PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
APPLIC REF NO 2010/89/ST
DATE RECEIVED
11/02/2010
CASE OFFICER
Graham Wraight
DATE OF EXPIRY
13/05/2010
APPLICANT
LINDHURST GROUP
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LAND ADJACENT TO THE A617 MANSFIELD ASHFIELD
REGENERATION ROUTE (MARR) BETWEEN NOTTINGHAM
ROAD AND SOUTHWELL ROAD WEST MANSFIELD
OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION (INCLUDING THE
RESERVED MATTER OF ACCESS) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF 169.3 HECTARES OF LAND FOR EMPLOYMENT,
COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL, HEALTHCARE,
COMMUNITY,
EDUCATIONAL
AND
LEISURE
USES
INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF A NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL,
CEMETERY,
LOCAL
CENTRE,
COMMUNITY
PARK,
LANDSCAPING,
HABITAT
CREATION
AND
INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING ROADS, DRAINAGE AND
SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RECOMMENDATION: GRANT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND APPLICATION SITE
This application proposes an urban extension on land adjacent to the
Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route (MARR) to the south of the District
and partially within Newark & Sherwood District. The application is submitted
in outline form with the matter of access being presented for consideration. All
other matters are reserved for later consideration. The site is 169.3 hectares
in size and the proposal consists of employment, commercial, residential,
retail, healthcare, community, educational and leisure uses including the
provision of a new primary school, local centre, community park, landscaping,
habitat creation and infrastructure including roads, drainage and services.
Specifically, the application form, indicative framework plan and written
statements submitted show that the scheme could consist of the following
uses :





Employment - B1, B2 and ancillary B8 uses – 23.1 hectares
Residential – 55.9 hectares (up to 1,700 dwellings)
Green Infrastructure – including the Community Park, Structural
Landscape and Green Links – 47.2 hectares
Outdoor Play Space and Equipped Children’s Play Space Provision –
10.08 hectares (to be located within residential and green infrastructure
areas)
Commercial – 4.3 hectares
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011



Local Centre – 3.7 hectares
Primary School – 2.1 hectares
Land for potential future cemetery use – 11.4 hectares
The site is bounded to the north by Old Newark Road and by the Berry Hill
and Bellamy Road residential areas, to the east by Southwell Road West, to
the south by Harlow Wood and agricultural land and to the west by the A60
Nottingham Road. At the present time the site is predominantly in agricultural
use and is intersected by the MARR route which runs from east to west and
also spurs off to the north to meet with Adamsway. The site is adjacent to
existing residential areas to the north and there are several isolated dwellings
close to the site boundaries.
The majority of the site is located within Mansfield District Council’s
administrative area, however the part of the site identified for use as the
community park (15 hectares to the south of the MARR) and the land for
potential future cemetery use (11.4 hectares) are within the Newark &
Sherwood district boundary. Accordingly, these aspects of the proposal fall to
be determined by Newark & Sherwood District Council.
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
There is no planning history relevant to the current proposal.
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.
1)
Nottinghamshire County Council Strategic Planning including
Landscaping, Countryside Access, Ecology, Developer Contributions
and Cultural Services (Arts)
No strategic objections. Raises a number of points including additional
survey work, conditions, contributions and highway improvements.
2)
Nottinghamshire County Council – Highways
No objections subject to conditions and Section 106 agreement
3)
Nottinghamshire County Council – Archaeology
No objection subject to the imposition of a condition
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
4)
MDC Head of Operations – Highways
No objection subject to conditions
5)
MDC Economic Regeneration
No objection
6)
MDC Regeneration Manager
Supportive of the elements of the proposals that relate to the provision
of employment land. There will need to be an acceptance that that
development will take place over a relatively length time period.
7)
MDC Property Services
Demand for a new cemetery has been identified. More formal public
open space should be provided. Green infrastructure will be costly to
maintain. No building or facilities shown in the community park. Should
there be public open space north of the MARR?
8)
MDC Strategic Housing Manager
A 10% on-site provision of affordable housing would be acceptable
providing a commuted sum is also paid to allow 10% off-site provision
on the Bellamy Road estate.
9)
MDC Waste & Recycling Officer
No objection
10)
MDC Parks Manager
No objection
11)
MDC Environmental Health Manager
No objection
12)
Ashfield District Council
Objects - the application is premature of the Local Development
Framework, ADC has not been involved in the design process, traffic
increases should be assessed on a strategic basis and the application
does not contain any details relating to a potential Special Protection
Area for birds.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
13)
Newark & Sherwood District Council
Concerned about the impact upon the highway network – space should
be left to allow the MARR to be widened to a dual carriageway. The
community park should be located within the heart of the development
and not isolated. Concerned that barrier approach will not adequately
protect pSPA/SPA.
14)
Gedling Borough Council
No objection
15)
Environment Agency
No objection subject to conditions
16)
Natural England
No objection subject to conditions and Section 106 agreement
17)
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust
Objects – no appropriate assessment has been undertaken on the
implications for the Sherwood pSPA
18)
Central Networks
No objection
19)
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
No comments
20)
Severn Trent Water
No objection subject to conditions
21)
The Coal Authority
No objection
22)
Nottinghamshire Police Force Architectural Liaison Officer
No objection
23)
East Midlands Regional Assembly
No objection
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
24)
East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA)
Supports the development proposal
25)
Sport England
A financial contribution of £1.3 million should be made towards built
sports facilities
26)
Ramblers Association
Objects - brownfield sites should be brought forward first and provision
be made to retain existing pedestrian and cyclist access and that new
rights of way are provided, with safe crossings points over the MARR
being provided
27)
Forestry Commission
No objection
28)
NHS Primary Care Trust
No objection. Proposal put forward in draft Section 106 Heads of
Terms are acceptable.
29)
Members of the Public
One hundred and forty three letters and emails containing objections to
or observations on the proposal have been received. Of these 143
pieces of correspondence, 11 contain observations on the proposal.
The remaining 132 raise objections; 105 of the objections are from
different addresses, 5 objections have come from businesses or
organisations and 2 objections have been received from Cllr A
Tristram. These are summarised as follows:












Compensation should be paid to affected residents
Loss of view/detrimental impact upon visual amenity
Noise and disturbance
Loss of value
Development is not needed, no demand for the development or it
may not be completed
A five year housing land supply is available
Premature of Local Development Framework process
Brownfield sites should be developed first
Loss of greenbelt/countryside
Other sites are more suitable or have vacant units
Would reduce demand for brownfield sites
The site is outside of the defined urban boundary and therefore the
proposal is contrary to policy and the Development Plan
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011






































Approval would prejudice the Local Development Framework
The site is not sustainable
Will result in an increase in people using bridleways including
increasing joyriders, dogs and litter, an additional bridleway is not
needed, the development will affect existing rights of way
Loss of/harm to wildlife
Potential Special Protection Area or Special Protection Area for
birds may be designated adjacent to the site
Would have an adverse impact upon traffic/the public highway and
would cause congestion
Insufficient parking would be provided
Would lead to an increase in crime and disorder
Would cause harm to Mansfield town centre which should be
regenerated first
Would only benefit the developers, is a speculative development
Would lead to a reduction in air and water quality
Would cause light pollution
Loss of agricultural land
Already sufficient education provision, new school not required
School should be bigger and have more facilities and space
Social and leisure facilities are not additional but are replacement
Information and plans provided are not accurate or acceptable,
details available are vague
The application should be determined at a Public Inquiry
Council Tax should be reduced if proposal is approved
Would adversely impact upon health.
Mansfield cannot absorb development of this size
No traffic assessment submitted
The proposed school must be delivered as proposed
Loss of residential amenity
The Pleasley area should be redeveloped first
Not enough green space and landscaping proposed
The number of jobs proposed would not be created and would not
go to local people
Proposals would lead to flooding
Would create unemployment
If approved the development should be phased to ensure that it is
delivered
Housing development should be low density and this should be
secured if approved
Existing developments should be screened by landscaping
Heights of proposed building should be of an appropriate scale
The site has varying topology
Amount of retail is contrary to policy and is inappropriate – amount
should be restricted
How will high quality jobs and employees be secured
Access should be provided to Harlow Wood
May impact upon existing trees
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011













Design guides should be agreed for the site
Monies generated should be invested in brownfield sites and in the
Mansfield district
Future water needs should be looked into
A cycle route(s) should be incorporated
Mansfield and Ravenshead would be almost conjoined
Affordable and elderly housing is required
Good quality high street names and restaurants are needed
A leisure centre, children’s play areas and swimming pool are
required
How high will the buildings be?
Is the business plan available?
Closure of Old Newark road
Access should be taken from the MARR
When will the busiest times be?
Thirty two letters and emails of support have been received. Of these
32 pieces of correspondence, 12 have been received from business
and organisations with the remainder from members of the public at 18
different addresses (plus 2 letters which do not include an address).
These are summarised as follows:











The development should be encouraged
The development would enhance the area, attract investment and
create high quality jobs and housing
School and other facilities would benefit existing residents
Would provide excellent transport links
Would provide a mix of jobs, homes and community facilities of the
quality, design and composition that Mansfield should be striving for
Would provide investment in the construction sector
Would support local businesses
Supports the proposal and investment in Mansfield District Council
The proposal is good for the town providing it is carried out in a
subtle and carefully thought out way
Would provide jobs for young people and small businesses
Would meet housing needs
POLICY & GUIDANCE
National
Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development
Sets out the overarching policy and principles for the planning system. States
that new development should be sustainable in nature and should achieve a
high quality of design.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing
Sets out the Government policy in respect of new housing development.
States that preference will be given for new housing development on
previously developed sites within sustainable locations.
Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
Sets out the Government's comprehensive policy framework for planning for
sustainable economic development in urban and rural areas.
Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
Sets out the Government's planning policies for rural areas, including country
towns and villages and the wider, largely undeveloped countryside up to the
fringes of larger urban areas.
Planning Policy Statement 9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological
conservation through the planning system.
Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport
Sets out the objectives to integrate planning and transport at the national,
strategic and local level and to promote more sustainable transport choices
both for carrying people and for moving freight.
Planning Policy Guidance 17 - Planning For Open Space, Sport & Recreation
Sets out the policies needed to be taken into account by planning bodies in
the preparation of Regional Planning Guidance (or any successor) and by
local planning authorities in the preparation of development plans (or their
successors).
Planning Policy Statement 22 – Renewable Energy
Sets out the Government's policies for renewable energy, which planning
authorities should have regard to when preparing local development
documents and when taking planning decisions.
Planning Policy Guidance 24 – Planning and Noise
Guides local authorities in England on the use of their planning powers to
minimise the adverse impact of noise. It outlines the considerations to be
taken into account in determining planning applications both for noisesensitive developments and for those activities which generate noise.
East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS)
Policy 1 – sets out the objectives of the plan with the aim to secure the
delivery of sustainable development within the East Midlands.
Policy 2 – sets out the criteria for promoting better design.
Policy 3 – sets out the criteria for the distribution of new development.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
Policy 7 – sets out the criteria for achieving the regeneration of the northern
sub-area.
Policy 13a – sets out the regional housing provision for the region.
Policy 17 – sets out regional priorities for managing the release of land for
housing
Policy 18 – sets out the regional priorities for the economy.
Policy 19 – sets out the regional priorities for regeneration.
Policy 20 – sets out the regional priorities for employment land.
Policy 28 – sets out the regional priorities for environmental and green
infrastructure.
Policy 29 – sets out the priorities for enhancing the region’s biodiversity
Policy 39 – sets out the regional production for energy reduction and
efficiency.
Policy 43 – sets out the regional transport objectives.
Policy 44 – sets out the sub-regional transport objectives.
Policy 45 – sets out the regional approach to traffic growth reduction.
Policy 46 – sets out the regional approach towards behavioural change
towards public transport and car usage.
Policy 49 – sets out the regional approach to improving public transport
accessibility.
Northern SRS 1 – sets out the sub-regional development priorities for the
northern sub-region.
Northern SRS 3 – sets out the sub-regional employment regeneration
priorities, including along the Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route (MARR).
Mansfield Local Plan
Saved Policy DPS2 (28/09/07) – This policy aims to ensure development is
concentrated in the most sustainable locations.
Saved Policy E2 (28/09/07) – This policy states that employment uses will be
permitted outside of the urban boundary providing at least one of three stated
criteria are met.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
Saved Policy BE1 (28/09/07) – This policy aims to ensure developments
achieve a high standard of design.
Saved Policy BE12 (28/09/07) – This policy relates to sites which may have a
possible archaeological interest.
Saved Policy NE1 (28/09/07) – States that developments outside the urban
boundary should meet at least one of the criteria identified within the policy.
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 NE4(B) (28/09/07) – This policy aims to ensure that
development does not detract from the open character between Mansfield
and Rainworth.
Saved Policy NE12 (28/09/07) – States that proposals likely to affect Sites of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) will be subject to special scrutiny.
Saved Policy NE16 (28/09/07) – States that planning permission will not be
granted for developments which have an adverse impact upon protected
species.
Saved Policy M9 (28/09/07) – States that planning permission will not be
granted for developments unless they include adequate provision for the
needs of existing and potential bus users and operators.
Saved Policy M15 (28/09/07) States that the district council will improve,
develop and extend a network of cycle routes throughout the district
Saved Policy M16 (28/09/07) – Sets out the criteria that new developments
need to meet in relation to the highway network.
Saved Policy H3 (28/09/07) – States that housing will not be permitted outside
of the urban boundary except where it is essential for agricultural or forestry
workers.
Saved Policy LT20 (28/09/07) – Sets out the criteria for the development of
hotel facilities.
Saved Policy U1 (28/09/07) – States that planning permission will be granted
for developments which utilise renewable sources of energy generation, for
commercial and other purposes, and energy efficient land use forms provided
the development would meet with the criteria set out in the policy.
Saved Policy R6 (28/09/10) – Sets out the criteria that retail developments
outside of existing centres need to meet.
Saved Policy R7 (28/09/07) – States the criteria that retail developments must
meet.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
The Mansfield District Local Plan 1998 identifies the site as being outside of
the defined urban boundary.
Other Guidance
Interim Planning Guidance Note 3 – Recreation Provision on New Residential
Developments – sets out the Council’s requirements with regard to residential
developments and the provision of public open space.
Interim Planning Guidance Note 7 – Affordable Housing. On site provision will
be required on all developments of 30 dwellings or more. The percentage of
dwellings which will be affordable should be 20%.
Nottinghamshire County Council Planning Contributions Strategy Second
Revision January 2007 – set outs the broad requirements for planning
contributions to provide for the extra demands falling on services,
infrastructure and facilities as a result of proposed development, including
contributions towards highway improvements and education provision.
ISSUES
The issues for consideration are:
Principle of Development
Employment Land Demand
Assessment of proposed land use and layout
Sustainability and Design
Comments from Adjoining Authorities
Affordable Housing
Public open space, green infrastructure and sports provision
Local Centre, education and healthcare provision
Impact on residential amenity
Ecological Issues
Highways
Loss of agricultural land
Section 106 planning obligation
Other issues
Principle of the development
The entire Lindhurst development site is located outside of the urban
boundary and in this respect the proposal is contrary to Saved Local Plan
Policies DPS2, H3 and NE1 (28/09/08) which aim to restrain development on
sites that are not located within the defined urban area of the district. In
principle therefore, the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan 1998 (MDLP)
places a presumption against the granting of planning permission to develop
the Lindhurst site in the manner proposed. The adopted Local Plan forms one
part of the Development Plan as defined by Section 38(3) of the Town &
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
Country Planning Act 2004, the other part being the East Midlands Regional
Plan 2009 (EMRP) which is the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy.
Section 38(6) of the Town & Country Planning Act 2004 states that if regard is
to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be
made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance
with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It must
therefore be considered whether there are any such material considerations
relating to this proposal and whether they are of substantial weight to support
a recommendation and decision at variance with the appropriate Saved
Policies of the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan 1998. The proposal must
also be assessed against the policies of the East Midlands Regional Plan
(EMRP).
Status of the EMRP
Members may be aware that the status of Regional Spatial Strategies such as
the EMRP has altered several times since the Coalition Government came to
power in May 2010; firstly with the notification on 27th May 2010 that the
government intended to abolish all RSS; secondly with their abolition on 6 th
July 2010; and thirdly with their reinstatement following a successful third
party legal challenge in the High Court on 10 th November 2010. Following
their reinstatement, the government issued a letter to Chief Planning Officers
which stated that Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) should still have regard to
the fact that the government intends to abolish RSS as a material planning
consideration when determining applications. The contents of this letter were
again challenged legally with the ruling being that the letter outlining the
government’s intention to abolish RSSs is a material planning consideration.
At the time of writing this report the EMRP forms part of the adopted
development plan for the Mansfield District and the policies contained within it
must be given consideration accordingly. In terms of future housing
requirements, it should be noted that the Council resolved at a full Council
meeting in November 2010 to adopt the EMRP housing figure of 589
dwellings per year and therefore notwithstanding of the status of the EMRP,
this is the housing figure that Members should have regard to. Therefore
whilst the intention of the government to abolish RSSs is a material planning
consideration, in light of the fact that the Council has resolved to retain the
EMRP housing figure of 589, it is clear that this is the District’s housing
requirement whether the EMRP is retained or abolished.
Housing land supply
The EMRP places a requirement for Mansfield district to provide 10,600 new
dwellings in the period 2006 to 2026 which equates to 530 new dwellings
annually. Due to an under provision of new dwellings in the past four years,
the housing requirement has increased to 589 new dwellings per year until
2026. Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing (PPS3) requires Local Planning
Authorities (LPA) to demonstrate that a five year housing land supply is
available to meet the housing numbers required by the EMRP and therefore
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
whether an LPA can demonstrate such a supply is a material planning
consideration. Mansfield District Council’s most recent Housing Monitoring
Review stated that as of 31st March 2011 the Council considers that a 5.12
year housing land supply of 3,096 dwellings is available in the District. This
represents a revision of the 2010 Housing Monitoring review which placed the
housing land supply figure at 7.3 years, a figure which the applicant has
contended within the Planning Statement and subsequent correspondence
submitted in support of the application.
It is the applicant’s opinion that a five year land supply can not be
demonstrated as sites which include apartment provision will not be
deliverable in current market conditions. The applicant’s assessment is that
the District has a 2.87 year housing land supply if apartments density sites are
removed from consideration on deliverability grounds, or a 3.65 year housing
land supply if those sites which include apartments are recalculated at 35
dwellings per hectare.
However, having had regard to the study submitted and reviewed the housing
sites under dispute, it is considered that a five year housing land supply of
available, suitable and achievable sites is present within the District and
therefore the argument that the residential element of the proposed Lindhurst
development is necessary for the District to meet the housing requirements of
the EMRP is not accepted.
Strategic urban extension
In June 2009 the Council published a discussion paper which considered how
the Council could seek to meet the requirement of the EMRP to provide
10,600 new dwellings in the period to 2026. The paper considered three main
issues; firstly whether adequate urban capacity exists to accommodate the
housing requirements; secondly what options around urban extensions exist
and which is the Council’s preferred approach; and thirdly what choices are
available which would meet both the growth requirements and achieve the
Council’s vision for Mansfield.
The paper firstly concluded that whilst there is already a considerable supply
of brownfield sites with planning permission within the urban area, it would
appear that at some point in time urban extensions must be considered as the
most realistic method of meeting the level of housing and employment
development required for Mansfield, whilst providing for a good living
environment. It then proceeded to consider the size of potential urban
extensions (i.e. whether several small extensions or fewer large urban
extensions would best serve development needs) and to identify and discuss
the merits of eight sites. The Lindhurst site formed part of this consideration
as site G (South MARR). In this respect the paper places an emphasis on
pursuing large scale urban extensions as these are most likely to meet the
social, economic and environmental needs of future residents and to provide
an ‘eco-extension’ to the district.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
The paper secondly concluded that the Lindhurst site and a site at West
MARR (Pleasley Hill) have the potential to play an important role in meeting
the regeneration needs and growth agenda for the district. It was
recommended that work should continue to look at the possibilities for these
‘eco-extensions’ as part of the overall Local Development Framework (LDF)
approach. The paper acknowledged that it might be necessary to advance
proposals for eco-extensions ahead of the LDF process, however it was also
stated that at that time there was no need to release additional sites to
provide a five year housing land supply. As discussed above, this remains the
case at the current time and the Council is of the opinion that a 5.12 year
housing land supply is available.
In conclusion, the discussion paper did not rule out the possibility of a large
scale urban extension being favourably considerably prior to the LDF being
adopted, however there is a clear requirement that if support is to be given to
any such proposal then the development would need to of an exemplar nature
and that it would have to have the characteristics of an ‘eco-extension’.
Therefore in light of the fact that the Lindhurst proposal is premature of the
LDF, careful consideration must be given as to whether the scheme currently
presented can justify a recommendation to grant planning permission against
the backdrop of the fact that the location of the development is currently
contrary to adopted planning policy.
The growth agenda and the MARR route
Central Government is encouraging the planning system to be “pro-growth”
and “pro-development”, particularly in relation to job creation. The Minister
of State for Decentralisation , Mr. Greg Clark, in a speech on 23 rd March
2011 issued a call to action on growth, with the planning system having a
key role to play in this by ensuring that the sustainable development
needed to support economic growth is able to proceed as easily as
possible. He stated that the Government's top priority in reforming the
planning system is to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs and
that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be
'yes', except where this would compromise the key sustainable
development principles set out in national guidance. In determining
planning applications, LPA’s are obliged to have regard to all relevant
considerations and should ensure that appropriate weight is given to the
need to support economic recovery. Furthermore, the Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government will take these principles into
account when determining applications that come before him for decision,
and he will attach significant weight to the need to secure economic growth
and employment.
It is also clear from the housing supply requirements imposed by the EMRP
and subsequently adopted by the Council that adequate land will need to
be provided to ensure that the Mansfield district can grow. Work such as
the Strategic Urban Extension Paper has already begun to consider where
growth should take place and an intention to promote a growth agenda has
been expressed in the Mansfield Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS)
2010-2020 produced by the Mansfield Area Strategic Partnership (MASP),
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
with this document specifically supporting the development of employment
land and housing on the edges of the town, making use of the MARR
route. The SCS states that a strategy of growth will be pursued for housing
and for employment development to provide the basis for economic growth
and improved quality of life for local people. The development of key
brownfield and greenfield sites will make it possible to attract new jobs in
growth sectors as well as provide high quality housing to attract and retain
skilled workers. To support this strategy, new neighbourhoods and
business parks will be created on the edges of the town, making use of the
MARR investment. Furthermore, Policy Northern SRS 3 of the EMRP
expressly makes reference to Local Planning Authorities considering
locations to assist the growth and regeneration, including along the MARR
route.
It is evident that the MARR route provides an excellent opportunity for the
growth of the Mansfield district in terms of access to existing infrastructure. It
is therefore considered that the principle of allowing the release of this land
prior to the LDF is acceptable, providing that the scheme presented would be
of an appropriate standard.
Employment land demand
In total the application proposes that 23.1 hectares of B1, B2 and ancillary B8
employment land would be provided. The MARR was created with the aim of
providing a regeneration opportunity by opening up the potential to develop
land to the south of the District and this area is now well connected to the A60
to Nottingham, to the A617 to Newark/A1 and to the M1. It is therefore
considered essential that the proposals for an urban extension in this location
provide adequate employment and that the delivery of this is secured as part
of any permission granted. Concern has been raised that whilst employment
areas have been identified, there is no firm guarantee that there will ultimately
be a demand for these areas by businesses. Furthermore, existing
employment sites such as Castlewood and Prologis Park have seen limited
uptake.
In response to these points the applicant has stated that there has been little
development activity in the industrial/warehouse sector for the last three years
due to the global recession. The applicant advises that the Lindhurst site
would supply a different sector and would be more likely to attract
manufacturing and light industrial occupiers. It is stated that the site would be
attractive due to its good strategic links, competitive land prices and due to
the fact that it would be located near to facilities provided as part of the wider
Lindhurst scheme. The applicant also acknowledges that the scheme would
not be delivered ‘overnight’ and that it may be as much as 20 years before it is
delivered in its entirety.
In order to ensure that employment development is delivered, it is considered
that the phasing of the development would need to be clearly defined in order
that serviced areas of employment land are provided with each phase of
residential development. In order to secure this, it is recommended that
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
phasing be included as part of the Section 106 planning obligation relating to
the proposed development.
It is estimated the proposal could generate up to 4000 jobs on site, with
addition job creation during the construction phase.
Assessment of proposed land use and layout
The indicative framework plan submitted shows that the employment
elements of the proposal would be located at the eastern and western ends of
the site and also within the central area adjacent to the proposed local centre.
This would ensure that employment is positioned at ‘gateway’ locations and
that all proposed residential areas are located in reasonably close proximity to
employment areas, thus maximising the potential for residents to be able to
travel to work by means other than a car. The proposed residential areas are
located close to existing residential areas, with the exception of plots M and N
which are located to the south of the MARR route. It is however proposed that
a new bridge would connect plot M to housing and employment areas to the
north. The framework plans shows that 3.7 hectares would be reserved for a
local centre which would provide shops and community facilities, 2.1 hectares
would be provided for a 350 place primary school and that 4.3 hectares would
be available for commercial uses.
The application is not accompanied by an assessment as set out in PPS4
EC15 and EC16 and as such currently precludes uses that may normally be
sited more appropriately within the Town Centre. Not withstanding this, it is
considered that there may be an opportunity within the development to
provide certain facilities to aid wider regeneration, including a hotel and
leisure complex, which could be sited on the commercial area, and quality
office suites within the wider employment land, where there is an opportunity
to accommodate larger office facilities that that could be difficult to find sites
for within the town centre. It is proposed that these uses should not be
precluded if a PPS4 assessment demonstrates they are appropriate on these
sites. It is proposed that this element is controlled by way of a condition.
It is proposed that 15 hectares of land to the south of the MARR would be
made available for use as a country park which would benefit not only
residents of the proposed new development but also the existing residents of
the Mansfield district and surrounding areas in general. Initial plans for a
cemetery have been removed from the proposals following concerns from the
Environment Agency about potential adverse impacts upon groundwater. This
element of the scheme could come forward at a later date if the groundwater
concerns can be addressed, however this would require a separate planning
application to be submitted for consideration. Finally, the remaining land
within the site would contain highway infrastructure, landscaping, open space
and drainage facilities. In terms of the proposed land use and layout, it is
considered that an appropriate mix of uses has been proposed and that the
indicative layout adequately addresses the needs of the development and the
relationship to existing areas and infrastructure.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
It is noted that a part of the site to the north-east falls within the designation of
Saved Local Plan Policy NE4(B) (28/09/07) which aims maintain a break
between Mansfield and Rainworth. Whilst it is accepted that the development
would introduce built form into this area, the extents of development would not
extend beyond the MARR route in the direction of Rainworth and a substantial
gap between the two urban areas would be maintained. Therefore it is
considered that the development would not unreasonably detract from the
open character between the settlements.
Sustainability and design issues
The applicant is committed to providing a Design Code in order to ensure that
quality development is delivered on the site. This design code would establish
the criteria for the development of the site and ensure that all future planning
applications must meet the prescribed standards and design parameters. In
order to demonstrate that an exemplar development is to be delivered, the
applicant has stated that the development would aim to meet with the Code
for Sustainable Homes Level 4. However it is considered that the
development should reach an exemplar level and therefore it is recommended
that a condition requiring that Code Level 4 is achieved should be imposed.
The Environmental Statement submitted in support of the application states
that the non residential elements of the scheme will be capable of achieving
BREEAM ‘very good’ and will move towards ‘Excellent’. Furthermore, it is
advised that the development can readily meet and exceed the Silver
Standard of Building For Life again this could be controlled by condition and
would be considered for Gold Standard. Subject to a high level of design and
sustainability being secured, it is considered that the scheme would represent
an exemplar development and that this factor further supports the bringing
forward of the development prior to the adoption of the Local Development
Framework.
With regard to the comments of the Urban Design Officer, reference has been
made to the Framework and Masterplan drawings submitted with the
application. These drawings do however only show an indicative scheme as
the matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are all reserved
matters for later consideration and it considered that an appropriate level of
design and layout can be achieved by imposing a condition requiring the
submission of Master Plan and Design Code with which all future reserved
matters application would have to comply. The Urban Design Officer has also
made comments relating to sustainability matters and these have been
addressed previously in the report.
Comments of Adjoining Authorities
Newark & Sherwood District Council
The land on which the proposed community park (and potential cemetery site)
would be located is within the Newark & Sherwood District Council boundary
and therefore a planning application has been submitted to Newark &
Sherwood with respect to this element of the proposal. In addition, Mansfield
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
District Council has consulted Newark & Sherwood District Council on the
wider proposals for the site which are the subject of the planning application
now before Planning Committee. Following a meeting on 15th March 2011 the
Planning Committee of Newark & Sherwood District Council resolved to defer
making a formal consultation response until three issues were clarified, these
being:



Concern that the potential impact of the development upon the local
highway network had not been fully assessed as the MARR route was
already at capacity. Consideration should be given to set aside land as
part of the scheme to ensure that the MARR could be developed into a
dual carriageway in the future. Comments are also made regarding
road condition and pedestrian barriers.
Concern with regards to the remote location of the proposed
community park on the southern side of the MARR away from areas of
residential development. It was considered that the open space would
be better provided within the heart of the development on the northern
side of the road and Members requested justification for the location of
the park as proposed.
Concern with respect of the impact of the proposed development close
to habitats which may form part of the future Special Protection Area in
Harlow Wood. They considered that the multi-barrier solution may not
be a robust solution and that Natural England’s comments in respect of
this approach be taken into account when determining the application.
With regard to the highway concerns, it is noted that an extensive Transport
Assessment has been provided in support of the application and that
Nottinghamshire County Council as Highways Authority has considered and
accepted the assessment, subject to the highway improvements and other
transport recommendations contained within. Nottinghamshire County Council
has not requested that land be set aside to allow the MARR to be widened to
a dual carriageway in future, nor have comments be made about the condition
of the road surfacing or pedestrian barriers. In light of this, it would not be
reasonable to request that the applicant reserve land or undertakes such work
to the existing highway.
In terms of the location of the proposed community park, whilst it is located to
the south of the MARR, due to its extensive size it is likely that the park would
be used by the wider community, not just by residents of the proposed new
dwellings. It should also be noted that open space and green infrastructure
areas would be provided within the proposed residential development areas to
meet the needs of residents whilst providing appropriate access to the
community park.
Finally, the applicant has developed proposals with Natural England to
address issues relating to the proximity of residential areas to the pSPA/SPA.
There is no objection to the proposals from Natural England and it is
considered that the comments and guidance of Natural England have been
fully taken into account.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
Ashfield District Council
Ashfield District Council (ADC) have objected on four grounds; namely that
the application is premature of the LDF, that ADC has not been involved in the
design process, that traffic increases should be assessed on a strategic basis
and that the application does not contain any details relating to a potential
Special Protection Area for birds.
In response, the timing of the application in relation to the LDF is addressed
previously in this report, the fact that ADC has not been involved in the design
process does not suggest that planning permission should be withheld,
Nottinghamshire County Council Highways, as the Highway Authority, are
satisfied with the proposals and the travel assessment submitted and
additional information relating to the pSPA/SPA has been submitted and is to
the satisfaction of Natural England.
Affordable housing
Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing makes it clear that the key
characteristics of a mixed community are a variety of housing, particularly in
terms of tenure and price and a mix of different households. Accordingly, in
order to achieve the mix required, proposals for new residential developments
should provide or contribute towards the provision of affordable housing.
Interim Planning Guidance Note 7 – Affordable Housing (IPG7) sets out the
Council’s requirements in this respect and states that on developments
proposing in excess of thirty new dwellings, an on-site provision of 20%
affordable housing is required. This provision should normally be made up of
66% social rented affordable housing and 34% intermediate housing.
Therefore the usual requirement in the case of the Lindhurst proposals would
be to provide a 20% on-site provision.
This matter has however been the subject of discussions with the Council’s
Strategic Housing Manager who has advised that in this instance a 10%
provision on-site would be acceptable with the remaining 10% required being
provided by way of a commuted financial contribution towards the provision of
off-site affordable housing. The Strategic Housing Manager has stated that
‘the Lindhurst development adjoins an existing social housing estate –
Bellamy Road. In this instance rather than require 20% on-site provision
consideration has been given to commuting some of the requirement to a
financial contribution which could be used to invest in Bellamy Road by way of
developing new affordable housing and implementing the master plan which
is currently being undertaken. This investment will help to complement the
Lindhurst development and make affordable housing accessible across both
areas.’ On this basis is considered acceptable that a 10% on-site provision of
affordable housing be provided and that a commuted sum be accepted with
respect to providing 10% off-site affordable housing.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
Public open space, green infrastructure and sports provision
The indicative layout plans show that extensive areas of public open space
could be accommodated on the site, including a 15 hectare community park
which would be maintained either by a private management company or, if
agreement could be reached, by the Council. Details of such maintenance
agreements would be controlled within the Section 106 planning obligation
agreement.
The
indicative
plans
also
show
that
green
infrastructure/landscaping would be located both within the site and adjacent
to the site boundaries. Furthermore, it would be expected that additional
green areas and landscaping would be included within each of the
development plots identified and that these would be considered when the
reserved matters of layout and landscaping are submitted.
Sport England has requested that a financial contribution of £1.3 million
should be obtained towards the provision of built leisure facilities in the area.
In response, the applicant has stated that the overall masterplan has
addressed the matter of provision for outdoor recreation in what is considered
to be an exemplary way in terms of the amount of outdoor space to be
provided and that existing built sports facilities are located within the
surrounding area, including at Berry Hill Park. It is also stated the payment of
the sum of £1.3 million would affect the viability of the scheme. On balance, it
is considered that the extensive on-site open space that would be provided,
including the large community park, is adequate in terms of leisure usage and
that the sum requested by Sport England should not be sought.
Local Centre, primary school and healthcare provision
It is proposed to provide 3.7 hectares of land for a local centre and 2.1
hectares for primary school provision to the north of the MARR. With regards
to the proposed local centre, no retail impact assessment has been provided
in support of the floor space sought (up to 5,000 square metres) and in the
absence of such an assessment it in not considered that an unrestricted floor
space of this size can be supported. However, it is considered reasonable that
a retail provision which meets the needs of the development is provided and
therefore it is recommended that a condition be imposed limiting both the
amount of total retail floor space permissible and the maximum size of each
unit to ensure that any provision is appropriate for the scale of the
development proposed.
The comments of Nottinghamshire County Council have been received with
regard to the need to provide education provision and the applicant has
agreed to provide up to 2.1 hectares of land for a primary school and also to
either pay a financial contribution towards the cost of building the school or to
build the school on behalf of Nottinghamshire County Council.
Finally, Nottinghamshire Primary Care Trust have been consulted and advise
that the proposal for the applicant to build suitable healthcare accommodation
and rent it back to a doctor’s surgery would be acceptable to meet the needs
of the development. No further information has been provided as to the
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
precise location of this doctor’s surgery although it is likely that provision could
be made within the Local Centre. Both education and healthcare provision
would be included within the Section 106 planning obligation.
Impact upon residential amenity
The nearest built up urban areas are located to the north of site in the Berry
Hill and Bellamy Road areas and at Rainworth to the east. An isolated
residential development is located within Harlow Wood and there are a
number of residential properties dotted around on land adjacent to the site,
including dwellings/hamlets at Rushley Farm, Rushley Pumping Station,
Lindhurst Farm, Boggs Cottages and at Nos.548 and 562 Southwell Road
West. Given that the majority of the site is currently greenfield land and for the
most part is devoid of built form and infrastructure, it is accepted that the
Lindhurst development would represent a significant change for the occupiers,
in particular those isolated dwellings which at the present time are located
well away from the urban area of the District. However as discussed above it
is considered that there is adequate justification to support the principle of
bringing forward an urban extension at the present time and therefore the key
consideration in terms of the impact upon residential amenity of whether the
impact on existing properties would be so severe to support a refusal of
permission.
Due to differences in ground levels and the location of properties on the
southern urban boundary of the District, it is clear that the views afforded to
many dwellings in the Berry Hill area would be substantially altered by the
proposal. Many dwellings within the Bellamy Road area would be similarly
affected. A number of dwellings which currently enjoy a rural setting would be
brought closer to a more urban setting. At the present time the matters of
layout, scale and appearance have been reserved for later consideration and
therefore detailed plans are not available to suggest how the development
would ultimately be laid out and elevated in relation to existing areas.
However, it is considered that adequate information and drawings have been
provided to demonstrate that a development could be realised that would not
have an unacceptable impact upon the surrounding area or the residential
amenities of the occupiers of existing dwellinghouses.
Ecological Issues
The site consists primarily of greenfield land, the majority of which is in use for
agricultural purposes. In order to ascertain the impact that the development
would have on the ecology of the area, Natural England and Nottinghamshire
Wildlife Trust (NWT) have been formally consulted on the application.
Although details would be finalised at reserved matters stage, no objection
has been raised by Natural England. It is noted that NWT have objected to the
proposal, in particular with regard to the issues relating to the presence of
Nightjar and Woodlark within the area and whether a potential Special
Protection Area (pSPA) or a Special Protection Area (SPA) will be designated.
However as Natural England considers that the proposals are acceptable in
principle subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement being secured,
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
the comments of NWT are noted but do not justify the refusal of planning
permission.
Potential Special Protection Area/Special Protection Area
Natural England has advised that the presence of a substantial breeding
population of Nightjar and Woodlark in the Sherwood Forest region may
warrant classification of suitable territories and habitat as a Special Protection
Area (SPA) under the European Union Birds Directive. Prior to such an area
being designated a potential Special Protection Area would need to be
established (pSPA) by the Secretary of State. However this process has not
been commenced and at the present time Natural England’s formal advice is
that the Sherwood Forest region is not an existing pSPA or SPA. The
relevance of this to the Lindhurst proposal is that Harlow Wood, to the
southern boundary of the site, has been identified by NWT as an important
area for Nightjars and Woodlark and therefore could be included within any
pSPA or SPA designated. If such a designation was made, it would be
necessary to undertake a Habitat Regulations Assessment and to assess any
impacts that the Lindhurst proposal would have on the pSPA and SPA, even if
outline and/or reserved matters approval had been given by the Council at
that point.
In the event that a Habitat Regulations Assessment identified that the
Lindhurst development would have an unacceptable impact upon any pSPA
or SPA designated and these impacts could not be successfully mitigated
against, it could become necessary to formally modify or revoke the
permission, to prevent the adverse impact(s) from arising. If the permission
was revoked then the Council would be liable to pay compensation to the
applicant/land owners which, given the size of the development, could
represent a significant sum. The advice from Natural England is therefore to
take a risk based approach prior to the granting of outline planning
permission.
At the present time, with no pSPA or SPA designated, Natural England has no
objection to the proposal. The applicant has presented a proposed protocol to
reduce any impact upon the adjacent Harlow Wood which consists of a
number of elements including fencing and a water barrier to prevent access
from both people and cats and this is accepted as being appropriate for the
present circumstances, subject to final details being secured by way of a
planning condition. An area of replacement land suitable for ground nesting
birds would be provided off-site and this would form part of the Section 106
planning obligation. However, Natural England advise that if a pSPA or SPA is
designated, based upon approaches taken in similar circumstances
elsewhere in the country, it is likely that an exclusion zone of 400 metres from
the pSPA/SPA could be applied within which no residential development
could take place. If such an exclusion zone was applied to the Lindhurst
proposal it would prevent the residential development on much of the land to
the south of the MARR route and any permission in place (which was not
already built out) may need to be modified or revoked.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
Legal opinion has been obtained regarding this matter in order that the risk to
the Council if a pSPA/SPA is designated can be assessed. It is considered
that the biggest risk lies with the possibility that the permission would have to
be modified or revoked and that the Council would be obliged to pay
compensation to the parties affected by this. To eliminate this possibility, the
applicant has agreed to include a provision within the Section 106 planning
obligation that the owners would not seek compensation in the event the
planning permission is modified or revoked. The legal opinion obtained
suggests that using a Section 106 agreement to indemnify the Council against
the financial risk of modification or revocation is a legitimate way to proceed.
The Rainworth Incinerator Public Inquiry decision has been considered and
the reasons for refusal relating to the pSPA/SPA issues are noted. However
given that the Lindhurst site is adjacent to, but not within, an area identified as
important for Nightjars and Woodlarks, that an extensive protocol has been
devised to offer protection to Harlow Wood and this has met with the
acceptance of Natural England, and that the Section 106 Planning Obligation
would contain an indemnification should planning permission need to be
revoked, it is considered that adequate measures have been put in place to
address issues relating to the pSPA/SPA at the present time. In conclusion, it
is considered that the proposed development, circumstances and site
characteristics of the Rainworth Incinerator proposal were materially different
to the Lindhurst proposals and therefore the Lindhurst development must be
considered upon its own merits.
Highway matters
In light of the substantial size of the proposed development it is inevitable that
some impact upon the highway network will occur. A detailed Transport
Assessment (TA) has been submitted in support of the application in addition
to a draft Travel Plan and Public Transport Proposals. Physical improvement
works would be undertaken to 12 sections of existing road/existing junctions
including
carriageway
widening,
creation
of
roundabouts
and
installation/improvements to traffic signalisation. The number of sections of
existing road/junctions that need improvement has been reduced due to the
submission of a public transport scheme which suggests that, based upon the
fare structure and frequency of bus services proposed, a public transport
modal share of 30% can be achieved. This has been calculated using
Nottinghamshire County Council’s highway model and therefore the Highway
Authority accepts that such a modal shift is realistic. Neither Nottinghamshire
County Council nor Mansfield District Council’s Highways departments have
raised an objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions and
the inclusion of highways improvements within the Section 106 agreement.
Draft travel plan
A draft travel plan has been submitted which aims to reduce dependency on
private car use and promote public transport, cycling, walking and car sharing
as the main initiatives to reduce traffic congestion resulting from the site. The
plan aims for reduction of car-borne traffic to no more than 45% of all travel
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
modes upon full opening of the development through a number of measures
including a state of the art bus service, the creation of cycle and pedestrian
facilities and routes, implementation of a car sharing initiative, car pooling, the
appointment of a Travel Coordinator and by using design techniques to
discourage the use of motor vehicles.
Public transport proposals
The public transport scheme submitted proposes a bus-led scheme which
would aim to create a modal shift away from reliance on the use of cars to
travel. In order to promote usage of the scheme, it is envisaged that display
screens would be provided within the new dwellings to provide information on
bus timetables and movements. The scheme would be served by two bus
service routes between the development site and Mansfield town centre;
proposed route A would have two branches from Southwell Road West, one
travelling via Lindhurst Lane and Bellamy Road to the site and the other
travelling via Sherwood Oaks Business Park. Proposed route B would be less
direct but would provide access to Crown Farm industrial estate via
employment premises on Southwell Road West, Jubilee Way South, Eakring
Road and would also pass along residential areas adjacent to the A60. In
addition, an orbital bus from Sutton-in-Ashfield to Forest Town and Crown
Farm would be instigated and would run through the site and this would
provide connections to Crown Farm and Fulwood Industrial Estates, Oakham
Business Park, King’s Mill Hospital and Sutton town centre.
The applicant has committed to providing the upfront capital investment
necessary to set up the public transport scheme and to subsidise its running
for a period of 10 years. The details submitted suggest that the scheme would
be self-financing after 8 years and therefore should continue running once the
10 year subsidy period finished. The public transport scheme would form part
of the Section 106 planning obligation and it is recommended that provision
be included to allow the scheme to be reviewed once operation and to be
amended if necessary to reflect any issues that have arisen (fares, routes
etc).
Old Newark Road
The junction plans submitted show that Old Newark Road would be closed off
at both the eastern and western ends and that alternative access/egress
routes would be provided for the existing properties which have a right of
access along this road. A number of objections have been raised to this
proposal and concern has also been raised that dangerous junctions would be
created. Nottinghamshire County Council Highways do however consider the
junctions proposed to be acceptable and, although the existing access
arrangements would be altered to several dwellings, it is not considered that
this would be unreasonable. A number of representations also suggest that an
alternative access should be taken from the MARR however the applicant has
stated that the MARR is in a cutting where it passes through the west side of
the site and thus too low to connect to, however a connection would be made
to the eastern part of the site. Furthermore, it is stated that the existing
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
junctions on the A60 with the MARR and Litchfield Lane/Old Newark Road are
too close together to allow another one to be added in between to serve the
site. This was considered, but it was not possible to produce a layout that
would work and comply with standards
Loss of agricultural land
The application site contains land which is classed as the best/most versatile
agricultural land, with the land being mostly it is grade 3a but with also
containing elements of elements of grade 2. Saved Policy NE2 (28/09/07)
states that planning permission will not be granted for developments on the
best and most versatile agricultural land and therefore consideration must be
given to the current proposed development of the site which would represent
a departure from this policy. The Strategic Development Paper of June 2009
considered this issue and concluded that ‘in view of the purpose behind the
creation of the new ‘Regeneration Route’ and the impact that this has had on
field sizes and accessibility, it is questionable how much weight this issue
[agricultural land quality] should carry.
The draft Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2010 states that ‘it
will need to be demonstrated that more suitable, lower grade land is either not
available or suitable to be brought forward to justify the release of land which
is considered to be the best and most versatile. Information does suggest that
much of the land around the urban area falls within the best and most
versatile categories.’ Natural England is the appropriate organisation to
consult on proposals which involve the loss of agricultural land and, whilst the
application does not provide consideration to other areas of Mansfield in
terms of soil quality, it is noted that Natural England have not raised an
objection to the current application, subject to a soils handling, storage and reuse scheme being provided by way of a planning condition. The
Environmental Statement submitted by the applicant confirms that such a
scheme would be provided and therefore it is considered that a departure
from Saved Policy NE2 (28/09/07) is justified.
Section 106 planning obligation
In accordance with matters highlighted in the report, the Section 106
agreement would cover the following matters:










Highway works
Affordable housing provision
Community park, public open space and green infrastructure
Phasing of the development
Provision of a healthcare accommodation
Primary school education provision
Public transport measures
Travel plan
Additional land for nightjars
pSPA/SPA indemnification
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011

Costs of drawing up the planning obligation agreement
Other issues
Ramblers Association objections
The Ramblers Association has made representations that brownfield sites
should be brought forward first and asked that provision be made to retain
existing pedestrian and cyclist access and that new rights of way are
provided, with safe crossings points over the MARR being provided. These
comments are noted and pedestrian and cyclist routes would be considered in
more detail at reserved matters stage.
Representations have been made by members of the public that
compensation should be paid to residents affected by the development
however there is no mechanism within the planning system to require this.
Similarly the granting of planning permission would not require that Council
Tax be reduced for any occupiers who consider themselves to be adversely
affected. Loss of view and loss of property value are not material planning
considerations and therefore cannot be given weight in the decision making
process. Likewise the intentions of applicants/developers in pursuing the
scheme cannot be considered and the proposal must be assessed purely on
its planning merits. There is no business plan available to view however this is
not required to be submitted in support of a planning application.
An extensive consultation process was undertaken including a press notice,
12 site notices and over 1,700 letters to residents. Unfortunately however it
has was not possible to consult every person who may be affected by the
proposed development, however the consultations that were undertaken
greatly exceeded the minimum requirements stipulated by legislation.
Criticism has been made that the plans and information submitted are vague
however the application is submitted in outline form and matters relating to
layout, scale, appearance and landscaping have been reserved for later
consideration. It has been stated that the application should be determined at
a Public Inquiry, as opposed to by the Council at Planning Committee. At the
present time the correct procedure is that the application is determined by
Planning Committee and, if it is resolved to grant permission, the application
must be referred to the National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU). The
Secretary of State would then decide whether to call the application in for
determination which would be done by way of a public inquiry.
It is noted that Nottinghamshire County Council has a land owning interest in
the development land however this should not have influenced any comments
made in their capacity as statutory consultee. No evidence has been
submitted to suggest that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon
health. In terms of providing access to Harlow Wood, this would conflict with
the protocol supported by Natural England to prevent disturbance of bird
populations by people and cats. Finally, although this proposal would extend
the urban area of Mansfield further south than existing, it is considered that an
adequate buffer between Mansfield and Ravenshead would remain.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
CONCLUSION
The proposed development would be located outside of the defined urban
boundary and is a Departure from the adopted Development Plan. However
against the background of the housing unit requirements of the District as
stated in the EMRP, the Sustainable Urban Extension discussion paper and
the national and local growth agenda, it is considered that a recommendation
to grant outline planning permission prior to the adoption of the Local
Development Framework can be supported. The application is submitted in
outline form and details relating to layout, scale, appearance and landscaping
would be considered at reserved matters stage. However at the present time
it is considered that adequate information has been provided to suggest that a
sustainable development of appropriate design and layout could be achieved
and that such a development would not have an unacceptable impact upon
the residential amenities of the occupiers of existing dwellings. Matters
relating to ecology, the designation of a potential Special Protection
Area/Special Protection Area for birds and the loss of agricultural land have
been adequately addressed. A detailed transport assessment, draft travel
plan and public transport proposals have been submitted and these have met
with the approval of the highway authority. Finally, a Section 106 planning
obligation would ensure that the development meets the necessary standards
and provide new facilities as appropriate.
Referral to the National Planning Casework Unit
The recommendation of this report is that Planning Committee resolves to
grant outline planning permission with conditions, subject to a Section 106
planning obligation being agreed, signed and sealed by all appropriate
parties. If the resolution is to grant outline planning permission, the application
must then be referred to the National Planning Casework Unit so that it can be
assessed by the Secretary of State and decided whether he wishes to call the
application in to determine it himself or whether he is content to let the local
planning authority grant outline planning permission. In the event that the
application is not called in by the Secretary of State, it is recommended that
delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning, Community Safety
and Regulatory Services to issue the outline planning permission with
conditions.
Recommendation –
That it is resolved to grant outline planning permission with conditions subject
to:
a) A Section 106 Agreement being agreed, signed and sealed; and
b) Referral of the application to the National Planning Casework Unit to afford
the Secretary of State the opportunity to consider the proposal via the call in
procedure; and
c) That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning, Community
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
Safety and Regulatory Services to issue the permission subject to the
Secretary of State not calling in the application and the applicant entering into
a Section 106 Agreement as set out above.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS/REASONS/NOTES
SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR DECISION
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development would
promote the growth of the Mansfield district and would provide excellent
linkages to the existing MARR road and surrounding infrastructure, meeting
with the objectives of Policy Northern SRS 3 of the East Midlands Regional
Plan. It is considered that the development proposal will accord with the
objectives of Planning Policy Statements/Guidance 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 13, 17, 22
and 24 and with policies 1, 2, 3, 7, 13a, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, 39, 43, 44, 45,
46, 49 and Northern SRS1 of the East Midlands Regional Plan. Whilst the
site is located outside of the defined urban boundary, it is considered that the
application successfully demonstrates an exemplar form of development
which would deliver employment opportunities in addition to community
facilities and infrastructure. Therefore, whilst the proposal is a departure from
the development plan and from Saved Local Plan Policies DPS2, E2, NE1
and H3 [28/09/07], it is considered that the release of the site for development
is justified. The proposal would meet with the objectives of Saved Local Plan
Policies BE1, BE12, NE4[B], NE12, NE16, M9, M15, M16, U1, R6 and R7 in
that regard will be had to the adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest [SSSI]
and the presence of protected species including mitigation measures as
appropriate, that the development will not cause detriment to the surrounding
highway network, that public transport will be enhanced in the area in addition
to improved access for pedestrians and cyclists, that the proposal will not
cause harm to the environment, that the development will meet an appropriate
level of sustainability and will provide a level of retail which is proportionate to
serve the needs of the development. It is not considered that the proposal will
have an unacceptable impact upon the occupiers of existing residential
dwellings located adjacent to the site, or those situated within the wider
surrounding area. Although the proposal would result in the loss of land
classified as the best and most versatile agricultural land, no objection has
been raised to the loss of such land. Therefore whilst the loss of the
agricultural land is contrary to Saved Local Plan Policy NE2 [28/09/07], there
is no objection to the principle of developing this land.
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no other material
planning considerations to be taken into account that would warrant a
decision at variance with the above.
(1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter
called "the reserved matters") of each phase of the development (as approved
within the Section 106 planning obligation) shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority before any development in that phase
begins. The development shall be carried out as approved.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
(1) Reason: In accordance with Section 92(2) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, as amended by S51(2) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
(2) Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than 2
years beginning with the date of this permission for phase one (as approved
within the Section 106 planning obligation) and the development must be
begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of
reserved matters for that phase, or in the case of approval of reserved matters
on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
The reserved matters for any subsequent phase shall be submitted prior to
the completion of the previous phase and the development commenced within
two years of approval of the final reserved matter for each phase. The
reserved matters for the final phase shall be submitted no later than 10 years
from the date of this decision.
(2) Reason: In accordance with Section 92(2) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, as amended by S51(2) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
(3) This permission shall be read in accordance with the following plans:
Site location plan, received on 11/02/10
Junctions to be improved – key diagram, received on 27/05/11
Junction 1, drawing no. Figure 9 Rev A, received on 27/05/11
Junction 2, drawing no. Figure 11, received on 24/03/11
Junction 3, drawing no. Figure 12 Rev B, received on 24/03/11
Junction 4, drawing no. Figure 13A Rev B, received on 24/03/11
Junction 6B, drawing no. Figure 18, received on 27/05/11
Junction 7A, drawing no. Figure 14 Rev A, received on 27/05/11
The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with these
plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(3) Reason: To define the permission, for the avoidance of doubt.
Highways
(4) The following works shall be completed in accordance with precise details
first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in
accordance with the phasing programme approved within the Section 106
planning obligation:
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
I.
The provision of a roundabout at the junction of Adams Way and the
proposed Northern Spine Road as shown on Figure 9 Rev A, received
on 27/05/11
II.
Improvements to the existing roundabout at the junction of the A617
MARR and Adams Way to allow a fourth arm serving the site access
road, as shown on Figure 11, received on 24/03/11
III.
The provision of a signalised junction between the proposed Northern
Spine Road and Southwell Road, as shown on Figure 12 Rev B,
received on 24/03/11
IV.
The provision of a signalised junction between the A60 Nottingham
Road/Lichfield Lane/Cauldwell Road and a priority junction between
Lichfield Lane and the Northern Spine Road. To include all necessary
road widening, lane markings, splitter islands, pedestrian crossing
points as shown on Figure 13A Rev B, received on 24/03/11
V.
Improvements to the existing signalised junction of the A617 MARR
and the A60, Works to include carriageway widening, road markings
and new splitter islands as shown on Figure 15 Rev A, received on
24/03/11
VI.
The provision of a new roundabout junction on the A617 MARR to
serve the employment land south of Southwell Road as shown on
Figure 14 Rev A, received on 27/05/11
VII.
Improvements to the existing signalised junction of the A60 and the
A611, works to include for carriageway widening, new road markings
and improvements to the signal equipment, as shown on Figure 16 Rev
A, received on 24/03/11
VIII.
Improvements to the existing signalised junction of the A60 and Atkin
Lane, works to include the installation of nearside crossing detection
equipment.
IX.
Improvements to the existing signalised junction of the A60 and the
B6020, Larch Farm junction, the works to include the widening of the
carriageway to provide two approach lanes on the Kirkby Road arm.
X.
The signalisation of the roundabout at the junction of the A617
MARR/A6191 and the A617 Rainworth By-Pass, the works to include
for the realignment of kerbs and road widening as shown for indicative
purposes on Figure 17 Rev B received on 24/03/11.
XI.
Alterations to the approach lanes at the existing roundabout at the
junction of Adams Way and Bellamy Road as shown on Figure 18
received on 24/03/11
XII.
a bus route with bus stops (including any proposed alternative
temporary arrangements) through the site and at other key locations
which shall include fully lit bus stop poles with ¾ timetable cases and
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
bus stop flags, raised kerbed bus boarders, and dropped kerbed
wheelchair and pushchair access at all locations, lit bus shelters with
real time displays and bus stop clearways and bus stop gauges at key
locations, and ‘supa’ shelters at a central point/’mobility hub’
XIII.
The provision of a public transport access at the junction of Bellamy
Road and Old Newark Road, as shown on Figure 18, received on
27/05/11
(4) Reason: In the interests of Highway safety, pedestrian safety and through
traffic and to promote sustainable travel.
(5) The means of access and routeing for construction traffic shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the
access provided before the development commences on land to which the
reserved matters relate and no other access points for construction traffic
shall be provided unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
(5) Reason: In the interests of Highway safety and to protect the amenity of
residential areas.
(6) No buildings shall be occupied until the associated parking areas and
manoeuvring areas relating to that building have been drained and surfaced in
accordance with the details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The facilities so provided shall not be used,
thereafter, for any purpose other than the parking and manoeuvring of
vehicles unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(6) Reason: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to
reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to on-street
parking in the area and to ensure surface water from the site is not deposited
on the public highway causing dangers to road users.
(7) The reserved matters submissions on layout shall include details of access
roads, car and cycle parking facilities and associated manoeuvring areas in
accordance with the Design Code approved pursuant to condition 12 below.
No building shall be occupied until the access roads, car and cycle parking
and associated manoeuvring areas in respect of that building have been
completed in accordance with approved details and all parking areas shall
thereafter be retained for that purpose.
(7) Reason: To ensure that the development meets the required standards.
(8) No development shall be occupied or be brought into use until the owners
and the occupiers of the site have appointed and thereafter continue to
employ or engage a site-wide Travel Plan Coordinator who shall be
responsible for the implementation, delivery, monitoring and promoting of the
sustainable transport initiatives set out in the Travel Plan Framework and
whose details shall be provided and continue to be provided thereafter to the
Local Planning Authority.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
(8) Reason: To promote sustainable travel.
(9) The site Travel Plan Coordinator shall submit reports to and update the
TRICS database in accordance with the Standard Assessment Methodology
(SAM) or similar to be approved and to the Local Planning Authority in
accordance with the Travel Plan Framework monitoring periods. The
monitoring reports submitted to the Local Planning Authority shall summarise
the data collected over the monitoring periods and propose revised evidence
based initiatives and measures where travel plan targets are not being met
including implementation dates to be approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority and which shall inform individual Travel Plans.
(9) Reason: To promote sustainable travel.
(10) Prior to the occupation of any business (employing more than 20
employees) the owner/occupier of each business unit shall appoint and
thereafter continue to employ or engage a Travel Plan Coordinator and within
5 months of occupation produce a detailed travel plan that sets out final
targets with respect to the number of vehicles using the site and the adoption
of measures to reduce single occupancy car travel consistent with the Travel
Plan Framework and in conjunction with the site-wide Travel Plan Coordinator
to be approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved timetable and be updated
consistent with future site-wide travel initiative including implementation dates
to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
(10) Reason: To promote sustainable travel.
Design
(11) No reserved matters applications shall be submitted for the development
until both a Master Plan and a Design Code for the whole of the site have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Both shall substantially accord with the Design & Access Statement submitted
with the planning application dated 11th February 2010. Any amendment to
either shall also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The Design Code will address the following:
•
Architectural and sustainable construction principles;
•
Character areas;
•
Lifetime homes standards;
•
Street types and street materials;
•
Development block types and principles;
•
Car parking principles;
•
Cycling provision;
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
•
Pedestrian and cycle links to adjoining land;
•
Public transport routes;
•
Boundary treatments;
•
School safety zone;
•
Buffer strips between the development and existing residential areas
and public highways;
•
Non-residential refuse storage;
•
Building types and uses;
•
Building heights;
•
Building materials;
•
Building to plot ratio’s not to exceed 40% building footprint for
employment sites.
•
Sustainable drainage system;
•
Public open spaces;
•
Street type/function;
•
The principle dimensions of streets and boundary treatments including
sight lines (visibility splays);
•
Junctions and types of traffic calming;
•
Treatment of major junctions, bridges and public transport links;
•
Location and standards for on and off-street parking, including cycle
parking, car parks and parking courts, and related specifications;
•
Cycleway links from the site to connect to the surrounding cycleway
network;
•
Street lighting and street furniture specifications and locations;
•
Specifications for trees and planting;
•
Drainage and rainwater run-off systems, including SUDS, which shall
accompany any road layout submission;
•
Routeing and details of public utilities which shall accompany any
proposed road layout submission;
•
Arrangements for maintenance
collection/bin storage;
and
servicing
including
refuge
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
•
Green and brown roofs
•
A mechanism for periodic review and if necessary revision of the
Design Code.
•
Implementation; and
•
Mechanisms for periodic review and revision.
Each reserved matters application submitted shall accord with the approved
Master Plan and Design Code.
(11) Reason: To ensure that the development meets with the objectives of
Saved Policy BE1 (28/09/07) of the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan.
(12) Residential development within any phase shall not begin until there has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority an
interim certificate by an accredited assessor for the Code for Sustainable
Homes confirming that the initial designs for the dwellings within that phase
achieve either Code Level 4 or the then required Code Level, whichever is the
higher. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the certificated
designs.
(12) Reason: To ensure that the development achieves an appropriate level
of sustainability and energy efficiency.
(13) Residential development within all phases shall achieve a minimum of
either Building For Life Silver Standard or the minimum required standard at
the time of construction, whichever is the higher. Building For Life
assessments shall be submitted concurrently with reserved matters
applications for all phases which include residential development, for the
approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall
thereafter take place in accordance with the approved details.
(13) Reason: To ensure that the development achieves an appropriate level
of sustainability and energy efficiency.
(14) Non-residential buildings shall achieve a minimum of Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) level “very
good” (or the equivalent standard which replaces BREEAM and is the
assessment in force at the time when the non-residential unit or units
concerned are registered for assessment purposes).
(14) Reason: To ensure that the development achieved an appropriate level
of sustainability and energy efficiency.
(15) Development shall not commence on any specific phase until details of
the proposed external facing materials to be used on that phase have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development thereafter shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved
details.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
(15) Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Saved
Policy BE1 (28/09/07) of the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan.
(16) Development shall not commence on any specific phase until a plan
indicating the positions, design, materials and type of walls, fences and other
means of enclosure to be erected within and along the boundaries of the site
for that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development thereafter shall be undertaken in
accordance with the approved details before the buildings are occupied.
(16) Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Saved
Policy BE1 (28/09/07) of the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan.
(17) Development shall not begin on non-residential buildings until details of
arrangements for refuse storage have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
(17) Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Saved
Policy BE1 (28/09/07) of the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan.
(18) Development shall not commence on any specific phase until details of
the existing and proposed ground levels and proposed finished floor levels of
that building(s) within that phase have/has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development thereafter shall be
undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
(18) Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity.
(19) Development shall not commence on any specific phase until details of
any external lighting to be used to illuminate the site for that phase has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development thereafter shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved
details.
(19) Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of adjacent
occupiers.
(20) No development shall take place until details of earthworks have been
submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These
details shall include the proposed grading and mounding of land areas
including the existing and proposed ground levels and contours to be formed,
showing the relationship of proposed mounding to existing vegetation and
surrounding landform. The development thereafter shall be undertaken in
accordance with the approved details.
(20) Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity.
(21) Details of a waste recycling facility shall be submitted alongside reserved
matters submissions for the local centre. The facility shall be available for use
in accordance with the approved details before any part of the local centre is
first brought into use.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
(21) Reason:
provided.
To ensure that appropriate waste recycling facilities are
(22) Development shall not begin on any non-residential building until details
of any externally-mounted plant or equipment or any internal equipment which
vents externally, including any extraction ventilation system for a cooking
area, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details.
(22) Reason: In the interests of the reasonable residential amenity of
adjoining occupiers
(23) Development in any phase of land adjoining the MARR road shall not
begin until full details of noise attenuation measures in respect of dwellings
adjacent to those roads have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling to which those measures apply shall
be occupied before their completion in accordance with the approved details.
(23) Reason: In the interest of the residential amenities of future occupiers.
Drainage
(24) Development shall not begin until the principles of a sustainable drainage
system(s) (SuDS) for the whole of the development have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development in
any phase shall begin until the details of the disposal of surface water and foul
sewage in respect of that phase, including details of that part of the SuDS,
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Details shall include specific arrangements for surface water
drainage from parking areas and where regular heavy goods vehicle
movements may be expected. No building shall be occupied or use begin until
the drainage system in respect of that phase of the development has been
completed in accordance with the approved details.
(24) Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for sustainable
drainage and to prevent pollution of the water environment, in accordance
with Saved Policy U2 (28/09/07) of the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan.
(25) Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for
the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the
hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved
details before the development is completed. The scheme to be submitted
shall demonstrate:
•
the utilisation of sustainable drainage techniques with any obstructions
to their use clearly justified;
•
the limitation of surface water run-off to equivalent greenfield rates;
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
•
measures to prevent any pollution / suspended solids from entering the
Foul Evil Brook and SSSI;
•
the ability to accommodate surface water run-off on-site up to the
critical 1 in 100 year event plus an appropriate allowance for climate
change, based upon the submission of drainage calculations; and
•
responsibility for the future maintenance of drainage features.
(25) Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and
protect water quality; to improve habitat and amenity; and to ensure the future
maintenance of the sustainable drainage structures.
(26) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a
scheme for the improvement and/or extension of the existing sewerage
system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. No occupation of
dwellings approved by this permission shall occur until the scheme for
improvement and/or extension of the existing sewage system has been
completed.
(26) Reason:
There is an existing problem (as highlighted in the
Environmental Statement Vol 1 Section 9.4.21) with the capacity of the
combined sewer system which this development would exacerbate in the
absence of improvements to the sewer system.
(27) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such
time as a scheme to treat and remove suspended solids from surface water
run-off during construction works has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as
approved.
(27) Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment, in accordance
with Saved Policy U2 (28/09/07) of the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan.
(28) Prior to the commencement of development, a working method statement
to cover all channel and bank works shall be submitted to and agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent
amendments shall be agreed in writing.
(28) Reason: The construction phase of any proposed development affecting
the bank or channel of a watercourse poses significant risks of, for example;
damage to water dependent species and habitats.
(29) Prior to the commencement of work to this area of the site a scheme for
the provision and management of a buffer zone alongside the watercourse
running to the south of the site (Foulevil Brook) shall be submitted to and
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the local planning
authority. The scheme shall include:
•
plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone
•
details of the planting scheme (for example, native species)
•
details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during
development and managed/maintained over the longer term
•
details of any footpaths, fencing, lighting etc.
(29) Reason: Development that encroaches into the watercourse area has a
potentially severe impact on their ecological value as land alongside the
watercourse is particularly valuable for wildlife and it is essential this is
protected. Article 10 of the Habitats Directive also stresses the importance of
natural networks of linked corridors to allow movement of species between
suitable habitats, and promote the expansion of biodiversity. Such networks
may also help wildlife adapt to climate change.
(30) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such
time as a scheme to demonstrate that there will be no raising of land or built
development within the 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 year floodplain of the Foul Evil
Brook, has been submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning
Authority.
(30) Reason: To avoid adverse impact on flood storage.
(31) There are public sewers which cross the site. No building shall be
erected or trees planted within 3 metres of the 225mm sewer, within 5 metres
of the 375mm sewer and 675mm sewers and within 10 metres of the 1050mm
sewer. The applicant may wish to apply to Severn Trent Water to divert the
sewers in accordance with section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991.
(31) Reason: To maintain essential access for maintenance, repair, renewal
and to protect the structural integrity of the public sewerage system.
(32) Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be
constructed in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Any such scheme shall be supported, where necessary, by detailed
calculations; include a maintenance programme; and establish current and
future ownership of the facilities to be provided. The scheme shall be fully
implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing /
phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or any details as may
subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority
(32) Reason: To reduce the risk of ground and surface water pollution.
(33) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such
time as a scheme to install trapped gullies has been submitted to, and
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be
implemented as approved.
(33) Reason: To protect ground and surface water quality.
(34) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until
a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be
adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide
for:
i.
the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors
ii.
loading and unloading of plant and materials
iii.
storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development
iv.
the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative
displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate
v.
wheel washing facilities
vi.
measures to control the emission of dust, dirt, noise and vibration
during construction
vii.
a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition
and construction works
(34) Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity, highway safety
and good recycling principles.
(35) Development on any phase, including ground works shall not begin until
updated ecological surveys and mitigation details, as appropriate, for that
phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the
approved mitigation details. Further updates shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority if works do not begin
within one year of the initial approval pursuant to this condition.
(35) Reason: To ensure that any mitigation proposals necessary are based
upon up to date ecological surveys.
(36) Development shall not be commenced on any phase until a Green
Infrastructure, Biodiversity and Ecological Management Plan for the creation,
protection, enhancement, monitoring and maintenance of green infrastructure
and biodiversity has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The plan, which shall be consistent with the information
and protocols contained with the Environmental Statements received on
11/02/10, as supplemented and amended by the Response to Issues
document dated 29th September 2010 and the Green Infrastructure
Biodiversity Management Plan received on 24th March 2011, shall include
precise details of and a programme for:
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
•
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat creation and restoration
•
Green infrastructure, green links, structural landscaping and public
open space creation
•
The provision and maintenance of all barriers and buffer zones on the
site
•
Methods to be implemented to ensure that the water quality within the
Foul Evil Brook and Rainworth Lakes SSSI is maintained
•
Long term design objectives, management schedules and maintenance
responsibilities for the community park, BAP habitat, green
infrastructure, green links, structural landscaping, barriers and buffer
zones, all other public/communal landscaped areas and open spaces,
water courses and on-site balancing ponds
•
Mechanisms for monitoring and review.
Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved
Green Infrastructure, Biodiversity and Ecological Management Plan unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(36) Reason: To secure the creation, protection and enhancement of
biodiversity, in accordance with the information and protocols submitted in
support of the application.
(37) No work shall be carried out and no plant, equipment or materials
brought on to that part of the site until there have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority:
•
a plan showing the location of, and numbering, each hedge and tree on
the site, plus trees on adjoining land whose crown overhang the site,
and identifying all trees and hedges which are to be retained;
•
details of the species, trunk diameter, height and general health and
stability of each tree to be retained;
•
details of any proposed lopping or topping of any tree to be retained;
•
details of any proposed alterations in ground levels and of any
excavations proposed within the crown spread of any tree to be
retained;
•
details of the position and specification of fencing and other measures
for the protection before and during the course of development of any
tree or hedge to be retained.
(37) Reason: The trees in question are considered to be features of
significance and should be satisfactorily protected during the period when
construction works take place on the site, in accordance with Saved Policy
BE1 (28/09/07) of the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
(38) Development shall not begin on any phase until existing trees and
hedges in that part of the site which are to be retained have been protected in
accordance with the details approved pursuant to condition 37 above. No
materials, machinery or vehicles shall be stored, no buildings erected and no
excavation works undertaken within the protected areas. No changes to
ground levels shall be made within the protected areas without the prior
written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.
(38) Reason: The trees in question are considered to be features of
significance and should be satisfactorily protected during the period when
construction works take place on the site, in accordance with Saved Policy
BE1 (28/09/07) of the adopted Mansfield
(39) Prior to the use of any approved building or premises (excluding
residential dwellinghouses), details of the proposed hours of operation and
deliveries to and from the building/premises shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The hours of operation
and deliveries shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved
details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(39) Reason: In the interests of the reasonable residential amenity of
adjoining occupiers
(40) The hours of work during construction and the delivery of materials on to
the site shall be restricted to 08.00-18.00 hours Monday-Friday, 08.00-13.00
hours Saturdays and no working shall take place on Sundays and Bank
Holidays.
(40) Reason:
occupiers.
In the interests of the residential amenities of adjacent
(41) Prior to the submission of any reserved matter for any phase of the
development which includes any use as defined in paragraph 7 of Planning
Policy Statement 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, with the
exception of the maximum of 1000 square metres of retail floor space
permitted by condition (42), appropriate assessments as required by PPS 4
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority .
(41) Reason: The application does not provide sufficient information to
demonstrate that the requirements of PPS 4 have been met with regard to
Town Centre uses and therefore the assessment will be required to enable
the Local Planning Authority to consider whether such uses are acceptable in
this location.
(42) The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with Condition 1
above shall include details of a small shopping parade of purely
neighbourhood significance. No more than 1,000 square metres gross retail
floorspace shall be provided, split between at least 5 individual units, none of
which shall be larger than 500 square metres , and shall remain as such in
perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
There shall be no A1 comparison floorspace and no more than one A5 unit as
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
defined by The Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or as
amended
(42) Reason: In order, in the absence of a retail impact assessment, to
minimise the impact of the development upon other retail centres and to
ensure the proposal meets Saved Policy R6 (28/09/07) of the adopted
Mansfield District Local Plan, and relevant policies within PPS4, as the site is
not in an area allocated for retail use.
(43) No development shall take place within the application site until details of
a scheme for archaeological mitigation has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the LPA. Thereafter the scheme shall be implemented in full
accordance with the approved details.
(43) Reason:
measures.
In order to secure appropriate archaeological mitigation
(44) The total quantum of employment development shall not exceed
100,000 m2 consisting of no less than 60% of total floorspace falling within
use classes B1, no more than 30% of total floorspace falling within use class
B2 and no more than 10% of total floorspace falling within use class B8
respectively of The Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or as
amended unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(44) Reason: To ensure an appropriate level of development.
(45) No development shall commence until a soils handling, storage and reuse scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Each phase of the development shall thereafter be
undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.
(45) Reason: The soil quality on parts of the site falls within the best and
most versatile category and therefore further details of handling, storage and
re-use of this soil are required.
(46) ) Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning
permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a
scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall
each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning
Authority:
i) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:
•
all previous uses
•
potential contaminants associated with those uses
•
a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and
receptors
•
potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
ii) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a
detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including
those off site.
iii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and,
based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full
details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be
undertaken.
iv) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in
order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying
any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages,
maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local
planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
(46) Reason: To ensure that the site is characterised adequately before
development commences, and protect controlled waters with the use of
baseline data.
(47) If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to
be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed
in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the
developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local
Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing
how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.
(47) Reason: To ensure to all reasonable lengths, that all contamination onsite is accounted for and suitably treated.
(1) Note to Applicant
Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980)
In order to carry out the off-site works required you will be undertaking work in
the public highway which is land subject to the provisions of the Highways Act
1980 (as amended) and therefore land over which you have no control. In
order to undertake the works you will need to enter into an agreement under
Section 278 of the Act. Please contact Justin Ward on 01623 520 711 for
details.
(2) Note to Applicant
Travel Plan
Advice regarding travel plans can be obtained from the Travel Plans Officer at
Trent Bridge House, Fox Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 6BJ, Tel
0115 9774570.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011
(3) Note to Applicant
Section 38 Agreement (Highways Act 1980)
The applicant should note that notwithstanding any planning permission that if
any highway forming part of the development is to be adopted by the
Highways Authority. The new roads and any highway drainage will be
required to comply with the Nottinghamshire County Council’s current
highway design guidance and specification for roadworks.
a)
The Advanced Payments Code in the Highways Act 1980 applies and
under section 219 of the Act payment will be required from the owner
of the land fronting a private street on which a new building is to be
erected. The developer should contact the Highway Authority with
regard to compliance with the Code, or alternatively to the issue of a
Section 38 Agreement and bond under the Highways Act 1980. A
Section 38 Agreement can take some time to complete. Therefore, it is
recommended that the developer contact the Highway Authority as
early as possible.
b)
It is strongly recommended that the developer contact the Highway
Authority at an early stage to clarify the codes etc. with which
compliance will be required in the particular circumstance, and it is
essential that design calculations and detailed construction drawings
for the proposed works are submitted to and approved by the County
Council (or District Council) in writing before any work commences on
site.
(4) Note to Applicant
The comments of Central Networks are attached
(5) Note to Applicant
A copy of the Coal Authority’s standing advice is attached
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 12/07/2011