radon 02 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council’s website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council’s view that CIL IS PAYABLE on the development hereby approved as is detailed below. Where permission is subject to pre-commencement conditions, the amount of CIL payable shown below is for information purposes only and will be confirmed in the Liability Notice which will be issued as soon as possible after all such conditions have been discharged. As such, to take account of indexation at the time of all conditions being discharged, the final figure may be subject to change. Where there are no pre-commencement conditions the Liability Notice will be issued with or as soon as possible after date of this decision notice. A B C Dev Types Proposed

floorspace (GIA in Sq. M)

Less Existing (Demolition or Change of Use)(GIA in Sq. M) Includes % splits

Net Area (GIA in Sq. M)

CIL Rate Indexation at date of permission

CIL Charge

Residential (C3)

322 Nil 322 £65 235 £22,357.05

Totals £22,357.05 Notes: As a Reasonable Authority we calculated this CIL liability figure utilising the following formula which is set out in Regulation 40 of the CIL Regulations

CIL Rate (B) x Chargeable Floor Area (A) x C (BCIS Tender Price Index at Date of Permission) 220 (BCIS Tender Price Index at Date of Charging Schedule)

CIL payments are indexed in line with the "All-in Tender Price Index of Construction costs"

142

produced by the Building Cost Information Service which is a measure of building costs inflation. The figure for (C) in the above calculation is based on the figure for 1st November of the preceding year. Therefore an application granted in 2013 would use that for 1st November 2012. Where the BCIS information says that the level of indexation is a forecast the District Council refer to the most up to date confirmed figure. As a Reasonable Authority the Council have calculated the amount of CIL payable based on the information about the level of new floorspace to be created contained within the planning application form that was submitted to the District Council Your attention is drawn to the attached CIL Liability Notice which confirms the amount of CIL payable. It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the person(s) who will pay the charge to serve an ‘Assumption of Liability Notice’ on the Council prior to the commencement of development. If this does not occur under Regulation 80, the Council may impose a £50 surcharge on each person liable to pay CIL. You may request a review of the chargeable amount set out within the Liability Notice however this must be done within 28 days from the date of which it is issued.

CIL Rate (B) x Chargeable Floor Area (A) x C (BCIS Tender Price Index at Date of Permission) 220 (BCIS Tender Price Index at Date of Charging Schedule)

03 The landscape scheme to be submitted in satisfaction of condition 4 should not include trees which would overhang that of Fern Lodge and should not include trees which would cause root damage to drainage pipes within the grounds of Fern Lodge. 04 The development makes it necessary to construct a vehicular crossing over a footway of the public highway. These works shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. You are, therefore, required to contact the County Council’s Highways Area Office tel: (0115) 993 2758 to arrange for these works to be carried out. 05 REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2011) Spatial Policy 1 - Settlement Hierarchy

143

Spatial Policy 2 - Spatial Distribution of Growth Spatial Policy 7 - Sustainable Transport Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design Core Policy 14 – Historic Environment From the Newark and Sherwood Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document (adopted July 2013) DM1 – Development within settlements central to delivering the spatial strategy DM5 – Design DM9 – Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment National Planning Policy Framework. Planning Practice Guidance BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application case file. For further information, please contact Lynsey Tomlin on 01636 650000

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

144

145

146

PLA

NN

ING

CO

MM

ITTE

E –

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

AG

END

A IT

EM N

O. 1

2(a)

APP

EALS

A

APP

EALS

LO

DG

ED (r

ecei

ved

betw

een

17 O

ctob

er 2

014

and

18 N

ovem

ber

2014

)

1.0

Mem

bers

are

adv

ised

that

the

appe

als

liste

d at

App

endi

x A

to th

is r

epor

t hav

e be

en r

ecei

ved

and

are

to b

e de

alt w

ith a

s st

ated

. If

Mem

bers

wis

h to

inco

rpor

ate

any

spec

ific

poin

ts w

ithin

the

Coun

cil’s

evi

denc

e pl

ease

forw

ard

thes

e to

Pla

nnin

g Se

rvic

es w

ithou

t de

lay.

2.0

RECO

MM

END

ATI

ON

Th

at t

he r

epor

t be

not

ed.

BACK

GRO

UN

D P

APE

RS

App

licat

ion

case

file

s.

For

furt

her

info

rmat

ion

plea

se c

onta

ct o

n Te

chni

cal S

uppo

rt (G

row

th) E

xt 5

554

or p

lann

ing@

nsdc

.info

.

Mat

t Lam

b

Busi

ness

Man

ager

Dev

elop

men

t

147

App

eal r

efer

ence

A

pplic

atio

n nu

mbe

r A

ddre

ss

Prop

osal

Pr

oced

ure

APP

/B30

30/A

/14/

2227

896

14/0

0851

/FU

L 20

Pel

ham

Str

eet

New

ark

On

Tren

t N

ottin

gham

shir

e N

G24

4XD

Chan

ge o

f Use

of E

xist

ing

Out

build

ing

to D

etac

hed

Sing

le

Bedr

oom

Dw

ellin

g

Wri

tten

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

APP

/B30

30/A

/14/

2228

410

14/0

1190

/FU

L 7

Stat

ion

Road

Co

lling

ham

N

ewar

k O

n Tr

ent

Not

tingh

amsh

ire

NG

23 7

RA

Two

Stor

ey D

wel

ling

and

Gar

age

Wri

tten

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

APP

/B30

30/A

/14/

2226

964

14/0

0409

/FU

L Fi

rs F

arm

M

ain

Stre

et

Wal

esby

N

ottin

gham

shir

e N

G22

9N

U

Cons

truc

tion

of 3

No.

4 b

ed

deta

ched

hou

ses

Wri

tten

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

148

PLA

NN

ING

CO

MM

ITTE

E –

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

AG

END

A IT

EM N

O. 1

2(b)

A

PPEN

DIX

B: A

PPEA

LS D

ETER

MIN

ED (A

PPEA

LS B

) A

pp N

o.

Add

ress

Pr

opos

al

Dec

isio

n D

ecis

ion

date

13/0

0510

/FU

L Th

e O

ld V

icar

age

Mai

n St

reet

N

orw

ell

Not

tingh

amsh

ire

Conv

ersi

on o

f sta

ble

build

ing

to

form

1 N

o. 2

bed

room

ed d

wel

ling

DIS

MIS

04

.11.

2014

13/0

1860

/FU

L La

nd a

t The

Old

Vic

arag

e

Mai

n St

reet

N

orw

ell

New

ark

NG

23 6

JT

Prop

osed

'loc

al n

eeds

' dw

ellin

g (r

epla

cing

exi

stin

g st

able

bui

ldin

g)

DIS

MIS

04

.11.

2014

14/0

0411

/FU

L La

nd T

o Th

e Re

ar O

f 21

Phili

p Cl

ose

Rain

wor

th

Man

sfie

ld

NG

21 0

GB

Chan

ge o

f use

of l

and

to fo

rm

addi

tion

al g

arde

n ar

ea fo

r N

o. 2

1 Ph

ilip

Clos

e (p

art r

etro

spec

tive)

DIS

MIS

24

.10.

2014

RECO

MM

END

ATI

ON

Th

at t

he r

epor

t be

not

ed.

BACK

GRO

UN

D P

APE

RS

App

licat

ion

case

file

s.

For

furt

her

info

rmat

ion

plea

se c

onta

ct T

echn

ical

Sup

port

(Gro

wth

) on

Ext 5

554

or p

lann

ing@

nsdc

.info

. M

att L

amb

Busi

ness

Man

ager

Dev

elop

men

t

149

150