HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 22nd January 2018

Application No:

HPK/2016/0614

Location Land South of Shaw Lane Hadfield

Proposal 9 unit housing scheme

Applicant Loxley Homes

Agent Emery Planning

Parish/ward Hadfield South Date registered 16th November 2016

If you have a question about this report please contact: Ben Haywood -Email ben.haywood@highpeak.gov.uk; Tel: 01298 38400 Ext: 4924

REFERRAL The application is referred to committee as it is locally contentious

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The application site comprises a small parcel of land measuring 0.31 ha to the south of Shaw Lane on the edge of Hadfield and falls within the boundary of the built up area on the High Peak Proposals Map (as amended as part of the recently adopted High Peak Local Plan). 2.2 The site is bounded by existing residential development to the north of Shaw Lane, with open fields to the south, which separate the site from Dinting Road. These have outline consent for residential development. 2.3 A public footpath skirts the eastern boundary of the site, before veering away and linking with Dinting Road to the south. Further residential development extends to the northeast of the footpath in the form of terraced stone cottages along Shaw Lane. 2.4 The application site itself comprises grassland, scrub and trees, a number of which are subject to tree preservation orders. A small watercourse runs through the site although the land to which this application relates falls within flood zone 1. 2.5 The site forms part of a wider area that benefits from outline planning permission for 113 dwellings (ref. HPK/2015/0692) and was shown as an area of open space / landscaping.. The site is identified as outside of the developable area on the indicative layout and parameters plan supporting application HPK/2015/0692.

However the current application is a standalone submission and accordingly, this application falls to be determined on its own merits rather than as a reserved matters submission that has to be in accordance with the approved outline application. 2.6 Members may recall that the land to the south of the brook has subsequently been the subject of 2 separate outline planning permissions for up to 37 units on the western part of the site and up to 109 units on the eastern portion. Reserved matters for 29 units has also been granted on the western part of the site.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The application seeks full consent for a proposed residential development of 9 dwellings. As originally submitted the proposal was for 10 units. However, following discussions with officers and in order to address concerns about the impact on protected trees on the site, the scheme has been reduced to 9 units. The scheme now proposes the retention of all the TPO trees, the incorporation of the stream as an undeveloped corridor for ecological enhancement and off-site enhancement in the area of the railway embankment. 3.2 The scheme proposes 2 storey dwellings comprising a mix of detached and semi-detached properties of between 2 and 4 bedrooms. The current application seeks individual access points to each dwelling from The Shaw. 3.3 Full details of the proposal can be viewed at http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=211948

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

1988: Representations were made to exclude the site from the proposed Green Belt The Green Belt Local Plan prepared by Derbyshire County Council was adopted in 1990 and the site excluded from the Green Belt. HPK/0003/0546 – Outline planning permission for residential development refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed in June 1992. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet 1995: Local Plan Inspector recommended that the site be excluded from the Green Belt and excluded from the Built-Up Area boundary, but defined as countryside on the High Peak Local Plan. HPK/2012/0721 Outline application for up to 93 dwellings – withdrawn March 2013. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet HPK/2013/0324 Outline application for up to 93 dwellings – The application was determined by committee on 5th August 2013 and was refused against officer

recommendation. The application was subsequently allowed on appeal following a pubic inquiry in June 2014. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet 2016: The site was part of the local plan examination and was shown on the proposals maps to be incorporated within the built up area boundary. Following adoption of the new local plan the boundary has been amended which includes the site. HPK/2015/0692 Outline Planning Permission with some Matters Reserved for Residential Development for up to 113 Dwellings – Approved 2016 http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=204470 HPK/2016/0548 To approve a variation to the affordable housing condition imposed on application HPK/2015/0692 – Resolution to approve http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet HPK/2016/0648 Outline planning permission with all matters reserved (except access) for construction of up to 37 dwellings on adjoining land - Approved http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=212466

HPK/2017/0325 Outline with all matters reserved for future approval, save for access

for up to 108 dwellings on adjoining land – Approved

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet

HPK/2017/0417 Reserved matters for 29 dwellings on adjoining land – Approved http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=217830 HPK/2017/0418 Amendments to access approved under HPK/2016/0648 –

Approved

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

High Peak Local Plan 2016 Policy S1 Sustainable Development Principles Policy S1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy

Policy S3 Strategic Housing Development Policy S5 Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy Policy EQ1 Climate Change Policy EQ2 Landscape Character Policy EQ5 Biodiversity Policy EQ6 Design and Place Making Policy EQ7 Built and Historic Environment Policy EQ9 Trees, Woodlands and hedgerows Policy EQ10 Pollution Control and Unstable Land Policy EQ11 Flood Risk Management Policy H1 Location of Housing Development Policy H3 New Housing Allocations Policy H4 Affordable Housing Policy CF3 Local Infrastructure Provision Policy CF4 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities Policy CF5 Provision and Retention of Local Community Facilities Policy CF6 Accessibility and Transport Policy CF7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy Supplementary Planning Guidance

Residential Design

Landscape Character

Housing Needs Survey

Planning Obligations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 Achieving Sustainable Development Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport Section 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7 Requiring good design Section 8 Promoting healthy communities Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11 Conservation and enhancing the Natural environment Section 12 Conserving and enhancing the Historic Environment

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Site Notice 4th January 2017

Press Notice 12th January 2017

Neighbours 28th December 2016

Neighbour objection 75 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

The additional houses would increase the likelihood of flooding to the established houses nearby.

The junction with Meadowfield Close and The Shaw is narrow to a single vehicle-width and pedestrians are forced to walk on the road, the increase from traffic caused from the application would increase the likelihood of an accident occurring.

The chopping down of the old mature trees would have a detrimental effect on local wildlife as the existing trees support 127 different species of insects and wild animals between them.

There is plenty of vacant properties in Glossop and plenty more being built in the area at the moment.

The proposal would ruin the outstanding beauty of the area.

Planning Permission HPK/2015/0692 included the assurance that the application site would be left undeveloped and would be landscaped, which would provide the existing houses some degree from the houses approved by permission HPK/2015/0692.

HPBC has previously refused an application for one bungalow on the same area as the land was unsuitable to build on.

The increase use of the narrow lane will cause for congestion, which will cause problems for any emergency vehicles which need to pass by.

Existing houses would suffer from a loss of privacy.

The road infrastructure and local facilities (i.e. schools, Doctors) will not be able to cope with the increase of use caused from the proposed dwellings.

There are more suitable sites in the area for houses to be built on.

The proposal would disturb the pond’s natural habitats and wildlife.

The area is a prone to flooding and the increase of dwellings will increase the risk.

The proposed dwellings would significantly alter the fabric/ character of the area and amount to serious cramming in what is a low density area.

There is inadequate parking and access in and surrounding areas on the roads nearby.

Glossop’s character is being destroyed by the increase of housing developments.

The drainage system regularly overflows with the current demand and would not be adequate to cope with the increase of use caused from the proposal.

The horses were purposely put on the field to degrade the land in order for the ecological report to grade the land as low ecological value.

The site is still subject to conditions from appeal APP/H1033/AB/2204114 that the land is set aside “to enhanced as an ecological zone” & “part of a landscaped frontage to Shaw Lane.”

The proposal will degrade the character of the area from rural to a housing estate, thus lowering the price of housing and lowering the quality of life.

Consultee

Comment Officer response

Derbyshire County Council - Policy

Derbyshire County Council has no comments to make on this application with regard to the provision of services and infrastructure,

7.50-7.54

as contributions for tariff style planning obligations (section 106 planning obligations) should not be sought from

developments of 10‐units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000 square metres (gross internal area).

DCC Flood Risk

The LLFA has reviewed the planning application against the flood risk management consultation matrix and the application has not triggered a bespoke response.

The LLFA has completed a brief, high level review of the Council’s surface water model outputs for the proposed site which has not been highlighted as being of significant risk from surface water flooding at the time of the assessment

7.55

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust

We no longer object to the application and welcome the revised layout and Ecology Area. It is vital that the Ecology Area is secured and implemented and that the landscaping for the development area and the ecology area is well designed, with ecological considerations at the forefront

7.56- 7.60

Derbyshire County Highways

I refer to the revised Layout Plan for the above proposals that has been forwarded to this office for highway comment. I can confirm that additional details, to support the revised 9no. dwelling layout, have been received in this office from the applicants’ Transportation Consultant, There are still a number of outstanding concerns for which it’s been requested they investigate satisfactory resolution.

7.61-7.75

Tree Officer The proposed development will have a significant detrimental impact on the landscape and ecological value of this strategically placed green space. Although the mature protected trees will be accommodated in the scheme around 36 trees will be felled to accommodate the scheme. The proposed planting hedgerow and 11

7.26-7.41

individual trees does provide some limited mitigation for the loss of the unprotected trees but not for the wider impact of the proposals.

Environmental Health

I refer you to my comments made with regard to HPK/2015/0692

7.46-7.48

United Utilities United Utilities will have no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions

7.55

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

Policy Context 7.1 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 7.2 Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Local Planning Authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan consists of the adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016. 7.3 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF explains that at the heart of the Framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, for decision makers this means that when considering development proposals which accord with the development plan, they should be approved without delay, but where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant planning permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. Principle of development 7.4 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is reflected in Policies S1 – Sustainable Development Principles and S1a – Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development of the adopted Local Plan. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF identifies the three dimensions to sustainable development; economic, social and environmental. 7.5 The Core Principles of the Framework are set out in paragraph 17 and among other criteria seek to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. High quality design should be sought

and secured and a good standard of amenity provided for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. 7.6 Section 6 of the Framework relates specifically to the need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes. Paragraph 49 advises that Local Planning Authorities should consider housing applications in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 7.7 Local Plan Policy S5 Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy seeks to promote sustainable growth of Glossopdale whilst promoting and maintaining the distinct identity of its settlements. It aims to meet the housing needs of the local community by allocating a range of suitable, deliverable housing sites including the delivery of affordable housing. It supports the development of new housing on sustainable sites within the built up area boundary. 7.8 Local Plan Policy H1 seeks to deliver a wider choice of high quality housing in appropriate locations to meet the needs of all residents in the Borough. The Council will ensure provision is made for housing taking account all other policies in the Local Plan. This would be achieved by promoting effective reuse of land; supporting housing on unallocated sites within the defined built up area boundaries; encouraging the inclusion of housing in mixed use schemes; community right to build schemes and self builds. 7.9 Local Plan Policy H3 requires all new residential development to meet the requirements of affordable housing within the overall provision of new residential development set out in policy H4 and to provide a range of market and affordable housing types and sizes, whilst the mix should contribute positively to the promotion of a sustainable and inclusive community taking account the characteristics of the existing housing stock in the surrounding locality. 7.10 Although it could be argued that the site was included within the “red-edge” of the 113 unit planning permission and thus the principle of residential development at this site has been established, it was shown on the indicative masterplan as an area of landscaping / open space. Furthermore, following the granting of further outline consents on the portion of the site to the south of the brook (excluding the current application site) for a total of 146 units and subsequent reserved matters being granted for 29 units on the western part of that area, it has been demonstrated that it is not necessary to develop this land in order to meet the 113 unit housing commitment, or, in fact, exceed it. 7.11 Consequently, this application as a stand-alone full planning application must be considered on it’s own individual merits having regard to the nature of the existing surrounding development and the approvals which have been granted to the south. 7.12 The development of this site now falls within the development boundary of Hadfield following the adoption of the new local plan in 2016. It is considered to be within a relatively sustainable location for access to local services, schools, shops and within walking distances for transport, including the train station and bus stops. The site is considered to contribute to the housing supply within the new Local Plan and will provide a mix of 2 to 4 bed dwellings, including affordable housing.

7.13 There are consequently, no “in principle” policy objections to the proposal. The main issues in the consideration of the application are the landscape, design, character and appearance, arboricultural, amenity, ecological, flooding and highway implications of the proposals. Landscape / Character and Appearance 7.14 Section 11 ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ of the NPPF, confirms that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valuable landscapes. Paragraph 109 states that 'the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes'. 7.15 The NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 58 requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area for the lifetime of the development. It should respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials whilst reinforcing local distinctiveness. 7.16 Local Plan policies S1 and EQ6 expect new development to contribute to a sense of place by taking account of the distinct character, townscape and setting of the area and securing high quality and locally distinctive design and amenity. The adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Residential Design 2005, also provides guidance on the approach to new residential development, and the factors which contribute toward local distinctiveness. 7.17 Policy CF4 – Open space, Sports and Recreation Facilities seeks to protect, maintain and where possible enhance existing open spaces in order to contribute towards the health and well being of local communities. In particular, this policy seeks to resist any development which would involve the loss of amenity green space, amongst a number of other facilities, except where it can be demonstrated that alternative facilities of better or equal quality will be provided. 7.18 The site lies within the Settled Valley Pastures Landscape Character Area, as defined by the adopted Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Document. As such the area is characterised as a pastoral landscape with permanent improved pasture where fields are small and irregular enclosed by hedgerows, occasional dry stone walls and tree belts and groups around settlements. 7.19 The site conforms to this assessment as undeveloped grass land. However, the site is on the urban fringe and is surrounded by residential development. The immediate character of the residential area is a mix of two storey properties. The wider context of the area is of a mix of residential properties consisting of detached and semi-detached properties of various styles and sizes that sit alongside Dinting Road and the Shaw. 7.20 Despite its previous countryside designation, the land has no policy designations to suggest that it is of intrinsically high landscape value such that would

warrant it being protected solely on landscape grounds which was also the case in the allowed appeal in 2014. As such the proposal would be viewed in its context with surrounding existing built form of the Shaw and the proposed built development to the south of the brook and would not have a significant adverse impact on the character and distinctiveness of the wider countryside. 7.21 Notwithstanding this, the site is currently open land and following completion of the development to the south would become an open-landscaped area within a residential area. There are 4 mature sycamores on the edge of the highway. There is an early mature alder and an ash within the site; these are the trees of the highest amenity. In addition to this there are hawthorns and saplings and young trees across the site, which also contribute to the value of the area as a landscape/ecological feature. 7.22 There is an existing outline planning consent HPK/2015/0692 for residential development which includes this area of land. However in the outline consent this area is shown as being retained as land retained for ecology/landscape purposes. The reserved matters approval for 29 units now shows dwellings fronting onto this area. Following completion of the development it would become an important visual open space within the newly formed built-up area, overlooked and enjoyed by existing properties in The Shaw to the north and proposed properties on the site to the south as well as from the public domain. The site would be visible to and enjoyed by users of The Shaw, the new cul-de-sac and the public right of way. It would be a “green-lung” within the built up area and would appear almost as a small “village-green” surrounded and looked on to by the existing and proposed houses. 7.23 The new development would address and provide an “active frontage” to The Shaw, which is desirable in urban design terms, but in so doing would “turn it’s back on the watercourse presenting back gardens and associated fences or domestic paraphernalia to the public views from the new cul-de-sac to the south as well as an area between the rear boundaries and the stream which could potentially pose management issues and be prone to tipping of garden rubbish etc. This would all be to the detriment of visual amenity and the character and appearance of this area. Furthermore, in order to form a level developable area engineering works involving the installation of gabions would be required. These would also be publically visible from the new development to the south and would present a heavily engineered feature which would encroach on the brook corridor and would again detract from the character and appearance of this part of the site. 7.24 The developer has offered to mitigate the impact of the loss of this area with ecological enhancements on land within his control between the approved residential development site to the south west and the railway. These are discussed in more detail in the ecology section below. However, whilst they may address the loss of biodiversity they would not compensate for the loss of this important visual open space. 7.25 Overall, therefore, the proposal would clearly result in significant erosion of visually important open space and within what will become a built-up residential estate to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. The qualitative benefits of the scheme offered are not considered to overcome the evidential

quantitative loss of visual open space at the application site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policies S1, S1a, CF4, EQ6 and EQ9 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. Trees 7.26 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has considered the application and commented that the proposals with require the removal of all the trees on the site except protected trees along The Shaw G7, T5, T7, T9 and T10 and G1 which are located off site. 7.27 The Cheshire Woodlands Limited (CWL) tree survey identifies the removal of 6 trees counted individually and 10 groups of trees. If we assume each recorded group has at least 3 trees the tree removal to accommodate this proposal is in excess of 36 trees. 7.28 The arboricultural report recommendation suggests the planting of 11 trees and mixed native hedge in mitigation. 7.29 The application will lead to significant tree loss estimated in excess of 36 trees including the loss of trees of high amenity. 7.30 The area also has an important function in terms of its relationship to the existing outline consent for 113 Dwellings to the south of the brook (HPK/2015/0592). This group of trees and associated landscape features is a buffer to the brook and a natural break between the existing built up area and the proposed residential development. No arboricultural objection was raised to the outline consent as these trees were shown to be retained, indeed no particular comment was made on the importance of this landscape features as the proposals largely did not effect it. Had the development of this area been part of the outline application an objection would have been raised at this time 7.31 The proposals seek to retain and incorporate within the layout the trees G7, T5, T9 and T7 which are all protected by TPO. The Root Protection Area (RPA) for these trees has been defined and has taken into account the asymmetrical rooting of the trees due to the highway and increased the required root protection area to the south. 7.32 However the RPA also needs to be able to accommodated and still allow adequate access for construction to take place. The 9 unit scheme allows an improved construction exclusion zone compared to previous layouts. Provision is made for engineered hard surfaces in these zones and the driveways. It will important that the construction will be phased in such away that access in proximity of the trees is controlled. 7.33 There are issues with levels on the site and the existing land levels will need to be retained within the RPA. The land drops away from the road towards the stream the properties will therefore be sat lower than the road. The trees also sit on a bank at the front of the property. The proposal appears to be to retain the garden areas at the existing level to remove the banking and alter levels for the driveway.

Some levelling, although minor, will be required within the remaining RPA to achieve a suitable base for the landscaping of the front garden areas. 7.34 The changes in level on this site exacerbate the impact of the trees on the garden and houses. The trees will be to the north of the properties, with the majority of the garden areas under the trees canopy. Given the northern aspect, the sloping site and the presence of the trees the gardens and the rooms with a northern orientation will be have reduced light. Although the shade caste from the trees will be away from the trees, the dwellings themselves will shade this area. 7.35 At present the trees are not an unacceptable risk but introducing domestic gardens and dwellings in close proximity to the trees will elevate the risk. Whilst the actual risk will remain relatively low, the loss of limbs from trees naturally is perceived by the public and near by residents much higher than it is and can cause significant distress. 7.36 There are also general minor nuisances associated with the trees such as leaf fall and honeydew which combined with the above will lead to pressure for the removal or inappropriate pruning of the trees. Whilst the trees are protected the TPO can guarantee the retention of the trees. Therefore the LPA have a duty to consider the juxtaposition of retained trees to dwellings as part of the planning process. 7.37 The 2 mature protected trees numbered G1 to the west will be impacted on the by the proposal to construction a new footway. I understand that this has been offered by the developer rather than required by the Highways Authority. The construction of this will require the removal of a group of self set trees below the canopy of these large trees. Whilst there is no objection to the removal of these trees as such I have concerns about the impact of stump grinding and the construction of a footpath within the RPA. This could have a negative impact on the roots to the north of the tree. The impact on these trees could be reduced if the works were undertaken by hand to excavate the area and the path construction was non-standard e.g. it would have to be narrower than a standard footpath and there is a possibility that it would need to be raised higher than a normal kerb height. Therefore the path would be expectable only if Highways will accept a non-standard footpath design and the works are conditioned to ensure that the excavation was supervised and a suitable construction method was used for the path to limited root damage. If these conditions cannot be met the footpath should be removed from the scheme. 7.38 In summary there are a number of challenges with constructing this scheme close to mature trees, there may also be ongoing implications given the juxtaposition of the trees to the proposed dwellings. However the applicant has amended the scheme to reduce these impacts and it largely complies with accepted standards. There are a number of outstanding issues which could be dealt with by condition. For example the requirement for arboricultural supervision of the works will be required at all stages of the construction and a site specific arboricultural method statement for the proposed new footway. Therefore given this, on balance, it would be un reasonable to refuse the current 9 unit scheme on arboricultural terms alone.

7.39 However, the loss of 36 unprotected trees will add to the adverse visual impact arising from the loss of this important and strategically placed open green space. Long term pressure to prune or remove retained trees arising from adverse social proximity to the new dwellings will also carry weight against the scheme in the overall planning balance. 7.40 The planting of 11 individual specimens and a hedgerow does provide some mitigation but it will not replace the biodiversity and landscape value lost with the removal of established trees. The applicant has suggested some mitigation in terms of additional tree planting tree planting as part of the landscaping of an adjacent proposed scheme (HPK/2017/0325). The location of the trees and natural open space between the existing and proposed development provides, not just tree cover, but a valuable landscape and ecological buffer between these sites. The proposed tree planting on and off site may be able to compensate in terms of numbers of replacement trees but not in terms of landscape function. 7.41 The development is therefore considered to be contrary to policies S1, S5, EQ2 and EQ6 of the High Peak Local Plan 2016 along with guidance contained in Paragraph 17 and the Design Chapter of the Framework all of which seek to ensure that the overall scale, density, massing, landscaping and layout are in character with the area and that new development integrates into the natural, built and historic environment. Amenity 7.42 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF requires a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Local Plan Policy EQ6 also stipulates that development should achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development and does not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shadowing, overbearing or other adverse impacts on local character and amenity. 7.43 There are residential properties to the north and west of the site. The plans show the development sitting within the context of the site and indicate that development will reflect the heights and levels of existing development. 7.44 The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance requires minimum separation distances of 21m to be achieved between principal windows. This will be achieved between the principal windows in the front elevations of the dwellings and the nearest principal windows in the dwellings on the opposite side of the Shaw, which are arranged gable-end on to the road and therefore any overlooking would be at an oblique angle in any event. This also applies where the proposed dwellings are sited with their gable ends facing the road. 7.45 The principal windows in the rear elevations of the proposed dwelling on Plot 2 fronting the road would face directly the front elevations of the properties located in the recently approved cul-de-sac to the south. However, the recommended minimum distance of 21m will be achieved between these dwellings. Approximately 13m will be maintained between the gable of the dwelling on Plot1 and the front elevation of the recently approved dwelling to the rear. This is also considered to be acceptable and sufficient to protect amenity. Garden sizes will be provided for all dwellings

which is considered to be commensurate with the size of the dwellings themselves and similar properties in the vicinity. Overall it is considered that the development would meet the requirements of Policy EQ6. Contaminated Land 7.46 Section 11 of the NPPF seeks to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land stability to ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. Local Plan Policy EQ10 seeks to protect people and the environment from unsafe and polluted environments, requiring mitigation if necessary. This policy is currently afforded significant weight. 7.47 Comments from the Environmental Health Officer refer to the previous application where he was satisfied that the development of the site for residential use would be acceptable with appropriate site investigation and remediation if required. These matters can be addressed by appropriate conditions to protect the amenity of existing neighbouring residents and proposed occupiers. 7.48 The proposals are considered to comply with section 11 of the NPPF, and Local Plan policy EQ10 in this regard. Archaeology 7.49 The County Archaeologist in the previous application and at appeal requested that further survey work be carried out to ascertain whether there are significant archaeological remains on the site. The applicants have undertaken further survey work in response to this request which indicates that there is unlikely to be any archaeological remains of significance. Affordable Housing / Obligations 7.50 There is an identified need for affordable housing in the Borough and the Council’s Policy set out in H4 of the Local Plan and in the Obligations and Housing Needs SPD is that for developments of between 5 and 10 units or over, 20% of a scheme should be affordable housing. The Planning Design and Access Statement argues that:

The site falls under 10 units / 1,000m2 floor area, and therefore should be exempt from tariff style contributions as per the Written Ministerial Statement and the advice set out in the PPG. However we are aware that the Council is continuing to apply the policies set out in the recently adopted Local Plan, even though the Local Plan was amended during its production to accord with the Written Ministerial Statement, only amending the plan back to its current state following the successful High Court Challenge to the Written Ministerial Statement. The Written Ministerial Statement was of course re-instated by the Court of Appeal following the adoption of the Local Plan.

7.51 Whilst the comments of the applicant are noted, the adopted Local Plan carries statutory weight as the development plan and the starting point for consideration. The provisions of the Planning Practice Guidance, which state that affordable

housing contributions should not be sought from schemes of under 10 units are a material consideration. However, given that the adopted Local Plan is recently adopted and has an up-to-date evidence base which demonstrates a substantial need for affordable housing provision in the High Peak it is not considered to be outweighed by the material consideration that is the PPG. 7.52 The Planning Design and Access statement then refers to the predicament that Loxley Homes have faced in securing an affordable housing provider for the wider site. It states:

As it presently stands there is no Registered Provider willing to take the 2 units required as part of this development. Therefore as this is a detailed application, we trust that the Local Plan Authority will take a pragmatic view in accordance with the Government’s previous letter to Chief Planning Officers, and accept either a revised tenure mix (either all intermediate, or failing that discount Open Market Value housing) or an off-site contribution.

7.53 Members will recall that in 2016 they resolved through application HPK/2016/0548 to approve a variation to the affordable housing condition imposed on application HPK/2015/0692 to allow this flexibility, where the request could be substantiated by evidence, (in accordance with the requirements of policy H3). Subject to the same condition being imposed on this consent, it is considered that the proposal would be in line with adopted Local Plan policy. 7.54 Derbyshire County Council has confirmed that due to the small scale of the development proposed, no other infrastructure contributions are required. Flooding 7.55 The site is located adjacent to a watercourse, although it lies within Flood Zone 1 (the zone at least risk of flooding). Local residents have expressed concerns and provided evidence of flooding issues at the site. The applicant has explained that this was due to a blocked culvert under the road and that the stream channel and the culvert have now been cleared and that this problem has been resolved. Derbyshire County Council Flood Risk Manager and Untied Utilities have been consulted and raised no objection subject to conditions requiring details of surface water drainage to be submitted and agreed. In view of this it is not considered that a refusal on drainage grounds could be sustained subject to those conditions being imposed. Biodiversity and Ecology 7.56 Section 11 of the NPPF outlines that Local Planning Authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Paragraph 109 seeks to minimise impacts and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. Local Plan Policy EQ5 echoes this advice, advising that biodiversity and ecological resources should be conserved. 7.57 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust initially objected to the proposals. However, based on the revised plan, Derbyshire Wildlife Trust retract their previous objection to the application. Their key concerns have been addressed as follows:

net loss of semi-natural habitats - compensatory habitat creation is proposed in the dedicated Ecology Area.

the loss of at least three mature trees will fragment the green corridor

that currently exists along the lane and has been shown to be used by commuting bats in surveys in 2016 – the revised site plan now indicates the retention of key trees, including two of the mature trees along Shaw Lane originally proposed for removal.

gardens are shown leading up to the stream, with only a narrow strip of green space to the south of the stream. This provides no safeguarding of the watercourse from adjacent properties, increases the likelihood of garden rubbish being dumped in this area potentially spreading non-native species, and also reduces the functionality of the stream as a wildlife corridor due to the presence of garden fences - the revised layout now includes a 3 m corridor along both sides of the stream, not including gardens.

net loss of foraging habitat for badger and herpetofauna - compensatory habitat creation is proposed in the dedicated Ecology Area.

7.58 The revised layout, along with the dedicated Ecology Area to the east, are considered sufficient to mitigate for the ecological impacts of the proposals and have the potential to result in a net gain for biodiversity, depending on the final planting scheme for the Ecology Area. The Trust support native tree and scrub planting in this area and suggest that the slope of the embankment could be managed as grassland. The grassland would benefit from either re-turfing with native wildflower turf or cutting, scarifying and overseeding with native wildflower seed. 7.59 DWT also suggest that the ecological value of the onsite stream could be enhanced through deepening and slightly widening the channel, and incorporating native marginal and wetland planting. They do not encourage planting trees along the stream in any case as they would shade the channel and the landscaping design for this area should be carefully thought out. Should the Council be minded to grant permission for this application, they recommend that the following conditions are attached:

- Securing the off-site ecological mitigation area - Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity) for Development

Area - Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) for Development Area

and Ecology Area (Also referred to as a Habitat or Biodiversity Management Plan)

7.60 Subject to compliance with the above conditions, DWT raise no objections and the proposals are thus considered to comply with the provisions of section 11 of the NPPF and Local Plan Policy EQ5.

Access and Highway matters 7.61 The NPPF promotes sustainable transport and recommends that Local Planning Authorities should seek to encourage and facilitate where possible sustainable patterns of transport using practical alternatives to private motor vehicles so that people have a real choice about how they travel. 7.62 Policy CF6 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure development can be safely accessed in a sustainable manner. Proposals should minimise the need to travel, particularly by unsustainable modes. It aims to ensure that all new development is located where the highway network can satisfactorily accommodate traffic generated by the development or can be improved as part of the development. 7.63 The proposals have been considered by Derbyshire County Council Highway Authority who have commented that exit visibility from the driveway to Plot 1 is considered to be acceptable and exit visibility in the leading direction from Plot 2 would also be acceptable. 7.64 However, there is concern about the 4.5m ‘shadow’ to vehicles approaching from the left and the Highways Engineer would suggest that visibility to a two wheeled vehicle could be obstructed for over twice that distance i.e. a considerable proportion of the requisite sightline. Therefore, as demonstrated, he does not consider the proposal to be acceptable although it may be worth investigating a revision to the access location e.g. to be closer to the TPO’d trees in order to reduce the length of ‘shadow’ whilst enabling an emerging driver to have sight of approaching traffic to the rear. 7.65 He also notes the location of the footway link on the opposite side of Shaw Lane to the development and agrees this would offer some benefit to both pedestrians and exit visibility from Meadowfield Close. As stated previously, a 900mm width paved margin alongside Shaw Lane would offer some benefit to pedestrian safety however, this alone would not be considered sufficient to offset the concerns about the development proposals. 7.66 The red and blue line boundaries would suggest that the applicant controls sufficient frontage to further allay Highway Authority concerns with respect to impact of the proposals particularly with respect to footway provision, manoeuvring to/ from driveways and reduction in likelihood of obstruction of the highway by service and delivery vehicles. 7.67 It would appear that a footway of a 1.5m minimum width could be provided from the southernmost extent of the site frontage to a safe crossing point to the existing footway on the opposite side of Shaw Lane. It is appreciated that this would not involve an ideal situation in respect of the TPO’d trees being located in highway, although a reduced width facility for a short distance around the obstacle would be acceptable.

7.68 A 1.5m width verge for the remaining frontage would secure a degree of pedestrian refuge as well as offer greater depth for manoeuvring to/ from driveways by provision of dropped kerb crossing points. 7.69 In addition, the swept paths submitted involve precise manoeuvring to avoid over-run of areas outside of the carriageway of Shaw Lane and do not appear to be those for a Large Family Car, i.e. those of circa 5.0m in length and considered to be appropriate by the Highway Authority. Manoeuvring to/from the parking space closest to Shaw Lane on the driveway of Plot 6 is likely to be the worst case scenario. 7.70 Obstruction by parked service and delivery vehicles is most likely to occur where the carriageway width is less than 4.8m. Obviously, retention of the trees would prevent widening of the carriageway for the full length of the site frontage therefore some alternative mitigation should be provided e.g. localised widening; extended dropped crossing points to enable vehicles to partially pull off the carriageway; etc . Street lighting and statutory undertakers apparatus are present on the site frontage and will need to be taken into consideration as a part of any revisions. Derbyshire Highways would also expect these to be shown on the proposed plans. 7.71 Therefore, highways have recommended a further review of access arrangement for Plot 2, footway provision, access for Large Family Cars and potential obstruction by stationary vehicles servicing the proposed dwellings is carried out and measures proposed to satisfactorily address these issues. 7.72 These issues have been brought to the attention of the developer and further amended plans have been provided. Their highway consultant has commented that in principle the 1.5m wide footway is acceptable. However there are locations where the width would need to reduce following discussions with the Tree Officer from HPBC so a minimum of 0.9m has to be retained. 7.73 The plan shows widening to Shaw Lane next to Plot 1 to 4.8m and then reduces to no less than 3.5m adjacent to the twin TPO’d trees. This would allow the some carriageway to be returned to verge on the northern side of the trees. The revised plans illustrate the 1.5m wide footway up to the root protection area (RPA) for the TPO’d trees and the remaining 7m of potential footway or verge will need to be discussed with the Council’s Tree Officer. A no dig type solution can be achieved under the RPA to allow a footway to be achieved and around a third of the area for the footway would be taken from the carriageway. 7.74 The Applicant argues that the narrowing would be expected to reduce vehicle speeds further along Shaw Lane and allows the visibility splays for Plots 1 and 2 to be drawn as illustrated on the plan. The applicant considers these splays to be suitable and safe. They have also shown a minor change between Plots 3 and 4 to allow for larger service vehicles to pull off the road to serve these houses if required. 7.75 The revisions were under consideration by the Highway Engineer and Arboricultural Officer at the time of report preparation and a further update will be provided to Members prior to their meeting. Subject to the Highways Engineer

raising no further objection it is considered there would be no adverse impact on the local road network and the proposals would therefore comply with the provisions of section 4 of the NPPF and Local Plan policy CF6 in this regard. However, it will be necessary to ensure that the proposed revisions do not prompt a further objection from the Tree Officer

8. CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE

8.1 The National Planning Policy Framework provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Framework advises that proposals which comply with the development plan should be approved “without delay”. 8.2 The site is part of a larger site with extant outline permission for 113 dwellings. On the illustrative site layout plan submitted with that application the site was shown as being retained as an area of landscaping / visual open space. Whilst that plan is not binding, two further outline consents for a total of 147 dwellings have been approved on the southern part of the site indicating that this land is not required in order to meet the housing commitment on the site. The proposal is a full planning application and therefore stands to be determined on its own merits. 8.3 It is acknowledged that the site is within the settlement boundary and is sustainably located. As such there is no “in principle” policy objection. Following completion of the development to the south the site will become surrounded by built development and as such this proposal would not have any detrimental impact on the wider landscape or surrounding countryside. However, the proposal would clearly result in significant erosion of visually important open space and within what will become a built-up residential estate to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. 8.4 The proposals will result in the removal of 36 unprotected trees on the site. However, the loss of these trees alone, although regrettable, would not be sufficient reason for refusal, albeit that their removal would serve to exacerbate the effects of the loss of the visual / open space referred to above, which carries weight against the scheme in the overall planning balance. The protected trees within the site could be retained during construction, although there is concern that in the longer term there could be pressure to prune or remove them from residents living under and in close proximity to them. This also adds weight against the proposal. 8.5 Set against this, the scheme would deliver a number of social and economic benefits including further contributing towards housing supply and the provision of affordable housing. The development would also provide modest economic benefits through the creation new jobs during the construction phase and additional spending power in the local economy from future residents. 8.6 The applicant proposes off-site ecological mitigation and tree planting on other land within his control adjacent to the railway line to the east. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust have confirmed that subject to this being carried out they are now able to remove their objection on biodiversity grounds. However, this off-site mitigation, will not compensate for the visual loss of open space and trees on the application

site itself and when viewed from the roads and houses (existing and proposed) immediately around it. 8.7 The highway authority has raised a number of minor concerns regarding the proposal relating to visibility on egress from one of the plots and the width and arrangement of the new pavement. Amended plans have been provided to address these points and further comments were awaited. Subject to the Highways Engineer confirming that the revisions address his concerns, it is considered that the proposals would therefore comply with the provisions of section 4 of the NPPF and Local Plan policy CF6 in this regard. However, there is concern that the amendments will result in encroachment into Root Protection Areas and would result in development closer to the protected trees and further Tree Officer comments on the revisions are therefore also awaited. In the event that a further arboricultural objection is received it will be necessary to consider in the overall planning balance, whether the potential highway safety betterment arising from the amendments, which is likely to minimal in this case, given the lightly trafficked nature of the road and low vehicle speeds outweighs the harm to the protected trees. A further update will be provided on this matter prior to the committee meeting. 8.8 Subject to the same condition being imposed on this consent as on the extant permission, it is considered that the proposal would be in line with adopted Local Plan policy in terms of affordable housing provision. The County Council have not requested any other infrastructure contributions. 8.9 In summary the proposal would clearly result in significant erosion of visually important open space and within what will become a built-up residential estate to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. The qualitative benefits of the scheme offered are not considered to overcome the evidential quantitative loss of visual open space at the application site. There are further concerns regarding the excessive shading from trees on site to the rear of the proposed dwellings leading to pressure for pruning or removal. In addition, the indicative scheme backing onto the watercourse and the new cul-de-sac to the south would create result a lack of active frontage to these features to the detriment of visual amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policies S1, S1a, CF4, EQ6 and EQ9 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and accordingly is recommended for refusal. 9. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposal would clearly result in significant erosion of visually important open space and within what will become a built-up residential estate to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. The qualitative benefits of the scheme offered are not considered to overcome the evidential quantitative loss of visual open space at the application site. There are further concerns regarding the excessive shading from trees on site to the rear of the proposed dwellings leading to pressure for pruning or removal. In addition, the indicative scheme backing onto the

watercourse and the new cul-de-sac to the south would create result a lack of active frontage to these features to the detriment of visual amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policies S1, S1a, CF4, EQ2, EQ6 and EQ9 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Control Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Informative This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraph 187 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Site Plan