7.1

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 18th January 2015 Application No:

HPK/2015/0471

Location Land off Brown Edge Close, Buxton. Proposal Proposed Residential Development Including

Demolition of 70 & 72 Brown Edge Road. Applicant Glenmark Trading Ltd Agent Emery Planning Partnership Parish/ward Corbar Ward Date registered 17th September

2015 If you have a question about this report please contact: Faye Plant, faye.plant@highpeak.gov.uk, 01298 28400 ext 4995.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The report on this application was deferred from the 18th January 2016 committee and has been updated to take on board comments from the applicant’s legal advisor, subsequent responses from objectors and changes to the emerging Local Plan.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The development site comprises 1.4 hectares of land located to the north of Buxton adjoined to the east by the Buxton to Manchester Railway line, and to the north by the 2 dwellings at Lowcroft. To the west lies the ribbon development of Brown Edge Road. Properties along Brown Edge Road are characterised by a relatively regular pattern of evenly spaced semi-detached and detached dwellings with the rear gardens backing on to the site. The site is accessed via a short private access road, Brown Edge Close, which serves a collection of 5 recently constructed detached dwellings. The site is steeply sloped down from west to east and is unmanaged grassland. 2.2 The site lies outside of the development boundary which is located to the south and west; it includes the ribbon development of Brown Edge Road and is within the open countryside. The hillside is visible in wide ranging views particularly from the A6 located to the east of the site.

7.2

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The application is made in outline form and seeks consent for residential development including the demolition of 70 and 72 Brown Edge Road. Access is sought for approval and is proposed through the existing access road of Brown Edge Close which is to be widened and extended. Matters such as design, scale, appearance and landscaping are to be reserved for a later date. 3.2 A full set of indicative plans accompanies the application and demonstrates how the site could accommodate a total of 20 dwellings in a variety of 2, 3 and 4 bed units, with associated gardens and parking. Revised plans have been received which include the provision of 6 of the 20 units as affordable units on site, comprising 2 and 3 bed units. The dwellings are mainly split level ranging from 1 storey to 3 storeys in height to accommodate the sloped nature of the site. Although plans are illustrative only, the design of the dwellings shown is a contemporary approach with a mixed palette of materials including render, timber cladding, reconstituted stone and the use of glazed balconies. 3.6 An updated bat survey and flood risk assessment were provided during the course of the application, together with revised plans to increase the amount of affordable housing, increase the landscaping buffer and to alter the window layout on 3 of the affordable units - all to address concerns from Officers, Derbyshire Wildlife Trust and Derbyshire Flood Risk Management Team. 3.7 The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents: • Planning, Design and Access Statement • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment • Bat Survey • Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey • Highways Technical Note • Tree Survey • Indicative Plans, Elevations and Sections • Railway Noise Assessment • Draft Section 106 3.8 The application, the details attached to it including the plans, comments made by residents and the responses of the Consultees can be found on the Council’s website at: http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=196965

7.3

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

HPK/2012/0252

Outline consent for construction of 21 detached dwellings plus highways and associated external works

Withdrawn August 2012.

HPK/2013/0449

Outline consent for construction of 21 dwellings plus highway and associated external works

Withdrawn October 2013.

• Residential consent granted under HPK/2007/0562 and

HPK/2009/0522 for the adjoining site.

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

High Peak Local Plan Saved Policies 2008 GD2 - Built up area boundaries GD4 - Character Form and Design GD5 - Amenity GD6 – Landscaping GD7 - Crime Prevention GD12 - Unstable Land, Landfill and Contaminated Sites OC1 – Countryside Development OC4 – Landscape Character and Design OC8 – Sites of Nature Conservation Importance OC10 – Trees and Woodlands CF7 – Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy H1 - Principles of Housing Provision H4 – Housing within Buxton H9 - Affordable Housing for Local Needs H11 - Layout and Design of residential development H12 - Public Open Space TR1 - Transport Implications of new development TR5 - Access, parking and design Supplementary Planning Guidance

i. Residential Design ii. Sustainable Development iii. Landscape Character iv. Planning Obligations

7.4

High Peak Local Plan Submission Version 2014 S1 – Sustainable Development Principles S1a – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development S2 – Settlement Hierarchy S3 – Strategic Housing Development S7 – Buxton Sub-Area Strategy EQ1 – Climate Change EQ2 – Landscape Character EQ3 – Countryside and Green Belt Development EQ4 – Biodiversity EQ5 – Design and Place Making EQ8 – Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows EQ9 – Pollution Control and Unstable Land EQ10 – Flood Risk Management H1 – Location of Housing Development H4 – New Housing Development H5 – Affordable Housing Development CF6 – Accessibility and Transport CF7 – Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy National Planning Policy Framework Achieving sustainable development Paragraph 17 - Core planning principles Section 4 - Promoting sustainable transport Section 6 - Delivering a wide range 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 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment National Planning Policy Guidance

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Site notice Expiry date for comments on Revised Plans: 1st January 2015

Neighbours Expiry date for comments on Revised Plans: 1st January 2015

Press notice Expiry date for comments: 22nd October 2015 Comment received from Councillor Johnson The application has a number of problems. Firstly, there is the issue of access. The road to the development is far too narrow and will almost certainly never become an ‘adopted’ road due to this issue and the fact that it is far too steep for vehicles especially in winter. Secondly, the land was used for many years as a dump and as far as I can see no

7.5

survey has been carried out as to the toxicity of the waste lying underground. Thirdly, the sewage system on Brown Edge Road is old and would not have the capacity to accept waste from the development, that would also need to be pumped uphill. I am also worried about the possible damage to the railway sidings, which would be subject to a large amount of rain water ‘runoff’ caused by the concrete and tarmac ground cover of the development. I understand that the rail company also have worries in this regard and would more than likely object to this proposal. As far as I can gather, Brown Edge Road is considered a ‘ribbon’ development and granting planning permission to develop the area outwards was never the intention. Comment received from Councillor Kemp I oppose approval of the application in my capacity as HPBC ward Councillor, DCC divisional Councillor, portfolio holder for heritage/conservation and also designated Heritage Champion. I have concerns about what I understand is the intention to not seek adoption for the roadway especially given the steep gradients that are inevitable. We may reasonably anticipate that people will leave their cars on Brown edge Road itself when snow is forecast and where there is already congestion. This problem will be all the greater with refuse collection vehicles having to negotiate tight bends. I understand the mains system on Brown Edge Road does not permit the division of waste water/sewage and in any case believe there to be concerns about a pumped system in this location. There are concerns about additional run‐off from non‐permeable surfaces having potential to destabilise the railway embankment on a line that takes very heavy loads from mineral traffic. The visual impact of the proposal from one of the town’s main “gateways” (the A6) will be detrimental and the entire character/landscape will be adversely affected by an unsympathetic development that fails to respect the existing built environment. Neighbours 30 letters of objection have been received (including 4 letters relating to the revised plans). Objections received on the basis of the following;

• The proposals will have a detrimental affect on the landscape,

• Access to the site is poor and too narrow, • The gradient of the site will mean residents will park on

Brown Edge Road in winter and cause traffic problems • The site is a haven for wild flowers and wildlife, • The height of the houses will cause shading and stop

natural light to properties on Brown Edge Road,

7.6

• The site is within the countryside, • The land is unstable, • There is a natural spring on site which floods in heavy rain, • Traffic on Brown Edge will increase and cannot cope with

this and the planned Brown Edge Road Care development,

• What are the sewerage management plans? • The site is very visible from the A6, • The access is inadequate for 16 additional dwellings, • The access is near to a blind bend, • The proposal will result in a lack of amenity for local

residents due to noise, • The proposals does not include information about Network

Rails future proposals, • The dwellings are excessively high and will be very visible

from the A6, • The dwellings are not in character with the local area and

will set a precedent, • How will waste be collected if the road is too narrow, • Access to Brown Edge Road from Lightwood is an

extremely busy crossroads especially during school opening times,

• The affordable homes will overlook the neighbouring dwellings,

• There are numerous plots better suited to development i.e. Harpur Hill College,

• The proposals involves importation of a large amount of material to the site,

• How will services be provided on such a sloped site? • The photos submitted with the application show the site in

full foliage and are misleading, • The existing development of the 5 dwellings on Brown

Edge Close is very intrusive, this will be worse. • The site in not an infill plot as it does not adjoin developed

land, • The access road will not be accessed by emergency

vehicles, • Removal of footpaths is not acceptable, • Disruption caused by construction traffic, • It is unlikely the road will be adopted, • Demolishing 70 and 72 Brown Edge Road will have a

significant impact on the character of the area, • The development will have an adverse effect on the

gateway to Buxton, • The proposal is the encroachment of development into the

countryside and will have a real negative visual effect, • The development is urban sprawl,

7.7

• The development will not add to the strong sense of place as required by the NPPF,

• The proposal will cause subsidence to neighbouring developments,

• Buxton relies on tourism and this application will detract from and spoil the view of the countryside.

• The site could be contaminated as it is within 250m of a former landfill.

• The revised plans do not overcome any of residents concerns.

Comments Received from Brown Edge Residents Group 3 letters of objection have been received from BERG (Brown Edge Road Residents Group). In addition to the points raised above the Residents Group object on the following grounds,

• The proposals will have an adverse impact on the character and distinctiveness of the countryside,

• The development will create a serious increase in general noise and disturbance,

• The proposals will affect the amenity of 72 and 74 Brown Edge Road,

• The development would not respect the landscape character of the area,

• Brown field allocated sites should be developed before greenfield sites,

• The use of hard engineering such as gabions to provide site stability would be unsympathetic to the countryside location.

• Contrary to the applicant’s statement that the site cannot be in agricultural use, this is not true as the site has previously been used for agriculture.

• A sustainable drainage scheme for this site is not achievable, • Development of the site will magnify existing run off/flooding

issues on the site which will affect Network Rail land. • This is not a sustainable site, • Noise from surface water pumps will cause a disturbance to

existing residents. A petition of 228 signatures objecting to the development has been received. Comments from the applicant’s legal advisor to the initial committee report are as follows:

• The report gives the impression that all of land is unsuitable for development whereas LCA points to variations in level of landscape impacts.

• The applicant and Council agreed there was no inter-visibility between the site and National Park at a meeting on 25th November 2015.

7.8

• DCC landscape architect is not a statutory consultee and only refers to his comments on a previous application.

• No mention in report of housing allocation to east of site, • No professional assessment of LVIA in report, • Report only mentions one visual viewpoint (from A6) where

concerns arise; it does not deal with nature of any receptors, sensitivity or temporal nature of view.

• Where there is no 5 year housing supply, the presumption is in favour of development. Council must be able to demonstrate that the harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs benefits.

Subsequent comments from BERG on legal advice:

• Legal advice has omitted to mention that a decision should be based on economic, social and environmental factors.

• This has a number of concerns about the way the character, appearance and landscape are treated by the report but does not list these.

• It questions but does not refute DCC comments -these are still relevant though for previously larger scheme.

• LVIA fails to provide an artist’s impression to demonstrate development’s impact on the landscape. BERG’s own illustrative impression shows that proposals will not fit with existing ribbon development and countryside.

• Development is not surrounded by housing on four sides as suggested. Network Rail proposed sidings will prevent housing being built immediately to the east of the site.

• Sensitive receptors will include not only drivers on A6, but also train passengers, users of golf course and public rights of way.

• No legal requirement for planning officers to have LVIA qualifications,

• Drainage and risk of landslide are not addressed by legal advice. NPPF states that ground conditions and land stability are relevant; pollution is also an issue.

• Reasons for refusal of previous application HPK/2013/0449 and HPK/ 2012/0252 still apply – namely concern about impact on character, appearance and landscape, loss of amenity, noise and disturbance to occupiers of nos 72 and 74 Brown Edge Road.

BERG attach a letter from Network Rail dated Sept 2015 which states that the draft local plan has identified a housing allocation on the site of the proposed sidings extension in Buxton which, if implemented, would result in a modification to the housing allocation on this site.

7.9

Consultee

Comment

Officer

response

Highway Authority

Comments on revised plans – No objection. It is considered that there is sufficient controlled land to accommodate a suitable junction layout to serve the level of development being suggested subject to a detailed design. Recommend condition. Original comments - It is noted that all matters except access are reserved. It is proposed to extend the carriageway width to 4.8m rather than 4.5m as shown, although it would appear that there is adequate land within control of the applicant to address this. Although not part of the application the road layout beyond the access does not meet current design guidance due to highway width, bend in alignment and resulting lack of forward visibility. This will need to be addressed at reserved matters stage. The proposed road is to remain private therefore in order to exempt the developer from obligations in the Highways Act, the highway should be in accordance with the 6C’s Design Guide. Conditions are recommended to provide access modifications, road construction details and management plan, provision of parking and storage compound, provision of surface water drainage and detailed design requirements (i.e. highway gradients).

7.33- 7.35

Environmental Health

The proposed end use is particularly sensitive to the presence of land contamination and previous site investigations in this area have identified elevated concentrations of contaminants, including arsenic. The construction/demolition stage

7.10

could lead to an increase in noise and dust experienced at sensitive properties and subsequent loss of amenity. Conditions are recommended to mitigate and overcome the above issues.

Environment

Agency

No comments. The proposal does not fit into a category which requires EA consultation and the comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority should be sought.

DCC Flood Risk

Comments on revised Flood Risk Assessment – The drainage strategy acknowledged that little site investigation has been undertaken and as a result proposes to dispose surface water into the surface water sewer network and due to topography of the site a surface water pump will have to be utilised. This should be an absolute last resort as they are not in constant use and could fail at time of heavy rainfall, causing flooding. Conditions would be needed to secure appropriate detailed design and associated management of surface water drainage for the site and to demonstrate all other methods had been explored.

HPBC Tree Officer

There is no arboricultural objection to the application provided that a tree protection scheme is conditioned to ensure that third party trees are protected and suitable landscaping is provided.

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust

Comments on updated bat surveys and revised plans - Additional surveys of badgers and reptiles are still required to fully determine the site’s suitability for supporting protected species. These can be required by condition. Original comments – Bat assessment needs to be undertaken for both properties although the findings are accepted for 72 Brown Edge Road.

7.36-7.37

7.11

The phase 1 habitat survey also uses reasonable efforts to assess habitats present, although previous responses to similar applications highlighted the potential of the site to support reptiles at that time. The introduction of a rubble bund when the properties on Brown Edge Close [subsequent to those comments] were built does provide a habitat for reptiles.

HPBC Housing Strategy

The proposal includes a 30% affordable housing contribution in line with policy H9 of the Saved Local Plan. Although the application is outline they have provided additional information as to the breakdown of the affordable units, 5 x 2 bed dwellings and 1 x 3 bed dwelling which does meet identified housing need in the Buxton area. Concerns are raised regarding unit 9a as to its location to the rear of plots 8 and 9 and size. The demand for a 2 bedroom flat is queried in this location. As the application is outline it is not appropriate to confirm the affordable housing mix at this stage and would prefer to do this at reserved matters stage. It is the Councils expectation that the affordable dwellings will be built to the HCA former Design and Quality Standards and Housing Quality Indicators and will meet the specified size criteria. Evidence from the most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment requires an 80% affordable rent and 20% intermediate housing/shared ownership split and this should be secured through the S106 agreement.

7.36-7.38

DCC Landscape Architect

Comments on original plans - The site is visible in longer range views particularly from the A6 and the topography of the site does make it more prominent and particularly difficult to develop. I note the application is for

7.15-7.23

7.12

outline permission, although it suggests that development will be a mix of 2 and 3½ storey properties. Although the applicant makes the case that existing development along Brown Edge Road is a mix of house styles, I don’t believe that any of these houses set a precedent for 3½ storey buildings, which will appear much more visually prominent particularly in these longer distance views.

HPBC Planning Policy

The site at Brown Edge Road was not put forward as a site suggestion as part of the Emerging Local Plan and was excluded from the built up area boundary as part of the Emerging High Peak Local Plan. The site was within the broader area of search of the Landscape Impact study which was prepared as part of the emerging Local Plan process as a site which was not suitable for development in landscape terms. The Local Plan has been subject to examination and the Council has recently consulted on the Inspector’s Main Modifications to the Plan. Following this we expect correspondence from the Inspector on the outcomes of the examination.

Horticultural Services

Due to the size of the development and proximity to Brown Edge Play area which is 360m from the site, we would require an off site contribution to outdoor sport/POS and play and both are targeted towards Brown Edge Road play area.

Contributions are as follows, Play - £2,615.04 Outdoor sport/POS - £2,052.08 both in accordance with the Councils adopted formula for calculating contributions.

7.41 – 7.42

Network Rail has no objection in principle to the above – but due to the proposal being next to Network Rail

7.13

Network Rail land and infrastructure and to ensure that no part of the development adversely impacts the safety, operation and integrity of the operational railway we would request that conditions are included to provide for trespass proof and acoustic fencing, protection of the railway from over sail of scaffolding, piling survey, and surface water drainage.

Severn Trent

Water

No objection subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewerage.

DCC Planning

Policy

There are no contributions required towards education or waste management at this time.

Design Review Panel

This is an outline scheme but with full plans submitted. The panel have previously commented on a scheme on this site in 2012 and felt that the scheme as submitted has not addressed the original comments and fundamental objections to the development on the site. Comments from 2012 – The panel conclude that the principle of development on the site is not acceptable and the resultant design is an appropriate and dominant form of development.

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

(A) Planning policies

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 circumstances 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,

7.14

so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan currently consists of the High Peak Saved Local Plan Policies 2008, which contains polices which carry full weight where they conform with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 7.3 The Main Modifications to the Local Plan, have recently been the subject of public consultation, which closed on 28th January 2016. This indicates that, allowing for the responses to the modifications, the Inspector considered the Local Plan to be a sound and capable of being adopted. He has not indicated that the sites proposed to meet the housing need are not capable of being brought forward for development at the appropriate time, nor has he suggested that additional sites should be included in the Local Plan. 7.4 The Inspector is currently considering the responses to the Main Modifications and preparing his final report. It is now considered that there is a 5 year supply of housing land because the sites identified to come forward in the emerging plan in the next five years are in a suitable location for development, are viable and there is a reasonable prospect that housing on these sites will be delivered within the next five years (as required by NPPF Para. 47, Footnote 11). This matter carries significant weight because the plan is close to adoption. 7.5 Whilst it is recognised that the Local Plan Inspector still has to produce his final report into the High Peak Local Plan, it is considered that very significant weight can now be given to policies which were not challenged as part of the main modifications or where the changes are immaterial to the issue being debated and significant weight can be attributed to other policies which remain to be finally agreed. 7.6 Other material considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG). 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 7.7 The presumption in favour of sustainable development which runs through the core principles of the Framework is reflected in Policies S1 – Sustainable Development Principles and S1a – Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development of the Emerging Local Plan. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF identifies the three dimensions to sustainable development; economic, social and environmental.

7.15

7.8 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. 7.9 Section 6 of the Framework relates specifically to the need to boost housing supply by delivering a wide choice of high quality homes. Paragraph 49 requires Local Planning Authorities to consider housing applications in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 7.10 The site lies on the edge of the existing settlement boundary. It is within walking distance of Buxton town centre, a short walk from local bus routes, schools, shops and services. On this basis it is considered that the site is situated in a sustainable location and suitable for housing. 7.11 However, within the adopted Local Plan, the site lies within the open countryside. Saved Policy OC1 – Countryside Development of the Local Plan, which is consistent with paragraph 109 of the NPPF, and permits development which is an integral part of the rural economy and which can only be carried out in the countryside provided that individually or cumulatively it would not detract from or have a significant impact on the character and distinctiveness of the countryside. Similarly emerging Local Plan policy EQ3 seeks to ensure that new development in open countryside is strictly controlled to protect the landscape’s intrinsic character and distinctiveness. This policy has significant weight. 7.12 Emerging Local Plan Policy H1 refers to the need to support the development of specific sites through the new site allocations in the Local Plan. The site is not allocated for housing in the emerging local plan, nor does it lie within the settlement boundary. Policy H1 however does allow for consideration to be given to approval of housing on sustainable sites outside the defined built up area boundaries, taking into account other policies in the Local Plan. This is provided that the development would adjoin the built up area boundary, be well related to the existing pattern of development and surrounding land uses also that development would be reasonably related to facilities and local and strategic infrastructure. 7.13 Although the above criteria are met, the other proviso is that housing development on unallocated sites would not lead to prominent intrusion in the countryside or have a significant adverse impact on the character of the countryside. The next section will argue that development on this site would lead to prominent intrusion on the

7.16

countryside and for this reason the proposals do not satisfy policy H1- which is considered to carry significant weight. Character, Appearance and Landscape Impact 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. Saved Policy OC1 of the Local Plan seeks to protect the countryside from unwarranted development and relates to the character and appearance of the countryside. Saved Policy OC4 'Landscape, Character and Design' requires that new development must contribute to and not erode landscape character and sense of place by employing appropriate design principles. 7.15 Emerging Local Plan Policy EQ3 seeks to ensure new development in the open countryside is strictly controlled to protect the landscapes intrinsic character and distinctiveness, including the character, appearance and integrity of the environment and setting of the Peak District National Park. This policy is afforded significant weight. Emerging policy EQ2 seeks to protect, enhance and restore the landscape character for its own intrinsic beauty and for its benefit to the economic, environmental and social well-being of the area. This policy is afforded significant weight. . 7.16 The site lies within the Moorland Fringe Character Area, as defined by the adopted Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Document. As such the area is characterised by moderate to steep slopes fringing open moors with a distinct absence of trees, and is an open and exposed landscape with expansive views. The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) considers its features are not particularly notable. It is agreed that the site does not have any policy designation to suggest a significantly high landscape value – it is not designated as Special Landscape Area; Green Belt or designated wildlife site. 7.17 In terms of its landscape character, the applicant’s LVIA suggests that the site has more in common with the urban fringe than adjacent countryside, since it is visually contained by residential development, vegetation and the railway line; and this would be further emphasised by the implementation of the housing allocation to the east. It concludes that development on this site would provide a suitable edge to the settlement. Taking into account the quality of the landscape it therefore judges the impact of the proposed development on ‘landscape character type’ as Minor Adverse. 7.18 The saved Local Plan does allocate the area to the south east of the application site for housing, with recreational space immediately to the east of the site. This allocation is maintained in the emerging local plan (policy DS15) which states that sites B3 and B4 contain the only

7.17

area of brownfield land adjacent to the urban area of Buxton, comprising former railway sidings and a refuse tip. Part of this allocated area is also a wildlife site. 7.19 However, paragraph 6.91 of the emerging Local Plan, states that these allocated sites site lie in a shallow valley between existing areas of housing and (significantly) are not visible from the A6 or indeed from the Peak District. Moreover the former refuse tip immediately east of the application site is deemed to be unsuitable for housing development and is proposed for formal recreation and amenity use. The applicant’s conclusions as to where the natural edge of the settlement lies is therefore disputed. It is the development of these allocated sites, rather than that of the application site, which would form the clear boundary between the built up area and countryside to the north. 7.20 Although the application site is bounded by Brown Edge Road to the west and Brown Edge Close to the south, open countryside extends to the north and east with the isolated development of Lowcroft to the north and railway line set in the valley bottom to the west. The site is clearly distinct from the surrounding urban area and represents the beginnings of the swathe of open countryside to the north of Buxton. 7.21 As noted above this application seeks outline planning permission with only access to be agreed with layout, scale, design and landscaping being reserved for future consideration. However, the submitted indicative layout plan and indicative elevations, sections and floor plans provide some context for assessment within the landscape. 7.22 The indicative layout proposes a single cul de sac development with dwellings on either side of the access road. The indicative elevations demonstrate that the dwellings would be split level and arranged within a relatively urbanised layout, with the properties and their gardens extending up to, and backing onto the rear boundary. There is very little space identified for landscaping on the indicative site plan. This therefore would clearly have a far greater adverse effect on the landscape character of the application site and adjacent countryside than is suggested by the applicant. 7.23 Turning to the visual impact of the proposals, the application site differs from the lower land to the east in that it slopes steeply upwards on the western side of the railway and as such becomes more visible in wider range views, particularly from the north east. For the reasons already given these views would not be interrupted by any future development of the allocated sites B3 and B4. 7.24 The applicant’s LVIA suggests that views of the site are largely localised. Moreover, there is no inter-visibility between the site and Peak District National Park. It is stated that the most significant visual effects will be on users of the public footpath (FP1) to the south where for a short section of the route the effects are assessed as High Adverse.

7.18

Development effects for public footpath (FP2) to the east of the site would be High-Moderate Adverse. There would also be Moderate Adverse effects for recreational users of FP4 and users of Buxton golf club to the east, with transient views from the A6. Effects on other views are judged to be neutral or minor adverse - especially as for most locations these are seen against the backdrop of existing development or filtered by vegetation. 7.25 It is agreed with the applicant’s LVIA that the site is visible for drivers on the A6 particularly on entering Buxton, past the entrance to the golf driving range located to the north of the town. There are also more permanent views for users of the golf course and public footpaths in this vicinity. The applicant describes these views as ‘localised’. However, regardless of this, they are considered by January 2014 ‘Landscape Character Assessment’ commissioned as part of the evidence base for the forthcoming Local Plan, to be particularly important. 7.26 Within the ‘Landscape Character Assessment’, the site is within the broad area of search identified as not suitable for development in landscape terms. Page 84 of the study states the following about the broad area to the north of Buxton, “Land to the north is extremely open, elevated and visually prominent. Development would have a high impact on the setting of the National Park. The approach into Buxton along the A6 is considered unsuitable for development due to its importance for the setting and character of the settlement.” Although development of the application site would not intrude on views of the National Park, this advice quite clearly precludes the possibility of any development taking place on the application site. 7.27 The existing new houses at the site entrance on Brown Edge Close (permitted on previously developed land before the Landscape Character Assessment was produced) are clearly visible and obtrusive in the landscape from this location and any additional houses would be even more visible in the surrounding countryside. The site is very steep and will require extensive engineering to accommodate the proposed houses and new access road. Whilst there is existing development along Brown Edge Road at present this distinctly reads as ribbon development at a higher level on a relatively moderate incline up Brown Edge Road with a swathe of open countryside below and surrounding it. 7.28 Developing this area will intrude into an area of open countryside which for the reasons set out above would be detrimental of the visual characteristics of the wider landscape and contrary Policy OC1 and OC4 of the High Peak Saved Local Plan and policies H1, EQ2 and EQ3 of the Emerging Local Plan (which carry very significant weight). Furthermore, one of the overall aims of the NPPF as set out in Para 17 and Section 11 is to take account of the different roles and character of different areas and recognise and protect the intrinsic character and

7.19

beauty of the countryside. The proposal is not considered to achieve this aim. Design and Layout 7.29 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. 7.30 Saved Local Plan policy GD4 seeks to ensure that new development does not harm the visual qualities of the locality and wider landscape, taking into account matters such as siting, layout, density, height, design, materials and any associated engineering works. Policy H11 states that residential development should incorporate good design that reflects it’s setting and local distinctiveness, promote safe and accessible living environments which include a mix of housing types and protect residential amenity. 7.31 Emerging Local Plan policies S1 and EQ5 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. These policies are accorded very significant weight. 7.32 The applicant’s landscape assessment (LVIA) suggests that the proposals comply with current planning policy in terms of the relationship with the scale of surrounding development, impact on views from properties along Brown Edge Road and impact on landscape. However, dwellings along Brown Edge Road are characteristically fairly small semi detached properties with simple detailing. As a group they form a strong linear form of development with simple and modest characteristics that respect and follow the contours of the land. The relatively new development off Brown Edge Close is at odds with this prevailing character, the development being large detached dwellings in reconstituted stone and visually separate from the surrounding properties. 7.33 This application includes indicative plans for 5 different property types across the site, some of which use the site topography to provide split level properties. The properties in some cases include attached or basement level garages, with ground and first floor level glass enclosed balconies. The proposals provide for dwellings of substantial height and width, and due to the proposed positioning of the dwellings on the site the front and rear elevations of dwellings on either sides of the access road. Revised plans were received which removed one of the most prominent plots at the far northern extent of the site and replacement

7.20

with an area to be retained for a landscaping buffer. However, the lower plot, plot 9 will be retained and will be particularly prominent from wider ranging views. 7.34 The units will also appear very tall on site, and the visual impact of the height is not likely to be offset by changes in land level or the existing pattern of development behind. The proposals will necessitate substantial retaining structures to enable usable garden areas and these will have an additional visual impact. Although the plans are indicative at this stage, taken as a whole, the development will be overly dominant in the landscape, by reason of the scale and form of the indicative development. The development is thus considered to be contrary to Policy GD4 and H11 of the High Peak Local Plan, along with guidance contained in Paragraph 17 and Section 7 (Para 59) of the NPPF which seek to ensure that amongst other things the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, are in character with the area and that new development integrates into the natural, built and historic environment. Amenity 7.35 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF requires a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policies GD5 and H11 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy EQ5 of the emerging Local Plan seek to ensure that the amenity of both existing and future residents will not be compromised, thus reflecting the requirements of paragraph 17 of the Framework. 7.36 Revised plans were received during the course of the application to amend fenestration details of the affordable units to overcome Officer concerns regarding a loss of privacy to neighbouring units. Although only indicative at this time, the proposals as a whole are not considered to cause any undue harm to the amenity of neighbouring dwellings by virtue of shadowing or overbearing. Appropriate privacy distances of 21m are achievable on the site to all existing dwellings and the proposal does not therefore give rise to concerns regarding overlooking or a loss of privacy. Whilst the indicative plans show dwellings with up to 3 storeys, the sloped site will mean that the dwellings will not overbear those to the south or west. 7.37 It is therefore considered that the proposals will not cause undue harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties and is therefore in accordance with paragraph 17 of the NPPF, local plan policy GD5 and emerging plan policy EQ5 in this regard; the latter is accorded very significant weight. Highway and Parking Considerations 7.38 The NPPF promotes sustainable transport and recommends that local planning authorities seek to encourage and facilitate where

7.21

possible sustainable patterns of transport using practical alternatives to private motor vehicles so that people have a real choice about how they travel. Policy TR5 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to ensure that new development is served by safe and appropriate access for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and the private car, taking into account details such as parking, access, manoeuvring and servicing. Policy CF6 of the emerging plan requires the site to be accessed safely. This policy is currently very significant weight. 7.39 The application proposes a single point of access off Brown Edge Road, utilising the existing access to Brown Edge Close. It is proposed to demolish number 70 and 72 Brown Edge Road to allow access to the site to be upgraded. It is noted that the indicative layout plan shows a single estate road through the site, although this is not being offered for adoption. The Highways officer is satisfied that the proposed access is acceptable with appropriate space on site for improvements to the detailed design of the junction and subject to numerous conditions to protect highway safety. 7.40 It is therefore considered that there would be no adverse impact on the local road network or to the safety of highway users and therefore the proposal complies with the provisions of section 4 of the NPPF, Emerging Policy CF6 (which carries very significant weight) and policy TR5 of the saved Local Plan 2008. Ecology and Biodiversity 7.41 The conservation and enhancement of the natural environment is a core principle of the NPPF, which seeks a level of protection for wildlife sites commensurate with their status and with appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution they make to wider ecological networks. Section 11 of the NPPF outlines that planning policies should promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats and ecological networks. In determining planning applications, permission should be refused if significant harm resulting from development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for. Policy EQ4 of the emerging Local Plan seeks to conserve, where possible, the biodiversity and geological resources of the district by ensuring that development proposals will not result in significant harm to such interests. This policy is currently afforded significant weight. 7.42 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust have advised that the submitted updated bat survey is acceptable and that appropriate conditions can secure further ecological surveys. As such, it is considered that there would be no significant harm resulting from the development and that planning conditions should be imposed to provide opportunities for biodiversity enhancement. The proposal is therefore in accordance with section 11 of the NPPF and Emerging Local Plan Policy EQ4 - which carries very significant weight.

7.22

Affordable Housing 7.43 Paragraph 50 of the NPPF identifies the need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. With respect to affordable housing it advises that Policies should meet an identified need, but should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time. 7.44 The Council’s affordable housing policy is set out in Policy H9 of the Local Plan and in the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Housing Needs in High Peak. The policy requires that on development sites of 15 dwellings or more, or on sites of greater than 0.5ha a proportion of the development shall be affordable housing for local people. Policy H5 of the emerging Local Plan seeks to secure similar levels of affordable housing, although this policy is currently afforded some weight. 7.45 The scheme as proposed commits to providing 30% affordable housing on site. This requirement would need to be subject to a S106 agreement to secure delivery. Subject to the provision of a S106 Planning Obligation the scheme can be considered acceptable under the terms of policy H9 of the Adopted High Peak Local Plan Saved Policies. Section 106 7.46 In addition to affordable housing, there is a contribution required for open space and play space which would be utilised at the nearby Brown Edge Road play area. 7.47 Given the otherwise unacceptable nature of the proposal it was not considered expedient to negotiate S106 matters further with the applicant prior to Committee. If the Committee is minded to approve the application this would need to be subject to securing S106 contributions for open space and play as well as an appropriate form of affordable housing on site along with an appropriate timescale for the preparation of the agreement.

(C) Planning balance

Planning Balance 7.48 The National Planning Policy Framework provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However these must be balanced against the impact the scheme will have on the character and appearance of the countryside and its surroundings. The

7.23

‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ entails weighing the benefits of the scheme against those impacts. 7.49 The benefits of the scheme would include a contribution to reducing the shortfall in the 5 year housing provision, providing valuable affordable housing and financial contributions to public open space contributions. In addition the proposal will result in some construction jobs and in the generation of the New Homes Bonus, it is thus considered that there are economic and social benefits of this scheme. 7.50 However the site forms part of an open swathe of countryside which positively contributes to the character and appearance of its Moorland Fringe landscape character type. The harm that the introduction of significant urban massing from this proposed development which does not respond naturally to the existing pattern of development along Brown Edge Road would cause to the wider views in the locality; is considered to significantly outweigh the benefits of developing this site for housing. It is therefore considered that the social and economic benefits of this scheme do not outweigh the significant and demonstrable harm to the settlement pattern of the area and its landscape character. As such the proposal would not accord with the environmental dimension of sustainable development as defined in the Framework and so the presumption in favour of it does not apply. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee refuses the application on the grounds listed below; 1.The proposed development would be visually intrusive in the landscape and fails to respect local landscape character. The development would result in an undesirable expansion and encroachment, outside of the built up area boundary for Buxton, into the open countryside. As such the development would erode the visual appearance and character of the open countryside contrary to Policies H1, OC1, OC3, OC4, GD4 and H11 of the Adopted High Peak Local Plan Saved Policies 2008, policies H1, S7, EQ2, EQ3 and EQ5 of the Emerging Local Plan and advice contained within the adopted Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance March 2006. The harm caused to the environmental dimension of sustainable development outweighs any social and economic benefits of the scheme and therefore the proposal does not represent sustainable development. . 2. There is no mechanism in place to secure the required affordable housing, off-site play space and outdoor sports provisions which are necessary to support the proposed development. The proposal is thus contrary to Policies H9, and H12 of the adopted High Peak Local Plan 2008, Planning Obligations SPD 2005, policy CF7 and H5 of the

7.24

Emerging Local Plan and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 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 Head of Regulatory Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision. This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. Prior to the determination of the application the Council advised the applicant that the principle of such development is unsustainable and did not conform with the provisions of the NPPF. It is considered that the applicant is unable to overcome such principle concerns and thus no amendments to the application were requested..

Site Plan