APPLIC REF NO 2014/302/NT
DATE RECEIVED
20/05/2014
CASE OFFICER
Michael Avery
DATE OF EXPIRY
27/08/2014
WARD
Warsop Carrs
WARD COUNCILLOR
Cllr Peter Crawford
APPLICANT
MR R EDEN
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LAND OFF BIRCH STREET CHURCH WARSOP NG20 0SY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 30 SINGLE STOREY
BUNGALOWS, NEW ACCESS ROAD, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PERMISSION
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND APPLICATION SITE
Members will recall that this application was deferred at the meeting on 27
August 2014 in order for the Planning Committee to undertake a site visit.
The application is referred to Planning Committee as it is a major
development and is a departure from the adopted Mansfield District Local
Plan.
This application seeks full planning permission for residential development of
30 No. single storey bungalows, new access road, public open space and
associated landscaping
The application site has an area of approximately 1.4 hectares and is
accessed from Birch Street to north and east of the Church Warsop urban
boundary. A public footpath currently runs along part of the south western
boundary of the site and beyond this footpath are existing residential
properties accessed from Lime Crescent and Birch Street. Church Vale
Primary School is located to the eastern boundary of the site.
The site is located outside of the urban boundary and part of the site is
identified under Saved Policy LT6 (28/09/07) of the Mansfield District Local
plan 1998 as allotments. It is advised by the applicant that there have
previously been garages on the site until 1987 and there has been an old
boiler house that was used to heat colliery houses in Church Warsop. While it
is not disputed that historically there have been some structures on part of the
site, over the years the majority of the site has regenerated into to scrubland
and was excluded from the urban boundary prior to the adoption of the 1998
Local Plan. The remaining structures on the site are within the allotment
allocation and are used to house chickens.
The application proposes 20 No. two bedroom bungalows and 10 No. three
bedroom bungalows and each of the proposed properties would have 2 No.
car parking spaces. There are six bungalow types within the proposed
development. In addition to full plans and elevations, the applicant has
provided the following information in support of the application:




Ecological Appraisal
Flood Risk Assessment
Geo-Environmental Assessment
Planning statement
Design and Access Statement
Following the deferral of the application by the Planning Committee on 27
August 2014, the applicant has provided the following additional summarised
information which has been copied to members:The site has been promoted within the Council’s SHLAA for the past 8 years
and the report states that the site is suitable
Prior to the submission of the formal pre-application advice request and the
planning application, officers were supportive of the principle of residential
development on the site.
The site is brownfield and not greenfield.
The requirement to undertake gas monitoring and eradicate Japanese
Knotweed would be very unusual on a greenfield site
The land has been subject to fly tipping in the past.
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
2013/0246/PR – The Council received a pre-application enquiry from the
applicant in respect of the principle of residential development on the site. The
advice given by officers was that the proposal would be contrary to Saved
Policy NE1 in that the development would result in the unnecessary loss of
open countryside, and prejudice the delivery of more suitable sites within the
urban boundary. In addition it was advised that the Council can demonstrate a
5 year housing land supply and therefore there is no need or justification to
release greenfield land in such a location.
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.
Parks Manager
No objection. Details of the tree types / landscaping will however be required.
Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways)
The Highways Authority has raised no objection to the proposal subject to
conditions. It is however recommended that additional visitor car parking
spaces are provided within the development.
The Highways Authority considers the applicant should provide
enhancements to the nearest 2 No. bus stops in the vicinity of the site located
on Birch Street and Laurel Avenue. The enhancements to the existing bus
stops should be in the form of bus shelters, real time display bus signs and
raised boarder kerbs.
Nottinghamshire County Council (Education)
Based on current pupil projections, the additional primary and secondary
places generated from the development can be accommodated in the existing
schools therefore no education contribution will be required.
Nottinghamshire County Council (Rights of Way Officer)
The existence of footpath FP41 running inside the south western boundary of
the development site has been taken into account and accommodated within
the proposed development.
The proposal to provide a green corridor for this path to pass through is
supported as is the open, overlooked layout to provide natural surveillance.
The retention of the path on its existing alignment is also supported. Works to
the surface of this path and additional landscaping is requested as this will
help to deter misuse and potential antisocial behaviour. Management of the
public footpath will be required during the development phase and ideally the
path should be open and available for use throughout the development except
at such times when improvement works to the path are being carried out and
public safety needs to be maintained.
Nottinghamshire County Council (Planning Policy)
Raise objection to the application on the following summarised grounds:
 A gas assessment should be completed to clarify the landfill gas
situation
 The restrictions imposed by the Japanese Knotweed should be
considered
 A Phase 1 Habitat Plan and reptile plan need to be carried out in order
for the full impacts on ecology to be considered
Police Architectural Liaison Officer
Objects to the application for the following summarised reasons:
The vast majority of homes do not have active rooms such as kitchens and
living rooms facing the street or car parking areas. The proposed layout
therefore prevents residents having an active view over the street and parking
area with potential for future issues with crime and disorder, and the fear of
crime which is contrary to the NPPF.
The provision of the existing public right of way is also of cause for concern as
it would have very little natural surveillance over it and would be faced with
large areas of blank fencing in which crime and especially disorder could
occur. In addition there do not appear to be any proposals for this footpath to
be lit and the potential for antisocial behaviour in this area is very likely if the
proposed layout is approved. Public footpaths should not run to the rear of,
and provide access to gardens, rear yards or dwellings as these have been
proven to generate crime. Where a segregated footpath is unavoidable, for
example a public right of way, an ancient field path or heritage route,
designers should consider making the footpath a focus of the development
and ensure that it is as straight as possible, wide, well lit, devoid of potential
hiding places, overlooked by surrounding buildings and activities and well
maintained so as to encourage surveillance along the footpath and its
borders.
Natural England
No objection, but the Local Planning Authority are advised to use the Standing
Advice in relation to protected species.
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust
The Trust have reviewed the Ecological Appraisal submitted by the applicant
and have raised no objection, subject to conditions. Further information is
however requested on bird species known to be using the site.
Environment Agency
Any comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting.
Members of the Public
One letter of observation has been received from the occupier of No 96 Laurel
Avenue, Church Warsop which questions what will happen to existing wildlife
on the site, including rabbits, foxes, owls and bats. The observation also
questions what will happen to any asbestos which is currently laying dormant
on the site and the writer offers the opinion that the countryside should be
there for future generations.
POLICY & GUIDANCE
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
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.
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 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
Saved Policy LT6 (28/09/07) – states that planning permission will not be
granted for developments which would lead to the loss of allotment gardens,
as defined on the proposals map, unless they would provide an acceptable
replacement facility in the immediate locality or clearly demonstrate that the
allotment gardens are no longer required.
ISSUES
The key issues in respect of the proposed development relate the following:1. Principle of the development
2. Layout and design
3. Highways
4. Ecology
5. Other matters
1.Principle of the development
The site is located outside of the urban boundary as defined by the Mansfield
Local Plan and 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 2014 published Housing Monitoring Report demonstrates that as of 1st
April 2014, based upon the ‘locally agreed housing requirements’ detailed
above, the authority have 1419 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.
The applicant has provided a plan which identifies that part of the site
adjacent to Birch Street has been occupied by garages in the past and there
is landfill on the site generated by historic works to the A60 in Warsop. While
it is fully accepted that there have been garages on part of the site and there
has been some historic landfilling, this has all blended into the landscape over
time.
The NPPF defines previously developed land as ‘’ Land which is or was
occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of developed land
(although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be
developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes:
land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that
has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill
purposes where provision for restoration has been made through
development control procedures; land in built up areas such as private
residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that
was previously- developed but were the remains of the permanent structure or
fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of
time’’. As the remains of any previous structures which once occupied a small
part of the site and landfill have blended into the landscape over a long period
of time, it is considered that the land cannot be regarded as previously
developed or brownfield and must therefore be regarded as a greenfield site.
On 30th July 2013 the 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 of 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.
In relation to the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
(SHLAA), the 2011 and 2013 SHLAA documents clearly classify the site as
Greenfield. Within the context of SHLAA, the site and other sites were
described as suitable in terms of access to services. SHLAA was originally
looked at when future housing requirements for the district were unknown.
Therefore SHLAA was seen as a tool for helping officers decide which of the
sites being promoted by owners/ developers warranted further work (subject
to need). There are numerous sites within SHLAA that demonstrate potential
but are not required to meet the Council’s locally agreed housing target.
With regard to the application site, the final conclusion of SHLAA 2013 clearly
states that the site is ‘Not Required’.
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 may 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 900 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
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 applicant has advised that further consideration should be given to the
level of fly tipping which has been undertaken at the site. However, it is
considered that all isolated sites are at risk from fly tipping but this in not
justification for permitting residential development outside of the urban
boundary.
Disappointment has been expressed by the applicant at the weight now given
to the above considerations as this is contrary to an initial officer view given
prior to the formal pre-application submission. However the applicant was
requested to submit a formal pre-application advice request where the
principle of residential development was fully considered and the applicant
was advised that the principle of residential development would not be
acceptable.
The site is located outside of the urban boundary as defined by the Mansfield
Local Plan and it is not considered that there is a shortage of land for housing
on suitable, available and deliverable sites, including those within the urban
area. The principle of residential development is therefore considered to be
contrary to Saved Policy NE1 and H3 (28/09/07) and objectives of sustainable
development as set out within the NPPF and within the emerging Local Plan.
2. Layout and Design
The application proposes 20 No. two bedroom bungalows and 10 No. three
bedroom bungalows and each of the proposed properties would have 2 No.
car parking spaces.
Six of the bungalows would comprise detached units, 14 of the bungalows
would be semi-detached pairs and the remaining 10 bungalows would be
terraced properties. There are six bungalow types and while each type is
different, they all have similar roof ridge and eave heights and incorporate
hipped and gable roof designs. The elevations of the properties would include
a range of details, including feature entrance canopies to the main front doors
and projecting bay windows to some of the front elevations. The majority of
the dwellings (27) would incorporate a conservatory within the rear garden.
The proposed layout would retain an existing public right of way to the south
west of the site and would include landscaping improvements adjacent to this
footpath. While the retention of this footpath and proposed landscaping works
are welcomed by Nottinghamshire County Council’s Rights of Way Officer, the
Police Architectural Liaison Officer has objected to this element of the
proposal as in their opinion the development provides little natural
surveillance over it and would be faced with large areas of blank fencing in
which crime and especially disorder could occur and there are no proposals
for the footpath to be lit. While it is accepted that four rear garden areas would
be enclosed by fencing adjacent to the proposed footpath landscaping, these
four dwellings on plot Nos. 15, 22, 23 and 30 would have their principal
entrances facing the footpath and include kitchen windows in addition to
bedroom windows to provide natural surveillance. No details of footpath
lighting have been submitted; however I am of the opinion that this matter
could be controlled by way of a planning condition.
A further concern raised by the Police Architectural Liaison Officer is that the
majority of the proposed dwellings do not have active rooms such as kitchens
and living rooms facing the street or car parking areas. With the exception of
the dwellings sited on plots 12, 13 and 14, car parking is on plot and located
either to the front or side of each dwelling. Such a situation is not considered
to be any different to many other similar developments and given the
proximity of car parking to individual dwellings and natural surveillance over
the development as a whole from opposing properties and the street scene in
general, it is not considered that the proposed car parking situation would
create an environment which would encourage crime.
On-site public open space would be created to the north of the site and would
provide a facility for the occupants of the proposed bungalows and existing
residents living nearby. The Council’s Parks Manager has been consulted and
has raised no objection, subject to further details being submitted.
Having had regard to the design and appearance of the individual properties
within the proposed development and the layout as a whole, I am of the
opinion that the development would achieve a high standard of design in
accordance with Saved Policy BE1 (28/09/07) of the Mansfield District Local
plan 1998.
3. Highways
The Highways Authority has raised no objection to the proposed access
arrangements, subject to conditions, including the approval of technical
details. Six additional visitor car parking spaces have however been
recommended by the Highways Authority, and the applicant has been
requested to consider providing these additional spaces. In response to this
request the applicant has advised that that 2 No. car parking spaces per unit
is fully in accordance with current car parking standards and therefore the
layout is acceptable in this regard. In addition the applicant has commented
that that it is not considered appropriate as this would impact on the quality of
the development and create a scheme that would be dominated by the car
and there are no car parking restrictions within the immediate locality. Having
reviewed the car parking standards contained in the Council’s Draft Car
parking IPG, and the applicant’s comments in relation to the impact on the
overall development of increasing car parking levels, I am of the opinion that
further car parking cannot be justified.
In terms of Planning Gain from the development, the Highways Authority
considers the applicant should provide enhancements to the nearest 2 No.
bus stops in the vicinity of the site located on Birch Street and Laurel Avenue.
The enhancements to the existing bus stops should be in the form of bus
shelters, real time display bus signs and raised border kerbs. The applicant
has confirmed that they have no objection to undertaking these works,
however they have requested that the Highways Authority provide a full
breakdown of costs and that an agreed sum is included in a Section 106
Agreement. It is accepted that this is the correct approach for dealing with this
issue, should the Local Planning Authority be minded to grant planning
permission.
There are no highway issues which cannot be controlled through conditions or
a Section 106 Agreement.
4. Ecology
Nottinghamshire County Council has advised that a Phase 1 Habitat Plan and
reptile plan need to be carried out in order for the full impacts on ecology to be
considered. No objection has however been received from either Natural
England or Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust in relation to the proposed
development subject to conditions. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust has
requested that a breeding bird survey should be undertaken; however it is
considered that this would not be necessary if the site was cleared outside of
the bird breeding season. It is therefore considered that ecology issues may
be controlled by way of planning conditions.
5.Other matters
Site specific Policy LT6 of the Mansfield District Local Plan covers part of the
site. This policy states that planning permission will not be granted for
developments which would lead to the loss of allotment gardens, unless they
would provide an acceptable replacement facility in the immediate locality or
clearly demonstrate that the allotment gardens are no longer required. The
applicant advises that the site has not been used as allotments for many
years and that they understand that the site ceased being used for allotments
30 years ago. A number of small structures used to house chickens are
apparent on part of the site and it is advised by the applicant that they are
being used by a local resident. While it is therefore accepted that the level of
activity on site may be less than in the past, the allocation is still in use for
allotment purposes and the loss of the existing facility without replacement
would be at variance with Policy LT6.
In response to this issue, the applicant has advised that allotment provision
can be made within the application site on part of the land allocated for the
public open space. The provision of an allotment plot on part of the POS can
be controlled by way of a planning condition, should planning permission be
granted.
Finally, Nottinghamshire County Council has advised that a gas assessment
should be carried out to clarify the landfill gas situation and the restrictions
imposed by the Japanese Knotweed should be considered. It is however
considered that these matters may also be controlled by way of planning
conditions.
CONCLUSION
The site is located outside of the defined urban boundary. 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 reason: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.
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT
The proposed development raises a fundamental planning policy issue
regarding housing land supply. Therefore the Local Planning Authority does
not consider that this issue can be overcome and it is not therefore possible to
further work positively and proactively in this respect, as there is significant
disagreement between the Local Planning Authority and the applicant on the
figures and methodology used to calculate the Council’s housing land supply.
In addition to housing land supply there is further diagreement between the
applicant and the Local Planning Authority on the inetrpreation of the
Council’s SHLAA and the weight to be given to fly tipping on the site.