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