PROSPERITY PEOPLE PLACE PUBLIC SERVICE

22  October  2012      

  Telephone:  (01636)  650000     E-­‐mail:    committees@nsdc.info  

 

  Contact:   Catharine  Saxton    Ext  5247  

  Your  Ref:    

  Our  Ref:     CLS          

 

  www.newark-­‐sherwooddc.gov.uk  

  Growth    Development  Business  Unit     Kelham  Hall,  Kelham     Newark        Nottinghamshire          NG23  5QX  

 

     Dear  Sir/Madam,  

PLANNING  COMMITTEE    Notice   is  hereby  given   that  a  meeting  of   the  Planning  Committee  will  be  held   in   the  Council  Chamber,  Kelham  Hall,  Newark  on  Tuesday,  30  October  2012  at  4.00  pm.    

Yours  faithfully    

           

A  W  Muter  Chief  Executive  

     

AGENDA    

          Pages      1.   Apologies  for  Absence              2.   Minutes  of  the  Planning  Committee  held  on  2  October  2012           5  -­‐  10    3.   Declarations  of  Interest  by  Members  and  Officers      

-­‐2-­‐     Pages    PART  1  -­‐  ITEMS  FOR  DECISION      4.     Land  to  the  rear  of  Fox  Hollow,  Quaker  Lane,  Farnsfield  (12/01193/FUL)   11  -­‐  34     (Site  Visit  11:55  –11:45  am)    5.    Fir  Tree  Cottage,  Newark  Road,  Collingham  (12/00989/FUL)   35  -­‐  42     (Site  Visit9:30  –  9:40  am)    6.    Roy  Walker’s  Pine,  Queens  Road,  Newark  (12/01004/FUL)     43  -­‐  48     (Site  Visit  9:10-­‐9:15am  )      7.    Stonewold,  Gravelly  Lane,  Fiskerton  (12/01058/FUL)   49  -­‐  58     (Site  Visit  12:15  –12:25  pm)    8.    Monza,  New  Hill,  Walesby  (12/01164/OUT)      59  -­‐  64    9.   Dilliner  Wood  Farm,  Main  Street,  Winkburn  (12/01241/FUL)      65  -­‐  78      10.   Land  Adjacent  to  42  Ossington  Road,  Kneesall  (12/01258/OUT)      79  -­‐  86      11.   Balderton  Hydro  Pool,  Gilbret  Way,  Fernwood  (12/01273/OUT)    87  -­‐  96      12.   Land  to  the  rear  of  Orchard  House,  High  Street,  Harby  (12/01280/FUL)     97  -­‐  112     (Site  Visit    9:50–10:00  am)    13.   The  Meadows,  Station  Road,  Bleasby  (12/01288/FUL)                                                                                                                113  -­‐  122    14.   Fairfield  House,  Halam,  Newark  (12/01308/FUL)   123  -­‐  130     (Site  Visit    11:35–11:45    am)              PART  2  -­‐  ITEMS  FOR  INFORMATION    15.   (a)  Appeals  Lodged                   131  -­‐  134    16.   (b)  Appeals  Determined                   135  -­‐  142    PART  3  -­‐  STATISTICAL  AND  PERFORMANCE  REVIEW  ITEMS  NIL    PART  4  -­‐  EXEMPT  AND  CONFIDENTIAL  ITEMS  The  following  items  contain  exempt  information,  as  defined  by  the  Local  Government  Act,  1972,  Section   100A(4)   and   Schedule   12A,   and   the   public   may   be   excluded   from   the  meeting   during  

discussion  of  these  items.    NIL    NOTES:-­‐  A  Briefing  Meeting  will  be  held  in  the  Cedar  Room  at  3.00  pm  on  the  day  of  the  meeting  between  the  Planning  Services  Manager,   the  Chairman  and  Vice-­‐Chairman  of   the  Committee   to  consider  late  representations  received  after  the  Agenda  was  published.  

4

NEWARK AND SHERWOOD DISTRICT COUNCIL Minutes of the PLANNING COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber, Kelham Hall, Newark on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012 at 4.00pm PRESENT: Councillor D.R. Payne (Chairman)

Councillors: R.V. Blaney, T.S. Bickley, G. Brooks, J. Bradbury, P Handley, D. Jones, G.S. Merry, J. Peck, Mrs S.E. Saddington, M. Shaw, Mrs L.J. Tift, I. Walker

and B. Wells. ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor D.Logue. 58. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

An apology for absence was submitted by Councillor J Hamilton.

59. MINUTES

AGREED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 4th September 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

60. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS NOTED:

Member Councillor T.S. Bickley

Agenda Item No Agenda Item No. 9 – Combs Farm Shop, Old Rufford Road, Farnsfield (12/01147/FUL). Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, Councillor Bickley delivers motorhomes and caravans to the business.

61.

ORDER OF BUSINESS The Chairman, with the permission of the Committee, changed the Order of Business on the agenda.

62.

LAND OFF SANDHILLS SCONCE, TOLNEY LANE, NEWARK (12/00562/FUL) The Committee considered the report of the Director – Growth, following a site inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought retrospective planning permission for the change of use from paddock to gypsy and traveller residential caravan site at land off Sandhills Sconce, Tolney Lane, Newark. A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which included correspondence received after the agenda was published from the owners of the application site. Councillor B. Richardson representing Newark Town Council spoke against the

5

application on the grounds that the area was prone to flooding and was a further extension to the washlands. A Member commented on the unfair balance of gypsy and traveller pitches within the district, with Newark having allocated more pitches than other areas in the district. Concern was also raised regarding the access and egress from Tolney Lane onto the bridge and the further encroachment of land into the countryside. Whilst there was an evacuation procedure in place should a flood warning be announced, concern was raised regarding whether the temporary accommodation area had reached saturation point. A Member commented on the material difference for this application on Tolney Lane from past-approved applications. The site itself was an extension into the open countryside, the Planning Committee had made clear when considering previous applications that no further permission would be granted in the open countryside. The Committee would also be accepting the proposal with an inadequate flood risk assessment. It was further proposed that a third reason for refusal be submitted, on the grounds that Council at its meeting on 6th September 2012, agreed to undertake a Gypsy and Travellers needs assessment. That assessment would form a development plan document, which would seek to propose sites; those sites would be sustainable and suitable sites. It would therefore be premature to grant permission on this site. AGREED (unanimously) that planning permission be refused for the reasons contained within the report with the addition of a further reason as follows: Reason 03 The District Council is committed to undertaking a new Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs assessment within the next year and to prepare a subsequent Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document. These will determine the number of additional pitches required. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal is premature and approval could be prejudicial to the objective assessment of other sites that might be more suitable and sustainable. AGREED (unanimously) that the Director – Growth, takes appropriate enforcement action in consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

63.

78 FARNDON ROAD, NEWARK (12/00307/FUL) The Committee considered the report of the Director – Growth, following a site inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought full planning permission for a two storey detached dwelling at 78 Farndon Road, Newark. A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which included correspondence received after the agenda was published from Mrs T. Dunham the applicant. Councillor B. Richardson representing Newark Town Council spoke in favour of the application on the grounds that the site was large enough for the dwelling and similar sites had been developed.

6

A Member supported the grounds for refusal and suggested that reason three should also include the impact on the amenity of No. 10 Lamb Close.

AGREED (unanimously) that full planning permission be refused for the reasons contained within the report, with the amendment that the impact on Lamb Close also be included in reason three.

64

107 FOSSE ROAD, FARNDON, NEWARK (11/01790/FUL) The Committee considered the report of the Director – Growth, following a site inspection held prior to the meeting, which requested full planning permission for the demolition of the existing single storey detached two bed roomed dwelling and the replacement with a two storey detached five bed roomed dwelling at 107 Fosse Road, Farndon, Newark. A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which included correspondence received after the agenda was published from resident of a neighbouring property; Mr C. Davies the agent; and the Planning Officer. The Planning Officer had suggested that additional control over surface water drainage on the site had not been conditioned on the report following the Environment Agency comments. Additional suggested condition related to discharge of surface water. The Business Manager Development informed the Committee that there was no guarantee that the large tree situated at the front of the property would survive if the proposal took place and the trees were not protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). Members were also informed of the suggested additional condition which related to the discharge of surface water contained within the late item schedule, the Business Manager Development also proposed an informative note to the applicant, stating that permitted development rights exist for permeable driveway. Councillor D.P. Logue as Ward Member for Farndon spoke against the application on the basis of loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and overshadowing from the proposed three-storey building. The neighbour was a professional artist and the proposed dwelling would affect the light and shadowing of his property. It was felt that the proposal was incongruous with the design pattern of the road and over development of the plot. Concerns were also raised regarding the felling of the trees and car parking. A Member sought clarification regarding the right to light. The Business Manager Development confirmed that loss of light was a material consideration but there was not necessarily a right to light. Members felt that the proposal would fit in the street scene and would enhance the area, as the existing bungalow looked tired.

A Member suggested whether the property could be turned around in order to fit in with the existing footprint and therefore would have less impact on the neighbouring property. The Business Manager Development confirmed that the

7

change to the design would impact on the driveway, which ran along the side of the property to a turning head at the bottom of the garden. Members were also reminded that the applicant had asked the Planning Committee to consider the application before them. A Member suggested that an informative should be provided to the applicant stating that any hard landscaping had to be permeable. A Member moved an amendment and it was seconded, that the application be deferred in order that the applicant be asked to consider changing the design by turning the building around, in order to have less impact on the adjacent neighbour. The vote was taken and lost with 6 votes for and 8 votes against.

AGREED (unanimously) that full planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report, the following additional condition and the informative to the applicant: (i). Condition 10: No development shall be commenced until details of the means of foul drainage and surface water disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory means of foul sewage/surface water disposal. (ii). informative note to the applicant, stating that permitted development rights exist for permeable driveway.

65.

BARNBY COURT, BARNBY ROAD, BALDERTON (12/00750/FUL)

The Committee considered the report of the Director – Growth, following a site inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought planning permission for the erection of four apartments with associated car parking at Barnby Court, Barnby Road, Balderton. The Business Manager Development reported that there was an error in the report regarding the number of car parking spaces, which was sixteen down to twelve spaces and not eight as stated. Councillor J. Page representing Balderton Parish Council spoke in favour of the application on the grounds of fulfilling the need for affordable homes. A Member commented on the need for affordable housing and felt this development would not be out of character as stated in the report and that the car parking issue had been dealt with. The Member moved an amendment that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions, which was seconded. The vote was taken and lost with 3 votes for, 8 votes against and 1 abstention.

8

Members commented that the development was over intensification in the countryside; the parking issue had not been satisfied; and the noise from the 6.30am train to London was also raised as a concern. It was further commented that the reasons stated within the report were so sound, to accept the application would be detrimental to the existing properties.

AGREED (with 9 votes for, 3 votes against and 2 abstentions) that full planning permission be refused for the reasons contained within the report.

66. MOOR FARM, NEWARK LANE, BARNBY-IN-THE-WILLOWS (12/00993/FUL) The Committee considered the report of the Director – Growth, following a site inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought retrospective planning permission for the erection of a replacement dwelling at Moor Farm, Newark Lane, Barnby in the Willows.

AGREED (unanimously) that full planning be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report.

67.

COMBS FARM SHOP, OLD RUFFORD ROAD, FARNSFIELD (12/01147/FUL) The Committee considered the report of the Director – Growth, following a site visit held prior to the meeting, which sought retrospective planning permission for the change of use of the former farm retail premises and yard to the sale, servicing and repair of caravans and motor homes, at Combs Farm Shop, Old Rufford Road, Farnsfield. A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which included correspondence received after the agenda was published from Councillors Mrs N.A. Armstrong and R.B. Laughton, Ward Members for Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe. Members commented that 200 yards away from the site, a garage was selling cars on the roadside. There was also a public house, theme park and farm park on the opposite corners of the road. It was felt that this site was a good public amenity, which was not presenting any harm. A Member commented that the application was for the sale, servicing and repair of caravans and motor homes, there was nothing in the application, which referred to the Café side of the business, which was currently being operated. The Café was unauthorised, as the usage class was not covered by this application. The Business Manager Development confirmed that the two businesses had been separated and discussions were taking place regarding the issue of an enforcement notice for the Café. A Member suggested that the conditions for planning consent for the sale, servicing and repair of caravans and motor homes be delegated to the Director – Growth in consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Enforcement action be authorised for the Café unless a planning application was

9

received within three months. The Business Manager Development informed the Committee that Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) had sought further information regarding the parking provision, capacity for caravan storage and amendment of the red line plan to incorporate access to the public highway and that it would be appropriate to impose conditions regarding the approval of a layout for both car parking and caravans displayed for sale.

AGREED (with 13 votes for and 1 vote against) that: (a) planning permission be approved contrary to Officer recommendation, subject to the conditions for planning consent being delegated to the Director – Growth in consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman; and (b) enforcement action be authorised to secure the cessation of the unauthorised use of the Café business, unless a planning application for the Café is received within three months.

(Having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest on the above Minute (Agenda Item No. 9) Councillor T.S. Bickley left meeting for the duration of the item). 68. APPEALS LODGED

AGREED that the report be noted.

69. APPEALS DETERMINED

AGREED that the report be noted.

The meeting closed at 5.58 pm Chairman

10

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30th OCTOBER 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.4 Application No: 12/01193/FUL Proposal: Resubmission of proposed erection of 2 dwellings and garages and

replacement garage incorporating demolition of existing garage. Location: Land Rear Of Fox Hollow, Quaker Lane, Farnsfield, Nottinghamshire Applicant: Mr & Mrs A Robinson Registered: 23rd August 2012 Target Date: 18th October 2012 The Site The site lies within the village envelope which defines the main built-up area of Farnsfield and also falls within Farnsfield Conservation Area. The surrounding area is predominantly residential. The southern-most part of the application site falls within Flood Zone 3 of the Environment Agency Flood Maps and is at high risk from flooding. The site comprises 0.19 hectares of land, the northern part of which is open land and described by the application as “disused” and the southern part of which currently forms the garden of the property known as Fox Hollow situated on Quaker Lane. The southern part of the site slopes upwards from south to north whereas the main part of the site appears relatively flat. The site is not visible from Quaker Lane but is directly adjacent to a public right of way which links with other footpaths to the east and west, creating a footpath network. To the west of the site are traditional two-storey cottages (often in terraces) in small plots, the southern boundary of the main part of the site is defined by a public right of way (Farnsfield Public Footpath No 9) in the form of a narrow unmade pedestrian path, and beyond that are larger detached properties in larger plots, some of which are traditional and some of which are more recent. To the east of the site is a part wooded/ part open area (with the exception of a stable building) and to the north of the site is a large residential garden serving a property fronting Main Street. The southern, narrower part of the site is defined by Quaker Lane at its southern end, a single-track access road to the west which serves Bramble Cottage and the remaining garden area serving Fox Hollow to the east. Quaker Lane is a narrow lane that runs south from Main Street. The part of the lane that runs in a north-south direction has a heavily built-up feel with a high number of dwellings situated along the back edge of the pavement with limited or no greenery. As Quaker Lane turns the corner at its southern end that character changes into properties set back from the road creating a more open character with hedges and trees softening the streetscape. Fox Hollow, Vine Cottage to the south of the application site and the majority of the cottages to the west of the site have been identified in the Farnsfield Conservation Area

11

Appraisal as significant unlisted buildings or buildings that contribute to the townscape quality. The brick boundary wall between Fox Hollow and the access to Bramble Cottage is also identified as a topographical feature that contributes to the character of the Conservation Area. Relevant Planning History 10/01592/FUL - Proposed erection of 2 No dwellings and garages and replacement garage (incorporating demolition of existing garage to serve Fox Hollow). The application was refused on the 19th August 2011. The following reasons for refusal were identified: - 01 The proposed dwellings, by reason of their height, massing and scale, would represent incongruous, intrusive forms of development, out of keeping with the size and scale of existing dwellings, that would have a significant detrimental impact on the setting of the undesignated heritage assets to the west of the site and would harm rather than enhance or preserve the character and appearance of Farnsfield Conservation Area. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal is thereby contrary to Policies 2, 26 and 27 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, Core Policy 14 of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy, Policy C1 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan and the guidance contained with Planning Policy Statement 5. 02 The proposed access, by reason its width and length, would represent an intrusive, engineered feature, that would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent undesignated heritage asset to the east and that would significantly adversely affect the character and appearance of Quaker Lane and would harm rather than enhance or preserve the character and appearance of Farnsfield Conservation Area. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal is thereby contrary to Policies 2, 26 and 27 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, Core Policy 14 of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy, Policy C1 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan and the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 5. 03 The submitted Flood Risk Assessment fails to adequately demonstrate that the development will not result in future occupiers of the site being placed in danger from flooding in terms of providing dry, safe, emergency egress in a flood event. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal would therefore place eventual occupants at risk from flooding and be contrary to Policy 35 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, Core Policy 10 of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy, Policy PU1 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan and the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 25.

12

10/01587/CAC - Proposed erection of 2 No. dwellings and garages and replacement garage (incorporating demolition of existing garage). Conservation Area Consent not required 12.01.2011 The application site formed part of a larger site with the land to the east. Relevant to consideration of this application are the following application details: - 99/50643/FUL (FUL/991233) – Residential development consisting of road extension and seven dwellings. The application was refused on the 22nd March 2000. The following reasons for refusal were identified: - 01 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development of this site would result in the loss of an important open space and trees which contribute to the character of the village. In addition, the proposal does not satisfy the criteria outlined in Policy H21 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan. 02 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development does not reflect the character of the locality in terms of scale, design and layout and the proposal is contrary to Policy H21 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan. 03 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development would result in the loss of an important open space which makes a significant contribution to the character of the Conservation Area. The proposal would also result in a form of development that is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in terms of design and layout. The proposed development would have a seriously detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Farnsfiled Conservation Area and would fail to preserve and enhance it. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy C1 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan. 04 The proposal will result in the loss of trees, hedges and the historic pattern of croft plots which are important to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy C4 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan. The land immediately to the west of the proposed access drive is also of some relevance as under planning reference 91/724, planning permission was granted by Planning Committee (contrary to officer recommendation) for a new dwelling and access road, which has been built and is now known as Bramble Cottage.

13

The Proposal The application is a resubmission of an application refused in 2011 (10/01592/FUL) and comprises the erection of two 2-storey dwellings and associated detached double garages on the northern part of the site with a vehicular access being provided from Quaker Lane to the south. The access is formed using the existing garden of the property known as Fox Hollow and at its northern end crosses the existing public right of way. In order to create the access required, an existing garage serving Fox Hollow is proposed to be demolished and a replacement rebuilt to the north of the existing house which would utilise the proposed new access road from Quaker Lane. Plot 1 sits adjacent to the existing right of way facing east and Plot 2 sits on the northern part of the site facing south. Each dwelling comprises four bedrooms, two en-suites, a bathroom, kitchen, dining room, living room, sun room, family area, utility and cloakroom with one of the dwellings also provides a separate study. The maximum dimensions of the dwelling on Plot One measures 14.75 metres long by 9.25 metres wide, 6.5 metre to the gable width and 6.8 metres to ridge. The revised scheme is therefore reduced by 0.25 metres in length, 1.5 metres in width, 1.1 to the gable and 0.8 metres to the ridge. The sun room which formed part of the previous application has been replaced by a dual pitched roof construction and has been reduced in size. The maximum dimensions of the dwelling on Plot Two measures 15.4 metres long by 11.3 metres wide, 6.5 metres to the gable width and 6.8 metres to ridge. The revised scheme is therefore reduced in sized by 0.5 metres in width, 0.5 metres to the gable and 0.3 metres to the ridge, whilst the length of the property remains the same. The sun room which formed part of the previous application has been replaced by dual pitched roof construction and has been reduced in size. There is a distance of approximately 14 metres between the side elevation of Plot One and the front elevation of Plot Two. In relation to Plot Two, the single storey sun-room is approximately 3m and the two-storey element is approximately 4 metres from the common boundary to the north-west at its closest point. Plot One has a lower two-storey projection to the rear which is situated approximately 10.5 metres off the common boundary to the west, which is an increase in separation of 1.5 metres compared to the previously submitted scheme. The single storey sun-room and two-storey element are both approximately 3 metres off the common boundary with the right of way at their closest points. The detached garage serving Plot One is approximately 4.5 metres from the side elevation of the nearest existing neighbouring property to the west. The proposed access road from Quaker Lane to the existing right of way measures approximately 60 metres in length and varies in width from 4 metres wide at its narrowest to 5 metres at its widest. The road is fairly straight in nature, although it bends where the access crosses the public footpath. The proposal provides a turning head within the application site to enable the occupiers of the proposed dwellings to turn and leave the site in a forward gear. The access to Quaker Lane would be formed over the position of the existing driveway at Fox Hollow. The applicant has indicated that the yew hedge fronting on

14

to Quaker Lane would be trimmed back and the existing brick wall would be reduced from 1.8 metres to 900mm. The replacement garage to serve the existing property at Fox Hollow measures 7.5 metres long by 5.5 metres wide, approximately 2.3 metres high to eaves and 5.5 metres high to ridge and comprises two open cart-sheds and tool shed at ground level with workshop, served by external steps and two roof lights, above. The proposed layout plan (Dwg No 12/052-02) identifies some new planting within the site including 9 new trees and some hedging to the boundary of the site adjacent to the footpath, although it should be noted that this is indicative at this stage. A 1.8 metre high screen fence would secure the western boundary of the site. The planning application is supported by the following documents and technical studies: -

• Design and Access Statement • Arboricultural Report • Ecological Walkover Survey • Historic Assessment • Flood Risk Assessment

Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Occupiers of 16 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter; a site notice has been displayed and an advert has been displayed in the newspaper.

• Too much development in the village already and this would result in over development.

• The need for housing development to 2021 can be satisfied without resorting to back lands filling within the conservation area.

• The dwellings are too large and should reflect the scale of adjacent cottages • Size of dwellings should reflect the reduction in size of the site • The small reduction in gable widths and lower ridge height has not significantly

altered the overall size of the dwellings. • Proposed access road crosses the footpath and would be hazardous for both drivers

and pedestrians. • The proposed access, located between two buildings (Vine Cottage and Foxhollow)

of special note in the heritage terms, constitutes an alien and unacceptable feature in the Farnsfield Conservation Area and would degrade the streetscene of Quaker Lane

• Flood zone stretches to the middle of Quaker Lane directly opposite the footpath entrance Concerns raised regarding drainage of the site

• Proposed buildings would increase flood risk • Heritage Statement is unfit for purpose • The loss of open space, hedges and trees contribute to the character of the

conservation area. • High priority should be given to the objective of preserving and enhancing the

character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

15

• Electric (push button) gates either side of the public footpath are totally

inappropriate for this Conservation Area. • The proposed development would have a damaging impact on the setting of a

number of buildings that are identified in the council’s character appraisal as contributing to the character of the conservation area

• Removing trees and shrubs will destroy the character of this landscape • Detrimental impact on a wildlife haven in urban environment • The buildings are adjacent to a Tawny Owl nesting area. • Loss of open space • Tree Report fails to identify a Black Poplar which would need to be removed to

obtain access to the site. • NSDC have failed to take action against the applicant for unlawful removal of trees • The survival of trees to be retained would be compromised by the driveway and

gateway • The proposed development relies on removal of trees, which have been identified as

contributing to the character of the conservation area • Trees have been removed and others seriously reduced in height without consent • The proposed development threatens the long term survival of trees that contribute

to the character and appearance of the conservation area • Further impacts on congestion and parking • Construction impacts such as noise, dirt, and parking of construction vehicles • Insufficient parking • Inappropriate access for emergency services • The proposed access relies on reduction in the height of an adjoining wall that would

not appear to be in the control of the applicant • Overlooking from Plot 2 to Lilac Cottage • Disrupt quality of life of residents • Loss of view • The proposed development would be seriously detrimental to the amenity of

neighbouring dwellings by virtue of overlooking of private gardens and resultant loss of privacy

• Site should be used for recreational use e.g. allotments • Concerns raised regarding future aspirations of retained land to the rear of Sharrow

Cottage • Devaluation of properties • The Council decided to modify the Farnsfield village envelope, removing the

boundary from the immediate gardens to Sharrow Cottage, Ivy Cottage, The Cottage and Mayflower Cottage, it was stated that the area where Mr Robinson is now proposing to build on is landlocked and that there was no likelihood or intention of any residential development on the land, and that the redefinition was to facilitate the mapping of the village only.

Relevant Planning Policies The Development Plan East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009)

Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional

16

Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the appropriate weight to attach the relevant policies. Policies relevant to this application: • Policy 2 (Promoting Better Design) • Policy 3 (Distribution of New Development) • Policy 13a (Regional Housing Provision) • Policy 17 (Regional Priorities for Managing the Release of Land for Housing) • Policy 26 (Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage) • Policy 27 (Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment) • Policy 35 (A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk) Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Policies relevant to this application: • Spatial Policy 1 (Settlement Hierarchy) • Spatial Policy 2 (Spatial Distribution of Growth) • Spatial Policy 6 (Infrastructure for Growth) • Spatial Policy 7 (Sustainable Transport) • Core Policy 3 (Housing Mix, Type and Density) • Core Policy 9 (Sustainable Design) • Core Policy 14 (Historic Environment) Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999) Saved policies relevant to this application: • Policy C1 (Development on Conservation Areas) • Policy C4 (Natural and Other Features of Interest in Conservation Areas) • Policy NE17 (Species Protection) • Policy PU1 (Washlands) Other Material Considerations • National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was released by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on the 27th March 2012, with the aim of streamlining the planning system. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states that, "This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up to date Local Plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise." • Farnsfield Conservation Area Appraisal • National Planning Policy Framework

17

Consultations Farnsfield Parish Council - Objection. The proposed changes are minimal and would have little or no impact upon the original submission. The area is probably the most unspoilt and original part of the village and firmly lies in the conservation area. The land proposed for development is a local habitat for wildlife and once disturbed this will be lost forever. The buildings are completely out of character with the surrounding cottages and would overlook and overpower adjacent dwellings. A public footpath will be included in the site and vehicles crossing this footpath will result in unnecessary hazards and danger to pedestrians and animals. The minor modification to the driveway achieves nothing as neighbours will be affected by the long drive and vehicle interference. Quaker Lane is very narrow, a typical county village lane, and does not support the additional proposed use. The design statement makes reference to the proposed addition of housing in Farnsfield but fails to state that current policies still apply in relation to development in the conservation area and backland development. Whist Farnsfield may be designated as a principle village Policies DM5, DM6 and DM9 are relevant in this case. The proposals would have a detrimental impact in the locality by nature of its design and impact on the environment and would seriously harm the appearance and character of the Farnsfield Conservation area. NSDC Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) - Advise that the applicant has a contingency plan should the construction phase reveal any significant contamination. Information will be provided as an informative. NSDC Access Officer - Provides general comments which could be provided as an informative. NCC Highways – No objections subject to conditions NCC Public Rights of Way Officer – No objections subject to conditions. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust - No objections to the proposals in principle but fully support all of the recommendations in Section 6 of the report. Environment Agency – No objections subject to a condition which ensures that the development is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Flood Risk Assessment. Severn Trent Water – No objections subject to conditions relating to the disposal of surface water and foul sewage. Comments of Director of Growth The main planning issues considered to be relevant under consideration of this planning application are:-

· Principle of development o Strategic location

· Design, heritage and conservation · Amenity · Highways · Public Right of Way

18

· Ecology and trees · Flooding and drainage

Principle of development Strategic location The site is located within Farnsfield, which is identified by Core Strategy Spatial Policy 1 as being a Principal Village. Core Strategy Spatial Policy 2 identifies the spatial distribution of growth with respect to residential developments and indicates that 10% of the Districts overall housing growth will be directed towards Principal Villages of which 10% of this figure would be focused towards development within Farnsfield. Core Strategy Spatial Policy 2 indicates that growth within Farnsfield will focus upon the securing and supporting the role of Farnsfield as a Principal Village and ensuring that provision is made for new housing to meet local housing need. The principle of residential development on this site is therefore considered acceptable, subject to other planning considerations within this report and is therefore in accordance with Core Strategy Spatial Policies 1 and 2. Design, heritage and conservation Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a duty on local authorities to designate as Conservation Areas any, “areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance”. The Council has identified 47 Conservation Areas across the district, of which Farnsfield is one. Special attention should be afforded to the preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and as such particular consideration should be afforded to the proposed siting, scale, materials and detailing. Development proposals should be sympathetic to the character of the area and should relate well to surrounding buildings, including the use of traditional materials. Section 71 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires local planning authorities to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas and to submit them for consideration to a public meeting. Following designation, the local authority, in exercising its planning powers, must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area (Section 72 of the Act). A Conservation Character Appraisal is a tool used to define what is important about a Conservation Area’s character and appearance and to identify its important characteristics. The District Council has to date completed 14 Conservation Character Appraisals, and one such appraisal has been completed for Farnsfield. The Conservation Character Appraisal indicates that Farnsfield was historically a farming community. The village is surrounded by fields to the south and west and modern new housing development has encroached on the village to the north. The village was originally linear in form and is typically mediaeval in origin. Quaker Lane has a similar feel to Main

19

Street where the buildings are close to the street frontage of the conservation area. The buildings are built onto the street frontage; many are orientated with their gables facing the street and their boundary walls enclose gardens, all of which contributes towards this sense of enclosure. Examples of cottages within proximity of the application site include Greengate Cottage, Ivy Cottage, Jasmine Cottage and Straws Cottage. Building types in Farnsfield are mixed, but predominantly they are small simple cottages. These vernacular buildings are simple in form, usually rectangular, the roofs are gabled and the domestic properties often have chimney stacks on one or both gables. Windows are usually arranged symmetrically in the front elevation and comprise either sliding sashes or casements. Other building types include the larger Georgian town houses and some later Victorian buildings. The Conservation Area Appraisal indicates that this mixture of styles adds character and vitality to the townscape, especially along the length of Main Street. The Conservation Area Appraisal states that, “new development should respect the historic framework and character of the village including plot size, scale and alignment of building, boundary treatment, materials and detailing. In particular, attention to detail is important on sites near to listed buildings and other important unlisted buildings.” NPPF paragraph 137 states that, “local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas....to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.” Reason for refusal 1 raised issue with the proposed height, massing and scale of the properties. The officer report stated that, “The character and layout of the existing dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the main part of the site to the west are vernacular small scale cottages. The size and scale of the proposed houses do not respect the existing built form. The buildings have substantial footprints, wide gable ends and high ridge heights compared to the existing traditional properties. The scale and massing of the proposed dwellings would harm the setting of the non designated heritage assets to the west of the main site and would fail to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.” The dimensions to Plot One have been reduced by 0.25 metres in length, 1.5 metres in width, 1.1 to the gable width and 0.8 metres to the ridge. The dimensions to Plot Two have been reduced by 0.5 metres in width, 0.5 metres to the gable width and 0.3 metres to the ridge, whilst the length of the property remains the same as previous. To provide an understanding of site context, the applicant was asked to identify the ridge heights of adjacent properties located on Quaker Lane. The ridge heights of the surrounding properties on Quaker Lane appear to vary slightly between 7.1 and 7.3 metres. The proposed ridge heights of the properties measure 6.8 metres and as such are entirely appropriate within the context. The gable widths have also been reduced considerably compared to the previous scheme, and now measure 6.5 metres, which is considered appropriate within the context of those surrounding traditional buildings. The revised scheme is considered acceptable within the context of the surrounding traditional dwellings located to the west and south of the site. The propose development would not have a detrimental impact on the setting of the heritage assets.

20

In terms of detailing, the proposed dwellings incorporate a number of architectural details, including dentil coursing and corbelling to the gables, interlocking clay pantiles, wedge lintels and timber lintels. These features are identifiable within the conservation area and Conservation Area Appraisal. The proposal with respect to detailed design is therefore considered acceptable. With respect to reason for refusal two, clearly the length of the access drive cannot be reduced from that which was previously submitted. However, the width of the access opening has been reduced significantly, and as such the entrance is not as grand as that which was presented under the previous scheme. The revised entrance would not result in there being a detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent heritage assets (Fox Hollow and Vine Cottage). The Conservation Area Appraisal makes reference to both boundary walls and hedgerows and identifies the positive contribution that they make to the character of the conservation area. Although the proposed access would result in a reduction to the boundary wall and hedgerow, it is not considered that this loss would be so significant that it would seriously damage the wider character of the conservation area or that of its undesignated heritage assets. In light of the above consideration, I consider that the proposals respect the historic character of the village, with specific reference to gable widths, ridge heights and detailed design. The proposed scheme is therefore in accordance with Core Strategy Core Policy 14; Local Plan policy C1; and the NPPF. Amenity The proposed siting, internal arrangement and fenestration is in essence the same as that which was considered under the previous application. With respect to impact on amenity, the previous case officer commented that, “Careful assessment has been made in relation to the impact of the proposal on the amenity of existing occupiers. I acknowledge that Plot Two is situated particularly close to the common boundary on the north-west corner of the site (3 and 3.5 metres at its closest point) however given the distances between the two storey elements of the proposed to the rear elevations of the existing dwellings are 28 and 29 metres, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable degree of overlooking. Any overbearing impact or loss of sunlight would be felt at the extremities of the existing rear gardens and therefore I do not consider this impact to be unacceptable.” Having visited the site, and the adjacent Lilac Cottage, I concur with the previous Officers comments which present a fair representation of potential impacts. The site is bound by a 1.8 metre fence and there is significant tree coverage to the boundary of the adjacent Lilac Cottage. The impact of overlooking would be minimal and would not, in my view affect the amenity of the adjacent property. With respect to Plot One, the comments of the previous officer are highly relevant and reflect clearly and fairly the impacts of the proposed development on the amenity of adjacent occupiers. The officer states, “The rear projection has a first floor window and is situated approximately 9 metres from the common boundary with the property to the west. I am satisfied that the relationship between the existing and proposed is acceptable and would not result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking, overbearing impact or

21

overshadowing. I am aware of the existing window in the west elevation of the existing property to the west at ground floor level which is not the only window serving this room and I am conscious that this window is effectively using adjoining land not within its ownership for light and outlook. this situation has clearly evolved over time and represents poor planning practice that is highly unlikely to be granted planning permission today. This cannot and should not be allowed to prejudice the redevelopment of the application site. Taking all material matters into consideration, i conclude that the amenities of the occupier of the dwelling to the west would not be detrimentally affected by the proposal.” These comments remain relevant. With respect to the amenity of future occupiers, the proposed dwellings would ensure that adequate light and outlook are provided from habitable room windows by virtue of the layout of the property and its position on site. The property incorporates outdoor amenity space to the front and rear of the property and is considered acceptable for a property of this type. Highways Spatial Policy 7 indicates that development proposals should be appropriate for the highway network in terms the volume and nature of traffic generate and ensure the safety, convenience and free flow of traffic using the highway are not adversely affected; and that appropriate parking provision is provided. The site would be accessed off Quaker Lane via a private drive which crosses a public footpath (further details are provided below). The applicant has indicated that the existing yew hedge would be cut back nominally and the height of the adjacent wall would be reduced to 900 mm from the existing 1.8 metres to assist with visibility. Parking would be provided on site for 6 vehicles. Concerns have been raised by neighbours as to the ownership of the wall which would be reduced in height. This has been raised with the applicant who has sought legal advice on the matter. Their solicitor has advised that the ownership of the wall remains in dispute at this stage, notwithstanding this, their solicitor has advised that this issue would be dealt with through the Party Wall Act in any case. Nottinghamshire County Council Highways Officer has assessed the scheme and raises no objections to the proposed works in respect of highway safety or parking, subject to conditions which are included at the end of my report. The Highways Officer indicted within her response that the County Council Public Rights of Way Officer should also be consulted in view of the proposed access crossing the footpath. Details of this are provided in subsequent sections of this report. In light of the comments received, there are no objections with respect to highway safety or parking and as such the proposals accord with the provision of Core Strategy Spatial Policy 7 and NPPF. Public Right of Way The proposed dwellings will gain vehicular access from the proposed private drive from Quaker Lane over Farnsfield Public Footpath number 9. Nottinghamshire County Council’s

22

Public Rights of Way Officer (PROW) has been consulted as part of the application consultation process. The PROW Officer initially raised an objection to the proposals. However following negotiations, the objections were withdrawn subject to certain criteria being met and secured through planning conditions. The proposed hedgerow should be set back slightly from the boundary with the footpath to ensure that the footpath is accessible at all times and this will be secured through the landscaping condition. The applicant has indicated that the hedges would be maintained by the developer and/or future residents to ensure that neither the footpath nor site lines are restricted or obscured at any time. The applicant has indicated that they would make a specific note in any future conveyancing highlighting the obligation to maintain the hedge adjacent to the public footpath. An informative is also recommended to ensure that these works are undertaken. Electronically operated gates would be located either side of the footpath crossing and would swing away from the footpath to ensure that pedestrians have right of way. The gates will be self-closing via a sensor ensuring that once a vehicle has passed the gates will close and remain closed. A push-button system will operate such that they will only open when a vehicle needs to pass. Details of the gates, their operation and implementation will be secured via condition, details of which are included at the end of my report. The applicant has indicated that the applicant or developer/future residents (i.e. whoever the ownership of the land across which the footpath falls) will take full responsibility/liability for any vehicular damage to the footpath surface and that any such damage is immediately repaired at the developer’s/residents’ full expense. The applicant has indicated that any such an obligation would be registered in any future conveyancing as necessary. Ecology and trees Ecology The applicant has submitted an Ecological Walk-over Survey in support of the application. The Survey aims to identify potential ecological issues associated with the proposed work and make recommendations for general mitigation, compensation and further surveys as appropriate. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust has assessed the Ecological Walk-over Survey and raises no objections to the principle of the development and fully support the recommendations as detailed in Section 6 of the Survey. A planning condition is proposed which secures the recommendations and ensures that they are incorporated within the scheme as appropriate. Trees and landscaping The applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Survey in support of the application which provides an analysis of the impact of the proposed development on trees and local amenity with additional guidance on appropriate management and protective measures. The report

23

incorporates a tree survey, proposed site layout plan, tree protection measures, and tree location plan The Arboricultural Survey classifies the trees on site into the following categories: - Category A: Trees of high quality and value Category B: Trees of moderate quality and value Category C: Trees of low quality and value Category R: Trees in such a condition that any existing value would be lost within 10 years and which should, in the current context, be removed for reasons of sound arboricultural management. The Arboricultural Survey identifies 36 individual trees within the application site. The survey indicates that 13 trees would be removed from the site to enable the development. Of these trees, four are categorised as category C trees, whilst the remainder are category R. All four of the category C trees are located within the garden of Fox Hollow. The proposed layout indicates that 9 replacement trees would be planted on site as part of the landscaping scheme. Four trees would be planted adjacent to the public footpath, two either side of it, whilst the remaining five trees would be planted between the two proposed properties. The replacement trees appear to be well located and although fewer trees would be planted that that which they replace, the number and location of these proposed trees are considered acceptable. Exact details of the proposed planting can be secured via a wider landscaping condition relating to the whole site. The Arboricultural Survey identified tree protection measures which appear to be comprehensive and should ensure that the necessary works can take place without any potential ground compaction occurring. Removal of trees without prior consent of the LPA During the consultation process of the previous application, neighbours indicated that three trees had been removed from the site unlawfully. As the site is located within a Conservation Area, prior notification should have been received from the Local Authority before any works to the trees had taken place. Following refusal of the previous application, the Council’s Enforcement Officer wrote to the applicant explaining that the Council was aware that trees had been removed from the site without consent and that these trees should be replaced during the next planting season, (November 2011 to March 2012). The Enforcement Officer noted that one of the trees, located where the proposed access was positioned had started to regenerate and as such only the two remainder trees should be replaced. The Officer indicated that the two trees should be planted within the next planting season or the Local Planning Authority would be within their right to issue a Tree Replacement Notice. It has come to light during consideration of this application that the applicant failed to replant the two trees as requested. Consequently a further letter was sent to the applicant to provide an explanation as to the history of the felling of trees on the site.

24

The applicant responded to the Council’s recent letter. The letter states, “I have discussed the matter again with Mr Robinson who has confirmed to me that one of the trees toppled over during a storm into one of the neighbour’s gardens. When his contractor attended the site to remove the tree, he apparently removed the other owing to its condition and in order to prevent it similarly ending up in the neighbour’s garden.” The applicant has acknowledged that the trees have been removed from the Conservation Area without the Council’s permission and is fully aware that this needs to be addressed appropriately. The applicant has indicated that two further trees could be replanted along the same western boundary if required and that the position, species and standard could be discussed with the Council as appropriate. As noted above, the proposed layout indicates that 9 new trees would be provided on site as part of a landscaping scheme. It is considered that the proposed number of replacement trees is sufficient and as such it is considered unnecessary that two further direct replacement trees are provided. Flooding and drainage The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) in support of the planning application. Part of the existing curtilage of Fox Hollow together with the part of Quaker Lane south of the application site falls within Flood Zone 3 of the Environment Agency’s flood maps and is therefore at high risk of flooding The area within Flood Zone 3 forms the junction between the new access road and Quaker Lane and extends along the proposed access road roughly to a point level with the rear elevation of the existing Fox Hollow property. Whilst the main body of the site itself is not at high risk of flooding, the southern part of the proposed access road which would form the only route of escape by vehicles in the event of a flood is within Flood Zone 3. The applicant has submitted further information within the FRA to address reason for refusal 3. The Environment Agency (EA) has assessed the revised FRA and have indicated that the proposals identified in paragraphs 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8 of the FRA are sufficient to address the issues raised in reason for refusal 3. The EA have indicated that they raise no objections to the scheme on flood risk grounds, subject to conditions which secure the emergency egress mechanisms identified in the FRA. With respect to drainage the applicant has indicated the surface water would be disposed via soakaways and that Sustainable Urban Drainage methods would be used as the primary method for surface water management. Severn Trent Water has assessed the application and raises no objections subject to the submission and approval of drainage plans for the disposal or surface water and foul sewage. Details of the condition are outlined at the end of the report. Conclusions For the reasons set out above I conclude that the proposal accords with the Development Plan and there are no other material considerations that indicate a decision should be made to the contrary.

25

RECOMMENDATION Approve, subject to conditions 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02 The development hereby approved by grant of this consent shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following plans: - Dwg. No. 12/052-01 - Location Plan (August 2012) Dwg. No. 12/052-02 - Proposed layout (August 2012) Dwg. No 12/05-04D - Plans and Elevations Plot 1 (May 2012) Dwg. No 12/05-05D - Plans and Elevations Plot 2 (May 2012) Dwg. No 12/05-06 -Garage and cart shed (August 2012) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority through the approval of a non material amendment to the permission. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 03 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the materials to be used in the construction of all external elevations of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials Reason: To safeguard the amenity, appearance and character of the area in accordance with Core Strategy Policy 9 Sustainable Design 04 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution.

26

05 No trees, shrubs or hedges within the site which are shown as being retained on the approved plans shall be felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed, cut back in any way or removed without the prior consent in writing of the local planning authority. Any trees, shrubs or hedges which die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased within five years of being planted, shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedge plants in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the existing trees, shrubs and or hedges are retained and thereafter properly maintained, in the interest s of visual amenity and biodiversity. 06 No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site, with the exception of those trees clearly shown to be felled on the submitted plan, have been surrounded by substantial fences which shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the branches of the trees (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority). Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing. Reason: To safeguard the amenity, appearance and character of the area. 07 No development shall be commenced until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include:

a schedule (including planting plans and written specifications, including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) of trees, shrubs and other plants, noting species, plant sizes, proposed numbers and densities. The scheme shall be designed so as to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of locally native plant species.

[an implementation and phasing programme].

existing trees and hedgerows, which are to be retained pending approval of a detailed scheme, together with measures for protection during construction.

proposed finished ground levels or contours;

means of enclosure;

car parking layouts and materials;

other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;

27

hard surfacing materials;

minor artefacts and structures for example, furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc.)

proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (for example, drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.)

retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 08 The access shall be constructed and surfaced in a bound material in accordance with dwg. no. 12/052-02 and no other part of the development shall be commenced until the access has been completed in accordance with those plans. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 09 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the drive is surfaced in a hard bound material (not loose gravel) for a minimum of 5 metres behind the Highway boundary. The surfaced drive shall then be maintained in such hard bound material for the life of the development. Reason: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material being deposited on the public highway (loose stones etc). 10 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the parking/turning areas are provided in accordance with the approved plan 12/052-02. The parking/turning areas shall not be used for any purpose other than parking/turning of vehicles. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 11 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the access driveway/parking/turning areas are constructed with provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water from the driveway/parking/turning areas to the public highway in accordance with details first submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water to the public highway shall then be retained for the life of the development.

28

Reason: To ensure surface water from the site is not deposited on the public highway causing danger to highway users. 12 The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

1. Utilising SuDS measures to manage surface water, including soakaways and permeable paving. 2. Locating the buildings within Flood Zone 1 as to keep the development safe from flooding and not increase flood risk to others. 3. Provision of an emergency egress route from the site direct to Quaker Lane as described in paragraphs 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8.

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason: To prevent flooding and an increase of flood risk elsewhere and to provide a safe means of egress from the proposed development. 13 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the mitigation and compensation measures and further survey recommendations as detailed within Section 6 of the submitted Ecological Walk-over Survey prepared by EMEC Ecology (dated April 2012). Reason: To protect the ecological interests of the site in accordance with Core Strategy Core Policy 12 Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure 14 Prior to commencement of development a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall identify details associated with the location, size, appearance, and functionality of the electronic gates, the proposed associated signage and details of their implementation. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the construction of the 2.no dwellings in order to ensure that the same safeguards are in place throughout the construction period as well as ‘post development’ Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the area and to ensure that pedestrians and vehicles can safely utilise the public footpath.

29

Notes to applicant 01 As part of the developer’s considerations of access to and use of the proposals, with particular reference to access and facilities for disabled people, attention is drawn to Approved Document M of the Building Regulations as well as BS 8300: 2009 ‘Design of Buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people – Code of Practice’ which contains additional useful guidance. Approved Document M is available online at www.planningportal.gov.uk Building Regulation access requirements relating to dwellings are described in the Sections 6 to 10 of Approved Document M. In particular level or ramped approach is required to and into a dwelling from the edge of the site together with generous doorways, corridors and passageways carefully designed to facilitate easy access and manoeuvre. Accessible switches and sockets are required together with suitable accessible WC provision etc. It is recommended that pedestrian pavements are incorporated to and around the development. The proposal will be required to meet Building Regulation requirements and a Building Regulations application is required. 02 The applicant to have a contingency plan should the construction phase reveal any significant contamination. In this event, details must be provided to the Proactive Team in the Housing and Environmental Services Section on (01636) 655620. 03 The development makes it necessary to construct a vehicular crossing over the public highway. These works shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. You are, therefore, required to contact the County Council’s Highways Area Office tel. (01623) 520023 to arrange for these works to be carried out. 04 Any future conveyancing should highlight that there is an obligation to maintain the hedge adjacent to the public footpath at all times to ensure public access along the public footpath is retained at all times. 05 The applicant or developer/future residents (i.e. whoever the ownership of the land across which the footpath falls) will take full responsibility/liability for any vehicular damage to the footpath surface and that any such damage is immediately repaired at the developer’s/residents’ full expense. Such an obligation will be registered in any future conveyancing as necessary.

30

06 This proposal may require the relocation of a street light, which will be at the expense of the applicant 07 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council’s website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council’s view that CIL IS PAYABLE on the development hereby approved as is detailed below: A B C

Dev Types Proposed floorspace (GIA in Sq.M)

Less Existing(Demolition orChange ofUse) (GIA in Sq. M)Includes %splits

Net Area (GIA in Sq. M)

CIL Rate Indexation at date of permission (220 until 1st

January 2012)

CIL Charge

Residential (C3)

372 372 372 65 220 £24,180

Industrial (B1b, B1c, B2, B8)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Retail N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Totals 372 372 372 65 220 £24,180

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

220 (BCIS Tender Price Index at Date of Charging Schedule) REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. From the East Midlands Regional Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy (adopted March 2009) • Policy 2 (Promoting Better Design) • Policy 3 (Distribution of New Development) • Policy 13a (Regional Housing Provision) • Policy 17 (Regional Priorities for Managing the Release of Land for Housing)

31

• Policy 26 (Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage) • Policy 27 (Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment) • Policy 35 (A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk) From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2011) • Spatial Policy 1 (Settlement Hierarchy) • Spatial Policy 2 (Spatial Distribution of Growth) • Spatial Policy 6 (Infrastructure for Growth) • Spatial Policy 7 (Sustainable Transport) • Core Policy 3 (Housing Mix, Type and Density) • Core Policy 9 (Sustainable Design) • Core Policy 14 (Historic Environment) From the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999) • Policy C1 (Development on Conservation Areas) • Policy C4 (Natural and Other Features of Interest in Conservation Areas) • Policy NE17 (Species Protection) • Policy PU1 (Washlands) Other Material Planning Considerations • Farnsfield Conservation Area Appraisal • National Planning Policy Framework BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Mr J Pennick on Ext 5834 All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. Colin Walker Director of Growth

32

33

34

PLANNING COMMITTEE- 30 October 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Application No:

12/00989/FUL

Proposal:

Householder application for single storey residential annex to existing dwelling (resubmission)

Location:

Fir Tree Cottage, Newark Road, Collingham, Newark on Trent

Applicant:

Mr & Mrs Richard Whiles

Registered: 6.8.2012 Target Date: 1.10.2012

The Site The application site comprises of existing garden land of approximately 0.072 hectares within the parish of Collingham. The site is located to the east of the existing Fir Tree Cottage and is currently laid to grass with a timber building to the eastern boundary and a 1m high (approximate) timber post and rail fence along all boundaries. There is a mature hedge located along the eastern and southern boundaries approximately 3m in height. There are some mature trees beyond the northern boundary and in front of the hedge to the southern boundary. To the west of the site are some timber garden storage sheds in a considerable state of disrepair. The application site is accessed by an unmade driveway (also serving the host dwelling, Fir Tree Cottage) off the A1133 Newark Road, the main road through Collingham which is identified within the adopted Newark and Sherwood Local Plan as a Principal village. Relevant Planning History 11/00390/FUL - Proposed single storey extension and first floor balcony – Approved 5.5.2011 12/00152/FUL - Householder application for single storey detached residential annex. – Refused 8.5.2012. This application was refused on the basis of its siting, scale and massing and the resulting impact on the open countryside as it was located a considerable distance away from the dwelling. The Proposal Full planning permission is sought for a detached single storey two bedroomed annex with no accommodation proposed within the roofspace and sited approximately 10m east of the main dwelling. The accommodation comprises of an open plan kitchen/dining area, a living room, two double bedrooms (one containing and en suite) and a bathroom.

35

The building is rectangular in shape with a floor area of approximately 65m2 and measures approximately 16 metres wide by 7 metres deep at its deepest point. The maximum ridge height measures approximately 6.1 metres high from ground level and the eaves height measures approximately 2.6 metres from ground level. The principal elevation faces south. The proposal includes the demolition of existing timber outbuildings which serve Fir Tree Cottage. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure

Occupiers of 6 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter.

Relevant Planning Policies

The Development Plan East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009) Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the appropriate weight to attach the relevant policies, which for this application are set out below:

• Policy 2 : Promoting Better Design Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Policies relevant to this application:

• Core Policy 9 : Sustainable Design Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999)

Policies relevant to this application:

• NE1 : Development in the countryside • H24 : Extensions to dwellings

Please Note: All policies listed above can be found in full on the Council’s website.

Other Material Considerations

National Planning Policy National Planning Framework Consultations

Collingham Parish Council: Object on the following grounds:

36

• Outside of the village envelope; • It is a new build and not attached to the house; • Overbearing nature of the building.

Newark and Sherwood District Council – Access Officer: Observation, stating the developer should be aware of the access and facilities for disabled people and draws their attention to Approved Document M of the Building Regulation as well as BS 8300:2009 ‘Design of Buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people – Code of Practice’ Neighbours/Interested Parties A total of three letters have been received from neighbours, two object to the proposal and one supports it. The grounds for objecting the application are on the following grounds:

• Outside of the village envelope; • Does not accord with Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy; • Introduces an alien form of backland development (Policy H23 of the Local Plan); • Not satisfied previous reasons for refusal; • Out of scale, character and siting with the existing local built development and landscape

environment; • Capable of becoming a separate dwelling.

Comments of the Director of Growth The main planning considerations in the assessment of this application are; 1) the principle of new development within this location and; 2) the design and size of the building. The Principle of Residential Development Firstly I consider it necessary to bring to the attention of Members that this is for a detached annex within the curtilage of an existing residential dwelling for the sole occupation of family members of the occupiers of Fir Tree Cottage. The intention is to accommodate the applicants parents within the annex, who both have health issues and one of whom is registered disabled. In normal circumstances a building of this nature with this level of accommodation would be an independent dwelling. However as the proposal is within the residential curtilage of the main dwelling (Fir Tree Cottage) and the red line site plan incorporates all the residential curtilage of the existing dwelling as well as the site for the annex, in addition to the proposed occupier’s link to the use of the annex with the main dwelling, it is considered as an annex and the Council is therefore not able to assess this as an independent dwelling within the open countryside. I have carefully considered the concerns of the neighbours and the parish council in regard to the issue of residential development within the open countryside, but I am satisfied that the principle of development is acceptable due to the close proximity of the annex to the host dwelling, the lack of separate amenity space for the annex and the occupation of the annex with the host dwelling. Design and Size Firstly it is worth noting that the application site is not within a defined conservation area of Collingham, however the local planning authority has a duty to reject applications of unacceptably

37

low standard or where it fails to uphold the character and appearance of the public realm. The site cannot be seen from the public realm nonetheless, the proposal has been designed to replicate a ‘rural’ outbuilding with its differing ridge and eave heights. The external elevations are clad in timber weatherboarding and the roof utilises clay pantiles. Due to the secluded nature of the site I consider the design is acceptable and would not have any detrimental impact upon the openness of the surrounding countryside. The previous application (12/00152/FUL) was for a detached annex approximately 26 metres from the host dwelling and comprised of a 2 bedroom detached building of approximately 90m2 floor area within the former ‘paddock’ area to the east of the dwelling. This application shows a reduction in floor area of approximately 25m2 and shows a closer physical relationship to the host dwelling as it is now located on the site of existing outbuildings approximately 10 metres from the dwelling. The differing ridge heights are considered to add interest to the building and have been designed to replicate a range of outbuildings to the host dwelling. I am satisfied that the design of the building is acceptable in relation to its context within the landscape and therefore accords with the intentions of CP9 (Sustainable Design) of the Core Strategy. Neighbouring residential amenity I have carefully considered the potential concerns raised by residents of nearby dwellings however I see no demonstrable evidence to instigate a harm to neighbour amenity due to the use of the building. The nearest neighbour (Ashfield House) is approximately 40 metres from the building and the site is surrounded by mature trees which I consider would help to screen the development from other neighbours. The site is not currently overlooked and the building is only single storey therefore minimising the degree of overlooking which could be achieved from the annex. Due to the proximity of the building I consider that the proposed dwelling would not result in any detrimental impacts upon the living amenities of the occupiers of any neighbouring dwellings. Trees The proposal will result in the loss of five trees on the site all of which are not deemed worthy of a tree protection order (TPO) and are not protected by a conservation order. Two trees are self seeded ash, one is a dead horse chestnut, and two are silver birch. The applicant has proposed replacement silver birch and this can be controlled through a landscaping condition should Members be minded to approve planning permission. Each material planning consideration has been discussed in detail above and I conclude that the proposal accords with Core Policy 9 NSDC Core Strategy, Policy H24 and NE1 of the NSDC Local Plan and does not adversely impact upon the appearance of the surrounding landscape or the openness of the countryside and I therefore recommend that the application be approved planning permission subject to conditions. RECOMMENDATION That full planning permission is approved (subject to conditions). 01

38

The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

02

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried except in complete accordance with the following approved amended plans, reference 174 A401 Rev A, 174 A402 Rev A unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission.

Reason: So as to define this permission

03

The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling, known as Fir Tree Cottage.

Reason: To prevent the creation of a separate dwelling in a location where new residential development would not normally be permitted.

04

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the materials details submitted as part of the planning application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

05

No development shall be commenced until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include;-

a schedule (including planting plans and written specifications, including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) of trees, shrubs, hedgerows and other plants, noting species, plant sizes, proposed numbers and densities. The scheme shall be designed so as to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of locally native plant species.

hard surfacing materials;

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity.

39

06

The approved landscaping shall be completed during the first planting season following the commencement of the development, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Any trees/shrubs which, within a period of five years of being planted die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the work is carried out within a reasonable period and thereafter properly maintained, in the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity.

Note to applicant

01

The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/

The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable on the development hereby approved as the gross internal area of new build is less 100 square metres.

REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan.

From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2011)

• Core Policy 9 : Sustainable Design From the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999)

• NE1 : Development in the countryside • H24 : Extensions to dwellings

East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009)

• Policy 2 : Promoting Better Design

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application case file. For further information, please contact Lynsey Tomlin on 01636 655840

40

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

41

42

PLANNING COMMITTEE 30th October 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.6 Application No: 12/01004/FUL Proposal: Change of use from gymnasium (D2) to retail (A1) and storage of

furniture with ancillary office. Location: Roy Walkers Pine, Queens Road, Newark Applicant: Miss Cadi Lambert – Lincs and Notts Air Ambulance Registered: 24 July 2012 Target Date: 18 September 2012 The Site Prior to the use of the unit as a gymnasium, it traded as a pine workshop and sales, presenting its frontage to Queens Road. The entrance is a traditional shop front with full height display windows either side of a single front entrance. The signage to the first use of the premises is still part of the frontage. The unit occupies two floors and stretches to the rear of units that front Kings Road to the south, the unit itself faces northeast. The multi level car park serving the Morrison’s supermarket is to the immediate rear of the site. The servicing of the unit is immediate adjacent the front entrance, to the northwest, and consists of a fenced off narrow strip of land running parallel with the northwest elevation. The site is in the Newark conservation area and is part of a predominantly commercial hub, well spatially related to the main town centre. There accountants, a veterinary surgery, motor mechanics and sales and retail in close proximity to the site which is between two main junctions to the northwest and southeast of the site, the former being the traffic light controlled T junction at Northgate and the latter the mini roundabout linking Kings Road. Relevant Planning History Planning permission was granted in January 2005 for the change of use of the shop unit to gymnasium, reference 04/02988/FUL. The Proposal The proposals seek to change the use of the premises back to A1 (retail), from D2 (gymnasium). There are works proposed to the interior but there is no physical development proposed. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Occupiers of eight neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. A site notice has been displayed at the site and an advert placed in the local press. Relevant Planning Policies

43

Please Note: All policies listed below and any supplementary documents/guidance referred to can be viewed on the Council’s website. The Development Plan East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009) Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional Strategies and their associated targets which came into effect in July 2010. Since that time a High Court judgement has held that the powers the Government relied upon to achieve this could not be used to revoke all Regional Strategies in their entirety and therefore they have been re-established as part of the Development Plan. The Government still intend to revoke Regional Strategies through the Localism Bill, which has begun its passage through parliament. The Government had stated that this intention to revoke Regional Strategies was a material consideration. The Court of Appeal has concluded that at the moment, the Government’s intention to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies may only be worthy of weight as a material consideration in very few cases. This application is not such a case. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the statutory development plan (and the relevant policies for this application are set out below).

• Policy 3 Distribution of New Development • Policy Northern SRS 1 Sub Regional Development Priorities • Policy 27 Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment

Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011)

• Spatial Policy 1 Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2 Spatial Distribution of Growth • Spatial Policy 7 Sustainable Transport • Core Policy 8 Retail Hierarchy • Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design • Core Policy 14 Historic Environment • Newark Area Policy 1 Newark Urban Area

Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999)

• Saved Policy C1 Development in Conservation Areas Other material planning considerations National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was released by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on the 27th March 2012, with the aim of streamlining the planning system. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states that, "This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up to date Local Plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise."

44

Consultations Newark Town Council support the proposals Nottinghamshire County Council Highways advise that although there is an existing dropped kerb, the proposed access is in close proximity to both the traffic signalled junction at Queens Road/Northgate and the mini-island at Lovers Lane/Kings Road (leading to Morrisons supermarket). There are no turning facilities within the loading/unloading area, which would, therefore, result in a vehicle having to manoeuvre in Queens Road, preventing the free flow of traffic, and increasing the likelihood of danger to users of the highway. Whilst it is understand that this application site has been used as a furniture showroom in the past, it is considered that the use of this access would be detrimental to highway safety. Therefore, it is recommended that this application be refused as the proposed development fails to provide adequate servicing arrangements resulting in an increase in the likelihood of danger to other users of the highway due to vehicles having to manoeuvre into the Queens Road. Comments of the Director - Growth The proposals are for the change of use of an existing building in Newark Town centre and I am of the view that, given the location, the proposals sit acceptably with the sustainable development agenda of both the National Planning Policy Framework and the regional level plan. I also refer to the assertions in the same vein of the adopted settlement hierarchy as outlined by the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy. Explicitly, the proposals find support in Core Policy 8. I am therefore satisfied that the principle of the use is acceptable subject to a site specific assessment of the impacts. In this case, the impact of the proposals can be measured in terms of visual and residential amenity and highway safety. In respect of visual amenity and with regards also the conservation area, I am of the view that the lack of physical development will mean that the proposals will have limited impact. I therefore conclude that the proposals will ensure that the character of the conservation area is preserved in the interests of the tests of saved Policy C1 of the Local Plan and that the design of the proposals is of sufficient quality in its context and is therefore in accordance with the stance asserted by both the NPPF and Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy. I also see no conflict with the strategic aims of Core Strategy Core Policy 14. As a gymnasium, it is recognised that the servicing requirements would differ from the use of the unit as retail. I also note that Lincs and Notts Air Ambulance seek to sell large bulky items of furniture from the unit, as per its historical use. Having consulted with Nottinghamshire County Council, engineers are of the view that the available servicing for the use of the unit as retail and in particular the deposit, sale and collection of large bulky furniture items is inadequate. NCC highways state that, although there is an existing dropped kerb, the proposed access is in close proximity to both the traffic signalled junction at Queens Road/Northgate and the mini-island at Lovers Lane/Kings Road (leading to Morrisons supermarket). There are no turning facilities within the loading/unloading area, which would, therefore, result in a vehicle having to manoeuvre in Queens Road, preventing the free flow of traffic, and increasing the likelihood of danger to users of the highway. Whilst it is understand that this application site has been used as a furniture showroom in the past, it is considered that the use of this access would be detrimental

45

to highway safety. Therefore, it is recommended that this application be refused as the proposed development fails to provide adequate servicing arrangements resulting in an increase in the likelihood of danger to other users of the highway due to vehicles having to manoeuvre into the Queens Road. Following this, and in light of the location, previous use and the charitable nature of the user, officers have undertaken discussions with NCC Highways in respect of alternative servicing and possible conditions controlling timings of deliveries, types of vehicles and tying the permission to the user. NCC Highways accept that any usage of the site would bring with it a level of servicing, and thus the use of a less than ideal access must thereore be accepted. However they of the view that, particularly given how highways conditions have changed in the area, that whilst other uses that require less servicing might be appropriate, an A1 use here (notwithstanding the furniture element which compounds the problem) cannot be supported or adequately controlled in the interests of highway safety. Members will note from the comments above that in this particular case there are several material planning considerations to balance in coming to a final view. The site is in a highly sustainable location, being within Newark Town Centre. The building also lies within the conservation area, which is of significance not only to the character and appearance of this part of the area but also nationally by the very nature of its designation. The proposals would bring back into active use this former retail unit within the Town Centre and would secure such a use for a charitable organisation. However, all such matters must be balanced against the concerns raised by NCC Highways, who rightly have identified concern which may affect highway safety, which is significant. In this particular case, whilst the benefits of the proposal are significant, so too is the potential harm as identified by NCC Highways. It is highly unusual for me to go against the technical expert advice of Highways colleagues and on this basis I must concur with their views, albeit accepting that for the other reasons detailed above this issue is very finely balanced. On this basis, refusal is recommended. RECOMMENDATION That permission is refused for the following reason: 01 The proposed development fails to provide adequate servicing arrangements resulting in an increase in the likelihood of danger to other users of the highway due to vehicles having to manoeuvre into Queens Road. BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact John Morrison on Ext 5837. All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk.

46

Colin Walker Director – Growth

47

48

PLANNING COMMITTEE –October 30th 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 Application No: 12/01058/FUL Proposal: Erection of new house with integrated double garage Location: Stonewold, Gravelly Lane, Fiskerton, Nottinghamshire Applicant: Mr & Mrs Ian & Lisa Terry Registered: 3rd August 2012 Target Date: 28th September 2012 The Site The application site is located within the village of Fiskerton and forms part of the garden of Stonewold. The site itself comprises a wooden shed and is largely overgrown. To the west of the site is the Stonewold property which is in the ownership of the applicant, whilst tithe east is Horseshoe Lodge. Land to the south of the site are open fields. The site is accessed via a private driveway off Gravelly and is located within Flood Zone 2. Relevant Planning History 03/02057/FUL – Erection of detached dwelling/ garage. Application approved subject to conditions 08.01.04 08/02049/FUL - Erection of detached dwelling/garage. Application refused 09.04.2009. The reasons for refusal cited in the decision notice are as follows: -

01 PPS 25 - Development and Flood Risk aims to steer new development to the areas at the lowest risk of flooding (Zone 1) The application site lies within Zones 2 and 3 and is therefore at risk from flooding. Fiskerton is an unsustainable settlement where there is no justification for residential development that outweighs flood risk and therefore the proposal would fail the sequential test set out within PPS25 and would constitute un-necessary development in a flood plain.

02 Policy FS1 of the Newark & Sherwood Local Plan seeks to promote sustainable development by directing most new development towards Newark and Balderton the other main settlements, with particular emphasis on the re-use of derelict, vacant or neglected sites, Fiskerton is not a main settlement and lacks both services and facilities such as good public transport availability, a primary school, post office, food store, doctors surgery and pharmacy. Employment opportunities are limited and residents are largely dependent on the private car for transport. This application does not offer any justification to depart from Policy FS1 and therefore would be contrary and constitute an unsustainable form of development.

49

The Proposal Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing stable block and the erection of a detached, two storey dwelling with integral double garage. The property comprises a kitchen with utility room. family room, dining room and lounge to the ground floor and master bedroom with en-suite and three further bedrooms to the first floor. The property would have a ridge height f 7.1 metres and would be accessed from an existing private driveway which currently serves three properties off Gavelley Lane. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Occupiers of 4 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. 2 letters of objection has been received as a consequence of the planning application publicity. The issues raised relate to: - • Loss of privacy and overlooking • Inappropriate access arrangements • Vehicles would pass within 2 metres of adjacent bungalow • Properties would be overbearing and out of keeping with properties in the area Relevant Planning Policies The Development Plan East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009)

Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the appropriate weight to attach the relevant policies. Policies relevant to this application: • Policy 3 - Distribution of new development • Policy Three Cities SRS1 Definition of Principal Urban Areas Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Policies relevant to this application: • Spatial Policy 1 – Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2 – Spatial Distribution of Growth • Spatial Policy 3 - Rural Areas • Spatial Policy 6 - Infrastructure for Growth • Spatial Policy 7 – Sustainable Transport • Core Policy 3 - Housing Mix, Type and Density • Core Policy 9 – Sustainable Design • CorePolicy 10 - Climate Change Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999)

50

Saved policies relevant to this application: • Policy PU1 - Washlands

Other material planning considerations National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was released by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on the 27th March 2012, with the aim of streamlining the planning system. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states that, "This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up to date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise." National Planning Policy Framework Technical Guidance (March 2012) This document provides additional guidance to local planning authorities to ensure the effective implementation of the planning policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework on development in areas at risk of flooding. This guidance retains key elements of Planning Policy Statement 25.

Consultations Fiskerton Parish Council - Objection. The development would have a detrimental visual impact upon entry to the village; and the development is inconsistent with the surrounding dwellings which are bungalows. NSDC Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) - No objections although comment that due to the previous use of the site as a paddock and stables that the site may be contaminated from the uses. An informative is suggested and is detailed at the end of my report. NSDC Building Control Access Officer – Provides general comments regarding access which would be provided as an informative. NCC Highways – No objections Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board – No objections subject to a suitable surface water drainage scheme being implemented. The Environment Agency - No objections subject to conditions Comments of Director of Growth The main planning issues considered to be relevant under consideration of this planning application are:-

• Principle of development

51

o Strategic location o Greenfield o Mix and type

• Flood risk and drainage • Design • Highways and Parking • Other issues

o Community Infrastructure Levy Principle of development Strategic location The application site is located in Fiskerton which is defined in Appendix A of the Core Strategy as being a rural area. Spatial Policy 3 relates to Rural Areas and indicates that local housing need will be addressed by focusing housing in sustainable accessible villages. The policy states further that beyond Principal Villages, including the village of Fiskerton, that planning applications would be assessed against the following criteria: location, scale, need, impact and character. The site is located within the existing settlement boundary and community facilities are located only a short distance from the site. In this respect, the application site is considered to be located within the main built up area of the village. With respect to need, Spatial Policy 3 indicates that new housing would be permitted where it helps to meet an identified proven need. No information has been provided by the applicant to show how the proposal meets a local need. In terms of the information available to the Council our Housing Stock Analysis Report 2009 (undertaken by DCA for Newark and Sherwood District) does identify a wider need for family housing across this part of the District. However I note that the 2009 survey has itself informed the Core Strategy (and indeed the emerging Site Allocations DPD) which has determined that the focuses for all new housing development should be in accordance with the settlement hierarchy as defined in SP3 (i.e. the regional centre, service centres, and Principal villages). In this case the 2009 survey identifies this need in the Nottinghamshire Fringe area which also includes the principal village of Lowdham. Therefore in my view the identified need could be met through the existing settlement hierarchy. In the absence of any additional evidence to demonstrate a proven local need in Fiskerton I can only conclude that this proposal fails to meet SP3 on that basis. It is acknowledged that an argument could be advanced that the impact upon need of a single net additional dwelling would be negligible however this is an argument that could be too easily repeated. Further, Members will be aware that the Council has now confirmed they have a 5 year housing land supply which identifies suitable locations of dwellings across the district on more suitable and sustainable sites. Therefore the Council is not in an intensified position to allow dwellings in such unsustainable locations where there is a proven supply of adequate land in other locations throughout the district. With respect to scale, Spatial Policy 3 indicates that new development should be appropriate to the proposed location and small scale in nature. It is considered that the development of a single dwelling within a village of this size is considered to be small scale and as such is acceptable in terms of scale of development.

52

With respect to impact, the development of a single dwelling would not produce a significant number of vehicle movements and as such would not create a severe detrimental impact with respect to impact on highways. Consideration of amenity impacts and impacts on local infrastructure are considered in greater detail within subsequent sections of this report. Turning to character, it must be noted that the adjacent properties are single storey in nature. Equally it is noted that the wider mix of properties in the surrounding area is varied. It is this latter issues which has persuaded me that on balance, the proposal will not be so harmful as to warrant refusal of the application. Indeed, I am further persuaded by the variety of architectural styles present in the locality. Greenfield NPPF paragraph 111 advocates the sequential approach to land uses indicating that, “planning decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.” Part of the site is occupied by a permanent structure (wooden shed) and as such this element would constitute previously developed land, in accordance with the definition provided within NPPF. However, the majority of the site is overgrown grassland and as such would be considered to be Greenfield in nature. Although not sequentially preferable, development of this site is not precluded, subject to other considerations, most notably scale and character impacts, which have been addressed above. Mix and type Core Strategy Policy 3 indicates that there is a housing need across the district for family housing of 3 bedrooms or more; smaller houses of 3 bedrooms or less; and housing for the elderly and disabled population. The proposed development would provide a single dwelling on site. The proposals would present an opportunity to deliver a large family home with 4 bedrooms, which it is accepted would contribute towards a wider development mix. However, this in itself, does not outweigh the local need issues detailed above. Flood Risk and drainage The application site is located within Flood Zone 2 as defined by the Environment Agency Flood Map Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, and has a medium probability of flooding. The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment in support of the application and this has been reviewed by the Environment Agency. NPPF and its Technical Guidance advises that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk through applying a sequential test. The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.

53

The approach to the Sequential Test by Members at Planning Committee has been to consider whether there are any sequentially preferable sites (i.e. Flood Zone 1)

a) Across the District as a whole; and b) Within proximity of Fiskerton

In respect of part a) of the test, the proposals would fail the sequential test as there are a number of other existing garden sites capable of accommodating the development applied for that are in flood zone 1. However, consideration of the site in respect of available sites within Fiskerton would suggest that there are limited sequentially preferable opportunities available. In addition it is noted that there has been localized flood risk mitigation previously. Further, the applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which has been assessed by the Environment Agency (EA). The FRA indicates that the proposed development would sit approximately 0.30m higher than the EA’s predicted 1% annual chance flood level and the existing defences are deemed capable of withstanding between a 1:10 & 1:100 year event. The FRA states that in the unlikely event of a breach or overtopping failure, the occupants would be able to seek refuge on the private access road, whilst existing road levels recorded along Gravelly Lane suggest that should full evacuation prove necessary, a dry egress would remain available to the occupants, as well as a dry access for emergency vehicles. The EA has indicated that, “on the basis that the flood risk assessment is acceptable the Agency has no objections from a planning perspective to the proposed development.” The EA do however recommend that a condition is attached relating to surface water drainage. Details of this condition are outlined at the end of the report. Design and amenity NPPF paragraph 56 states, “The government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. 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 63 states that, “great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area.” Paragraph 64 however states that, “permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of and area and the way it functions.” As noted in earlier sections of this report the architectural style of properties in the surrounding area is varied and as such there is no singular defining architectural style. The proposed dwelling is the same as that which was considered in previous planning applications. The proposed dwelling comprises a series of hipped roofs, with dormer windows to the front elevation. Details are provided of the proposed build materials however a condition is recommended to ensure that property is built out using appropriate materials. The planning officer noted previously that, “the scale and design of the dwelling would ensure that the dwelling is reflective of the informality of the area in terms of design and layout. The scale and unobtrusiveness of the building as would be visible in the wider landscape is not considered to be such that it would adversely affect the setting of the village within the wider landscape and the provision of private amenity space, is not considered to be sufficiently adverse to add weight to a refusal of the proposals.” As the proposed design is the same as that which was previously considered it is considered that the previous officer’s comments continue to be reflective of the situation.

54

Concerns have been raised by neighbours with respect to the detrimental impact on privacy and overlooking. It should be noted that loss of amenity did not form part of the reasons for refusal under consideration of the previous application. The proposed dwelling comprises no windows to either gable elevation; although there may be a limited impact to the rear of Horseshoe Lodge from oblique angle although this is not considered sufficient to warrant a refusal. In addition concerns have been raised by residents of She Nee Tay as the upper floor windows would overlook the rear of their garden. As previously, although there would be some impact the distance between the front elevation of the proposed dwelling and the rear elevation of the existing would be approximately 50 metres. Highways and Parking Spatial Policy 7 indicates that development proposals should be appropriate for the highway network in terms the volume and nature of traffic generated and ensure the safety, convenience and free flow of traffic using the highway are not adversely affected; and that appropriate parking provision is provided. The site would use the existing vehicular access off Gravelly Lane, which currently serves Stonewold. NCC Highways have assessed the proposals in respect of highway access, capacity and safety, parking, servicing and sustainability and raise no objections. It is therefore considered that the proposed development accords with Core Strategy Spatial Policy 7 Other issues Community Infrastructure Levy The proposals fall within the Southwell Rural residential charging zone and as such a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payment is required in accordance with the District Council’s approved CIL Charging Schedule. The applicant has completed the required CIL forms which indicates that there would be 172 square metres of new floorspace created, which based upon the rates identified in the CIL Charging Schedule would equate to a CIL change of £12,900 RECOMMENDATION Refuse, for the following reason: 01 The application fails to demonstrate that there is an identified proven local need for the dwelling in this rural area. The proposal therefore represents an unsustainable pattern of development, contrary to Spatial Policy 3 (Rural Areas) of the adopted Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy 2011 (Core Strategy) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF). BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file.

55

For further information, please contact Mr J Pennick on Ext 5834 All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. Colin Walker Director of Growth

56

57

58

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 OCTOBER 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.8 Application No: 12/01164/OUT Proposal: A bungalow and garage situated in the land to the north of Monza Location: Monza, New Hill, Walesby, Nottinghamshire Applicant: Mr Christopher Knott Registered: 15.08.2012 Target Date: 10.10.2012 The Site The application site is located within the village of Walesby and lies to the rear of an existing property known as ‘Monza’ which fronts New Hill. The site currently forms part of the residential curtilage to ‘Monza’ property. Several trees are located within the site. Access to the site would be gained from the existing access off New Hill located to the west of ‘Monza’ which currently serves Walesby Primary School and an additional property located to the north of the application site. Relevant Planning History No relevant planning history The Proposal The proposals seek outline planning permission for the erection of a dwelling. Reference has been made to the scale of the proposed dwelling and an indicative location plan has been submitted with the application. The application also considered access as a fixed matter, all others in appearance; landscaping and layout are reserved for consideration. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure A site notice was also posted on the 3rd September 2012 to expire on the 23rd September 2012. Relevant Planning Policies Please Note: All policies listed within this report can be found in full on the Council’s website The Development Plan East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009)

Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the

59

statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the appropriate weight to attach the relevant policies. Policies relevant to this application: • Policy 3 - Distribution of new development • Policy Three Cities SRS1 Definition of Principal Urban Areas Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (Development Plan Document) 2011 • Spatial Policy 1 – Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2 - Spatial Distribution • Spatial Policy 3 – Rural Areas • Spatial Policy 7 – Sustainable Transport • Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999) Policy H23 – Backland Housing Development Other material planning considerations National Planning Policy Framework Consultations Walesby Parish Council – Has no objection to the proposal but queries whether the application site lies within the village envelope. Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – rear of Monza using the existing vehicular access. A further access is required from New Hill to serve Monza. A bin collection point is to be provided. There are two parking spaces provided for the new dwelling, and two spaces for Monza. Assuming that Monza is also a 3 bedroomed dwelling, this is satisfactory. Therefore, subject to the following, there are no highway objections: 1. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until a dropped vehicular footway crossing is available for use and constructed in accordance with the Highway Authority specification to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 2. The proposed access arrangements must be completed prior to occupation of the new dwelling. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 3. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until all drives and any parking or turning areas are surfaced in a hard bound material (not loose gravel) for a minimum of 5 metres behind the Highway boundary. The surfaced drives and any parking or turning areas shall then be maintained in such hard bound material for the life of the development. Reason: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material being deposited on the public highway (loose stones etc).

60

4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the access driveway/parking/turning area is constructed with provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water from the driveway/parking/turning area to the public highway in accordance with details first submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The provision to prevent the unregulated Severn Trent Water – No objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of a condition requesting drainage plans to be submitted to the LPA prior to the commencement of works. Neighbours/interested parties – One letter of representation has been made expressing concerns that the application, if approved, would set a precedent for other development within rear gardens leading to traffic congestion. Comments of the Director of Growth

The proposals represent the erection of a dwelling at outline stage with matters of access and scales are fixed and all other matters reserved for further consideration. The key issues in the determination of the application are therefore the means of access and its impact on highway safety but moreover, the principle of residential development on the site in the interests of sustainable development policy. The Core Strategy’s spatial policies direct development towards the district’s main settlements in the form of a settlement hierarchy, for which Spatial Policy 3 is relevant to this site. Spatial Policies 1 and 2 identify the districts main settlements and service centres which are promoted as those areas able to accommodate additional growth due to their access to local services. Spatial Policy 3 identifies sustainability criteria for additional development in the District’s other rural areas not identified in either SP1 or SP2. The application site is located in Walesby which is defined in Appendix A of the Core Strategy as being a rural area. Spatial Policy 3 relates to Rural Areas and indicates that local housing need will be addressed by focussing housing in sustainable accessible villages. The policy states further that beyond Principle Villages, including the village of Walesby, that planning applications would be assessed against the following criteria: location, scale, need impact and character. The development plan no longer includes ‘village envelopes’ and instead refers to the main built up area of a village. This normally refers to the buildings and land which form the core of the village where most housing and community facilities are focused. The application site is located off New Hill in Walesby which although towards the edge of the village is surrounded by other residential properties to the east, south and west and by Walesby Primary School and another residential property to the north. The application is therefore considered to be within the main built up area of the village and as such the scheme complies with this aspect of Policy SP3. With respect to scale, Spatial Policy 3 indicates that new development should be appropriate to the location and small scale in nature. As the application is in outline with most matters reserved it is not possible to comment on the acceptability of the proposed development in terms of design however the applicant has indicated that the proposal would be for a bungalow and provided maximum scale parameters. The predominant house type for the immediate area surrounding the application site is two storey properties of varying styles. A dormer bungalow is located directly north of the application site and other bungalows exist further east of the site along New Hill. A property of the scale submitted in the application would be considered to be acceptable.

61

Turning to need, Spatial Policy 3 further indicates that new housing would be permitted where it helps to meet an identified proven need. No information has been provided by the applicant to show how the proposal meets a local need. Future housing growth need will be delivered through the Core Strategy settlement hierarchy and in the absence of any additional evidence to demonstrate a proven local need in this location I can only conclude that this proposal fails to meet SP3 on that basis. It is acknowledged that an argument could be advanced that the impact upon need of a single net additional dwelling would be negligible however this is an argument that could be too easily repeated. Further, Members will be aware that the Council has now confirmed they have a 5 year housing land supply which identifies suitable locations of dwellings across the district on more suitable and sustainable sites. Therefore the Council is not in an intensified position to allow dwellings in such unsustainable locations where there is a proven supply of adequate land in other locations throughout the district. With respect to impact, Spatial Policy 3 specifies that new development should not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of local people nor have an undue impact on the local infrastructure. The erection of a single new dwelling in this location is not considered to generate excessive car-bourne traffic or have a detrimental impact upon the drainage or sewage systems of the area. An indicative layout plan has been submitted as part of the application which shows the proposed dwelling to be located approximately 32.0 metres from the rear elevation of ‘Monza’ and approximately 35.0 metres from the property to the north known as ‘Carriageway’. As the application is in outline form with scale and access to be considered only, in terms of layout it is difficult to assess impacts upon the amenity of local people, however, given the location of the plot of land in relation to the existing property and that of ‘Carriageway’, no loss of amenity would be likely to occur through overlooking, massing or overshadowing. With respect to character, Spatial Policy 3 states that new development should not have a detrimental impact on the character of the location. Saved Policy H23 (Backland Housing Development) of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan is in a similar vein and seeks to protect the general character and density of an area; in particular it seeks to prevent a precedent for similar forms of development, the cumulative effect of which would be to harm the existing character and appearance of the area. The character of this part of Walesby to the east of ‘Monza’ is medium sized detached dwellings set back from the road within large long plots. To the west of ‘Monza’ the character of the area is semi-detached properties set within narrow long plots. Dwellings either side of ‘Monza’ are located along New Hill with the exception of ‘Carriageway’ to the north. The erection of a dwelling in this location and its resulting smaller plot is considered to be out of keeping with the surrounding area. In addition, the granting of planning permission for a dwelling in this location would set an undesirable precedent for similar forms of development, the cumulative effect of which would be to harm the existing character of this part of New Hill. Highways and access. Details of the access to the site have been submitted for consideration and propose the use of the existing access which currently serves ‘Monza’ to extend to serve the proposed dwelling. A new access would be created to the east of the existing access with off road parking provided to the front of ‘Monza’ for the existing property. No objections have been received from the Highways Authority subject to conditions concerning the construction of the access. RECOMMENDATION

62

That full planning permission is REFUSED, for the following reason; 01 Core Strategy Spatial Policy 3 indicates that local housing need will be addressed by focusing housing in sustainable accessible villages and would be assessed with consideration to its location, scale, need, impact and character. The application takes the form of backland development which would be out of character with the surrounding built form. In addition the applicant application fails to demonstrate that there is an identified proven local need for the dwelling in this rural area. The proposal therefore fails to meet all the requirements of the Core Spatial Strategy Policy 3. INFORMATIVE You are advised that as of 1st December 2011, the Newark and Sherwood Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule came into effect. Whilst the above application has been refused by the Local Planning Authority you are advised that CIL applies to all planning permissions granted on or after this date. Thus any successful appeal against this decision may therefore be subject to CIL (depending on the location and type of development proposed). Full details are available on the Council's website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Charlotte Henson on Ext 5828. Colin Walker Director of Growth

63

64

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 OCTOBER 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO. 09 Application No:

12/01241/FUL

Proposal:

Conversion of former agricultural buildings to form three dwellings

Location:

Dilliner Wood Farm Main Street Winkburn Newark On Trent

Applicant:

Mr J J Broadberry

Registered: 19.09.2012 Target Date: 14.11.2012

The Site The application site is approximately 1.58 hectares in area based on the site location plan (not the application form) and is currently occupied by a group of agricultural buildings, which together form Dilliner Wood Farm. The existing buildings on the farm comprise:

• a two-storey dwelling (the farmhouse) which is occupied on a long-term let (excluded from the red line of the application site);

• a range of two and single-storey traditional agricultural buildings (including barns, cow and cart sheds) constructed of brick and some clay pantiles and some asbestos sheet roofing; they are situated around a courtyard area; and

• a number of larger Dutch-type barns/open storage buildings. The application site is situated in open countryside between the villages of Eakring to the north-west, Maplebeck to the north-east and Winkburn to the south-east. Although accessed from Winkburn, the site lies approximately 1.5 miles north-east of the village as the crow flies. The site is served from the adopted highway by a private single track that is approximately 1.4 miles long and made up of hardcore. This road serves three farms (including Dilliner Wood). The nearest dwelling to the application site is Orchard Wood Farm, which is approximately 500 metres to the south-west. Relevant Planning History 00/00905/FUL - Planning permission was granted for the change of use of the barns, loose boxes and cow sheds to Class B1 use. This permission has not been implemented. 05/01513/FUL – An application was made for the ‘conversion of barns to form 6 dwellings, 4 to be used for holiday lets & 2 units permanent’ by Kirklington Farms Ltd in September 2005. However the application was withdrawn before it was determined. 06/00356/FUL – An application was made for the ‘conversion of barns to form 3 holiday lets and 2 permanent dwellings (resubmission)’ by Kirklington Farms Ltd. As Winkburn Parish Council objected to the application, it was presented to the Planning Committee in November 2006 for

65

determination where it was approved as recommended. A material start was made on-site before the permission expired and as such the permission is extant in perpetuity. The Proposal Full planning permission is sought to convert the existing traditional buildings on the site to form three dwellings. Unit 1 is proposed around a small courtyard in the single-storey cow sheds in the south-west corner of the site and would comprise a four bedroom dwelling with study. To make this work on the ground, a small linkage building is proposed to join the buildings to form a U shape. Units 2 and 3 are located in the two-storey barns around the existing larger open courtyard and comprise three and four bedrooms respectively. The proposal includes some external and internal alterations to the buildings including replacing the asbestos sheet roofing with clay pantiles, dismantling the single-storey lean-to additions and repairing brickwork. The proposal also includes the removal of a large existing Dutch barn and cattle yard from the site. Amended plans have been sought to avoid unnecessary harm to the character and integrity of the former agricultural buildings. These are expected prior to the Committee meeting. The applicants have submitted a Supporting Statement with their application which explains the history of the agricultural land that has been leased to serve Dilliner Wood Farm and why this is no longer possible, rendering the use of the existing buildings for agricultural use unviable. A letter has also been received from letting agents confirming that these buildings were offered up for let in December 2000 and enclosing a set of particulars in respect of the site. They also confirm that they have had no interest in the buildings. The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, Heritage Impact Assessment, Updated Structural Survey and Protected Species Survey. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Due to the rural location of the site, no neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. However a site notice has been displayed at the site entrance with the main road. Planning Policy Framework Please Note: All policies listed below and any supplementary documents/guidance referred to can be viewed on the Council’s website. The Development Plan East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009) Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the

66

statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the appropriate weight to attach the relevant policies, which for this application are set out below:

• Policy 1 - Regional Core Objectives • Policy 2 - Promoting Better Design • Policy 13a - Regional Housing Provision (excluding Northamptonshire) • Policy 14 - Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing • Policy 15 - Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing in Rural Areas • Policy 26 - Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage • Policy 27 - Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment • Policy 28 - Regional Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure • Policy 29 - Priorities for Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity • Policy 43 - Regional Transport Objectives • Policy 45 - Regional Approach to Traffic Growth Reduction

Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011)

• Spatial Policy 3 – Rural Areas • Spatial Policy 7 - Sustainable Transport • Core Policy 1 – Affordable Housing Provision • Core Policy 3 – Housing Mix, Type and Density • Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design • Core Policy 12 – Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure • Core Policy 14 – Heritage Environment

Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999)

• Policy NE1 (Development in the Countryside) • Policy NE2 (The Conversion of Rural Buildings) • Policy H27 (Housing Development in the Countryside) • Policy NE17 (Species Protection)

Other Material Considerations

• National Planning Policy Framework which now replaces all PPG’s and PPS’s.

• Supplementary Planning Document: Conversion of Traditional Rural Buildings, adopted September 2005.

Consultations

Winkburn Parish Council - No response has been received to date. Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – Comment as follows: “The application site is located along an unadopted road, some distance from the public highway. The proposed development for the conversion of barns to form three dwellings is not expected to impact significantly on the public highway, therefore, there are no highway objections.”

67

Environment Agency – No comments to make. Natural England – Responded to confirm that Standing Advice applies. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust – Comment as follows: “We welcome the provision of a Protected Species Survey (B.J. Collins - August 2012) as this allows protected species to be properly considered in the determination of this planning application. We are satisfied with the survey’s methodology and evaluation of protected species at the site and strongly support the survey report’s conclusions and recommendations. As this site has been identified to have the potential to support roosting bats we also strongly support the report’s recommendations that the works are carried out in the presence of a licensed ecologist within the recommended times of late September to October or March to early April. We recommend that this be further outlined as a condition within any formal planning approval along with the inclusion of bat and bird nesting boxes within the proposed development as recommended by the survey.” No representations from local residents or interested parties have been received to date. Comments of the Director of Growth Principle The application site is located in the open countryside and relates to the conversion of traditional rural buildings into 3 dwellings. Consent has already been granted for the conversion of these buildings to 2 permanent dwellings and 3 holiday lets back in 2006 and these permissions have been part implemented (these are in the early stages of conversion, none of the barns are near to completion or occupied) and remain extant. This is therefore the applicant’s fallback position. The extant permission however, required (by Condition 15) that the holiday lets were provided and available for let before the two permanent dwellings were first occupied. The buildings subject to this application are of architectural merit and the group of buildings are worthy of retention. The applicant has already made investments by reroofing the buildings and partially implementing the previous scheme to ensure their long term-retention. As concluded by the Structural Report, the buildings are structurally of sound condition and capable of conversion without substantial rebuild or demolition. It would appear, therefore, that these traditional buildings should be and can be converted successfully as a matter of principle. This application makes the case that the applicants do not have the financial means to convert the three holiday lets first, that there is no demand for holiday lets in this location and that holiday lettings are an unviable option. Saved Policy NE2 (Conservation of Rural Buildings) of the Local Plan provides that planning permission will be granted for the conversion or re-use of agricultural and other rural buildings in the countryside for commercial uses provided it accords with certain criteria. The policy then goes on to state that planning permission will be granted for conversion to residential use subject to additional criteria. However more recent policies at both national and local levels have moved

68

away from the commercial uses first approach, recognizing that commercial uses can be more unsustainable than residential uses. The site lies in the open countryside and is accessed via an informal single track approximately 1.4 miles to the main road. I consider that residential use for a relatively small number of dwellings (3) is acceptable and likely to be more sustainable in terms of the amount of vehicle movements the uses would generate than alternative commercial uses such as the previously approved light industry scheme (now lapsed) and 3 holiday lets plus 2 dwellings. For the reasons I have set out, I do not consider that it is necessary to look first at commercial uses in this case and I also consider that the viability argument put forward is irrelevant and warrants no further assessment. In terms of demand, I am aware that there have been other similar types of development that have shown there is no demand for holiday lets in such remote locations in Nottinghamshire and I am satisfied that no further exploration of this matter is required. As a matter of principle, I therefore conclude that the proposal is in line with Policies SP3, CP14 and NE2 of the Development Plan. Impact on character and appearance of the buildings A small linkage building is proposed to link together the buildings that would form Unit 1 (formerly the 3 holiday lets). I consider that this is acceptable given that it is modest and barely visible until within the crew yard itself. Amendments have been requested from the applicants to avoid the loss of breathers, to re-site some window openings and to avoid the formal carving up of the courtyard spaces with walls and fences. I expect these revisions ahead of the Planning Committee. Subject to these being forthcoming I consider that the scheme would maintain the integrity of the barn’s character and it would therefore be in keeping with its rural surroundings. There is currently no landscaping or planting on the site. I consider that the site would benefit from some additional soft landscaping particularly as the gardens to be created could come under pressure for washing lines, children’s play equipment and other domestic paraphernalia. Given this potential, the landscaping plan should include some hawthorn hedge planting around the boundaries of these amenity areas and additional trees to protect the character of the countryside. In addition, I recommend removal of permitted development rights by condition and agreeing matters of details such as the means of enclosure, joinery details, any new materials etc again by condition. I therefore proposed that conditions are imposed to deal with these issues. However I am satisfied that overall the proposals are in line with Policies CP9, CP14, NE2 and the Council’s SPG. Amenity The nearest neighbour is obviously the farmhouse. The main elevation of the farmhouse faces to the south-east, away from the existing barns and cow sheds, as is the private amenity space serving it. There is a distance of 20 metres between the south-east facing elevation of Barn 2 with window openings and the rear elevation of the existing farmhouse. The south-east facing end elevation of Barn 1 contains no openings. I am therefore satisfied that the privacy of the farmhouse would not be so detrimentally affected to warrant refusal of permission. Clearly, the additional comings and goings of a further 3 dwellings and their occupants nearby will

69

have some impact on their existing isolated surroundings, but I do think that the increase in noise and disturbance would be so acute as to warrant refusal of the proposal. The only other affected properties would be the two other farms that use the private road for access. I am satisfied that the level of traffic associated with the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable degree of traffic noise and disturbance and the maintenance of the private road is a private matter between the people that use and own the road. The only existing uses in the vicinity that could affect the amenities of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be the potential for the surrounding land to be used for agricultural purposes and the two farms that share the private access road. Given its location, occupiers should expect to find agricultural uses close by and, in my opinion, these uses are able to exist in close proximity without resulting in an unsatisfactory standard of amenity for occupiers of the converted buildings. The two adjacent farms are far enough away from the proposed dwellings, so as not to cause an amenity problem. Highways Given the relative small-scale of the development, I do not consider that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the highway network from traffic generated by the proposal. There is sufficient space on site to accommodate all parking needs for the development (three spaces each for the four-bed dwellings and two spaces for the three bedroom unit). There are no highway objections and I am satisfied that access and parking to serve the proposed development is acceptable. Protected Species

A protected species survey has been submitted. This concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the barns are being used by an established bat roost although although foraging of bats cannot be dismissed and bat activity has increased since the previous survey undertaken in 2006. It is therefore recommended that further surveys and a qualified ecologist be present on site when the roof sheeting’s are removed from the two storey barns. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust are satisfied that this is acceptable and the proposal accords with the Standing Advice from Natural England. In order to protect breeding birds the Survey also recommends that works are undertaken outside of bird breeding season (April to September inclusive) in respect of Units 2 and 3 only. Overall I am satisfied that the proposal has adequately considered and mitigated harm to protected species in line with policies NE17 and CP12. Affordable Housing

As the site comprises in excess of 0.4 hecatres, 30% affordable housing would ordinarily be required for a residential scheme irrespective of the number of dwellings. However in this case, given that the applicant has a fallback position of 2 dwellings (plus 3 holiday lets) and given that a scheme could have been presented for the conversion of the single storey barns to one dwelling with a much smaller site area, I take the view that it would be unreasonable for this Authority to take such a regimented approach and apply the affordable housing policy. In any event, as the cost of barn conversions is more expensive than developing new builds, it is likely that the cost of conversion would not be able to support an affordable housing unit on the site in any case. This is the approach we have taken for similar types of small-scale barn conversion developments elsewhere.

70

Conclusion For the reasons I set out above, I consider that the proposed development is broadly in accordance with the Development Plan. Whilst not strictly in line with CP1 (relating to affordable housing) I consider that it would be unreasonable to require the provision of 30% affordable housing having regard to the applicant’s fallback position. I therefore recommend permission be granted subject to conditions. RECOMMENDATION That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions shown below. Conditions 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02 The extent of all repairs, including precise details of (i) any proposed demolition and rebuilding works, (ii) any structural alteration to the fabric of the building, including any proposed once the development has been commenced, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that any required repairs/rebuilding works to the farm buildings are completed satisfactorily. 03 The development shall not be commenced until representative samples of the facing bricks and roofing tiles to be used in the development have been deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development has a satisfactory external appearance by virtue of the materials used, and enhances or is suitable for the character/visual amenity of the area. 04 All pointing of existing or proposed brickwork shall be flush jointed using a lime based mortar mix, joint width and finish that shall be first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) following an inspection on site by the LPA's representative, of a sample panel of no less than 1

71

metre square prepared as the first pointing/re-pointing work to take place associated with the works/alterations hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the detail finish to the development is satisfactory. 05 No development shall be commenced in respect of the features identified below, until details of the design, specification, fixing and finish in the form of drawings and sections at a scale of not less than 1:10 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. External windows including roof windows, doors and their immediate surroundings, including details of glazing and glazing bars. This shall include rooflights Treatment of window and door heads and cills Treatment of existing ventilation holes Rainwater goods Extractor vents Flues Meter boxes Soil and vent pipes Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historical appearance of the building. 06 No development shall be commenced until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include: A schedule (including planting plans and written specifications, including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) of trees, shrubs and other plants, noting species, plant sizes, proposed numbers and densities. The scheme shall be designed so as to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of locally native plant species. Existing trees and hedgerows, which are to be retained pending approval of a detailed scheme, together with measures for protection during construction.

72

Means of enclosure (including height, design and proposed materials); Proposed finished ground levels or contours; Car parking layouts and materials; Other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; Hard surfacing materials; Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 07 The approved soft landscaping shall be completed during the first planting season following the commencement of the development, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Any trees/shrubs which, within a period of five years of being planted die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The approved hard landscaping shall be implemented on site prior to first occupation. Reason: To ensure the work is carried out within a reasonable period and thereafter properly maintained, in the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 08 No development shall be commenced in respect of Units 2 or 3 during bird nesting season (beginning of March to end of August inclusive) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the protection of nesting birds on site. 09 The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the recommendation set out in the Protected Species Survey undertaken in August 2012 by B J Collins which forms part of this permission. Reason: In order to afford adequate protection to protected species on the site. 010 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any amending legislation apart from that hereby approved, there shall be no development under Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A, B, C, D, E Part 2 Class A, B, C, unless consent has first been granted in the form of a separate planning permission.

73

Reason: To ensure that any proposed further alterations or extensions are sympathetic to the fact that the building is a converted "barn"/agricultural building. 011 (this condition will be completed once the amended plans have been received) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in accordance with the following amended approved plans, reference(s) ********* unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: So as to define this permission. Note to Applicant 01 Further to the requirements of condition number 5 the rooflight[s] hereby approved should sit flush with the plane of the roof. 02 Further to the requirements of condition number 4 the mortar for the purposes of re-pointing should consist of a lime mortar to a mix of 1:2:9 (cement/lime/sand with an element of sharp sand) and the pointing technique should be bagged or stipple finished. 03 The applicant's attention is drawn to those conditions on the decision notice, which should be discharged before the development is commenced. It should be noted that if they are not appropriately dealt with the development may be unauthorised. 04 Please note that the District Council no longer provides wheeled bins for residential developments free of charge. Wheeled bins can be purchased from the District Council or any other source provided they conform to appropriate standards and requirements of the Council. Enclosed is a leaflet from the District Council's Waste Management Section entitled 'Guidance for New Development - Waste Storage and Collection' which sets out these standards and requirements. If you wish to purchase wheeled bins or discuss this matter further please contact the Waste Management Officer on 01636 655677 or email: waste.management@nsdc.info. 05 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable on the development given that there is no net additional increase of floorspace as a result of the development.

74

REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted broadly accords with the policies listed below. Whilst the proposal does not provide 30% affordable housing as technically required by CP1, weight has been attached to the applicant's fallback position, that the barns would be costly to convert, the desirability to retain these buildings of architectural and historic interest and that the proposal could have been presented for a much smaller site area thereby avoiding the need for the provision. It is therefore considered unreasonable for the Authority to require a contribution to affordable housing in this case. There are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. From the East Midlands Regional Plan

• Policy 1 - Regional Core Objectives • Policy 2 - Promoting Better Design • Policy 13a - Regional Housing Provision (excluding Northamptonshire) • Policy 14 - Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing • Policy 15 - Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing in Rural Areas • Policy 26 - Protecting and Enhancing the Region's Natural and Cultural Heritage • Policy 27 - Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment • Policy 28 - Regional Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure • Policy 29 - Priorities for Enhancing the Region's Biodiversity • Policy 43 - Regional Transport Objectives • Policy 45 - Regional Approach to Traffic Growth Reduction

• From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011)

• Spatial Policy 3 - Rural Areas • Spatial Policy 7 - Sustainable Transport • Core Policy 1 - Affordable Housing Provision • Core Policy 3 - Housing Mix, Type and Density • Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design • Core Policy 12 - Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure • Core Policy 14 - Heritage Environment

• From the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999)

• Policy NE1 (Development in the Countryside) • Policy NE2 (The Conversion of Rural Buildings) • Policy H27 (Housing Development in the Countryside) • Policy NE17 (Species Protection)

BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Clare Walker on 01636 655841.

75

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

76

77

78

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 OCTOBER 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO. 10 Application No:

12/01258/OUT

Proposal:

Erection of 1 no. dwelling

Location:

Land adjacent to 42 Ossington Road, Kneesall

Applicant:

Mr Mark Swanborough

Registered: 24.09.12 Target Date: 19.11.12

The Site The site lies at the northern end of Kneesall village within the Conservation Area. At the corner of Ossington Road and School Lane, this site occupies a prominent position east of the host property at No. 42 Ossington Road, a modern bungalow. The site comprises a rectangular shaped parcel of former garden land measuring approximately 18m wide by 38m in depth. This has been separated from the rest of the garden serving No. 42 with high timber fencing. The site is a flat grassed piece of land bound with a c2m high Hawthorn and Rowan hedge to all other boundaries including the two road frontages. There are a number of trees within and around the periphery of the site including a horse chestnut. These are mature and appear to be in good condition. There are a varied style of dwellings in the vicinity of the site, mainly two storey properties. Kneesall C of E Primary School lies to the south of the site. Relevant Planning History 03/02719/FUL - Full planning permission for the erection of a bungalow was submitted by Mr F Wright. In February 2004, the application was refused by Planning Committee as recommended on the following (summarised) grounds:

1. The siting and layout of the proposed bungalow is inappropriate and does not reflect the character of the locality in terms of layout. In addition the proposal does not respect the trees, on the eastern boundary of the site, which are important features and contribute to the character of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies H13 and H21 of the NSLP.

2. The siting of the large bungalow in this prominent location and its inappropriate design

would conflict with the future growth of the established trees on the eastern boundary, and would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policy C1 of the NSLP.

3. Adverse impact on trees which positively contribute to the character and appearance of

the Conservation Area and contrary to C4 of the NSLP.

79

The Proposal Outline consent is now sought for the erection of one dwelling. All matters are reserved for subsequent consideration. The accompanying Design and Access Statement states that the dwelling would be a bungalow with an approximate floor area of 159 sq m. Its approximate gable width would be 11.3m and it would have a 40 degree pitch roof with a ridge height of 7.2m and an eaves height of 2.4m. In addition, it is proposed that a garage/store building be erected with a floor area of approximately 45 sq m. It would have a flat roof to eaves height (2.4m). An indicative block plan has been received showing how the dwelling might be laid out on site. This shows a footprint of approximately 10.75m by 15m (161.25 sq m). It does not show the position of the proposed garage/store. The applicant has confirmed that the dwelling would have four or more bedrooms. A simple tree survey has been submitted with the application which indicates the position and species of the trees on site. This is not to the British Standard. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Occupiers of five neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. A site notice was also displayed on site and an advert has been placed in the local press. Planning Policy Framework Please Note: All policies listed below and any supplementary documents/guidance referred to can be viewed on the Council’s website. The Development Plan East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009) Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the appropriate weight to attach the relevant policies, which for this application are set out below:

• Policy 1 - Regional Core Objectives • Policy 2 - Promoting Better Design • Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development • Policy 13a -Regional Housing Provision (excluding Northamptonshire) • Policy 17 -Regional Priorities for Managing the Release of Land for Housing • Policy 27 - Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment • Policy 45 - Regional Approach to Traffic Growth Reduction

Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011)

80

• Spatial Policy 1 - Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2 - Spatial Distribution of Growth • Spatial Policy 3 - Rural Areas • Spatial Policy 7 - Sustainable Transport • Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design • Core Policy 14 - Historic Environment

Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999)

• Policy C1 -Development in Conservation Areas • Policy C2 - Outline Planning Applications in Conservation Areas • Policy C4 - Natural and Other Features of Interest in Conservation Areas • Policy C11 (Setting of Listed Buildings)

Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework which now replaces all PPG’s and PPS’s. Consultations

Kneesall Parish Council - No objections Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – No response has been received to date. Neighbours/Interested Parties - No comments have been received to date. Nb - Any comments received after the printing of the Committee Agenda will be reported as late items at Committee. Comments of the Director of Growth Kneesall has been identified as an ‘Other Settlement’ in the Settlement Hierarchy as defined by SP1 of the Core Strategy. It no longer has a defined settlement boundary although has a primary school, a public house and limited access to public transport. This proposal falls to be assessed against SP3 (Rural Areas) of the Core Strategy. This provides that local housing needs will be addressed by focusing housing in sustainable, accessible villages. It goes on to say that beyond Principal Villages, proposals for new development will be considered against five criteria; location, scale, need, impact and character. In terms of location, the site was formerly within the defined settlement boundary, is adjacent to an existing bungalow and forms the space between it and School Lane. Taking these matters into account I consider that it is within the main built up part of the village and it does have some local services and access to Newark Urban Area. Being for one dwelling, I consider that the scale of the development is appropriate for the size of the village (which has a population of c230) and the impact arising from this large family home would generate car bourne traffic but not to an excessive degree. Therefore it meets three of the five criteria set out. However the policy also requires housing applications to be assessed with regard to its impact upon character (a matter that I shall return to) and whether it meets a proven local need.

81

No information has been provided by the applicant to show how the proposal meets a local need. In terms of the information available to the Council our Housing Stock Analysis Report 2009 (undertaken by DCA for Newark and Sherwood District) identified that in the Rural East Area (which includes Kneesall) there is a surplus of 12 four+ bedroom bungalows of private stock and a surplus of 48 four+ bedroom houses. This is the best information we have available and it indicates that there is no wider housing need in this part of the district for larger dwellings or indeed bungalows.

However I note that the 2009 survey has itself informed the Core Strategy (and indeed the emerging Site Allocations DPD) which has determined that the focuses for all new housing development should be in accordance with the settlement hierarchy as defined in SP3 (i.e. the regional centre, service centres, and Principal villages). In this case the 2009 survey identifies this need in the Rural East Area which also includes the principal village of Sutton-on-Trent. Therefore in my view the identified need could be met through the existing settlement hierarchy. In the absence of any additional evidence to demonstrate a proven local need in Kneesall I can only conclude that this proposal fails to meet SP3 on that basis. It is acknowledged that an argument could be advanced that the impact upon need of a single net additional dwelling would be negligible however this is an argument that could be too easily repeated.

Further, Members will be aware that the Council has now confirmed they have a 5 year housing land supply which identifies suitable locations of dwellings across the district on more suitable and sustainable sites. Therefore the Council is not in an intensified position to allow dwellings in such unsustainable locations where there is a proven supply of adequate land in other locations throughout the district.

Returning to impacts upon the character, the site occupies a prominent position within the Conservation Area on the corner of Ossington Road and School Lane. This open site surrounded by native hedging and trees in good condition forms an attractive entrance to the village from the east, positively contributing to its character and appearance. Furthermore from the north side of Ossington Road, views are afforded of the listed St. Bartholomew's Church to the south-west. The erection of even a modest dwelling (in this case 7.2m to ridge is relatively high for a 'bungalow') would likely erode views of the church and in my view the loss of the site to a dwelling per se would harm the rural character and appearance of the Conservation Area in this location, where development would be expected to be a lower density being at the edge of the village. I therefore consider that the proposal is contrary to Policies 27, CP14, C1 and C4 of the Development Plan and is contrary to the NPPF in this regard. Members will note that the application is presented in outline form. Saved Policy C2 of the NSLP states that outline consent will not normally be granted for development in Conservation Areas. However LPA's have other powers to require the applicant to submit further information to accompany an application and I therefore give this policy limited weight. In any event, I consider that I have sufficient information to form a view on the acceptability of the proposal, using the scale parameters set out in the Design and Access Statement and the indicative block plan. The applicant has stated that the bungalow would be c159sq m and has submitted an indicative block plan showing a footprint of c161sq m sited in line with the host dwelling facing Ossington Road. Siting is a matter to be reserved but given the site constraints, it is reasonable to assume

82

that a footprint of the size indicated would be sited in this approximate location. Clearly in outline form, the applicant has not provided detailed design of the proposed dwelling. However the Design and Access Statement indicates the 'bungalow' would be c7.2m to ridge line with an eaves height of 2.4m. This is higher than a genuine single storey dwelling and the large depth of the roof-scape indicated leads me to conclude that the applicant may well be looking for a dormer style bungalow, with rooms within the roofspace, which would in my view be unacceptable in this context. I am concerned that a dwelling in line with the scale parameters specified would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area in terms of its likely siting and its likely design, form bulk and massing. A dwelling of the parameters set out and as shown on the indicative block plan would appear cramped in relation it its boundaries. It should be noted that the plan does not show the proposed location of the garage/store but with a flat roof (specified by the Design and Access Statement) I am concerned that this would be incongruous particularly for a garage use as this may well mean it would need to be sited towards the frontages of the site adjacent to the access. In any event, I find the proposal particularly harmful given that the site lies at a prominent position and the entrance to the village where one would ordinarily expect the densities to be lower as the village transcends into the countryside. I therefore consider that the proposal is contrary to Policies 2, 27, SP3, CP9, CP14 and C1 of the Development Plan. The means of access is a matter that has been reserved, although it is shown indicatively as being located adjacent to the access adjacent to the host dwelling on Ossington Road. Whilst the Highways Authority have yet to comment, bearing in mind that they did not object to the previous refusal in 2003, I expect that it would be possible to achieve a safe access into the site using one of the road frontages and that in principle matters of highway safety would be acceptable and in line with SP7. Highway comments will be reported as a late item. Whilst no robust tree survey has been provided I am satisfied that a suitable layout to safeguard the retention of the trees could be found, notwithstanding my wider concerns on character detailed above. In terms of residential amenity, I am also satisfied that a scheme could be forthcoming that safeguards the amenity and privacy or existing properties in the vicinity. However, for the reasons I have set out above I conclude that the proposal does not meet an identified proven local need and would have a harmful impact upon character and heritage assets. There are no other material considerations that outweigh the harm identified. RECOMMENDATION That outline consent be refused for the reasons set out below. Reasons for Refusal 01 The application fails to demonstrate that there is an identified proven local need for the dwelling in this rural area. In addition, from the Council’s own evidence it appears that there is surplus of this type of property in this area. The proposal therefore represents an unsustainable pattern of development, contrary to Spatial Policy 3 (Rural Areas) of the adopted Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy 2011 (Core Strategy) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF).

83

02 The site occupies a prominent position within the Conservation Area on the corner of Ossington Road and School Lane. This open site surrounded by native hedging and trees in good condition is considered to form an attractive entrance to the village from the east, positively contributing to its character and appearance. Views are afforded of the listed St. Bartholomew's Church to the south-west through the site. The erection of a dwelling to the scale parameters specified would, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, unacceptably erode views of the church and result in the loss of a site that plays an important part in contributing positively to the rural character and appearance of the Conservation Area. This would be particularly harmful given that the site lies at a prominent position and the entrance to the village where one would expect the densities to be lower as the village transcends into the countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to the following policies from the Development Plan; Policies 2 and 27 from the East Midlands Regional Strategy, Spatial Policy 3 and Core Policies 9 and 14 from the Core Strategy and saved policies C1 and C4 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (NSLP). The proposal is also contrary to the NPPF in this regard. BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Clare Walker on 01636 655841. All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. Colin Walker Director of Growth

84

85

86

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 OCTOBER 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11 Application No:

12/01273/OUT

Proposal:

Demolition of hydropool and residential development for up to 3 dwellings (with all matters reserved)

Location:

Balderton Hydro Pool, Gilbert Way, Fernwood, Nottinghamshire

Applicant:

Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust

Registered: 18.09.12 Target Date: 13.11.12

The Site The site comprises the now redundant hydrotherapy pool at the former Balderton Hospital site. The wider site has been redeveloped for housing and the hydrotherapy pool is now accessed off Gilbert Way, Fernwood. It is surrounded to the north and east by modern two and three storey residential dwellings and has been secured off with temporary high metal fencing. The site itself is basically rectangular in shape and comprises approximately 0.15 hectares of land. The 1970’s bespoke building on site is mainly single storey with a flat roof and is constructed of brick. It is located towards the south of the site with hard standing to its rear. An area of hard standing also fronts the building and the site is now is a state of disrepair and is overgrown. Land to the south comprises amenity open space and to the west is retained mature woodland. Relevant Planning History 03761059 – Hydrotherapy pool with changing facilities, shower and rest areas. Approved 19th November 1976. 03920421 – ‘Redevelopment comprising construction of new village of 1,150 dwellings, retail floor space within Use Class A1, provision of school and community facilities including village hall and internal roads.’ Approved 3rd March 1999. Condition 3 states: “Those buildings identified on the attached plan entitled Annex A, which forms of this permission, shall not be demolished, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the retention and re-use of existing buildings and structures which are either of architectural or historic interest and therefore contribute to the special character of this particular site, or of value to the new community.” Nb. Annex A referred to in the condition shows that the Hydrotherapy Pool was one the buildings to be retained. The others were The Water Tower, Balderton Hall and Eastdale Villa (now demolished as no appropriate re-use could be found) and the perimeter wall at the patient’s horticulture unit in the original proposed location for the junior school. 11/00675/VAR106 – ‘Amendment to Masterplan to relocate proposed primary school and allocate existing school site for residential development and removal of bunding/planting/buffer zones along parts of northern and north-eastern boundaries.’

87

This application relates to a variation of the Masterplan which seeks to change the location of the proposed primary school. Of relevance to this application was the requirement to submit a Masterplan, which was subsequently approved by Members. Reserved matters submissions should be in accordance with the approved Masterplan or any amended plan that is agreed. This seeks to ensure a comprehensive approach to design and layout across the whole scheme. This was presented to the Planning Committee on 28th June 2011 who agreed the amendment.

The Proposal Outline consent is sought for the demolition of the hydrotherapy pool building and the erection of up to three dwellings. All matters are reserved for subsequent consideration. A Design and Access Statement has been submitted and the applicant has now confirmed the upper limit scale parameters of the dwellings are as follows: Maximum height to eaves 6.5m, Maximum height to ridge 9.5m Maximum width 11m Maximum depth 10m An indicative block plan has also been received which shows how 3 dwellings might be accommodated on site. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Occupiers of eight neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. A site notice was also displayed at the site entrance. Planning Policy Framework Please Note: All policies listed below and any supplementary documents/guidance referred to can be viewed on the Council’s website. The Development Plan East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009) Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the appropriate weight to attach the relevant policies, which for this application are set out below:

• Policy 1 - Regional Core Objectives • Policy 2 - Promoting Better Design • Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development • Policy 13a -Regional Housing Provision (excluding Northamptonshire) • Policy 17 -Regional Priorities for Managing the Release of Land for Housing

88

Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011)

• Spatial Policy 1 - Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2 - Spatial Distribution of Growth • Spatial Policy 7 - Sustainable Transport • Spatial Policy 8 – Protecting and Promoting Leisure and Community Facilities • Core Policy 3 – Housing Mix, Type and Density • Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design • NAP1 – Newark Urban Area

Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999)

• H3 – Site Na – Balderton Hospital New Community Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework which now replaces all PPG’s and PPS’s. Consultations

Fernwood Parish Council – A copy of a letter sent to Cllr I Walker has been forwarded to the LPA and the Parish Council have asked that these be considered. The relevant points are as follows: “Residents have formally complained about the proposal to replace the Hydro pool with three dwellings on the following grounds: (a) Since there are no scale drawings of the intended buildings no proper assessment can be made on whether the proposed build will intrude on the light that is available to near neighbours esp. on Rosefield Close. (b) For the same reason – and without the access route to the proposed build properly defined – no assessments can be made regarding any unnecessary restrictions on access during the build programme. (c) Obviously, and for the above reasons, no reasonable assessments can be made regarding noise pollution either during the building process or indeed subsequent to. (d) From the detail available on the N&SDC Planning website no reference has been made regarding impact on the existing flora and fauna. Strictly without the immediacy of the appeal / comment period – initially set as the 18th October which left very little time for residents to assemble a consensus opinion – there are key considerations which appear to have been overlooked: (e) Is the proposed development strictly in accordance with the understandings that are implicit within the existing 106 Agreements? (f) The Hydro pool was initially determined as a facility that could be re-developed for the benefit of the whole community – and/or indeed re-designed to suit another much needed public amenity. No opportunity has been provided for such a review.

89

(g) on the advisory note that was sent to near residents mention was made of the fact that the full plans could be inspected via the Parish Council – no such intimation/advisory note/detailed plans have been forwarded via the offices of the Planning Dept. The earliest that the full Council meeting can discuss the issue is at its next meeting on the 15th of this month – scarcely enough time to form a considered response. Not the first instance that this timing problem has been mentioned. In summary, besides the immediate concerns of residents – refer (a) – (d) above we feel that, yet again, the overall concerns of the community have not been taken into consideration. Although, in principle, it must be mentioned that there are no real objections to any well-developed building scheme, but that there should have been a much better lead-in consultation process.”

• The Council would also like it to be noted that they were not given the opportunity to do something with the Hydro Pool themselves, ie make it into a community library.

Further comments from the Parish Council are expected ahead of the Planning Committee and these are to be reported to the Planning Committee as a late item. Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – No objections: “This application is an outline application with all matters reserved. It is proposed to make use of the existing access to the site, which has previously been used for the parking area to the hydrotherapy pool. This development will increase the vehicular movements to/from the site, across a recently adopted link footway, therefore, it is recommended that in order to ensure pedestrian/highway safety, a speed hump be installed close to the adopted link footway. Therefore, subject to the following, there are no highway objections: The formal written approval of the LPA is required prior to commencement of any development with regard to parking and turning facilities, access widths, gradients, surfacing, street lighting, structures, visibility splays and drainage (hereinafter referred to as reserved matters). All details submitted to the LPA for approval shall comply with the County Council’s current Highway Design Guide and shall be implemented as approved. In order to undertake the works involving the construction of the speed hump, the applicant is required to contact Dave Albans (Notts County Council (01623) 520735 for advice.” Two representations from local residents have been received to date. These are summarised as follows:

• Site needs redevelopment, is effectively a brown field site within a residential setting but a full application would be better.

• Over development and overlooking are becoming an increasing issue within Fernwood.

• Application should either be withdrawn or refused asking that a full planning application be

submitted.

• Buildings should be single storey otherwise there will be loss of privacy and light

90

• Removal of trees will deprive residents of numerous songbirds which nest in them, including tawny owls and jays.

• Would not oppose two single storey dwellings but request maximum number of trees to be retained and request that evergreen trees are planted to protect privacy on perimeters of the site.

Comments of the Director of Growth I consider that the main issues in assessing this application relate to the principle of demolition (including an assessment of the loss of the community facility as well as the building itself) and of further housing in this location, likely impacts in terms of design and layout, amenity and highway matters. Each matter shall be discussed in turn. Technically the hydrotherapy pool is/was a community facility and consequently should be assessed against SP8 which states that the loss of existing community and leisure facilities will not be permitted unless they can be clearly justified. The building was previously used by the NHS as a Hydrotherapy Pool, which historically formed part of the Balderton Hospital complex. Following the demolition of the main hospital buildings, the building remained in use until 2007. I understand from the applicants that despite investment, there were continuing problems with leakage and ultimately structural failure. Its poor condition meant that the facility required a complete rebuild which was uneconomical having regard to cost and location. The property has been on the market (for sale) for approximately 18 months on the basis of its existing use but there has been no serious interest and the only interest ceased when the full extent of the structural condition became apparent. As such the redundant and dated building is now considered not viable for reuse as a hydrotherapy pool. Furthermore like in many organisations faced with the task of reducing expenditure, the NHS Trust has concluded that it is not financially sustainable to own and maintain its own pool and now operates by sharing resources across the county with other organizations. Provision is now being met with existing dedicated facilities. As such I am satisfied that the loss of the albeit redundant community facility is justified and does not conflict with SP8 of the Development Plan. The building is of a bespoke design and is of no architectural merit. The redundant site does, in my view, have a negative impact upon the appearance of the area and I have no objection to the loss of building in principle. Condition 3 of the original consent for the new settlement requires that this building be retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. I take the view that this application fulfills the requirement of that condition. A legal view has been sought regarding whether this application triggers a requirement to vary the wider Fernwood Masterplan (in addition to the outcome of this application) and this matter will be reported verbally as necessary to the Planning Committee. The application has been made in outline form, with all matters reserved for up to three dwellings. The issue is therefore, taking into account the scale parameters set out, whether we are satisfied that the site could accommodate up to three dwellings without representing over intensive development that is cramped and without causing amenity issues. I note the comments from the Parish Council and local resident that this application should be made in full. However I am satisfied that we have sufficient information to take an informed view on whether the proposal would be acceptable in principle.

91

CP3 indicates that densities in all housing developments should normally be no lower than an average of 30 dwellings per hectare. Based on the site area, three dwellings would equate to 20 dwellings per hectare in this case. This is lower than average but given the shape of the site and the surrounding site constraints I consider that in principle three dwellings would be acceptable in this location. This could be in any form, including a single block/terrace but is more likely to be three detached dwellings. Indeed the applicant has provided an indicative plan showing how such a development might be laid out. In my view this is likely to be acceptable in principle and reflects the general densities of the surrounding areas as well as demonstrating it would be possible to achieve acceptable separation distances between dwellings to protect privacy. I have noted comments from local residents concerning loss of privacy and overlooking. However I am also satisfied that it would be possible to design such dwellings to avoid direct overlooking at reserved matters stage. The means of access is a reserved matter although on the block plan it is shown as being taken from off Gilbert Way, which is the only realistic way to access the site without encroaching through woodland and open space. NCC Highways Authority raise no objections to the scheme and I am therefore satisfied that in principle an appropriate access to the site could be achieved without compromising highway safety. Finally I have noted the comments from local residents regarding the loss of trees. I would point out that there are no trees of significance on site and the site is overgrown with vegetation not worthy of retention. The existing trees surrounding the site that form part of the woodland and parkland will be retained and there would be no harm to wildlife in this respect. To conclude, in my view there would be no significant harm caused from the loss of a redundant community facility. Indeed its demolition and redevelopment of the site for up to three dwellings would reuse a brown field site and bring about some environmental improvements. I am also satisfied that a detailed scheme could be designed to positively improve the appearance of the area, avoid detrimental impacts on residential amenity and highway safety. I find that the proposals accord with the Development Plan and recommend approval. RECOMMENDATION That outline consent be approved subject to the conditions shown below. Conditions 01 Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02

92

Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called 'the reserved matters') shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. Reason: This is a planning permission in outline only and the information required is necessary for the consideration of the ultimate detailed proposal. Note to Applicant 01 The applicant's attention is drawn to those conditions on the decision notice, which should be discharged before the development is commenced. It should be noted that if they are not appropriately dealt with the development may be unauthorised. 02 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL IS PAYABLE on the development hereby approved. The actual amount of CIL payable will be calculated when a decision is made on the subsequent reserved matters application. 03 The applicant is advised that as the development will increase the vehicular movements to and from the site, across a recently adopted link footway. As such there will be a need to introduce speed reduction measures such as a speed hump to be installed close to the adopted link footway for reasons of highway and pedestrian safety. Details should be included within the reserved matters application. In order to undertake the works involving the construction of the speed hump, the applicant is required to contact Dave Albans (Notts County Council (01623) 520735 for advice. REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. From the East Midlands Regional Plan

• Policy 1 - Regional Core Objectives • Policy 2 - Promoting Better Design • Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development • Policy 13a -Regional Housing Provision (excluding Northamptonshire) • Policy 17 -Regional Priorities for Managing the Release of Land for Housing

93

From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011)

• Spatial Policy 1 - Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2 - Spatial Distribution of Growth • Spatial Policy 7 - Sustainable Transport • Spatial Policy 8 - Protecting and Promoting Leisure and Community Facilities • Core Policy 3 - Housing Mix, Type and Density • Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design • NAP1 - Newark Urban Area

From the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999)

• H3 - Site Na - Balderton Hospital New Community BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Clare Walker on 01636 655841. All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. Colin Walker Director of Growth

94

95

96

PLANNING COMMITTEE- 30 October 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.12 Application No:

12/01280/FUL

Proposal:

New dwelling to replace existing agricultural repair and sales workshop (resubmission)

Location:

Land to the rear of Orchard House, High Street, Harby

Applicant:

Mr Nigel Wheeler

Registered: 14.09.2012 Target Date: 9.11.2012

The Site The application site comprises of a former agricultural workshop of no architectural merit. The agricultural use now comprises of a few animals and the land has no obvious divide between the amenity space of Orchard House. The application site lies to the rear (east) of Orchard House. The main element of the application site is located outside of, what was previously (until the adoption of the Core Strategy) the defined built-up part of Harby. The site is accessed from a private driveway from High Street to the south of Orchard House. The application site is located to the east of the host dwelling. To the southern boundary is a 2m high (approximately) brick wall, to the northern boundary are some hedgerow trees and a 2m high hedge (approximately) and the western boundary (bordering the driveway and Orchard House) is a 3m high (approximately) hedge. To the east of the application site is an orchard and the site is surrounded on 3 sides by residential dwellings. Relevant Planning History 12/00649/FUL - New dwelling to replace existing agricultural repair and sales workshop - Withdrawn 12.6.2012 11/01369/FUL - Householder application to incorporate an existing barn (attached to the main house) to use as part of the existing dwelling – Approved 13.12.2011 OUT/970517 - Proposed dwelling including demolition of existing building on site – Approved 9.7.1997 82924AD - Business sign – Approved 24.12.1982 82762 - Change of use to agricultural repair premises – Approved 21.10.1982 The Proposal

97

Full planning permission is sought for a detached two storey three bedroomed dwelling with a detached double garage on the site of the former agricultural building. The ground floor accommodation comprises of an open plan kitchen/dining/living area, utility, TV room and a W.C. The first floor comprises of three bedrooms, one study, a bathroom, dressing room and en-suite to the main bedroom. The building is square in shape and measures approximately 10.2 metres wide by 12.8 metres deep. The highest roof ridge measures approximately 7.6 metres high from ground level and the eaves height measures approximately 5.4 metres from ground level. The principal elevation of the dwelling faces west and is located approximately 30 metres east of Orchard House. The garage is detached with storage space within the roof and it is located to the north-west of the proposed dwelling. The garage measures approximately 5.9 metres in width by 6.6 metres in depth by 5.0 metres to the ridge and 2.3 metres to the eaves. The principal elevation of the garage faces south. The proposal makes use of the existing vehicular access to the agricultural building from High Street, to the north of Holly Farm and includes the demolition of the existing agricultural building and the small timber chicken and pig pens on the site. Orchard House has a separate access from High Street. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure

Occupiers of 3 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter and a site notice has been displayed at the site.

Relevant Planning Policies The Development Plan East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009) Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the appropriate weight to attach the relevant policies, which for this application are set out below:

• Policy 2 : Promoting Better Design • Policy 3 : Distribution of New Development • Policy 13a : Regional Housing Provision

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

• Spatial Policy 3 : Rural Areas • Core Policy 3 : Housing Mix, Type and Density • Core Policy 9 : Sustainable Design

98

Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999)

Policies relevant to this application:

• Policy H22 – Intensification of Development • Policy H23 – Backland Housing Development

Please Note: All policies listed below and any supplementary documents/guidance referred to can be viewed on the Council’s website.

Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012

Consultations

Harby Parish Council: Support the application.

Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority): “This proposal is for the erection of a new dwelling to replace an agricultural machinery workshop. The existing access will be used with no alterations. There is sufficient manoeuvring space within the site curtilage and adequate parking provided, therefore, there are no highway objections to this proposal.” NSDC Environmental Health - No objections. NSDC Environmental Services (Contaminated Land) - Potential for contaminated land. A condition is recommended for a land contamination investigation. Neighbours/Interested Parties One letter of support has been received from Councilor Rontree and has been summerised below but also attached as an appendix. In addition the letter from the Headmaster of Queen Eleanor School is also attached for Members attention. The letter from Councilor Rontree supports the application for the following reasons:

• The location, scale, need, impact and character meets the requirements of Spatial Policy 3 of the Core Strategy and utilizes the site of an otherwise redundant building;

• Harby's community facilities are at risk; • The proposal is needed to support the school and would deliver sustainable community

facilities in Harby. One neighbor has objected to the application for the following reasons:

• Erosion of privacy and security; • Highway safety; • Noise.

Comments of the Director of Growth

99

I consider that the main planning considerations in the assessment of this application are: 1) the design of the dwelling 2) the principle of development on this site and within Harby. The Principle of Residential Development Harby is not defined within the Core Strategy as a principal village or a main urban area as defined within Spatial Policies 1 and 2. As an ‘Other Village’ it falls to be assessed against Spatial Policy 3 (Rural Areas) of the Development Plan. Outside of principal and urban areas, new housing should be located within sustainable and accessible villages and should principally meet the five criteria as set out within Spatial Policy 3 (SP3). These are 1) Location; 2) Scale; 3) Need; 4) Impact and 5) Character. The location of the development is outside of the previously defined main built up area of Harby, which was, until recently, set out within the adopted Newark and Sherwood Local Plan 1999. However this defined area has now fallen and therefore can be given little weight, being an arbitrary line on a plan. In assessing this afresh I consider that the site does lie within the main built up part of the settlement in that it is previously developed land, has residential development on either side and projects no further back than other residential dwellings along this side of High Street. Harby has some local facilities such as a public house, primary school and a village hall. The shop has recently closed but still retains its ability to be reopened as a retail use. There is also limited public transport to Saxilby and Newark. As such I consider that locationally the proposal meets the first criteria of SP3. However Policy SP3 provides that new housing will only be permitted where it helps to meet an identified proven local need. This dwelling is proposed as market housing for the current occupants of Orchard House and makes no case other than for this personal need and that it would support the sustainability of the primary school and Harby.

The application is for the sole occupation of the applicants who will move out of their current dwelling at Orchard House, High Street, Harby. The NSDC Housing Stock Analysis report 2009 states within the Lincolnshire Fringe (where Harby would fall within) there is an oversupply of 16 three bedroomed houses. The agent has stated the application would benefit the sustainability of the local primary school (Queen Eleanor Primary School) which has suffered dwindling pupil numbers since 2008/2009 where the total numbers enrolled were 66. In 2012/2013 the pupil numbers are 49. This is out of a total capacity of 91 pupils at the school which covers the rural catchment area of Harby, Thorney and Wigsley. The school caters for children from Reception to Year 6 where they then move to a secondary school. The headmaster of the school has fully supported the application and has stated the application will "directly contribute to improving both community life and the sustainability of our school." I have contacted the headmaster directly to try to ascertain the current situation. It is apparent from the headmaster that the applicant’s children already attend and are enrolled at the primary school. In addition the headmaster has stated that the pupil numbers prior enrolled previously were as follows: 2006/07 – 44 pupils 2007/08 – 49 pupils From the information above I remain to be convinced that one dwelling alone can ensure the direct sustainability and longevity of the whole school. There are other externalities which would

100

impact on the future of the school such as the occupation and demographic within the school’s catchment area and the fact that the headmaster has stated that they accept children from outside that catchment area, the fluctuations in the population and the subsequent rise and fall in pupil numbers. Members will be aware that the Council has now confirmed they have a 5 year housing land supply which identifies suitable locations of dwellings across the district on more suitable and sustainable sites. Therefore the Council is not in an intensified position to allow dwellings in such unsustainable locations where there is a proven supply of adequate land in other locations throughout the district. As the dwelling is proposed to serve the occupants of Orchard House, it is considered that there is no significant and demonstrably proven local need that would outweigh the benefits of allowing a single dwelling within this rural village. The personal need of the applicants are noted but again this is not persuasive in the balance in terms of my recommendation. I therefore have to conclude that this constitutes an inappropriate form of development within the rural area and is therefore considered to fail to accord with the intentions of policy SP3 (Rural Areas) of the NSDC Core Strategy. Design Following the withdrawal of planning permission (12/00649/FUL) the applicant met with officers of this Council to discuss a positive way forward. Following this meeting a revised scheme was submitted which although it was an improvement on the previously withdrawn scheme it was stated that it could be further improved to reflect the 'character' of the area and if this was not achieved then it was unlikely to receive a favourable officer response on this basis. The scheme before Members is a largely unchanged version of those Pre Application discussions. It is worth bringing to Members attention that the application site is not located within a defined Conservation Area. Nonetheless the local planning authority has a duty to reject applications where it is not appropriate to the proposed location and fails to uphold the character and appearance of the public realm or fails to reflect the character or distinctiveness of the area. The NPPF states “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area.” It is considered that whilst the use of materials on the principal facade has been changed to brick and tile which are typical local materials, this alone does not ensure it responds to character. The dwelling although set back from the roadside, must still be considered for its architectural merits and the wider impact upon the distinctiveness of the area. The NPPF states planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments “respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation.” Whilst it is accepted that the dwelling is of a modern design and is sought as a sustainable dwelling which incorporates eco friendly initiatives, in my view the proposal has failed to sufficiently adhere to local character. Ensuring that speculative residential developments such as this harmonises and blends in to the surroundings, it is key to make sure that the development responds to the context, local vernacular and the landscape. In this case it is considered that the development fails to make reference to these principles and therefore fails to accord with the distinctive character of the area thus failing to adhere with the intentions of CP9 (Sustainable Design) of the Adopted Core Strategy and Policies H22 and H23 of the Local Plan.

101

It is accepted that the redevelopment of this former workshop site would deliver benefits and these would be welcomed with an appropriate scheme. However, it remains my view that the scheme before us is inappropriate and would harm the character and appearance of the area. Highway Impact The impact from the development in terms of increased traffic created from an additional dwelling is not considered to be excessive nor is it considered to create any additional detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbours or upon highway safety. This is reiterated by the comments from Nottinghamshire County Council Highways who have raised no objection to the proposal. Neighbouring residential amenity I have carefully considered the potential impact of residential amenity and the concerns of the neighbour. In such cases as this it is necessary to consider the amenity of all existing and future occupiers of neighbouring dwellings when considering planning applications. It is considered that the increase in vehicle movements to and from the site, past Holly Farm, would not have any significant detrimental impact upon the living amenities of the occupiers of Holly Farm. The dwelling, with regard to the location of windows, has been designed to alleviate any potential direct overlooking and in that respect it is considered that there would be no detrimental impact in terms of overlooking upon the living amenities of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. With regard to overshadowing and overbearing, it is considered that there is sufficient distance from the neighbouring dwellings to not cause any significant overshadowing or overbearing and therefore in these respects the application is acceptable. One neighbour has raised an issue of noise during construction however this is not something that can be considered during the planning application process. Nonetheless the potential noise from the site if Members are minded to approve the application would be no more than a normal domestic property. Therefore I consider it would not cause any unacceptable impact to the amenity of neighbours. Should the neighbour have any concerns issues of noise could be pursued through Environmental Health legislation. Issues of security raised by the neighbour would again not be controlled through the planning process and it would be a civil matter should the neighbour choose to pursue it if Members are minded to approve the application. Concluding Comments Notwithstanding this, in conclusion, I consider that the proposal fails to accord with the Development Plan by reason of (1) inappropriate design taking into account its context; and (2) lack of proven local need, and there are no other material considerations that would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the harm identified. RECOMMENDATION That full planning permission is refused for the reasons. 01

102

The Local Planning Authority has now confirmed a 5 year housing land supply of identified land across the district which is more suited to housing development. The application has failed to demonstrate that there is a significant and demonstrable local need for the dwelling that would directly contribute to the sustainability of the community and the application does not seek to present a case that it is in any way business or agriculturally justified or connected, and therefore represents an unsustainable pattern of development. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Spatial Policy 3 (Rural Areas) of the Adopted Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 02 In the opinion of the local planning authority the proposal, by virtue of the design, fails to adhere to the character of Harby which in turn would fail to make a positive contribution to the surrounding area. As such the proposal is contrary to Core Policy 9 (Sustainable Design) and Spatial Policy 7 (Rural Areas) of the adopted Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy 2011, East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policy 2 (Promoting Better Design). Note to applicant You are advised that as of 1st December 2011, the Newark and Sherwood Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule came into effect. Whilst the above application has been refused by the Local Planning Authority you are advised that CIL applies to all planning permissions granted on or after this date. Thus any successful appeal against this decision may therefore be subject to CIL (depending on the location and type of development proposed). Full details are available on the Council’s website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk” BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application case file. For further information, please contact Lynsey Tomlin on 01636 655840

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

103

104

105

106

Appendix 1

Kevin Rontree 8 MOOR ROAD COLLINGHAM

NG23 7SZ

01636 892995 07790039757

FAO Lynsey Tomlin Councillor David Payne, Chairman of Planning PLANNING APPLICATION 12/01280/FUL Land To The Rear Of Orchard House High Street, Harby, Nottinghamshire Dear Lynsey

I am writing in support to Planning Committee for the planning application ref: 12/01280/FUL as noted above.

The application relates to a new family home in Harby and the site has previously had a planning consent on another section of the site which has now lapsed. This scheme is an improvement on that lapsed outline proposal.

The site is currently an agricultural machinery workshop and sales business which has closed down and is subsequently previously developed brownfield land.

As well as supporting the application can I request you make a site visit to view the site in order to make a full appraisal of the proposals as a personal view of the site will help in guiding your decision.

It has come to my attention that Harby’s community facilities are at risk. The village shop has recently closed because of lack of business and I have been made aware that the Headmaster of Queen Eleanor Primary School is very concerned in regard of the falling roll at his school.

The school in Harby is one of the pillars of community life in Harby and the evidence shown to me suggests this is seriously at risk. An increase in family housing is required in Harby to sustain this community facility and the other facilities remaining in the village.

The Parish Council has indicated its support for the proposal and recognises the advantages of this additional development and the wider sustainable benefits to the village and the community and the Chair of the Parish Council is to speak to the Committee personally in this regard.

The relevant Planning Policy is Core Strategy Policy SP3 and it is my view that this proposal addresses the five points noted;

107

1. Location 2. Scale 3. Need 4. Impact 5. Character

In particular I support this application with regard to “Need” as we should be supporting the school in Harby in attracting new numbers to sustain this part of the community and new family housing would deliver sustainable community facilities in Harby.

The intentions of Policy SP3 is to sustain communities across the District including settlements that are not defined as principal villages. An inflexible approach to development proposals is likely to result in the stagnation of these settlements, including Harby, and the consequent adverse effect on local services including schools, community facilities and shops.

As stated as the beginning of my letter, I support this proposal unequivocally as it helps to support the local community of Harby.

Regards

Kevin Rontree

N&SDC Collingham & Meering

108

Appendix 2

109

Appendix 2

110

Appendix 2

111

112

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 OCTOBER 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.13 Application No: 12/01288/FUL Proposal: Erection of a Dormer Bungalow Location: The Meadows , Station Road, Bleasby, Nottingham Applicant: Mr M Theakstone Registered: 19.09.2012 Target Date: 14.11.2012 The Site The application site lies on the southern side of the village of Bleasby, and therefore falls within the Rural Area defined by the Core Strategy. The site also falls within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency Flood Maps and is therefore at medium risk from flooding. The Meadows is a large, modern two-storey 4-bedroomed dwelling with double garage, set well back from its access point with Station Road (by approx 50 metres). Adjacent to the road frontage to the east there is two-storey traditional cottage beyond which is an access to a field which sits to the east of the application site. Between the field and the application site there is an open watercourse maintained by the Internal Drainage Board. To the west of the application site is a large modern property set well back from the road in a substantial plot and beyond that are large modern dwellings that have been developed in tandem. To the north of the site is residential development fronting Station Road and to the south are open fields. The site comprises a 0.32 hectare area of land that currently comprises the garden serving The Meadows. The application site has a narrow road frontage (approx 8 metres wide) with Station Road, which also provides vehicular access to The Meadows. The application site narrows further towards the centre part of the site (approx 3.5 metres wide) and extends to a larger triangular shaped area at the southern end of the site (approx 33 metres wide along its widest southern edge). The site has a total depth of approx 125 metres. There is a timber building within the application site close to the southern boundary. The application site accommodates a large number of trees, particularly along its eastern boundary and is not readily visible from the public realm. Relevant Planning History APPLICATION NUMBER 33860473 PROPOSALS Erect four bedroomed house and double garage DECISION Approved DECISION DATE 27.06.86 APPLICATION NUMBER 33900634 PROPOSALS Side extension including double garage DECISION Approved DECISION DATE 07.08.1990

113

APPLICATION NUMBER 11/01260/FUL PROPOSALS Erection of dormer bungalow DECISION Withdrawn 18th November 2011 The Proposal Full planning permission is sought for a dormer bungalow which provides one bedroom at ground floor level and a large single room within the roofspace indicated as a hobbies room served by dormer windows. The ground floor accommodation comprises an open plan kitchen/dining/living area, a master bedroom with en-suite and dressing room, a utility room and wc, and storage room and wc to the rear of the garage. The building measures approx 14 metres wide by 11.5 metres deep at its deepest point. The main and highest roof ridge measures 6.6 metres high from ground level. A single garage is attached and the combination of front and rear projections allow for a variety of roof heights and forms. The proposal shows the inclusion of solar panels on the rear south-facing roof slope. The main elevations are north and south facing. The new building is situated on the southern and widest part of the application site, approx 28 metres to the rear of the existing dwelling. The dormer bungalow is positioned to the east and at an angle, to avoid direct overlooking with the host property. The new dwelling shares a vehicular access with the host property and the access road therefore extends to the side of the existing property, close to the eastern boundary. A cross-section has been provided showing the detailing of the narrow section of the new drive adjacent to the host property. This shows a 1.5 metre high wall and trellis fencing defining the boundary between the existing and proposed curtilages, a 2.75 metre wide access road, a 400 mm high retaining wall with deeper foundations on its eastern side, forming a support for the road and providing a new treatment for the western edge of the open watercourse. The proposal shows that 13 trees are to be removed to allow for the development (out of a total of 40 trees that were identified on both the host site and the application site by the submitted tree survey). According to the arboricultural report of the 13 trees to be removed, 3 are recommended for removal in any event as being of poor quality, 2 are category ‘C’ trees (low quality), and 8 are category ‘B’ trees (moderate quality). The two category ‘A’ trees on the site are proposed to be retained. In support of the application, the following documents have also been submitted:

• Design and Access Statement; • Flood Risk Assessment; • Tree Survey and Arborocultural report.

Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure

114

Occupiers of 4 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. A site notice has been displayed at the site was posted on the 25th September 2012 to expire on the 16th October 2012. Relevant Planning Policies Please Note: All policies listed within this report can be found in full on the Councils website. The Development Plan East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009)

Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the appropriate weight to attach the relevant policies. Policies relevant to this application: • Policy 3 - Distribution of new development • Policy Three Cities SRS1 Definition of Principal Urban Areas Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (Development Plan Document) 2011

• Spatial Policy 1 - Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2 - Spatial Distribution of Growth • Spatial Policy 3 - Rural Areas • Spatial Policy 7 - Sustainable Transport • Core Policy 3 - Housing Mix, Type and Density • Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design • Core Policy 10 - Climate Change • Core Policy 13 - Landscape Character

Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999) None relevant to the proposal Other material planning considerations National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was released by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on the 27th March 2012, with the aim of streamlining the planning system. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states that, "This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up to date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise." National Planning Policy Framework Technical Guidance (March 2012)

115

This document provides additional guidance to local planning authorities to ensure the effective implementation of the planning policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework on development in areas at risk of flooding. This guidance retains key elements of Planning Policy Statement 25.

Consultations Bleasby Parish Council – No comments have been received at the time of writing the report. Environment Agency - Following your email dated 24 September 2012 informing the Environment Agency that the site fails the sequential test applied by Newark & Sherwood District Council; the Environment Agency has no further comment to add. Nottinghamshire County Highways - This proposal is for the construction of a dwelling, gaining vehicular access from the existing access point for The Meadows. There is an existing dropped kerb in place. It was stated in pre-application advice to the applicant that the access should be 4.8m in width for the first 8m into the site. The existing low brick wall adjacent the highway is at a height for emerging vehicles to gain adequate visibility for both other road users and pedestrians. Therefore, subject to the following, there are no highway objections to this proposal: 1. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the access to the site has been completed and surfaced in a bound material for a minimum distance of 8m behind the highway boundary. Reason: To ensure that vehicles entering and leaving the site may pass each other clear of the highway. Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board – The site is served by the Board maintained Holme Dyke an open watercourse which is located along the eastern site boundary. In order to protect the Board’s machinery access, no excavation of soil, deposition of spoil, planting of trees, structures, fencing or other such obstructions will be allowed within 9 metres of the edge of the above watercourse without the prior consent of the Board. Similarly, any proposal which involves works in, over or under a Board maintained watercourse will also require the Board’s prior consent. The Board’s formal consent will also be required prior to additional discharges of surface water run-off being made to the drainage network. The Board therefore require further details regarding all works that are proposed within 9 metres of the watercourse including the proposed access, retaining wall and boundary treatments. This will enable the Board to better consider the implications for the Board and to determine what aspects of the application require consent and the likelihood of the Board’s consent being granted. The Board note that this is a similar application to Planning application number 11/01260/FUL to which the Board also objected and no further information was received from the applicant. Neighbours and Interested Parties 5 letters of support have been received highlighting the following:

• The erection of a bungalow at the rear of the property would have no visual impact from the road.

• Would seem to be good utilisation of limited space within Bleasby. One letter of objection has been submitted raising the following issues:

• The site floods and flooded in 2007 and became heavily water logged this year and if built

116

on will exacerbate the flood risk to neighbouring properties; if the dyke is built on to create the access required, this will also cause increased flooding problems in the area;

• Access is unsatisfactory, the position of the shared driveway would impact on the privacy and amenities of existing neighbours and future occupiers of the dormer bungalow.

• Will result in increased usage of existing private drive onto the narrow main street. Poor visibility for motorists and pedestrians due to bend in road. The hedge proposed to be trimmed to provide visibility splay is not on land belonging to the applicant;

• Loss of old established trees and natural screening, resulting in loss of local wildlife habitat; • Loss of privacy and amenity and intrusive to outlooks of existing neighbours; • Constitutes backland development, very close to host property; • Proposed bungalow too large for size of plot, harming the character and appearance of the

area; • Has the applicant obtained planning permission for change of use of the southern part of

the application site from agricultural to domestic garden land? Comments of the Director of Growth The main planning considerations in the assessment of this application are the principle of development in this location, flood risk, the design and impact on the character of the area, effects on the amenity of neighbouring properties and highway issues. The Principle of Residential Development The village of Bleasby is identified in the adopted Core Strategy as an ‘other village’ in the Settlement Hierarchy defined by Spatial Policy 1. As such, it no longer has a defined village envelope but is rather part of a wider Rural Area and falls to be considered under Spatial Policy 3 of the Core Strategy. This states that local housing needs will be addressed by focusing housing in sustainable, accessible villages and proposals for new development will be considered against five criteria: location, scale, need, impact and character. In terms of location, the site is on the periphery of the existing built form and despite the open fields to the east and south, the majority of the site (apart from the southernmost strip of land that would form the rear garden of the proposed dwelling) was within the formerly defined village envelope recognised by the Local Plan. I am satisfied therefore that the development would be within the main built-up area of the village. No information has been provided by the applicant to show how the proposal meets a local need. In terms of the information available to the Council our Housing Stock Analysis Report 2009 (undertaken by DCA for the Newark and Sherwood District) in the Nottingham Fringe Area (comprising Lowdham and the Trent villages), there is a shortfall of 37 two-bed houses in private stock, but a surplus of 53 one-bed houses. However I note that the 2009 survey has itself informed the Core Strategy (and indeed the emerging Site Allocations DPD) which has determined that the focuses for all new housing development should be in accordance with the settlement hierarchy as defined in SP3 (i.e. the regional centre, service centres, and Principal villages). In this case the 2009 survey identifies this need in the Nottingham Fringe area which also includes the principal village of Lowdham. Therefore in my view the identified need could be met through the existing settlement hierarchy. In the absence of any additional evidence to demonstrate a proven local need in this location I can only conclude that this proposal fails to meet SP3 on that basis. It is acknowledged that an

117

argument could be advanced that the impact upon need of a single net additional dwelling would be negligible however this is an argument that could be too easily repeated. Further, Members will be aware that the Council has now confirmed they have a 5 year housing land supply which identifies suitable locations of dwellings across the district on more suitable and sustainable sites. Therefore the Council is not in an intensified position to allow dwellings in such unsustainable locations where there is a proven supply of adequate land in other locations throughout the district. Design and Impact on Character of Area The site is well screened from the public realm because of the distance from Station Road and the existing mature trees, particularly along the eastern boundary. Therefore only glimpses of the site may be visible from Station Road adjacent to the field access. The concern raised by the objector relates to the principle of backland development being harmful to the character and appearance of the area. I am of the opinion that such an argument is weakened given examples of similar layouts of development to the west of the site. In my view such a reason for refusal is therefore unlikely to be defendable at appeal. The design is contemporary differing roofpitches and projections which add interest and with a maximum ridge height of 6.6 metres. I am satisfied that the design is satisfactory and the scale is appropriate within its landscape setting to the east and south without being unacceptably intrusive to the undeveloped character of the countryside beyond. I have some concern in relation to the impact of the retaining wall currently proposed along the eastern side of the site and the western side of the open watercourse. However, it is only required to be constructed in a limited area where the driveway is adjacent to the existing house and on balance, I do not consider this to be so sufficiently harmful to the character of the area to warrant refusal of planning permission. The loss of 10 reasonable trees on the site is regrettable, however, I am satisfied that this loss will have a limited impact on the character of the site in overall terms, given the number of trees that are to remain. Amenity of neighbours I have carefully considered the concerns regarding loss of residential amenity. There is a distance of approx 28 metres between the proposed dormer bungalow and the host property. As the proposed dwelling is east of the existing and has been angled to face in more easterly direction, I am satisfied that the relationship between host and proposed is acceptable and avoids direct overlooking leading to unacceptable degrees of loss of privacy. The adjacent property to the west is positioned even further away and with a greater angle, and is adequate to meet the needs of privacy, in my opinion. I have also considered the impact of the traffic in terms of noise and disturbance on the occupiers of the host property and am satisfied that even if engine noise was audible from within the property, the frequency of the sound would be limited from a one/two-bedroomed dwelling so as not to cause significant detrimental effects on amenity. The fact that the new dwelling might be visible to neighbours, does not in itself result in harm that would justify the refusal of planning permission. I conclude therefore that there are no grounds for refusal on amenity impacts. Highway Issues The proposal provides for parking and a turning area to enable cars to leave in a forward gear,

118

albeit sharing part of the access with another dwelling. However, despite concerns raised by a third party in relation to visibility and access, the Highway Authority have considered the proposal and have concluded that subject to a condition relating to hard surfacing adjacent to the public highway, the proposal would not result in any danger to highway users. I therefore conclude that the scheme accords with Spatial Policy 7 of the Core Strategy. Flood Risk The site lies within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency Flood Maps. Core Policy 10 of the Core Strategy states that through its approach to development, the Local Development Framework will seek to, amongst other criteria; locate development in order to avoid both present and future flood risk. Para 100 of the NPPF states that Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. It goes onto to then state that Local Plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid where possible flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change, by applying the Sequential Test and, if necessary, applying the Exception Test. The aim of the Sequential Test, according to the NPPF, is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.

Considering this as a duty placed on an LPA, it is reasonable to conclude that within the district, there will be a number of other green field garden sites elsewhere in the district that will be within flood zone 1, at the lowest risk of flooding. In addition, the NPPF states at the outset that in exercising this duty, it should be considered whether the development is necessary. Whilst there is no clear definition of what type of development might be necessary, it is reasonable to conclude that this would relate to types of development that would have to be on the site or within the settlement by virtue of, for example, a change of use, replacement building, extension of an existing building, community benefit schemes, affordable housing or development directly associated with near water activities. This list is by no means definitive and even in the case of the community benefit angle; said benefit would have to be significant to outweigh a risk of flooding to persons or property. As the proposals do not fulfil any of what the LPA would consider exceptions for development in areas at risk of flooding, there is no justification for the LPA to depart from the duty to steer development away from areas at risk of flooding, in its application of the sequential test. It is therefore considered that the development would, in failing the sequential test, represent unjustified and inappropriate development in a flood zone, contrary to one of the key aims of the National Planning Policy Framework. Each material planning consideration has been discussed in detail above and I conclude that the proposal fails the Sequential Test set out in The National Planning Policy Framework and is also contrary to Core Policy 10 of the Core Strategy, which seeks to direct development to sites at lower risk of flooding. In my opinion, the sustainability of Bleasby village together with any other material planning consideration cannot outweigh this sequential approach and I therefore recommend that the application be refused planning permission.

119

RECOMMENDATION That full planning permission is REFUSED, for the following reasons; 01 The application fails to demonstrate that there is an identified proven local need for the dwelling in this rural area. The proposal therefore represents an unsustainable pattern of development, contrary to Spatial Policy 3 (Rural Areas) of the adopted Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy 2011 (Core Strategy) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF). 02 The National Planning Policy Framework states that Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. It goes onto to then state that Local Plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid where possible flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change, by applying the Sequential Test and, if necessary, applying the Exception Test with the aim of steering new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The site lies within flood zone 2 as defined on the Environment Agency’s flood zone mapping and is therefore at medium risk of flooding. There are a number of other existing garden sites across the district, including in areas which are more sustainable (as defined by SP1 and 2 of the Core Strategy) which are capable of accommodating the proposed development that are in flood zone 1. In addition, the proposals represent unnecessary and unjustified development in flood zone 2; and are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Core Policy 10 of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy. INFORMATIVE You are advised that as of 1st December 2011, the Newark and Sherwood Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule came into effect. Whilst the above application has been refused by the Local Planning Authority you are advised that CIL applies to all planning permissions granted on or after this date. Thus any successful appeal against this decision may therefore be subject to CIL (depending on the location and type of development proposed). Full details are available on the Council's website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Charlotte Henson on Ext 5828. Colin Walker Director of Growth

120

121

122

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 OCTOBER 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.14 Application No: 12/01308/FUL Proposal: Householder application for construction of single storey side

extension and first floor balcony (Resubmission) Location: Fairfield House, School Lane, Halam Applicant: Mr Philip Jelley Registered: 21.09.2012 Target Date: 16.11.2012 The Site The site lies within the main built up area of Halam. It is a relatively level site and comprises a detached 5-bed property set back from the road frontage by approximately 15m. The dwelling is finished in red brick with clay pantiles to the roof. Neighbouring properties lie beyond the western and eastern boundaries. The common boundary along the west of the site is defined by a high brick wall and a number of young trees are planted on the applicant’s side. Mature trees, planting and timber fencing lie along the eastern boundary. A public footpath runs between the application site and the Firs. The driveway off School Lane leads to hard standing at the front of the site which is well screened from the street by well established planting along the front boundary. Relevant Planning History 06/01521/FUL: Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of two storey extension. This planning application was approved on 17th November 2006. 12/00540/FUL: Householder application to construct single storey side extension and form first floor balcony. This planning application was refused on 6th June 2012 identifying the following reasons for refusal:- The proposed side extension, by virtue of its size and projection towards the site boundary, would have an overbearing and detrimental impact on neighbour amenity contrary to Policy H24 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan and Core Policy 9 of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy 2011. The Proposal Planning permission is sought for a single storey side extension on the west elevation of the property. The extension would have a width of 5.0m and extend approximately 4.0m rearwards of the existing rear building line. It would have a height of 4.75m to the ridge and approximately 2.3m to the eaves.

123

Full height glazing is proposed in the rear gable and two 2-pane windows to the front. Facing materials and details are proposed to match the existing dwelling. A door and roof light are proposed on the south west elevation and french doors and two roof lights (both to be orientated towards the rear private amenity space) on the north east elevation. A timber balcony structure is also proposed to the rear, which would lead off the master bedroom. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Two neighbours were notified individually by letter. A site notice was also posted on the 5th October 2012 to expire on the 26th October 2012. Relevant Planning Policies The Development Plan East Midlands Regional Plan Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the appropriate weight to attach the relevant policies, which for this application are set out below:

• Policy 2 : Promoting Better Design Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (Development Plan Document) 2011 Policies relevant to this application:

• Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999) Policies relevant to this application:

• Policy H24 – Extension of Dwellings Please Note: All policies listed above can be found in full on the Council’s website. Other Material Considerations

• National Planning Policy Framework • Supplementary Planning Document: Extensions to Dwellings Adopted 2005

Consultations

124

Cllr N Armstrong has referred this application to the Planning Committee should the recommendation be for approval. This is on the basis that the application represents over intensification of development and is too close to the neighbour. Halam Parish Council – No comments received to date. Neighbours/interested parties – No representations have been received to date. Comments of the Director of Growth The main planning consideration in the assessment of this application is the impact upon the neighbouring amenity of current and future neighbours to the west of the site. Principle of Development The policy criteria for extending a dwelling are set out by ‘saved’ policy H24 of the 1999 Local Plan. These establish in all cases that extensions are acceptable in principle provided that the proposal would not harm the amenities of adjacent premises, does not compromise the available amenity space within the curtilage/plot, and reflects the character of the dwelling and local built environment (in design and materials). In this case part of the site is located within an area identified in the Local Plan as “no further intensive development”, however, saved policy H22 is not considered relevant in this domestic context. Design and Impact on Character of Area The proposed extension is unlikely to be visible from the street due to its set back position from the front building line. Notwithstanding this, the design, finished appearance and the use of fenestration ensures the extension and balcony are appropriate subservient additions that assimilate well with the host property. The development will comply with the relevant development plan policies and supplementary guidance in this regard. Residential Amenity With regards to the remaining private open space within the application site, I am satisfied that this would be acceptable given that the property benefits from a large amenity area. As identified above, the main consideration with regard to this application is the potential impact of the single storey extension on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers to the west of the site. Fairfield House shares a close relationship with Evergreen House insofar as development is relatively close to the shared boundary on both sides. Part of this built form within the curtilidge of Evergreen House includes detached barns. Members should be mindful of an extant permission to convert these barns into three dwellings; known as Yew Tree Barn, Oak Tree Barn and Evergreen Barn. The approved site plan relating to this conversion indicates that parking and garden space will be south of the barns (and thereby shielded from Fairfield House by the presence of the barns), however due to the existing presence of built form, it is necessary to have regard to the potential use of the open space between the barns and the neighbouring boundary as private amenity space.

125

This open space can reasonably be considered as rear gardens to serve the barns. These are relatively small, approximately 4.5m at the narrowest point. In addition the ground level within these gardens is approximately 0.5m lower than the application site. These factors were a major contributor in the refusal of the previous scheme on the grounds that it would be overbearing to the occupiers of the barns. The scheme submitted for consideration in this instance has however reduced the scale of the extension from the refused scheme by 1.3m in height and 0.8m in width. Based on the approved fenestration details for the barn conversions, in particular a lack of first floor windows (albeit there are approved roof lights), it is considered that the proposed extension, by virtue of its lower height, would be less prominent from the ground floor level which it is likely to be viewed at. Although it is conceded that the pitch would be visible from the rear amenity space of the barns, it is deemed that this would not amount to an overbearing impact. Given the higher site levels of Evergreen House (broadly level with the application site) and the use of the space between the properties as hard standing (members should also note there is a live planning application for a single storey garage in this space for the occupiers of Evergreen House) it is not envisaged that the extension will be detrimental to the occupiers of Evergreen House in terms of overbearing or loss of privacy. This is particularly the case again given the lack of first floor fenestration on the north east elevation of Evergreen House and that only the top third of the windows proposed on the south east elevation would be visible above the existing fenced boundary. The previous case officer in their delegated report made reference to a potential perception by neighbouring properties of being overlooked from the full height gable window on the north west elevation. However, by reducing the proposed pitch height from the previously refused scheme, the height of the windows has also been reduced. Moreover, owing to the single storey nature of the proposed extension the ability to look into neighbours’ gardens would be limited. The outlook from the proposed balcony, although being large enough to walk out onto and indeed potentially sit out on, would be shielded by the built form of the dwelling to the north west and the well established boundary treatment to the north east. Notwithstanding this there is a significant distance between the proposed balcony and private amenity space of the nearest neighbours to the north east; Old Coach House and The Firs. Conclusion For the reasons set out above, I consider that there would be no significant detrimental impact to neighbouring properties that would warrant a reason for refusal and find that the proposal accords with the Development Plan. RECOMMENDATION That full planning permission is approved subject to the following conditions. 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission.

126

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plan reference

• Ground Floor Plan • South West Elevation and North East Elevation • North West Elevation and South East Elevation

unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: So as to define this permission. 03 The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the material details submitted as part of the planning application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. Note to applicant 01 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council’s website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council’s view that CIL is not payable on the development hereby approved as the gross internal area of new build is less 100 square metres. REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. From the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted 1999) Saved Policy H24: Extension of Dwellings From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2011) Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design

127

BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Laura Gardner on Ext 5907. Colin Walker Director of Growth

128

129

130

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 OCTOBER 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO. 15

APPEALS A

APPEALS LODGED (received between 17 September – 15 October 2012)

1.0 Members are advised that the appeals listed at Appendix A to this report have been received and are to be dealt with as stated. If Members wish to incorporate any specific points within the Council’s evidence please forward these to Planning Services without delay.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

That the report be noted.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application case files.

For further information please contact Ray Hodkin on Ext 5864 or planning@nsdc.info.

C Walker Director of Growth

131

132

App

eal r

efer

ence

App

licat

ion

num

ber

Add

ress

Prop

osal

Proc

edur

e

APP

/B30

30/D

/12/

2182

967

12/0

0282

/FU

L Fi

sker

ton

Man

or

Mai

n St

reet

Fi

sker

ton

Not

tingh

amsh

ire

NG

25 0

UH

Hou

seho

lder

app

licat

ion

to

erec

t a g

arag

e (r

esub

mis

sion

) H

ouse

hold

er A

ppea

l

App

eal r

efer

ence

App

licat

ion

num

ber

Add

ress

Prop

osal

Proc

edur

e

APP

/B30

30/A

/12/

2182

176

12/0

0256

/FU

L La

nd A

dj N

ewar

k Co

ncre

te Q

uarr

y Fa

rm

Wor

ks

Bow

brid

ge L

ane

Bald

erto

n N

ottin

gham

shir

e

Erec

tion

of a

win

d tu

rbin

e (m

axim

um b

lade

hei

ght t

o tip

66

.7m

) and

ass

ocia

ted

infr

astr

uctu

re in

clud

ing

acce

ss tr

acks

, ext

erna

l co

mpa

ct h

ousi

ng w

ith

unde

rgro

und

cabl

ing

to th

e w

ind

turb

ine,

turb

ine

foun

datio

n an

d cr

ane

hard

stan

ding

.

Wri

tten

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

App

eal r

efer

ence

App

licat

ion

num

ber

Add

ress

Prop

osal

Proc

edur

e

APP

/B30

30/E

/12/

2182

804

12/0

0777

/FU

L 4

Not

tingh

am R

oad

Sout

hwel

l N

ottin

gham

shir

e N

G25

0LF

Hou

seho

lder

app

licat

ion

for

the

erec

tion

of a

two

stor

ey

side

ext

ensi

on

Wri

tten

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

133

134

PLA

NN

ING

CO

MM

ITTE

E –

30

OCT

OBE

R 20

12

A

GEN

DA

ITEM

NO

.16

APP

END

IX B

: APP

EALS

DET

ERM

INED

(APP

EALS

B)

App

No.

A

ddre

ss

Prop

osal

D

ecis

ion

Dec

isio

n da

te

11/0

1316

/FU

L Ro

sem

ount

H

alam

Roa

d So

uthw

ell

Not

tingh

amsh

ire

NG

25 0

AD

Erec

tion

of a

det

ache

d dw

ellin

g A

LLO

W

18.0

9.20

12

App

No.

A

ddre

ss

Prop

osal

D

ecis

ion

Dec

isio

n da

te

11/0

1088

/CA

C 20

Chu

rch

Stre

et

Edw

inst

owe

Man

sfie

ld

NG

21 9

QA

Dem

oliti

on o

f bun

galo

w

DIS

MIS

08

.10.

2012

App

No.

A

ddre

ss

Prop

osal

D

ecis

ion

Dec

isio

n da

te

11/0

1087

/FU

L 20

Chu

rch

Stre

et

Edw

inst

owe

Man

sfie

ld

NG

21 9

QA

Dem

oliti

on o

f bun

galo

w a

nd

erec

tion

of 1

No.

bun

galo

w a

nd 2

N

o. tw

o st

orey

hou

ses

DIS

MIS

08

.10.

2012

135

App

No.

A

ddre

ss

Prop

osal

D

ecis

ion

Dec

isio

n da

te

11/0

1242

/FU

L Iv

yden

e 22

Low

Str

eet

Colli

ngha

m

New

ark

On

Tren

t N

ottin

gham

shir

e N

G23

7LW

Erec

tion

of n

ew d

wel

ling

on la

nd

at 'I

vyde

ne' i

nclu

ding

new

acc

ess

DIS

MIS

26

.09.

2012

App

No.

A

ddre

ss

Prop

osal

D

ecis

ion

Dec

isio

n da

te

11/0

1714

/FU

L Le

ek B

arn

Ep

pers

tone

N

ottin

gham

N

G14

6A

R

Rem

oval

of A

gric

ultu

ral O

ccup

ancy

Co

nditi

on, C

ondi

tion

No.

2 o

f pl

anni

ng p

erm

issi

on 8

7860

102

(Re-

subm

issi

on)

DIS

MIS

24

.09.

2012

RECO

MM

END

ATI

ON

Th

at th

e re

port

be

note

d.

BACK

GRO

UN

D P

APE

RS

App

licat

ion

case

file

s.

For

furt

her

info

rmat

ion

plea

se c

onta

ct R

ay H

odki

n on

Ext

586

4 or

pla

nnin

g@ns

dc.in

fo.

C W

alke

r D

irec

tor

of G

row

th

136

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 August 2012

by Nigel Harrison BA (Hons) MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 18 September 2012

Appeal Ref: APP/B3030/A/12/2176200

‘Rosemount’, Halam Road, Southwell, Nottinghamshire, NG25 0AD

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr M Evans against the decision of Newark & Sherwood District

Council. • The application Ref: 11/01316/FUL dated 19 September 2011, was refused by notice

dated 17 November 2011.

• The development proposed is a new dwelling.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new dwelling at

Rosemount, Halam Road, Southwell, Nottinghamshire, NG25 0AD in

accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 11/01316/FUL dated 19

September 2011, subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule attached to

this decision.

Application for Costs

2. An application for costs was made by Mr M Evans against Newark and

Sherwood District Council. This application is the subject of a separate

Decision.

Procedural Matters

3. The application was amended whilst being considered by the Council by revised

plans numbered and dated as follows: 11-1849-02 Rev B; 11-1849-03 Rev A;

and 11-1849-04; and I have considered the appeal on this basis. The

amendments which have been made are as follows:

� A new vehicular access and turning area to Halam Road.

� The proposed dwelling set back approximately 6.6m from the back edge of the

footway at its closest point (previously 5.1m).

� The dwelling positioned approximately 1.0m closer to ‘Rosemount’ (and

correspondingly 1.0m further away from ‘Buckhill)’.

� Roof lights in the rear roof slope reduced in number and re-positioned 1.65m

above internal floor level.

� The dwelling dug into the existing ground by 0.7m at the front elevation (so

that it would be the same height as ‘Buckhill’; and up a maximum of 1.2 at the

rear, with the patio area contained by retaining walls.

137

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/A/12/2176200

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 2

4. On 27 March 2012 the Government published the National Planning Policy

Framework ‘the Framework’. For a 12-month period paragraph 214 says

decision-takers can give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004,

even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. I am satisfied

in this case that there is no conflict the policies of the Newark and Sherwood

Local Development Framework Development Plan Document (DPD) to which I

have been referred, and the provisions of the Framework.

Background and Main Issue

5. Notwithstanding all other considerations, the Council has raised no objections

to the principle of residential development in this sustainable location, as the

site lies within a built-up area and has the benefit of an extant outline

permission for a detached house (Ref: 09/01478/OUT) in which access, layout

and scale were not reserved for subsequent approval. However, the appeal

application was made in full due to additional land being included in the site

and changes to the size and design of the proposed dwelling.

6. I therefore consider the main issue in this case is the whether or not the

proposal would represent over-development of the site, taking into account the

effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring

dwellings with regard to outlook and privacy.

Reasons

7. The appeal site comprises part of the side/rear garden of ‘Rosemount’. The

immediate surroundings contain a wide mix of house types and styles, and

there is no uniformity or particularly local distinctiveness. Whilst I

acknowledge that properties in other parts of the road follow a similar building

line, this is clearly not the case in the vicinity of the appeal property. The

Council has raised no objections to the effect of the proposal on the street

scene in Hallam Road or the character and appearance of the surrounding area,

and I find no reason to disagree with that assessment.

8. It is proposed to erect a four-bedroom two-storey dwelling with rooms in the

roof space, having its main frontage to Halam Road. A single garage is

proposed to the rear on the site of a former gas compound adjacent to

Woodland View. A further access is proposed from Halam Road, and this would

entail the removal of a section of the frontage hedge.

9. The proposed dwelling would be L-shaped; the main two-storey part measuring

8.3m wide and 9.4m deep (max), with a single-storey flat-roofed room

projecting a further 4.5m to the rear. It would be dug into the ground in order

to reduce the height of the ridge relative to the two adjacent properties, and

the ridge height would be 8.2m. The distance between the side elevation of

the proposed dwelling and that of ‘Rosemount’ to the east would about 1.2m,

and the corresponding distance to the side elevation of ‘Buckhill’ to the west

about 2.7m (max). It would be positioned about 11.5m from the northwest

corner No 2 Woodlands View, which is set on higher ground, and whose rear

garden abuts the rear boundary of the appeal site.

10. Policy 2 of The East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS), which still comprises part of

the development plan, seeks to promote better design. Amongst other matters

it encourages design-led approaches which take account of local character and

make the most efficient use of land. DPD Policy 9 has similar aims, and says a

high standard of design is expected that contributes to and sustains local

138

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/A/12/2176200

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 3

distinctiveness, and is of an appropriate scale and form to its context. DPD

Core Policy 3 seeks to secure new housing development that adequately

addresses the housing need of the District, including family housing of three

bedrooms or more.

11. I have carefully assessed the revisions that have been made to the scheme as

originally submitted; taking into account the neighbouring occupiers’ comments

in reference to both the original and amended plans. I consider the proposed

setting back of the dwelling further into the plot by about 1.5m, together with

excavation into the ground by up to 1.2m, would reduce the height and

prominence of the dwelling in the streetscene to an acceptable degree, and the

ridge line would roughly correspond to that of the dwellings on either side.

Whilst the dwelling would occupy much of the width of the plot, I consider that

sufficient space would be left between dwellings to avoid an unacceptably

cramped appearance or over-intensive form of development. The setting back

of the dwelling would bring about a reduction in the size of the rear garden in

comparison to those of neighbouring and nearby properties. Nonetheless, and

in the absence of any guidance relating to minimum garden size, I consider

that the amount of amenity space proposed is adequate to serve the needs of

future occupiers.

12. The two-storey gabled wing of the proposed dwelling would project

approximately 6m forward of the front elevation of ‘Buckhill’. Both the

appellant and the occupiers of that property have submitted calculations based

on an interpretation of the general guidelines of the ’45 degree rule’. The

neighbours at ‘Buckhill’ have measured the 45 degree line from the edge of the

closest habitable room and conclude that the proposal breaches the rule. On

the other hand, the appellant has measured from the centre point between the

two nearest windows (which both serve the same room); and on this basis

concludes that the proposal complies with the guidelines. However, as these

windows serve the same room there is no clarity from where the measurement

should be taken. In any event, whilst this ‘rule’ is often used for guidance

purposes, it has not been adopted by the Council and does not constitute an

overriding material planning consideration.

13. Even in its amended form, I accept that the bulk and massing of the projecting

wing will directly affect the front garden area and be visible from the front-

facing windows. However, any impact on the garden and the rooms served by

those windows would be less pronounced in terms of overshadowing and loss of

light due to the northerly orientation. On balance therefore I consider its

impact would not be sufficiently harmful to warrant withholding permission for

this reason alone.

14. Whilst privacy in the gardens of ‘Rosemount’, ‘Buckhill’ and ‘No 2 Woodlands

View’ would be affected to some degree due to the potential for overlooking

from the first floor windows on the rear elevation, I am not persuaded it would

be to an unreasonable level, particularly given the separation distances and

relative orientation between dwellings. In any event, some overlooking of the

neighbouring properties already occurs to a certain degree from the first floor

windows of ‘Rosemount’. The revised position of the roof lights above eye level

would help to prevent direct overlooking, as would the obscure glazing which is

indicated in the staircase window in the side elevation facing towards ‘Buckhill’.

Existing boundary fences and hedges around the site would also mitigate the

potential for overlooking from the proposed ground floor rear-facing windows.

139

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/A/12/2176200

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 4

15. I note the representations made by the Town Council and others that the

proposal would represent a highway safety problem, as the distance of the

garage from the dwelling would encourage vehicles to park or wait on Halam

Road and cause obstruction. However, the Highway Authority has raised no

objections subject to conditions, and I find no reason to disagree with that

professional assessment. Local residents have also raised concerns in relation

to the potential for the worsening of surface water flooding. Whilst the amount

of hard-surfaced areas would increase as a result of the proposal, I am

satisfied that its impact on surface water run-off can be controlled by condition.

Conditions

16. I have considered the list of suggested conditions put forward by the Council in

the light of the advice in Circular 11/95. In addition to the standard 3-year

condition for the commencement of development, a condition is required to

secure compliance with the revised plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the

interests of proper planning. Although indicated on the approved plans, details

of facing bricks and roof tiles should be submitted for approval in the interests

of the appearance of the area. For the same reason, full details of boundary

treatment are required. The suggested landscaping condition is justified as it

sets out the parameters for the submission and subsequent implementation of

full details, in the interest of the appearance of the area and biodiversity.

17. Conditions to cover the formation of the new access and to ensure that the

garage, parking and turning areas are used for their intended purpose are all

necessary in the interests of highway safety. Surface water drainage details

are required in order to prevent an increased risk of flooding. A condition has

been put forward withdrawing normal permitted development rights relating to

additional windows in the west elevation. I consider this is reasonable in order

to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, although I shall

extend it to include the east elevation. For the same reason, the condition

requiring the installation and retention of obscure glazing to the staircase

window is justified.

18. Although indicated, I shall impose an additional condition requiring the

submission of full details of existing and finished ground levels of the site, and

finished floor levels of the dwelling, for the avoidance of doubt and in the

interests of proper planning.

Conclusion

19. Overall, although a finely balanced decision, I am satisfied that the proposal

would not represent over-development of the site, and would not materially

harm the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings with

regard to outlook and privacy. As such, I find no conflict with DPD Core Policy

3 and Policy 9, RSS Policy 2, and provisions in the Framework which include a

stated presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore, for the

reasons given above, and taking into account all other representations raised

including those from local residents, a District Councillor, Southwell Town

Council and Southwell Civic Trust, I conclude that the appeal should be

allowed.

Nigel Harrison

INSPECTOR

140

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/A/12/2176200

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 5

Schedule of Conditions: Appeal Ref: APP/B3030/A/12/2176200

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years

from the date of this decision.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance

with the following approved plans, except in respect of the site plan

included within Drawing No 11-1849-03 Rev A.

� Proposed Site Plan (Drawing No 11-1849-04);

� Proposed General Arrangement Plans (Drawing No 11-1849-02 Rev B);

� Proposed Plans and Elevations (Drawing No 11-1849-03 Rev A).

3) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used

in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby

permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance

with the approved details.

4) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and

approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the

positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be

erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building

is occupied, or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the

local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in

accordance with the approved details.

5) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft

landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the

local planning authority, and these works shall be carried out as

approved. These details shall include: a) a schedule including planting

plans and written specifications of trees, shrubs and other plants, noting

species, plant sizes, numbers and densities; b) the position of existing

trees and hedges which are to be retained, together with measures for

their protection during construction; c) the use of permeable hard

surfacing materials where possible. The scheme shall be designed so as

to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of

locally native plant species.

6) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with

the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the

development, or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local

planning authority. Any tree or shrub which, within a period of 5 years of

being planted, dies, is removed, or becomes seriously damaged or

diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of

similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives its

written approval to any variation.

7) The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the garage and

parking space adjacent to Woodland View have been completed; and the

garage and parking space shall be used solely for the benefit of the

occupants of the dwelling of which it forms part and their visitors and for

no other purpose, and permanently retained as such thereafter.

141

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/A/12/2176200

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 6

8) The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the access and

parking/turning areas accessed from Halam Road are provided in

accordance with the approved plan (Drawing No 11-1849-04); and the

parking/turning areas shall remain free of obstruction and not be used for

any purpose other than parking and turning.

9) The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied the proposed

vehicular access to Halam Road has been constructed and surfaced in a

bound material in accordance with the approved plans.

10) No development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of

surface water from the site via trapped gullies within the site has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The

scheme shall include details of how the drainage systems shall be

maintained and managed after completion and the works shall be carried

out in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the first occupation

of the dwelling.

11) Before the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted the vertical

window on the west elevation shall be fitted with glass blocks glazed to

level 3 or higher on the Pilkington scale of privacy or an equivalent, shall

be non-opening, and shall be permanently retained in that condition.

12) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and

re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or

dormer windows, other than those expressly authorised by this

permission, shall be constructed on the east and west elevations.

13) No development shall take place until full details of existing ground

levels, finished floor levels of the dwelling and garage, and proposed

finished levels of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing

by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in

accordance with the approved details.

142