APPLIC REF NO 2013/593/NT
DATE RECEIVED
6/12/2013
CASE OFFICER
Michael Avery
DATE OF EXPIRY
14/03/2014
WARD
Park Hall
WARD COUNCILLOR Cllr Ann Norman
APPLICANT
BARRATT HOMES NORTH MIDLANDS
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PARK HALL FARM PARK HALL ROAD MANSFIELD
WOODHOUSE NG19 8QX
OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION WITH ALL MATTERS
RESERVED FOR UP TO 130 NO. DWELLINGS INCLUDING
AFFORDABLE HOMES, TOGETHER WITH SITE ACCESS,
OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED SITE
INFRASTRUCTURE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PERMISSION
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND APPLICATION SITE
The application seeks outline planning permission for residential development
with all matters reserved for up to 130 No. dwellings, including affordable
homes, together with site access, open space, landscaping and associated
site infrastructure. The application as initially submitted, proposed up to 150
No. dwellings but this was subsequently reduced to 130 No. dwellings.
The application site has an area of approximately 5.4 hectares and is located
outside of the urban boundary to the north of Mansfield Woodhouse and is
accessed from Park Hall Road. The site is located to the north and south of
Park Hall Farm which comprises of a derelict farmhouse and stone barns. The
current site access is shared with Park Hall Farm and access to the existing
buildings would be incorporated into any modified vehicular access from Park
Hall Road.
The site is currently agricultural land, with the western site boundary defined
by a stone wall and trees beyond which is further agricultural land. Existing
residential development are located to the south and east of the site and
incudes properties on Sandringham Drive, Eastleigh Drive, Stranraer Close
and Park Hall Road. The curtilage of one residential property is located to the
north.
The application is a major development and is a departure from the adopted
Mansfield District Local Plan.
The following information has been submitted in support of the application:










An indicative layout to identify how the site could be developed with up
to 130 No. dwellings.
A development areas plan identifying areas of proposed development,
landscaping and access routes.
Design and Access Statement
Planning Statement
Transport Assessment
Ecological Appraisal
Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Assessment
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Arboricultural survey
Geo- Environmental Assessment
Section 106 Draft Heads of Terms which advises the development will
secure the provision of up to 20% of the dwellings as affordable housing
in accordance with the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance Note 7:
Affordable Housing and on site open space either managed by the
Council (with the payment of a maintenance contribution) or by a
management company.
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
2003/0699/WT: Demolition and clearance of modern structures/extensions,
conversion and change of use of redundant farm buildings to 10 No.
residential units and alterations / extensions to farm house – approved
December 2003. This permission no longer remains extant as it has not been
implemented.
OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
Throughout this report observations received in respect of each application
are presented in summary form. The full letters and consultation responses
received, including details of any non-material planning observations, are
available for inspection both prior to and at the meeting.
Anyone wishing to make further comments in relation to the application must
ensure these are received by the Council by 12 noon on the last working day
before the date of the Committee.
Planning Policy Manager
Objects to the proposal on the grounds that the site is located outside of the
urban boundary at time when there is not a shortage of land for housing on
suitable available and deliverable sites, including those within the urban area.
Objection is also raised on the impact the proposed development would have
on the landscape character of the area.
Nottinghamshire County Council (Landscape)
Do not support the application in the current form and would suggest that the
scheme is redesigned with a reduced density of development to retain the
landscape character of the area.
Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways)
No objection has been raised by the Highways Authority however it is
recommended that the application be deferred until the Council’s District wide
transport study is available to assess the Council’s preferred growth scenario
and potential cumulative impact on Mansfield District’s transport networks and
services. This study will identify any potential transport infrastructure
improvements required to facilitate the cumulative impact of the preferred
growth scenario along with a preliminary assessment of any associated
infrastructure costs and comments on their deliverability, priority and likely
funding sources. If the Local Planning Authority are minded to approve the
application, additional traffic calming on the Fairways will be required and
consideration should be given to securing a contribution towards future
transport infrastructure from the applicant.
Nottinghamshire County Council (Education)
Based on current pupil projections, the additional primary and secondary
places can be accommodated in existing schools. An education contribution
will not therefore be sought.
Nottinghamshire County Council (Rights of Way)
Footpath No. 2 runs along the track adjacent to the proposed development.
The development will increase traffic flow along Park Hall Road both during
construction and when completed and occupied. Users of the footpath will be
used to the land as a quiet route with little or no traffic. The applicant will need
to provide mitigation for this in terms of improving the footway or funding
some improvements to the public rights of way network in the area which
residents have access to.
Natural England
No objection. The development site is located in the Sherwood Forest area, in
proximity to habitats identified as important for breeding nightjar and woodlark
and therefore the Local Planning Authority are advised to refer to Natural
England’s recommended ‘risk based approach’
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust
No objection to the development but have recommended that the buildings at
Park Hall Farm are visually searched / inspected for bats.
Principal Conservation and Heritage Officer
The initial comments received raised concern in relation to the impact of the
development on the adjacent Park Hall Farm and outbuildings. A revised plan
has however now been provided showing a landscape buffer around Park Hall
and the number of units has been reduced.
Parks Manager
On site open space should be provided given the size of the development. If
planning permission is granted, the Council’s Parks Department would like
extensive input into planting schemes and landscaping of the open space
being provided.
Nottinghamshire Police (Architectural Liaison Officer)
Advice has been provided in relation to guidance and design principles which
should be followed, should detailed design proposals come forward for the
site and the Police Service request the applicant discuss their proposals to
ensure opportunities for crime and disorder can be minimised.
Environment Agency
No objection subject to conditions
Severn Trent Water
No objection subject to a condition
Members of the Public
The application, as initially submitted, was for a development of up to 150 No.
dwellings. Objections have been received from the occupiers of 54 properties.
The grounds of objection are summarised as follows:








Loss of trees, hedges and mature landscape
Loss of nature and animal/wildlife habitat
Wildlife including birds, bats, owls, foxes, squirrels, hedgehogs,
badgers, deer, field mice, insects and reptiles would be lost
There are rare species of flower on the site
An ecological survey of the site should be undertaken, including a
survey for Great Crested Newts.
The area is currently peaceful and this will be lost if the development
goes ahead
The site and wider area has natural beauty which, if the development is
allowed will be lost forever
The proposal will generate more traffic in the locality of the site. An
increase in traffic is unacceptable and could potentially be dangerous
for young children.
More traffic will make the area less peaceful

























Park Hall road was a cul-de-sac until the new development was built
which now creates a rat run onto the A60.
Traffic calming measures are currently required and despite the
support of Cllr Bosnjak and Sir Alan Meale MP they have not been
provided by the Highways Authority.
Existing traffic calming is inefficient
Traffic speeds and volumes makes reversing from existing driveways
difficult at peak times during the day
There will be further pressures on existing roads and junctions
generated by upto a further 300 vehicles (2 cars per household)
creating up to an additional 1000 vehicle movements per day
There should be multiple accesses to the proposed development
There will be thousands of lorry movements required during the
construction phase
The development will cause disturbance for emergency services,
Council refuse collections, users of the vets and local residents
Local roads are not gritted
Disruption in terms of noise, mess and a loss of water supply during
the construction phase and interrupted sleep during the day for shift
workers
Elderly people living within the vicinity of the site will particularly
affected by the disruption
There is pressure for car parking on the Fairways generated by
functions at Spikes and from the use of Manor Sports Complex pitches.
Inappropriate car parking has necessitated the Police being called.
The area was originally designated as greenbelt and such areas are
important for our health and wellbeing;
The development would be on land which is located outside of the
urban boundary and the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability
Assessment advises that this land is not considered suitable for
housing and this should be considered- why a change?
There are existing brownfield sites which should be re-developed
where existing buildings have been demolished. The proposal should
not be considered until all other brownfield sites have been excluded.
Existing residents will not be able to enjoy their garden
Agricultural land should be saved for food production which is needed
as the population rises.
This is prime agricultural land and should be protected. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy NE2.
Loss of drainage and therefore increased flooding risk
Sewers and drains may not be adequate for more dwellings
Existing gardens currently flood.
Increased flooding will result in increased insurance premiums for
residents
Increased flooding could damage existing homes
The area was known as the bogs due to numerous springs
The development should be delayed for a further 10 years





























There are not enough existing facilities, including doctors/dentist
surgeries and schools in Mansfield Woodhouse to cater for another
150 dwellings
The proposal will only benefit the developer and the land owner and
not the local area and residents
There is no need for further high density developments. There are
enough houses on new developments in Mansfield for sale.
The proposal in this location is not sustainable
The site would have a lack of facilities including public transport and a
shop
Approval of the development would set a precedent and permit the
development of further adjacent land
Loss of open space
Loss of view
Loss of existing privacy
Loss of light to exiting properties
There is not enough detail for outline planning permission to be
granted.
As the application is in outline it is difficult to gauge how existing
properties will be overlooked or overshadowed
Issues around ownership of exiting boundary treatment
The Council does not seem to be able to or want to represent the views
of its constituents in matters pertaining to this area of Mansfield
The Council should not be encouraging the development of the site
It is the responsibility of the Council to protect green spaces for as long
as possible
Members of the Planning Committee should have access to objection
letters.
The site has historical relevance
Crime could be increased in the area
The existing village will loose its identity and merge with adjacent
villages.
The proposal is not in keeping with the farm house and barns on the
adjacent land which is essentially in the middle of the proposed
development.
Fields and trees will be destroyed
Disruption to existing family pets caused by the construction of the
dwellings and future occupants
Impact on gas, electricity, water, telecommunications, internet and
digital TV
Increased pressure on Nottinghamshire Fire & Rescue services
Once the principle of residential development is established for 150
dwellings, it is likely that proposals for upwards of 300 dwellings would
come forward which would compound the impact of the development
The area has been singled out for development
The best way of preserving the history of the site would be to convert
Park Hall Farm and the associated buildings
The farm house should be converted, but 150 dwellings is too much














Park Hall Farm should be part of the proposal to stop the occurrence of
drinking and drug taking.
The proposal could jeopardise the redevelopment of the Park Hall
Farm buildings.
Time and money has been spent on improving the environmental value
of adjacent land, including the planting of over 500m of new hedging,
several acres of pollen and nectar grasses alongside the existing
hedges to encourage wildlife in this area.
There are currently problems with trespassers on adjacent farmland
damaging crops (for example children fetching balls) and criminal
damage to property. It is considered that the new development will
increase such problems
Property values will be reduced.
The layout plan appears to show encroachment onto adjacent land
The application should be refused as there are a number of mistakes,
inaccuracies and unsubstantiated information
The Transport Assessment asserts that a significant number of
journeys will be made using bus, cycling or walking and there is no
basis for this assumption. Any walking and cycling will be purely for
recreational purposes
There is insufficient information to assess the traffic implications of the
proposed development and the information on trip generation is
believed to be artificially low.
The proposal is contrary to Saved Policy H3 which states that planning
permission will not be granted for the development of permanent
housing outside of the urban boundary.
If weight is to be given to the applicants intention to construct
affordable homes, then this must be secured through the Section 106
Agreement to avoid a situation where unaffordable houses are built
and the affordable houses are not
If there is to be a Section 106 Agreement, local people should be
consulted
Who will be responsible for ‘green areas’
No notices have been posted to advertise the proposal
Following the amended description and amended details (reduction in the
maximum number of dwellings from 150 to 130, revised indicative layout plan,
development areas plan and additional landscape / visual impact information)
all members of the public previously consulted and those who initially
commented on the application were re-consulted. The occupiers of seven
properties have reiterated their previous comments and have advised that the
reduced number of residential units will not address any of the previous
issues raised
The agent acting on behalf of the owner of Park Hall Farm has written a letter
to confirm that they have no objection to the proposed development. However
the owner has advised that it is their intention to re-apply for planning
permission for residential conversion of the outbuildings in a format similar to
the permission which has been granted in the past. Therefore consideration is
requested from the Council in determining any reserved matters application,
to ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse impact
on the on the setting and residential amenities of the future occupiers of the
existing farmhouse and residential conversions. The Council should not
therefore grant permission for a set number of dwellings, as these may not be
able to be accommodated on the site in a satisfactory form
Councillor Joyce Bosnjak




The site is outside of the urban boundary and there is no justification
for the authority to change its position on development outside of the
urban boundary.
The site is valuable arable land which should not be considered for
development whilst there are brownfield sites available for
development within the urban boundary
Additional vehicles will add to the already heavily congested highway
network putting pedestrians and other road users at risk
The reduced number of dwellings would not address any of the
identified issues
POLICY & GUIDANCE
National
National Planning Policy Framework – sets out the Government’s planning
policies and requires that a presumption be given in favour of sustainable
development.
Paragraph 61 advises that planning policies and decisions should address the
connections between people and places and the integration of new
developments into the natural, built and historic environment.
Paragraph 66 advises that applicants will be expected to work closely with
those directly affected by their proposals to evolve design that take account of
views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing
the design of new development should be looked on more favourably
Paragraph 111 states that Planning Policies and decisions should encourage
the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed,
provided it is not of high environmental value.
Paragraph 109 it states that planning system should contribute to and
enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing
valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils.
Paragraph 112 states that where significant development of agricultural land
is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to
use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.
Mansfield District Local Plan
Saved Policy DPS2 (28/09/07) – States that development will be concentrated
within and adjoining the main urban areas of Mansfield, Mansfield
Woodhouse and Warsop.
Saved Policy BE1 (28/09/07) – This policy aims to ensure developments
achieve a high standard of design.
Saved Policy NE1 (28/09/07) – aims to prevent the loss of areas of open
countryside and to encourage the development of vacant and derelict sites
within the urban area.
Saved Policy NE2 (28/09/07) – states that planning permission will not be
granted for developments on the best and most versatile agricultural land.
Saved Policy NE8(C) – states planning permission will not be granted for
developments which would detract from the landscape or environmental
quality of mature landscape areas at Nettleworth Manor, Mansfield
Woodhouse.
Saved Policy H3 (28/09/07) – States that planning permission will not be
granted for the development of permanent housing outside the urban
boundary except where it is essential for agricultural or forestry workers.
Saved Policy M16 (28/09/07) – Sets out the criteria that new developments
need to meet in relation to the highway network
ISSUES
The key issues in respect of the proposed development relate the following:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Principle of the development
Impact on the landscape character
Ecology
Impact on Park Hall Farm and the adjacent barns
Flooding and drainage
Highways
Other matters
1.Principle of the development
The site is located outside of the urban boundary as defined by the Mansfield
Local Plan and is also within a designated landscape area identified by site
specific Saved Policy NE8 (C). The impact upon the landscape and visual
amenity will be assessed later in this report, but the presumption of the
development plan is against allowing this land to be developed, unless
material planning considerations can justify a departure from the local plan.
The Council do not consider there to be a shortage of land for housing on
suitable available and deliverable sites, including those within the urban area,
and therefore it is considered that the proposals run contrary to the aims and
objectives of Policy NE1 in that development of the site would result in the
unnecessary loss of open countryside, and prejudice the delivery of more
suitable sites within the urban area.
On 24th April 2012 Council approved that for the purposes of the Local
Development Framework (now referred to as the Local Plan) and in
determining the Councils 5 year housing requirement following revocation of
the Regional Plan a figure of 391 dwellings per annum be used. This figure
was approved on the grounds that it was based upon updated housing
projection figures to those used within the Regional Plan, and took account of
opinions expressed as part of comprehensive consultation.
The 2013 published Housing Monitoring Report demonstrates that as of 1st
April 2013, based upon the ‘locally agreed housing requirements detailed
above, the authority have 625 dwellings in excess of an adequate 5 year
housing supply. This figure makes allowance for an additional 20% for underdelivery as set out within the NPPF, and also discounts a significant number
of dwellings that have the benefit of an extant permission or support, subject
to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement, where there is a possibility that
dwellings may not be delivered within the next 5 years.
The NPPF is clear that the purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable
development, and that planning applications must be determined in
accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. The Local Plan is not absent or silent on the issue of sustainable
development, and while it is an old plan, the aims and objectives set out within
policy NE1 are clearly supported within the NPPF.
Paragraph 111 of the NPPF states that Planning Policies and decisions
should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been
previously developed, provided it is not of high environmental value.
Although the land contained within the district’s 5 year land supply figures is
not completely made up from previously developed land, it is considered that
further release of greenfield land within the open countryside would only
hinder the delivery of either sustainable Previously Developed Land in need of
development, or underused greenfield land inside the urban area which is
considered more sustainable than the application site.
On 30th July 2013 Council agreed Part 1 of the Local Plan which supports the
approach of urban concentration, focusing development on sustainable
locations within the urban area. After comprehensive public consultation on
development plan issues to date, serious concerns were expressed by
residents regarding the number vacant and underused urban sites within the
urban area. Focusing development on sites within the urban area while
allowing development upon those greenfield sites which already benefit from
extant permissions will assist in securing the development of land, much of
which is in need of development for regeneration purposes. This approach is
seen as the most appropriate way of delivering the aims and objectives of the
NPPF and resisting development on yet more open land, thus expanding the
urban area onto less sustainable greenfield sites that would not address
issues of regeneration and tackling the issue of urban dereliction, which is
clearly evident in the District.
Detailed statistics indicate that levels of house completions within the district
do not rise merely as a result of granting more planning permissions.
Completion rates have historically failed to increase as a result of any
additional supply, and despite a variety of land type and location having the
benefit of extant permissions, including large and small greenfield sites as
well as large and small brownfield sites completion rates have rarely risen
above 350 dwellings per year.
Although it can be argued that any additional land granted permission
increases the opportunity for more housing, it is notable that historically there
is no evidence of this, and that economic factors are more likely to dictate
completion rates. Completion rates in excess of 850 dwellings per year, which
would be required in order to meet the revoked RSS requirements, are seen
as totally unrealistic especially when long term historic rates indicate that even
Gross completions have only exceeded 400 dwellings 3 times in over 20
years. Even if the application site was to deliver additional housing in the short
term, it would counter any efforts to encourage the development of more
sustainable sites that could contribute to much needed regeneration of the
urban fabric of the district.
The principle of residential development is therefore considered to be contrary
to Saved Policy NE1 (28/09/07) and objectives of sustainable development as
set out within the NPPF and within the emerging Local Plan.
2. Impact on the landscape character
The site falls within site specific Saved Policy NE8 (C) of the adopted
Mansfield District Local Plan (1998) which relates to Mature Landscape Areas
(MLAs). Although the current policy direction of the NPPF now supports a
broader landscape and historic character approach, Saved Local Plan Policy
NE8(C) is still relevant, in so far as it confirms that this area previously held an
important value with regards to landscape and is an approach supported by
Nottinghamshire County Council’s Landscape and Reclamation Team until
such that new Local Plan policies are put in place, thus this is still a material
consideration
A Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) for Mansfield District was
completed in 2010 and the Landscape Policy Zone ML25 assessment
upholds this importance (i.e. Conserve and Enhance). The parkland features,
pockets of linear woodlands, irregular field patterns and areas of enclosure
and openness are distinctive qualities of landscape policy zone (LPZ) ML25.
It is the combination of elements that make a particular contribution to the
landscape character of an area, including experiential characteristics such as
tranquillity and openness.
It is noted that the visual impact would largely affect residents nearby and
public rights of way users in the immediate area but the visual impact on local
residents and Park Hall Road public rights of way users is still significant,
adverse and long-term. The inclusion of new hedges and enhanced planting
of existing hedges would not mitigate the impact of houses close to the edge
of the development site. In order for development to be acceptable in this
area, the density would need to be substantially reduced, integrating and
enhancing woodland edges and conserving wider open view of the
surrounding countryside. It is not perceived plausible that thin hedgerows on
the site boundary are adequate to conserve and enhance the landscape
character.
Throughout the NPPF support is clearly given to the protection of important
landscape areas, and at Paragraph109 it states that ‘planning system should
contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and
enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils’.
The development proposed is therefore contrary to the sustainability aims and
intentions of the NPPF, and in relation to the protection given by the NPPF for
important landscaped areas. This area has been historically protected (MDLP
policy NE8c) and its importance is also recognised in the Mansfield
Landscape Character Assessment and emerging Local Plan policy. This
existing landscape is highly valued by the local community and this is
reflected in the number of objections relating to the loss of this landscape.
The development proposed is therefore contrary to the sustainability aims and
intentions of the NPPF, and in relation to the protection given by the NPPF for
important landscaped areas.
3. Ecology
Natural England has raised no objection to the proposal, but has advised that
their standing advice should be referred to in respect of protected species.
The applicant has provided a detailed ecological survey and Nottinghamshire
Wildlife Trust have provided specific comments on this report(s). No objection
is raised to the proposed development, however it is recommended that Park
Hall Farm buildings should be visually searched / inspected for bats and
further emergence surveys of the buildings would be appropriate. These
buildings are outside of the applicant’s ownership / control and therefore it
would not be reasonable to require such survey work to be undertaken.
However it should also be noted that the owner of Park Hall Farm has
confirmed that it is their intention to submit a planning application to convert
their buildings into dwellings in a similar form to the scheme previously
approved by the Council in 2003. They will also be required to undertake a full
ecological survey to support their proposals and should this subsequently be
approved, mitigation measures would be required.
Extensive landscape buffering is proposed adjacent to these existing buildings
to Park Hall Farm and existing landscape features including the pond within
the site, hedgerows, trees and rough grasslands which are important for bats
and bird species may be largely retained in any development.
Concerns have been raised by local residents that further survey work for
great crested newts should be undertaken. The findings of the ecological
survey undertaken advise that great crested newts have not been observed
on the site and the Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre
(NBGRC) hold no records of great crested newt within 2km of the site.
It is considered that ecological interests could be satisfactorily controlled by
conditions and the submission of reserved matters applications. A refusal on
ecological grounds could not therefore be substantiated.
4. Impact on Park Hall Farm and the adjacent barns
The Council’s Principal Conservation and Heritage Officer has assessed the
architectural, historic, archaeological, artistic, rarity and age of the former
house and associated barns adjacent to the site and is of the opinion that they
should be added to the Council’s list of heritage assets of local interests,
known as a ‘Local List’. This list has been created to compliment the Statutory
List of Listed Buildings.
The indicative layout initially submitted with the application for up to 150 No.
dwellings identified dwellings immediately adjacent to the north, south and
eastern boundary of the Park Hall Farm site. The applicant was advised that
dwellings in such close proximity to these buildings would have an adverse
impact on their setting and could potentially prejudice the redevelopment of
these buildings. The current owner of this site, whilst not objecting to the
principle of residential development shared the concerns of officers in this
regard. In response to this issue, the applicant has provided a development
areas plan which now includes a significant landscape buffer around the
north, east and southern boundaries of the Park Hall Farm site. I am therefore
of the opinion that the proposal could not be refused on the basis of the
impact which the development would have on the setting of the adjacent site.
However, the overall density of the development would be harmful to the
wider landscape as detailed above.
5. Flooding and drainage
A number of objections have been received from the occupiers of adjacent /
nearby dwellings on the grounds that the proposal would exacerbate an
existing flooding problem in this area. There is no objection to the proposal
from the Environment Agency or Severn Trent Water. It is considered that an
acceptable detailed drainage scheme could be provided and that this could be
secured by way of planning conditions. The issue raised by residents in
relation to increased insurance premiums is not a material consideration.
6. Highways
All matters have been reserved for future consideration and while details of
the design of the junction to access the site have not been provided, it is
inevitable that the proposed access would be from Park Hall Road. No
objection has been received from the Highways Authority, subject to technical
approval. The final access arrangements could include either one point of
access to the development site or multiple access points. It is acknowledged
by the Highways Authority that further traffic calming will be required on the
Fairways and this is an issue which has been raised by local residents. This
matter could be controlled through a Section 106 Agreement.
A significant number of objections have been received from local residents on
the grounds that there is insufficient capacity on the existing roads and that up
to an additional 130 No. dwellings would be detrimental to highway safety due
to an increased number of vehicles using the local highway network which is
generally considered to be at capacity.
The information provided in the applicants transport assessment has been
assessed by the Highways Authority and no objection has been raised on
capacity issues. The Highways Authority has however advised that the District
Council should defer consideration of the application until such time as the
Council’s district wide transport study is available to assess the Council’s
preferred growth scenario and potential cumulative impact on Mansfield
District’s transport networks and services. It would not be reasonable to hold
this application in abeyance until this work is complete and the application
should therefore be determined on the basis of the situation at the current
time, which is that there are no capacity issues on the existing highway
network that would be exacerbated to an extent to warrant a refusal of
planning permission. In terms of future residential development allocations,
should planning permission be granted for residential development on this
site, that would be a consideration when considering allocations within this
locality.
As there is spare capacity in the surrounding highway network, it is not
accepted that the proposal will cause disturbance for emergency vehicles,
refuse collections or access to existing residential properties.
The highway aspects of the proposal would therefore be in accordance with
Saved Policy M16 (28/09/07) of the Mansfield District Local Plan.
7. Other matters
While the principle of residential development is not considered to be
acceptable on the site, numerous other comments have been made by local
residents and these are addressed below.
Comments have been made concerning disruption caused during the
construction phase in terms of noise and the impact this will have on their
existing residential amenities. While some disruption to local residents is
inevitable during any major construction works, this is not grounds to refuse
the proposal.
Concern has been raised that there are a lack of existing facilities in the
locality for up to a further 130 No. dwellings including bus stops, doctors
surgeries and schools. The site directly adjoins the existing urban boundary
and is served by existing public transport provision in the locality.
Nottinghamshire County Council (education) has confirmed that based on
current pupil projections, the additional primary and secondary places can be
accommodated in existing secondary schools and therefore an education
contribution would not be sought. With regard to capacity at nearby doctors’
surgeries, no comments have been received from the Primary Care Trust.
There are therefore no identified infrastructure issues that need to be
addressed by the proposal other than traffic calming to the Fairways detailed
above.
The Police Service (Architectural Liaison Officer) has asked that the applicant
discuss their detailed proposals to ensure opportunities for crime and disorder
can be minimised and this would help to ensure that opportunities for
minimising crime are incorporated into any layout.
Loss of existing view from existing properties and any impact on property
values resulting from a development is not a material planning consideration.
Issues raised in relation to the impact which the layout shown on the
indicative plan would have on the residential amenities currently enjoyed by
the occupiers of existing properties, including light and boundary treatments
would be matters to be considered when determining future reserved matters
applications. For the purposes of determining this outline application, enough
information has been provided and the level of information is in accordance
with the Council’s Scheme of Validation for planning and related applications.
Several objections have been received on the grounds that the proposal
would lead to the loss of agricultural land. Agricultural land is graded from
Grade 5 (very poor) to Grade 1 (excellent). A small proportion of the site is
Grade 2 (very good quality) with the majority of the site being classified as
Grade 3 (good to moderate quality agricultural land). Given that the site is
only approximately 5 hectares, with the majority of the site being classified as
good to moderate quality, it would be difficult to argue that the proposal would
lead to the loss of the Districts best and most versatile agricultural land.
On site public open space has been shown on the development areas plan
submitted with the application. Areas of public open space would either be
adopted by the District Council (subject to the applicant paying a maintenance
contribution per residential unit) or a private management company would be
required.
Finally, concern has been raised that site notices have not been posted to
advertise the application. Three site notices were posted in the vicinity of the
site on 19 December 2013. In addition, it was observed that numerous
unofficial site notices had been posted by objectors to the proposal.
CONCLUSION
The site is located outside of the defined urban boundary and within a mature
landscape area. The Council can demonstrate that a 5 year housing land
supply is available and therefore there is no need or justification to release
this site. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused for
the following reasons:RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS/REASONS/NOTES
(1) Reason for Refusal: The site is located outside of the urban boundary as
defined by the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan. Mansfield District
Council can demonstrate that a 5 year housing land supply is available and
therefore there is no need or justification to release greenfield land in such a
location. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to the objectives of the
National Planning Policy Framework and to Saved Local Plan Policies NE1
and H3 (28/09/07) of the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan.
(2) Reason for Refusal: The proposal would detract from the quality of the
mature landscape area, contrary to saved site specific Policy NE8(C)
(28/08/07) which states planning permission will not be granted for
developments which would detract from the landscape or environmental
quality of mature landscape areas at Nettleworth Manor, Mansfield
Woodhouse. This is supported by a Landscape Character Assessment (2010)
which identifies the parkland features, pockets of linear woodlands, irregular
field patterns and areas of enclosure and openness are distinctive qualities of
the landscape. Furthermore, the proposal is contrary to Paragraph 109 of the
NPPF (2012) as the proposal would not protect and enhance this valued
landscape.
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT
The proposed development raises a fundamental planning policy issue
regarding housing land supply and the impact of the development on a mature
landscape area. Although additional information has been provided in support
of the planning application, it is not considered that this changes the Local
Planning Authority’s position on housing land supply or the value of the
existing landscape and the impact the proposal will have on this landscape.
Therefore the Local Planning Authority does not consider that these issues
can be overcome and it is not therefore possible to further work positively and
proactively in these respects. The Local Planning Authority has however been
able to work positively and proactive manner to assist the applicant in
overcoming concerns relating to highway matters and the impact on the
adjacent Park Hall Farm.