HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 20th February 2017

Application No:

HPK/2016/0648

Location Land North of Dinting Road, Glossop Proposal Outline planning permission with all matters reserved (except

access) for construction of up to 37 dwellings Applicant Loxley Homes Agent Emery Planning Parish/ward Glossop Date registered 28th November 2016 If you have a question about this report please contact: Ben Haywood -Email ben.haywood@highpeak.gov.uk; Tel: 01298 38400 Ext: 4924 REFERRAL The application is referred to committee as it is a major development.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION APPROVE, subject to conditions and Section 106 Agreement

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 2.1 The site comprises a small parcel of land measuring 0.8ha on the northeast side of Dinting Road, adjacent to existing dwellings at the junction with Shaw Lane. It lies within the built up area boundary as designated within the High Peak Local Plan 2016. The site lies within Flood Zone 1. It is characterised as grassland. 2.2 The site is bordered by Dinting Road to the south; residential development at Shaw Lane to the north-west and the Hadfield-Dinting railway line lies some distance to the east. A public footpath crosses to the east of the site which leads from Dinting Road to The Shaw and Glossopdale Community College beyond. 2.3 The site forms part of a wider area that benefits from outline planning permission for 113 dwellings (ref. HPK/2015/0692).

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The application seeks outline consent for a proposed residential development of 37 dwellings at Shaw Lane, Hadfield. All matters are reserved save for access. Although the application forms part of a wider site with an extant outline consent for 113 dwellings, the current application seeks a new access point from Dinting Road and would allow a phase 1 to be commenced, completed and occupied in advance of the wider parcel of land. The intention is that the Loxley Homes would develop and build this scheme for up to 37 units without delay (alongside a further 10 unit

scheme to the south of Shaw Lane application ref. HPK/2016/0614 which is currently under consideration and will be brought before a future planning committee), with proposals for the remainder of the site being brought forward separately by a major house builder.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

1988: Representations were made to exclude the site from the proposed Green Belt The Green Belt Local Plan prepared by Derbyshire County Council was adopted in 1990 and the site excluded from the Green Belt. HPK/0003/0546 – Outline planning permission for residential development refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed in June 1992. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet 1995: Local Plan Inspector recommended that the site be excluded from the Green Belt and excluded from the Built-Up Area boundary, but defined as countryside on the High Peak Local Plan. HPK/2012/0721 Outline application for up to 93 dwellings – withdrawn March 2013. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet HPK/2013/0324 Outline application for up to 93 dwellings – The application was determined by committee on 5th August 2013 and was refused against officer recommendation. The application was subsequently allowed on appeal following a pubic inquiry in June 2014. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet 2016: The site was part of the local plan examination and was shown on the proposals maps to be incorporated within the built up area boundary. Following adoption of the new local plan the boundary has been amended which includes the site. HPK/2015/0692 Outline Planning Permission with some Matters Reserved for Residential Development for up to 113 Dwellings – Approved 2016 http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=204470 HPK/2016/0548 to approve a variation to the affordable housing condition imposed on application HPK/2015/0692 – Resolution to approve http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

High Peak Local Plan 2016

Policy S1 Sustainable Development Principles Policy S1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy Policy S3 Strategic Housing Development Policy S5 Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy Policy EQ1 Climate Change Policy EQ2 Landscape Character Policy EQ5 Biodiversity Policy EQ6 Design and Place Making Policy EQ7 Built and Historic Environment Policy EQ9 Trees, Woodlands and hedgerows Policy EQ10 Pollution Control and Unstable Land Policy EQ11 Flood Risk Management Policy H1 Location of Housing Development Policy H3 New Housing Allocations Policy H4 Affordable Housing Policy CF3 Local Infrastructure Provision Policy CF4 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities Policy CF5 Provision and Retention of Local Community Facilities Policy CF6 Accessibility and Transport Policy CF7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy Supplementary Planning Guidance

• Residential Design • Landscape Character • Housing Needs Survey • Planning Obligations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 Achieving Sustainable Development Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport Section 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7 Requiring good design Section 8 Promoting healthy communities Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11 Conservation and enhancing the Natural environment Section 12 Conserving and enhancing the Historic Environment

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Site Notice 4th January 2017 Press Notice 12th January 2017 Neighbours 28th December 2016 Neighbour objection

7 letters of objection have been received making the following points:

• We wish to object to planning application HPK/2016/0648 for construction of 37 dwellings on land to the north of Dinting Road.

• No more building on our green land!! • How many times are you going to allow this builder to keep changing his

plans? This development • Started off with 93 homes it went to 113 and now 150 . • Yet again Loxley are over developing a site just for profit with no thought to

existing residents , transport congestion or amenities why don't the council make them develop brownfield sites

• This is for land known as Shawfields which was passed on appeal App/H1033/A/2204114 [93 houses. Since then there has been HPK/2015/0692 [113 HOUSES ] HPK/2016/0548 [ 41 ] HPK/0648 [37 HOUSES ] HPK/2016/0614 [10 ] HOUSES on this one piece of land so far ! One builder taking away every blade of grass and destroying trees and the environment for a concrete jungle and greed.

• Concerned regarding increased traffic to Dinting Road due to already passed planning applications of which none are anywhere near complete, These are Wimpey North Road [ 150 houses ]HPK/2015/0120 hpk/2015/0412 [65 Houses] south of Dinting Road HPK/2016/0224 [20 Houses] Dinting Road / Dinting Lane [20 Houses ] HPK/2015/0524 [ 8 Houses ]

• Having all these contructions taking place at the same time and in close proximity to one another could or probably would bring chaos on Din ting Road we all know how horrendous the commuter traffic is on the A57 .

• We need common sense to prevail any more planning applications should be put on hold until existing plans are complete and traffic counts can be done.

• object to this or any other planning being passed in this area in the near future • Plans for the development of "Shawfield" initially encompassed the whole

·field .. ( HPK/2013/0324; permission granted on appeal inJune 2014, for 93 dwellings and HPK/2015/0692; permission granted for 113 dwellings in September 2016 an increase of almost 22%.)

• This application for a parcel of "Shawfield" for 37 dwellings: and comparing it to the dwelling layout plan for the same area in application HPK/2015/0692 for only 14 dwellings sees a density increase for this parcel of land of over 150%.

• For application HPK/2015/0692 Loxleys employed Betts Hydro to undertake a Flood Risk and Sustainable Drainage Assessment for the same field. Page 5 paragraph 4 states that "surface water run off for the site currently flows westward into an unnamed watercourse situated to the northern border." This watercourse regularly overflows during heavy rainfall and this is acknowledged in the following paragraph.

• With an increase in building density, more roofs, more driveways and roads will only mean an exacerbation of this problem unless surface water drainage is taken in the opposite direction which is not envisaged in this application.

• Their proposals however do not include future maintenance of the watercourse or the clearing of debris from the cu]vert screen. Their proposal are for remediation work and for a storm water retention pool to be created

and to be able to accommodate volum{!s for stoi:m events \1p t() and include 100 year events (+30%. ) This work was unde1taken during the summer of 2016. However, despite this work the watercourse overflowed on three occasions in November 2016!!!

• The addition of an extra road exit from "Shawfleld" onto Dinting Road. More exits from "Shawfields" will mean more places where traffic {which is on the increasefor Dinting Road due to consolidation of Glossopdale School onto the Hadfield site and thepresent andfuture housing developments already accepted in the vicinity) will be turning right and the added risk factors this carries.

• The addition of a footpath along the northern side of Dinting Road. This is a condition set at the Appeal which granted Loxleys permission to initially build on "Shawfields" by Mr Brendan Lyons (condition 8) and this is missing from their dwelling layout plans.

• Much is made of the word sustainability but there is no reference to energy self sufficiency, solar panels or even the life span of these dwellings.

• This Application creates a great deal of uncertainty for the development of the remainder of the "Shawfields"site.

• If the figure of 113 dwellings; as applied for by Loxleys HPK/201510692, deliberated on and accepted by yourselves this past September; is to stand it will only leave 76 dwellings left to be built on the remainder of the field. Will this be acceptable to whoever embarks upon this development or will it mean that this figure will be exceeded?

• This then asks the question why is.the number of 113 dwellings acceptable in September but becomes insufficient in later·months? This only exasperates the points Bl and Cl and leaves local residents to become more baffled by a torturous planning process.

Consultee

Comment Officer response

Derbyshire County Council - Policy

In the absence of a Community Infrastructure Levy, financial contributions to be secured via Section 106 planning obligations:

• £ 79,793.07 towards the provision of 7 primary places at Dinting CE Voluntary Aided Primary School.

Guidance to be provided via advisory notes attached to planning permission:

• Access to high speed broadband services for future residents (in conjunction with service providers).

7.51

DCC Flood Risk

Initial Comments:

Recommending a holding objection on the proposed development as it is not possible to provide informed comment

7.57

until such a time that the applicant has submitted further information.

As a statutory consultee for surface water the minimum details required on all major planning applications are as follows:

• Appropriate evidence to support how the site will drain.

• Basic calculations of the greenfield/brownfield runoff and discharge rates for the site.

• A quick storage estimate to show the required storage volume of surface water on site and an indication of the likely location.

These details are required at the early planning stage to demonstrate that the proposed site is able to drain and that due consideration has been given to the space required on site for surface water storage.

Additional Comments:

I have recently received details of proposed surface water drainage relating to the above planning application. I have attached the surface water drainage layout.

I would like to raise concerns regarding this since the developer is unaware of the condition and location of both the watercourse and highway drain in Dinting Road. I have referred the developer to the Highways manager for the area in order to discuss the highway drainage here.

Further to this, it is assumed that the drain/watercourse discharges to Glossop Brook to the south-west of the site. We

hold no information regarding the location of this watercourse.

We wouldn’t be able to set conditions relating to this since the points of discharge are outside of the site, but I wanted to make you aware that I feel the applicant hasn’t proved that the watercourse is suitable for discharge of surface water.

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust

Initial Comments:

DWT had previously commented on the wider application your ref: HPK/2015/0692; our ref: PlanCon211-3 which includes this application HPK/2016/0648. The area in question, approximately 0.6h, had 12 houses present in the existing and approved application, with the gardens backing onto each other. This application proposes 37 houses resulting in more buildings and hard standing and a reduction in gardens and overall net loss of biodiversity.

Micro habitats such as small gardens backing onto each other can enable species numbers to remain stable or even flourish (where suitable mammal holes in fences are incorporated and suitable planting are utilised). Land used for housing can provide habitats for species that have a small range. The previous layout plan appeared to encourage a micro habitat and from DWT stance, is a preferred layout. This new proposed plan lacks connectivity and could result in a potential net loss. It is recommended that the previous layout plan and this layout plan are quantified in

7.37

terms of hard standing, buildings and green areas to fully assess if the changes in layout result in a net loss of habitats. Clarification on the revised layout plan for net loss is required prior to determination.

At present, it is considered that the new layout is not considered conducive to the benefits of biodiversity due to the density of houses, layout of the roads and reduction of connecting garden habitats. We would advise that the existing approved planning application and layout is adhered to. If the council are minded to grant permission for this application and variation to conditions for the previous application, it is recommend a revised layout plan and clarification on the loss of habitats are undertaken prior to determination. If the trees are to be removed that offer potential for roosting bats, further surveys will be required prior to determination Additional Comments:

As previously discussed in our comments (attached), the previous planning application HPK/2015/0692 offers better biodiversity opportunities as a whole. Whereas this application HPK/2016/0648 severs corridors (road off Dinting Road), fragments green infrastructure and creates less meaningful corridors. Therefore, our previous comments are still considered valid and relevant and no further comments are given. If the applicant wishes to provide further comments on the change of layout, it is considered unlikely these would change our existing comments on the application.

Ultimately, as the planning officer you will have to weigh up DWT comments and other consultancies with regards to the change of layout and the balance of this application compared to the other.

Derbyshire County Highways

I refer to the above outline application that has been recently been forwarded to this Authority for highway comments together with earlier correspondence concerning previous proposals for this site. It's noted that all matters, with the exception of access, have been reserved. The submitted details demonstrate a residential development of 37 units on a part of a larger site afforded with approval previously granted at Appeal, with all vehicular access being taken via a new junction with Dinting Road. A Technical Note has been submitted in support of the proposals The Technical Note states that visibility splays of 2.4m x 46m and 2.4m x 64m to the east and west when exiting respectively are to be provided, however, both the illustrative site and access layouts contained within Appendices 2 and 3 of this document demonstrate sightlines of 2.4m x 45m in each direction. Speed survey results submitted in association with previous applications for this site recorded a5th percentile vehicle approach speeds of 24mph and 31mph for northbound and southbound traffic respectively. Exit visibility should be provided at a level commensurate with, or greater than, the recorded vehicle approach speeds. Notwithstanding, it's considered that there is sufficient land within the applicant's control to create an acceptable junction layout to serve the development proposals although this may result in

7.45

relocation of the junction eastwards from the position currently shown. A 2.0m width margin, to be dedicated as highway, should be provided across the entire site frontage to the furthest extents of the requisite visibility sightlines with the red line boundary being amended as necessary. As layout does not form a part of the application, detailed analysis of the Illustrative Site Layout drawing won't be undertaken at this time. Notwithstanding any subsequent Reserved Matters or Full application should include a layout generally complying with the recommendations of the 6C's Design Guide e.g. suitability demonstrated by means of swept paths for a Large Refuse Vehicle; exit visibility sightlines at internal road junctions/ private drives/ parking spaces demonstrated and secured to be maintained clear of obstruction as appropriate; adequate, conveniently located off-street parking space for each unit; areas for standing of waste bins clear of the highway on collection days; etc. It's unlikely that an internal road layout in accordance with that submitted would be considered for adoption to be maintained in future at public expense. Prior to determination of the Appeal associated with the earlier application, a scheme for relocation and enhancement of existing bus stops on Dinting Lane was proposed. It's noted that a Condition (9) to this effect was included within the Appeal Decision and similar should be carried out in association with the current proposals. Therefore, as access is not a reserved matter, it's recommended that the applicant is requested to submit revised details demonstrating measures to satisfy the above issues. However, if

you are minded to determine the proposals as submitted, the Highway Authority would be grateful to receive further opportunity to provide recommendations.

Tree Officer Initial Comments:

The proposed development will lead to significant trees loss and detrimental impact on the visual landscape. There is limited scope for sustainable mitigation by tree planting. Due to the significant impact on mature trees and landscape and the lack of opportunity to provide any substantive mitigation I am of the opinion that this application should be refused. Further comments It would appear that the 2 TPO trees would have some stand off from the site and that this combined with the garden areas may give enough space to accommodate the RPA’s. As such I would have to withdraw my objection on this point. It would be ideal If a plan could be provided that showed the trees – in particular the protected trees and there Root Protection areas as required by the BS5837:2012 on the layout.

The proposals will still impact on the trees to the western boundary with existing houses. The loss of these trees on their own, although regrettable would not be sufficient reason for refusal.

7.31

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

Policy Context

7.1 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 7.2 Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Local Planning Authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan consists of the adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016. 7.3 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF explains that at the heart of the Framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, for decision makers this means that when considering development proposals which accord with the development plan, they should be approved without delay, but where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant planning permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. Principle of development 7.4 The presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is reflected in Policies S1 – Sustainable Development Principles and S1a – Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development of the adopted Local Plan. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF identifies the three dimensions to sustainable development; economic, social and environmental. 7.5 The Core Principles of the Framework are set out in paragraph 17 and among other criteria seek to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. High quality design should be sought and secured and a good standard of amenity provided for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. 7.6 Section 6 of the Framework relates specifically to the need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes. Paragraph 49 advises that Local Planning Authorities should consider housing applications in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 7.7 Local Plan Policy S5 Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy seeks to promote sustainable growth of Glossopdale whilst promoting and maintaining the distinct identity of its settlements. It aims to meet the housing needs of the local community by allocating a range of suitable, deliverable housing sites including the delivery of affordable housing. It supports the development of new housing on sustainable sites within the built up area boundary. 7.8 Local Plan Policy H1 seeks to deliver a wider choice of high quality housing in appropriate locations to meet the needs of all residents in the Borough. The Council will ensure provision is made for housing taking account all other policies in the Local

Plan. This would be achieved by promoting effective reuse of land; supporting housing on unallocated sites within the defined built up area boundaries; encouraging the inclusion of housing in mixed use schemes; community right to build schemes and self builds. 7.9 Local Plan Policy H3 requires all new residential development to meet the requirements of affordable housing within the overall provision of new residential development set out in policy H4 and to provide a range of market and affordable housing types and sizes, whilst the mix should contribute positively to the promotion of a sustainable and inclusive community taking account the characteristics of the existing housing stock in the surrounding locality. 7.10 The principle of residential development at this site has been established as being acceptable through the allowed planning appeal in June 2014 and the further approval granted last year. This permission remains extant for 113 dwellings. This application now proposes 37 units on a portion of that site. 7.11 The development of this site now falls within the development boundary of Hadfield following the adoption of the new local plan in 2016. It is considered to be within a relatively sustainable location for access to local services, schools, shops and within walking distances for transport, including the train station and bus stops. The site is considered to contribute to the housing supply within the new Local Plan and will provide a mix of 1 to 4 bed dwellings, including affordable housing and a contribution for education, on site play provision by way of a LEAP and an offsite open space contribution. 7.12 Consequently, this application does not present an opportunity to revisit the principle of residential development on this site. The main issues in the consideration of the application are whether 37 units can be accommodated on this part of the site whilst achieving a suitable, appearance, scale, landscaping and layout and protecting any constraints such as trees, ecology, watercourses etc. Given that approval of access details is also sought at this stage, it is necessary to consider whether the alternative access point now proposed to serve only this part of the development is acceptable in highway safety terms. Scale / Appearance / Landscaping / Layout 7.13 Section 11 ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ of the NPPF, confirms that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valuable landscapes. Paragraph 109 states that 'the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by … protecting and enhancing valued landscapes'. 7.14 The NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 58 requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area for the lifetime of the development. It should respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials whilst reinforcing local distinctiveness.

7.15 Local Plan policies S1 and EQ6 expect new development to contribute to a sense of place by taking account of the distinct character, townscape and setting of the area and securing high quality and locally distinctive design and amenity. The adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Residential Design 2005, also provides guidance on the approach to new residential development, and the factors which contribute toward local distinctiveness. 7.16 The site lies within the Settled Valley Pastures Landscape Character Area, as defined by the adopted Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Document. As such the area is characterised as a pastoral landscape with permanent improved pasture where fields are small and irregular enclosed by hedgerows, occasional dry stone walls and tree belts and groups around settlements. 7.17 The site conforms to this assessment as undeveloped grass land. However, the site is on the urban fringe and is surrounded by residential development. The immediate character of the residential area is a mix of two storey properties. The wider context of the area is of a mix of residential properties consisting of detached and semi-detached properties of various styles and sizes that sit alongside Dinting Road and the Shaw. 7.18 Despite its previous countryside designation, the land has no policy designations to suggest that it is of intrinsically high landscape value such that would warrant it being protected solely on landscape grounds which was also the case in the allowed appeal in 2014. As such the proposal would be viewed in its context with surrounding built form of the Shaw and the immediate surrounding built form around this setting of Dinting Road and would not have a significant adverse impact on the character and distinctiveness of the countryside that the site now adjoins. 7.19 The application is in outline form and only seeks the reserved matters of access. The other matters including appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would be subsequently reserved for a further application. Therefore only indicative information has been submitted. 7.20 The indicative plans show that the new road opens up access into the site and takes the form of a cul-de-sac serving another small cul-de-sac of houses to the north west. As with the previous indicative layout the site would be relatively open along Dinting Road with areas of landscaping and boundary walls in part. The landscape buffer is shown retained to the north of the site. 7.21 The housing mix, which comprises terraced, detached, semi-detached and apartments is considered appropriate and in keeping with surrounding developments and the mix of development shown on the previous wider outline scheme. The design approach of the development and application form indicates that materials will be agreed at the reserved maters stage. However, subject to use of stone and slate roofs to match those of surrounding dwellings and incorporating locally distinctive features this is considered to be acceptable. 7.22 The level of private amenity space allocated to the dwelling is considered to be appropriate for 1, 2, 3 and 4 bed dwellings and there is ample amenity space on

the adjoining wider site to cater for this development. Conditions can also provide good quality landscaping and boundary treatments. 7.23 As such it is considered that the indicative layout is acceptable and reflects the form, pattern and spacing between dwellings seen in the developments to the north and west. The density of the development is acceptable and relates well to the massing of surrounding development. Parking would be allocated to each dwelling. 7.24 The development is therefore considered to comply with policies S1, S5, H1, H3, EQ2, and EQ6 of the High Peak Local Plan 2016 along with guidance contained in Paragraph 17 and the Design Chapter of the Framework all of which seek to ensure that the overall scale, density, massing, landscaping and layout are in character with the area and that new development integrates into the natural, built and historic environment. Amenity 7.25 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF requires a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Local Plan Policy EQ6 also stipulates that development should achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development and does not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shadowing, overbearing or other adverse impacts on local character and amenity. 7.26 There are residential properties to the north and west of the site. The indicative plans show the development sitting within the context of the site and indicate that development will reflect the heights and levels of existing development. However, the application is submitted in outline form, with all such matters reserved for a future application. 7.27 Whilst the detailed layout of the site is unknown at this stage, the development comprises up to 37 dwellings. Although there are a number of residential properties to the north - west of the site, it is considered that there would be sufficient space to accommodate this level of development whilst safeguarding the residential amenity of existing and future residents. In any event, any future reserved matters application would be subject to the Council’s detailed amenity standards as required by Local Plan Policy EQ6 in this regard and in accordance with paragraph 17 of the NPPF. Contaminated Land 7.28 Section 11 of the NPPF seeks to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land stability to ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. Local Plan Policy EQ10 seeks to protect people and the environment from unsafe and polluted environments, requiring mitigation if necessary. This policy is currently afforded significant weight. 7.29 Comments from the Environmental Health Officer were awaited at the time of report preparation. However in respect of the previous application he was satisfied that the development of the site for residential use would be acceptable with appropriate site investigation and remediation if required. These matters can be

addressed by appropriate conditions to protect the amenity of existing neighbouring residents and proposed occupiers. 7.30 The proposals are considered to comply with section 11 of the NPPF, and Local Plan policy EQ10 in this regard. Trees 7.31 Policy EQ9 of the adopted Local Plan advises that it will protect existing trees, woodlands and hedgerows. This would be achieved by requiring existing woodlands, trees and hedgerows to be retained and integrated within a proposed development. It requires development to provide appropriate tree planting and soft landscaping. The site contains a number of trees which surround the site along Dinting Road which are visually important and provide other benefits, such as biodiversity. 7.32 The Arboricultural Officer has commented that there is an existing outline planning consent HPK/2015/0692 for residential development which includes this area of land. However the previous indicative layout is for a lower density development on this part of the site and therefore has greater potential for the retention of important tree and landscape features on the site. It is not clear from the plans which, if any, existing trees are to be retained. Although the layout is not for approval at this stage given the density of the proposals she considers that the vast majority if not all existing trees on site will need to be removed to accommodate this number of properties. There are also inconsistencies between the Arboricultural report submitted in this application undertaken by Appleton Group and the Cheshire Woodlands Arboricultural report which accompanies HPK/2016/0614 (an application for 10 units on the adjoining site to the north which is currently under consideration) and includes some of the same trees. 7.33 The initial view of the Arboricultural Officer was that the proposals will lead to significant loss of existing trees almost certainly including 2 trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The landscape design and visual impact studies from the previous consent note the importance of the trees to the north west of the site for filtering views and enhancing the proposed residential development. Due to the density of the proposals there is limited scope for landscaping. It is noted that some indicative tree planting is shown on the plan but this will be restricted and likely to be removed by future residents due to modest size of the gardens. 7.34. Following further discussion with the applicant, however, the Arboricultural Officer has modified her view. Whilst there are uncertainties about the impact of the proposed density of layout on the trees, she has revisited the red line area on the Council’s mapping system. Assuming this is correct it would appear that the 2 TPO trees would have some stand off from the site and that this combined with the garden areas may give enough space to accommodate the Root Protection Areas (RPAs). As such she would have to withdraw her objection on this point. As the layout is illustrative only it may still be subject to amendment at reserved matters and the relationship between the properties and these trees would be a key issue. Consideration would need to be given to the impact that the trees would have

on the properties in terms of ‘liveability’, and a stand off greater than the RPA allow would be required. 7.35 It would be ideal, therefore, if a plan could be provided that showed the trees – in particular the protected trees - and their RPAs areas as required by the BS5837:2012 on the layout. This has been raised with the applicant who has agreed to provide this information prior to committee and a further update will be provided in this respect. 7.36 The proposals will still impact on the trees to the western boundary with existing houses. Again it is difficult to assess the extent of the impact as the trees are not shown on the plan. Nevertheless, the loss of these trees, on their own, although regrettable, would not be sufficient reason for refusal. Biodiversity and Ecology 7.37 Section 11 of the NPPF outlines that Local Planning Authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Paragraph 109 seeks to minimise impacts and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. Local Plan Policy EQ5 echoes this advice, advising that biodiversity and ecological resources should be conserved. 7.38 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust has commented that the area in question is approximately 0.6h, and showed 12 houses on the layout accompanying the approved application, with the gardens backing onto each other. The current application proposes 37 houses resulting in more buildings and hard standing and a reduction in gardens and overall net loss of biodiversity. DWT have recommended that the previous layout plan and the layout plan now proposed are quantified in terms of hard standing, buildings and green areas to fully assess if the changes in layout result in a net loss of habitats prior to determination. 7.39 Furthermore, if the trees are to be removed that offer potential for roosting bats, further surveys will be required prior to determination. 7.40 The applicant has provided an updated preliminary ecological assessment which deals specifically with the current scheme and application site and supersedes that previously submitted. The report concludes:

“The majority of land within the application boundary consists of species-poor grassland which is of generally low ecological value. In light of this survey, as well as all previous surveys on this land, it is very unlikely that significant impacts will arise for any protected species covered in this report, especially given landscaping will also enhance much of the site for a number of protected species.”

7.41 The applicant does not believe that DWT have assessed the application in its own right, against the baseline situation (e.g. they refer to a reduction of connecting garden habitats when the site is mainly species poor grassland). The Applicants state that they are reviewing the DWT advice with their ecologist and will provide a full response addressing their comments as soon as possible.

7.42 DWT have responded by stating that the previous planning application HPK/2015/0692 offers better biodiversity opportunities as a whole, whereas, this application HPK/2016/0648 severs corridors (road off Dinting Road), fragments green infrastructure and creates less meaningful corridors. Notwithstanding this, DWT have commented that it is for the Council to determine in the overall planning balance whether the proposal is acceptable relative to the previous scheme. 7.43 It is common ground between DWT and the Appellant that the majority of land within the application boundary consists of species-poor grassland which is of generally low ecological value and it has been established through the previous consent that its loss for residential development is acceptable. It is the planning officer’s view that the proposal must be judged on its own merits relative to the current situation. It should also be noted that both the layout shown previously and the one presented with this application are only indicative. Whilst the proposal is clearly a higher density on than was previously envisaged on this part of the site and will not enhance biodiversity to the same extent as the previous scheme, it still represents an improvement in the current conditions on site for a number of protected species. 7.44 It is therefore considered that the proposals will not adversely affect any ecological or biodiversity interests and the conditions requiring implementation of suitable mitigation, as imposed on the extant consent and previously recommended by DWT will be employed and attached to any consent if permission is granted. The proposals are thus considered to comply with the provisions of section 11 of the NPPF and Local Plan Policy EQ5. Access and Highway matters 7.45 The NPPF promotes sustainable transport and recommends that Local Planning Authorities should seek to encourage and facilitate where possible sustainable patterns of transport using practical alternatives to private motor vehicles so that people have a real choice about how they travel. 7.46 Policy CF6 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure development can be safely accessed in a sustainable manner. Proposals should minimise the need to travel, particularly by unsustainable modes. It aims to ensure that all new development is located where the highway network can satisfactorily accommodate traffic generated by the development or can be improved as part of the development. 7.47 As previously approved the 113 dwellings were shown with all vehicular access being taken via a new junction with Dinting Road. This application now involves serving this part of the site from a separate access. The Highway Authority has raised concerns regarding visibility splays at the proposed new junction. It recommended that the applicant is requested to submit revised details demonstrating measures to address this issue. These details have been provided by the applicant and have been forwarded to the Highway Authority and a response was awaited at the time of report preparation. A further update will be provided to Members on this issue prior to their meeting.

7.48 The matters of internal layout of the site and car parking provision would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage. The applicant would need to demonstrate that sufficient parking is provided and provision for service vehicles throughout the site can be accommodated. 7.49 Subject to the above visibility splay details receiving the approval of the highway authority it is considered there would be no adverse impact on the local road network and the proposals would therefore comply with the provisions of section 4 of the NPPF and Local Plan policy CF6 in this regard. Archaeology 7.50 The County Archaeologist in the previous submission and at appeal requested that further survey work be carried out to ascertain whether there are significant archaeological remains on the site. The applicants have undertaken further survey work in response to this request which indicates that there is unlikely to be any archaeological remains of significance. Affordable Housing / Obligations 7.51 There is an identified need for affordable housing in the Borough and the Council’s Policy set out in H4 of the Local Plan and in the Obligations and Housing Needs SPD is that for developments of 25 units or over, 30% of a scheme should be affordable housing. The Planning Design and Access Statement refers to the predicament that Loxley Homes have faced in securing an affordable housing provider for the wider site. Therefore, whilst it is proposed to include the required level of affordable provision within this 37 unit scheme, the applicant requests that this is secured by a condition which is sufficiently flexible to allow for variation of the tenure mix if necessary (in accordance with the requirements of policy H3). 7.52 Members will recall that in 2016 they resolved through application HPK/2016/0548 to approve a variation to the affordable housing condition imposed on application HPK/2015/0692 to allow this flexibility. Subject to the same condition being imposed on this consent, it is considered that the proposal would be in line with adopted Local Plan policy. 7.53 Derbyshire County Council has requested £ 79,793.07 towards the provision of 7 primary places at Dinting CE Voluntary Aided Primary School. The applicant has commented that:

the response refers to a number of recently approved planning applications within the normal area totalling 178 dwellings and amounting to an additional 36 primary pupils, in addition to that which would be generated by this development. It should be noted that the figure of 178 dwellings already includes approved dwellings from an alternative scheme on the current application site and that the County Council is therefore ‘double counting’ when calculating the total number of pupils that could be generated from new development within the normal area.

Emery Planning has obtained and submitted information (provided by Derbyshire County Council through a Freedom of Information Act Request) since the approval of previous scheme for the site, which demonstrates that over 80% of pupils on the roll for Dinting C of E Primary School come from outside of the catchment area and that consequently there is ample space within the school to accommodate new reception aged children being generated by developments within the catchment area. Furthermore, in 2021 it is anticipated that there will be 309 available spaces in local (Derbyshire) primary schools within 2 miles of the application site (more if Tameside primary schools within 2 miles of the application site are included within the figures). Copies of appeal decisions confirming that the above circumstances negate the need for a contribution have already been submitted to the Council……..In view of the above, it is clear that the suggested education contribution for application ref. HPK/2016/0648 is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. It does not meet the requirements of Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and no planning obligation should be sought.

7.54 The views of Derbyshire County Council were awaited at the time of report preparation and a further update will be provided to Members in due course. 7.55 Planning permission HPK/2015/0692 includes on-site public open space in the form of a LEAP which will also serve this site. This will therefore be delivered on the remainder of the site to the west. The appropriate location will be adjacent to the public footpath so that it is located in the most accessible part of the site. A financial contribution was also included for off-site open space provision. The legal agreement attached to this consent will need to reflect this contribution on a pro-rata basis and will also need to include alternative provisions for playspace in the eventuality that the remainder of the site does not come forward. 7.56 The legal agreement will also reflect details as agreed previously in regards to highways and travel plan. The legal agreement is currently the subject of negotiation. Flooding 7.57 Derbyshire County Council Flood Risk Manager has expressed concerns that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the watercourse and highway drain in Dinting Road are suitable for discharge of surface water. This has been brought to the attention of the developer and a response was awaited at the time of report preparation. However, it should be noted that the previous consent established the principle of residential development on this site and was subject to conditions requiring details of surface water drainage to be submitted and agreed. In view of this it is not considered that a refusal on drainage grounds could be sustained subject to the same conditions being imposed on this consent.

8. CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE

8.1 The National Planning Policy Framework provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Framework advises that proposals which comply with the development plan should be approved “without delay”. 8.2 The site lies within the built up area boundary, it is an already identified for residential development which contributes to the housing land supply in the adopted local plan and is considered to be located within a sustainable location with good links to transport and local services. Furthermore it has an extant permission for 113 dwellings on the wider site. The scheme would deliver a number of social and economic benefits including further contributing towards housing supply and the provision of affordable housing. The proposal would also provide a contribution to open space and playspace which is needed within the local area. The development would also provide modest economic benefits through the creation new jobs during the construction phase and additional spending power in the local economy from future residents. 8.3 The indicative layout and siting when viewed in its context with the surrounding built form, to the north - west and the wider surroundings would not have a significant adverse impact on this area. It would not impact on the character and distinctiveness of the adjoining countryside. 8.4 The proposals will impact on the trees to the western boundary with existing houses. However, the loss of these trees alone, although regrettable, would not be sufficient reason for refusal. Therefore subject to receipt of an amended plan to demonstrate that the trees – in particular the protected trees and their RPAs areas as required by the BS5837:2012 could be accommodated within the layout the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of impact on trees. 8.5 The majority of land within the application boundary consists of species-poor grassland which is of generally low ecological value. Whilst the proposal will not enhance biodiversity to the same extent as the previous scheme, it still represents an improvement in the current conditions on site for a number of protected species. 8.6 The highway authority has expressed concerns regarding the available visibility splays. Additional information has been provided by the applicant to address this and subject to approval from DCC highways it is considered that the proposals would therefore comply with the provisions of section 4 of the NPPF and Local Plan policy CF6 in this regard. 8.7 Subject to the same condition being imposed on this consent as on the extant permission, it is considered that the proposal would be in line with adopted Local Plan policy in terms of affordable housing provision. The County Council have requested an education contribution on the basis of lack of capacity in local schools. The applicant has established through an FOI request that the lack of capacity is due to an influx of pupils from outside the catchment area and has argued that there is sufficient capacity in schools in the wider vicinity to accommodate the requirement generated by this development. On this basis they consider that no education construction should be payable and have provided appeal decisions to support this

stance. The County Council’s response was awaited at the time of report preparation. 8.8 Subject to the above outstanding points being addressed (all of which will be the subject of further updates prior to committee) the proposal is considered to be sustainable development under the terms of the NPPF, and complies with Policies S1, S1a, S5, EQ2, H1, H3, H4, CF6 and CF7 of the High Peak Local Plan 2016 which seek provide sustainable residential development. It therefore benefits from the presumption in favour and accordingly is recommended for approval. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the resolution of the issues identified above and satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure the open space contribution, education contribution (if required) and subject to the following conditions :

Condition number

Brief description Comment

TL01 Outline time limits

NSTD Reserved matters to be submitted

AP01 Approved Plans

NSTD Materials to be submitted

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of the existing and proposed levels across the site and relative to adjoining land, together with the finished floor levels of the proposed buildings have been submitted

NSTD Details of surface water drainage to be submitted including details of prevention of highway run off

NSTD Details of a sustainable drainage system to be submitted including details of implementation, maintenance and management

NSTD Details of foul drainage to be submitted

NSTD Details of a reasonable assessment of the existing ordinary watercourse

within the curtilage of the developable zone shall be submitted

NSTD Tree Protection Scheme to be submitted

NSTD Tree Retention

NSTD Details of Landscaping / Planting to be submitted

NSTD Landscaping Maintenance scheme to be submitted

NSTD Details of boundary treatments to be submitted

NSTD Details of mitigation of noise and vibration in regards to the proximity of the railway land shall be submitted

NSTD There shall be no visible dust emissions beyond the site boundary

NSTD Contamination – site characterisation, submission of a risk assessment following investigation

NSTD Submission of remediation scheme

NSTD Implementation of remediation scheme

NSTD Reporting of unexpected contamination

NSTD Importation of soil / material restrictions

NSTD Submission of a construction method statement

NSTD Restriction of construction / demolition hours

NSTD Restriction of piling and if required details to be submitted

NSTD Specific measures for Amphibians and Reptiles

NSTD Protection measures for badgers

NSTD External lighting strategy shall be submitted

NSTD No site preparation during the bird breeding season

NSTD Details of siting and implementation of bird boxes

NSTD Development in accordance with protected species / ecological works and implementation of measures

NSTD Submission of a Landscape Ecological Mitigation and Management Plan

NSTD Details of the internal layout of the site in accordance with the 6C’s design guide

NSTD Detailed scheme for highway improvement works for the provision of a footway / verge margin and associate safe pedestrian crossing points shall be submitted

NSTD No development until construction details of residential estate roads and footways shall be submitted and approved

NSTD Carriageways of the proposed estate roads shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted details and constructed up to base course surfacing

NSTD Prior to any other operations a new junction shall be formed to Dinting Road

NSTD The dwellings shall not be occupied until parking / manoeuvring has been provided in accordance with a scheme to be submitted

NSTD Retention of parking spaces / garages for the lifetime of the development

NSTD No gates or other barriers within 6m of the nearside highway boundary, gates

shall open inwards

NSTD The proposed access drives to the new estate shall be no steeped than 1 in 14 for first 6m and 1 in 10 thereafter

NSTD Details of bin storage and collection of waste shall be submitted

NSTD Implementation of the approved travel plan and timescales specified

NSTD Details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets shall be submitted

NSTD No development shall take place until a scheme to relocate and upgrade 2no. bus stops on Dinting Road has been submitted and approved.

NSTD The development shall not begin until a scheme for the provision of affordable housing as part of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

NSTD Removal of permitted development rights to control future householder development and to remain as affordable dwellings

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the

Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Control Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Informative This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraph 187 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Site Plan