STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

13th July 2017

Application No:

SMD/2016/0814

Location

Land and Garages to the rear of the Foxlowe, Stockwell Street, Leek

Proposal

Erection of 4 no. bungalows following demolition of existing garage court.

Applicant

Stockwell Mews

Agent

Sammons Architectural

Parish/ward

Leek

Date registered 28/12/2016

If you have a question about this report please contact: Mrs L. Jackson tel: 01538 395400 x4125 or lisa.jackson@staffsmoorlands.gov.uk

The application is brought to Planning Committee following on from the decision to defer the application at the 6th April 2017 meeting.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE: On the grounds of inappropriate development which fails to respond to the constraints and context of the site and the resultant adverse amenity impact upon future occupants by reason of the topography of the site and surrounding protected trees.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 2.1 The application site lies to the north (rear) of The Foxlowe, forms part of the curtilage of The Foxlowe (Grade II Listed) and contains a number of disused, single storey, lock up garages. The garages are located at a much lower ground level than The Foxlowe. Vehicular access to the site is via a road linking the Staffordshire Moorlands District Council rear car park with Stockwell Street and there is pedestrian access through to Brough Park. There are trees within the site, a number of which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. For the purposes of planning policy consideration the application site is locate within the Leek Town Development Boundary and also the Leek Conservation Area.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 3.1 The application site is currently occupied by a number of disused garages, this is a Full application in which the developer seeks to demolish the garage blocks and erect a terrace of four bungalows. Each of the dwellings would have bedroom and en-suite accommodation within the roof space. Each dwelling would benefit from skylights and two of the bungalows would benefit from a dormer window on the front elevation. On the ground floor there would be living/kitchen/dining room accommodation, a further bedroom and bathroom. The terraced block would have an approximate width of 25.8m and a depth ranging between approximately 10m – 10.5m (varying due to the feature forwards facing gables at both ends of the building). The overall ridge height of the building would be approximately 7.1m. 3.2 Member’s will recall that when the application was previously considered at the meeting of 6th April 2017, the dwellings faced towards Brough Park and the parking spaces were proposed to be located underneath the tree canopies. The proposal has now been amended. The terraced block would be sited so that its frontage would face towards the south east. Gardens would be to the north and backing on to Brough Park. Four on-site parking spaces (reduction from the number previously proposed) would be located at the front of the terrace. The design of the terrace block would remain the same but the previously proposed front steps and raised walkway have now been removed. Vehicular access would remain the same and would be taken from the un-adopted stretch of road which leads from Stockwell Street to the Council car park at the rear of Moorlands House. 3.3 The application, the details attached to it, including the plans, and comments made by residents/other interested parties and the responses of consultees can be found on the Council’s website at:- http://publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=110375

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

08/00892/FUL Demolition of garages and erection of six terraced

dwellings with associated gardens and parking. Refused. Dismissed on appeal (Reference APP/B3438/A/09/2097995.

05/00983/LBC Demolition of existing garage block, reduction in height of

part of west boundary wall. Withdrawn. 05/00950/FUL_MJ Demolition of existing garage blocks, reduction in height

of wall and construction of 14 flats and associated car parking. Refused.

04/01109/FUL_MJ Demolition of existing garage blocks and construction of 16 flats and associated car parking. Withdrawn.

02/00578/FUL Alteration to (rear) flat roof, demolition of garages and

formation of car park. Refused.

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

5.1 The Development Plan comprises:-

Saved Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan Proposals Map/Settlement Boundaries (Adopted 1998);

The Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted 26th March 2014);

The Minerals Local Plan (Adopted December 1999) Saved Policies 2007;

Staffordshire & Stoke-in-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy (Adopted March 2013);

The following Core Strategy policies are relevant to the application:-

SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS4 Managing the release of Housing Land SS5a Leek Area Strategy H1 New Housing Development H2 Affordable and Local Needs Housing DC1 Design Considerations DC2 The Historic Environment C1 Creating Sustainable Communities NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources T1 Development and Sustainable Transport T2 Other Sustainable Transport Measures

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

Design Principles for Development in the Staffordshire Moorlands; Housing for Local People and Affordable Housing Space about Dwellings

National Planning Policy NPPF

Paragraphs 1 to 17

Chapter 1 Delivering Sustainable Development;

Chapter 4 Promoting Sustainable Transport;

Chapter 6 Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes;

Chapter 7 Requiring Good Design;

Chapter 11 Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment;

Chapter 12 Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment.

Other Relevant Policy Documents

National Planning Policy Guidance

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT 6.1 Two new site notices have been displayed following on from the receipt of amended plans and the development advertised in the Leek Post and Times. One letter of representation has been received which states that bungalows will be an improvement but concerns are raised about the name of the applicant who has no connection to the same titled properties which lie in close proximity to the site.

Site Notice Expires

22nd June 2017

Press Notice Expires

28th June 2017

Consultee

Comment

Leek Town Council

Recommend refusal due to the visual intrusion on St Edwards churchyard.

Ecology Officer

No objections subject to conditions and informatives.

The garage buildings have very low potential to provide roost sites for bats. However the ecologist recommends the adoption of reasonable avoidance measures, these can be conditioned.

The survey identifies that two of the trees have moderate potential to provide habitat for bats and in the event that work needs to be undertaken to these trees such as pruning, further assessment for bats should first be undertaken to determine appropriate safeguards.

The garages and the ivy covered wall present probable/inevitable bird nesting sites and an informative should be added to inform the developer that all wind birds including their nests and eggs are protected by law.

It is judged unlikely that Bats will utilise this building as a place of rest or shelter. However bats are protected by law and in the event that bats or bat droppings are encountered during the development work, all operations should be immediately ceased and advice obtained from an ecologically qualified bat specialist.

Informative should be added in respect of protecting all wild birds, including their nests and eggs.

Conservation Officer

The reversing of the building results in a more legible layout and a reduced amount of hardstanding. It also offers the potential to retain and enhance planting on the site frontage to maintain the green approach to the park. The treatment of retaining walls, boundaries and landscaping will be crucial, especially securing a high quality stone retaining wall below The Foxlowe. A staggering of the wall might assist in reducing the visible impact of the wall and allow some planting to soften its appearance. Fencing/planting at the top of the bank will be important to filter views of the development from above and needs to be conditioned. The cemetery wall will be more exposed as a result of the development and a repair schedule should be sought (if this is possible). The rear garden under the trees should remain undivided but some division between the patios would be supported. If minded to approve conditions should include facing materials, low profile roof lights, brick detailing, joinery details, retaining wall details and landscaping. Remove Permitted Development Rights for external alterations to the building to retain the uniformity of the dwellings and resist rear dormer windows.

Conservation Liaison Panel

No objections in principle. Suggested that the building could be set further towards the bankside so that the impact on the trees could be lessened. Tight control required on materials, design details and roadside boundary. Officer note: These comments were provided in respect of the scheme deferred by Members at the 6th April 2017 Committee meeting. Whilst the materials, design details and roadside boundary matters could be conditioned it is noted that the building has not been moved closer to the bankside, rather it has been moved closer to the trees in order to relocate the parking to the south east of the site.

Environmental Health Officer

No objections subject to conditions. Conditions recommended relating to construction and demolition works, contamination, importing soil/materials to construction site, waste and sound insulation.

Trees and Woodlands Officer

Overall objection to the application. No objection to the current amendment to relocate parking bays to the south-east corner. In fact this is an improvement to the overall scheme, as it now avoids car parking provision being located under the crowns (and within Root Protection Areas (RPAs)) of the large mature trees along the NW boundary with Brough Park – which would also have given rise to more obvious visual impact of parked vehicles affecting views from within the park. The indicated extent of the crown spread of trees T1, T2 and T3 (or T3, T4 and T5 respectively as listed in the TPO) on the site is still under-represented, these crowns extend very slightly south of the southern elevation of the middle row of garages and would therefore overhang the front elevation and roofslope of Plots 4, 3 and 2. In addition, the block of proposed bungalows has been rotated to accommodate the relocated parking bays and vehicle access now to the rear (south) bringing the front elevation of Plots 2 and 3 significantly closer to, if not quite beneath, the crown spreads of T4 and T5 (as denoted in the application tree survey and site plan). Furthermore, the internal layout of the bungalows has been amended and effectively turned back to front; this brings the main living accommodation (comprising open plan kitchen/living/dining room) to the front (north) of each plot, giving a north-westerly outlook towards Brough Park but immediately at/beneath the crowns of these 5 very large trees. These factors would combine to produce a very heavily shaded and restricted outlook in which the trees would be significantly dominant and over-bearing, creating a poor quality living environment which would inevitably lead to strong and recurring pressure for felling and/or substantial reduction of trees. Notwithstanding the protection of the TPO, such pressure would be difficult to resist having granted planning permission for the development in the knowledge that such problems would arise. The proposed dwelling footprints remain either outside the RPA of the 5 large trees, or else within the footprint of the existing garages where within these RPAs. Therefore, subject to any currently unknown additional associated features such as drainage and underground services, the dwellings themselves would have no significant direct impact

on these major 5 trees. The application indicates the proposed removal of the mature Sycamore T13, adjacent to the eastern end of the middle row of garages. This tree has a potentially weak fork and is partly screened from public view by adjacent mature Hollies (which in the case of T11 and T12 are indicated to be retained. It is considered that the loss of T13 could on balance be acceptable in itself in order to achieve an appropriate redevelopment of this problem site – however, for significant reasons of concern/objection set out above I do not consider that this application would lead to such an appropriate and acceptable redevelopment. The revised layout now proposes the main vehicular site access based largely on the existing access into the main garage yard area. On this basis, such a development access would be less potentially damaging to the adjacent Hollies T11 and T12, indicated for retention, than the previously proposed new access point to the immediate north of these trees. In conclusion, whilst the latest revised scheme includes some improvements, on balance it does not address or resolve, and arguably exacerbates, the main concerns regarding unacceptable relationship with significant trees which would be dominant and overbearing and lead to a poor living environment with on-going pressure for tree removal and reduction, and I therefore maintain my objection to this application on these grounds.

Staffordshire County Council Public Rights of Way

The application documents don't recognise the existence of Public Footpath No's 12, 13 and 14 Leek Town which run in very close vicinity to the proposed development site. From the plans submitted it is not clear whether this will be affected by the scheme or by any associated landscaping works. The attention of the developer should be drawn to the existence of the paths and to the requirement that any planning permission given does not construe the right to divert, extinguish or obstruct any part of the public path network.

Staffordshire County Council Archaeology

The Staffordshire Historic Environment Record does not record the presence of designated or undesignated heritage assets within the area of the scheme. However, the Leek Extensive Urban Survey (EUS) (available at www.staffordhsire.gov.uk/ search under EUS) does record that the site lies within Historic Urban Character Area (HUCA) 1: Historic Core. This area is considered in the EUS

to have high evidential (archaeological), historical, aesthetic and communal value. It lies within the core of the medieval planned town which was laid out by the Earl of Chester in the 13th century and close to the Grade I Listed Church of St. Edwards. Two Scheduled early medieval crosses sit within the churchyard of St. Edwards and while it is difficult to say whether they originated at Leek or were moved here from elsewhere, the EUS does raise the potential for early medieval activity within the northern portion of the town. As such there is considerable potential for the medieval, post medieval and possibly even early medieval archaeological remains within the area of the current scheme. it is advised that a staged archaeological evaluation be undertaken. The results of this work will inform the need for and scope of any further archaeological mitigation (such as a watching brief or excavation). This approach is supported by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) para 128 states that ‘…local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation’ in order to inform our understanding of significance. All phases of work should be undertaken by a suitably experienced archaeological organisation working to the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Code of Conduct and their standards and guidance for ‘Archaeological Evaluations’ (2014). This work should also make contingencies for the sampling and processing of palaeoenvironmental remains (and the use of appropriate dating techniques) should suitable deposits be identified during groundworks. This work would most appropriately be secured via a condition. Bearing in mind the proximity of the development to the eastern-most Scheduled cross within the churchyard works liable to impact upon the setting of a scheduled heritage asset may require Scheduled Monument Consent; the Secretary of state is advised in such matters by Historic England. It is therefore advised that the applicant may wish to discuss the scheme with the Inspector of Ancient Monument for Staffordshire in the first instance to obtain a view on the scheme.

Severn Trent Water

No objections to the application subject to a prior commencement condition requiring drainage plans to be submitted.

County Highways Officer

No objections on highways grounds however the officer comments that;

It may be appropriate to include a wheel wash

condition to prevent mud being deposited onto the public car park and the cobbles leading to Brough Park.

Signage may be appropriate to make it clear the the parking bays for this development do not form part of the public car park.

Spaces should be allocated to the dwellings.

Planning Policy Officer

Presumption in favour of development as per Core Strategy Policy SS5a etc. The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year housing supply. Any ‘harm’ to heritage assets needs to be asserted. If ‘harm’ would be generated, is there sufficient justification for this (see NPPF paras 132-135). Notwithstanding this, given the lack of a 5 year housing supply, you should approve the scheme unless you are minded that all adverse impacts (against all NPPF policies) of the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the scheme benefits.

7. POLICY CONTEXT 7.1 The Local Planning Authority is required to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which indicate otherwise and in determining these applications, it shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, in so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations. 7.2 Core Strategy Policy SS1a establishes a 'Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development' as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) where: (1) planning applications that accord with policies within the Core Strategy will be approved without delay and (2) where there are no relevant policies or they are out of date, the Council will grant planning permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise considering:

I. Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, or,

II. Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

7.3 Paragraph 47 requires the Council to identify a five-year supply of deliverable housing land sites, including a 5% buffer to allow for choice and competition in the market for land, increased to a 20% buffer where there is a persistent under-delivery in past years. It remains the case that the Council can only demonstrate a 1.87 year deliverable supply of housing (calculated March 2016) against its five year target, as is required by the NPPF.

Paragraph 49 requires all housing applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. . 8. OFFICER COMMENT Main Issues 8.1 The key issues for consideration in the assessment of this application are the principle of development, whether the application site is in a sustainable location for the proposed development with particular regard to the proximity of services and facilities, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the wider surrounding area (including the Conservation Area of which the site forms a part), potential impact on the adjacent Listed building and its setting, impact upon residential amenity and on the living conditions of future occupants of the proposed dwellings, highway safety and biodiversity of the area. Principle of Development 8.2 For the purposes of planning policy consideration, the application site constitutes a brownfield site which lies within the Leek Town Development boundary where there is a general presumption in favour of development. The site is within a highly sustainable location, in close proximity to the town centre with a wide range of facilities and services. The scheme would make a small, but valuable contribution to housing delivery within the Staffordshire Moorlands. It is considered that the proposal would contribute to enhancing the economy by the creation of jobs associated with the construction phase and it is highly likely that any future residents would contribute to/support the existing local services and businesses within Leek and the surrounding area. The application is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle subject to compliance with all other relevant development plan policies and material planning considerations. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 8.3 Core Strategy policy SS1 ‘Development Principles’ states that the Council will expect the development and use of land to contribute positively to the social, economic and environmental improvements of the Staffordshire Moorlands and ‘development should be undertaken in such a way that protects and enhances the natural and historic environment of the District and its surroundings both now and for future generations …’ 8.4 Core Strategy policy H1 ‘New Housing Development’ states that ‘all development will be assessed according to the extent to which it provides for high quality, sustainable housing … and the strategy for the area having regard to the location of the development, the characteristics of the site … All

housing should be the most appropriate density compatible with the site and its location, with the character of the surrounding area …’. 8.5 The specific design and conservation policies of the Core Strategy also seek to promote local distinctiveness by means of good design and the conservation, protection and enhancement of historic, environmental and cultural assets along with the District’s landscape and the setting of its settlements. Policy DC1 sets out design criteria relating to new development to reinforce local distinctiveness and positively contribute to the area. Policy DC2 states that the Council will restrict development which would harm, or be detrimental to, the special character and historic heritage of the District’s towns and villages and those interests of acknowledged importance. 8.6 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF advises that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Paragraphs 63 and 64 go on to comment that in determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help to raise the standard of design more generally within the area. Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area. 8.7 Whilst the removal of the existing dilapidated garage buildings is welcomed it must be acknowledged that the application site is significantly constrained both physically in terms of its topography and presence of protected trees and also in terms of its neighbouring land uses with The Foxlowe and its associated curtilage, the cemetery to the side, Brough Park to the north and the adjacent public footpaths. Any development will therefore need to carefully consider these constraints and respond to them positively. 8.8 The application proposes 4 dwellings (bungalows) within a terrace arrangement; the ridge line orientated to run in a south-west to north-east direction. The application has been amended to rotate the terraced block so that its frontage is now directed towards the south east with car parking located to the front. The change to the orientation of the building and the relocation of the car parking area has resulted in the footprint of the building being slightly amended in terms of pushing it further towards/closer to the northern boundary underneath the trees, thus having a negative impact upon living conditions of potential future occupants; this is discussed later on in the report. The amended scheme has not been sought by officer’s. 8.9 The sloping nature of the site and the proposed positioning of the bungalows results in a development that is adversely impacted upon by the rising ground/high embankment to the south and the tree canopies to the north. It is considered that the form and scale of the proposed dwellings is inappropriate and fails to respond to the context of the site. Paragraph 8.11 of the 6th April 2017 committee report explained that bungalows were not considered to be the most appropriate type of dwelling for this site. The lower level of the bungalows means that the embankment and retaining wall have an overbearing impact; taller dwellings may address this issue by ‘lifting’ windows higher and therefore being less impacted upon by the higher

embankment land, however larger buildings on this site may raise other objections such as design and visual impact. 8.10 Members have previously been advised that discussions with the applicant and his agent had taken place prior to the application being brought to April’s committee meeting, however the applicant has a very clear view of the type of dwellings that he wishes to provide on the site and the market that they would appeal to. 8.11 Members may recall that a number of planning applications seeking permission for the residential redevelopment of this site have been submitted over a number of years, ranging from flats to terraced development. The most recent being under application number 08/00892/FUL for the demolition of the existing garages and erection of a terrace of 6 dwellings with associated gardens, this application was refused on 23rd September 2008. Whilst a subsequent appeal was dismissed the Appeal Inspector agreed that a short staggered terrace of houses would be appropriate to the context of the site including its relationship with the listed building. Whilst the Local Planning Authority maintain this view it should be noted that the site area for that development was substantially deeper allowing the development to be pushed back off the root protection areas of the boundary trees, allowing a larger area for potential amenity space. 8.12 The detailed elevational design of the dwellings is considered to be acceptable. It incorporates traditional detailing and the use of natural materials will ensure that a good quality development (design of the terrace in its own right). However, notwithstanding this point it is considered that, for the reasons outlined above that the proposal would fail to add to the overall quality of this particular area; respond to local character; or reflect the identity of local surroundings. Whilst the design of the terrace may be acceptable in its own right and may be suitable elsewhere, it is not suitable for this particular site. In this respect it is considered that the proposal conflicts with policy SS1, SS5a, H1, DC1 and DC2 of the adopted Core Strategy Document and national guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. Impact on Setting of Conservation Area and adjacent Listed Building 8.13 Policy DC2 of the Core Strategy ‘Historic Environment’ states: ‘The Council will safeguard and, where possible, enhance the historic environment, areas of historic landscape character and interests of acknowledged importance, including in particular scheduled ancient monuments, significant buildings (both statutory listed and on a local register), the settings of designated assets, conservation areas, registered historic parks and gardens, registered battlefields and archaeological remains by: 1. Resisting development which would harm or be detrimental to the special character and historic heritage of the District’s towns and villages and those interests of acknowledged importance, 2. Promoting development which sustains, respects or enhances buildings and features which contribute to the character or heritage of an area and those interests of acknowledged importance

through the use of conservation area appraisals, design statements, archaeological assessments, characterisation studies and Masterplanning’ 8.14 Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ is also highly relevant to the assessment of the scheme in view of its relationship to the setting of the key heritage assets of the Leek Conservation Area and its impact on the adjacent Grade II Listed Building, The Foxlowe. Regard should be had to paragraph 132 of the NPPF which states that ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation’. Special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Paragraph 134 (NPPF) states that ‘where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’. Paragraph 135 (NPPF) states that ‘The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset’. Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new development … within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably’. (Paragraph 137, NPPF). 8.15 The Council’s Conservation Officer raised no objections to the original scheme and raises no objections this time round to the amended plans. The officer comments that ‘The reversing of the building results in a more legible layout and a reduced amount of hardstanding. It also offers the potential to retain and enhance planting on the site frontage to maintain the green approach to the park’. The eastern boundary to the site (adjacent to the car park) is made up of retaining walls, has verges (partially overgrown and deep in places), raised kerb lines, a series of concrete bollards and a line of trees leading downwards towards Brough Park. More often than not cars are parked at the side of the road, within the application site access or between bollards (where space allows). The rotating of the building has allowed for the extent of proposed hardstanding to be reduced in size and the area available for planting/landscaping to be increased. The Conservation officer comments that the treatment of all retaining walls, boundaries and landscaping would be crucial, especially securing a high quality stone retaining wall below the Foxlowe. The Conservation officer notes that the cemetery wall would be more exposed as a result of the development and a repair schedule should be sought. The officer comments that the garden under the trees should remain undivided but that there is some scope for allowing a division between the patio areas (details to be secured by condition) to allow for some privacy between the dwellings. All building materials could be conditioned and

Permitted Development Rights could be removed to prevent any unacceptable alterations/extensions to the dwellings. 8.16 The application site is in close proximity to The Foxlowe (Grade II Listed) and means that its presence must be considered when determining this planning application. The submitted cross section shows that the ridge line of the amended scheme would be similar in height to the top of the embankment to the south meaning that it would be unlikely that the development would have any adverse visual impact upon The Foxlowe setting. 8.17 Whilst the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record does not record any designated or undesignated heritage assets within the application site, the Leek Extensive Urban Survey (EUS) does show that the site lies within an Historic Urban Character Area. The application site lies within the medieval planned town and in close proximity to the church yard of St Edwards Church (Grade I Listed). There is potential for early medieval activity in the northern part of the town and for medieval archaeological remains within the application site. If Members were minded to approve the application then a suitably worded condition could be added to secure a staged archaeological evaluation/archaeological investigation. It is considered therefore that, subject to the condition, the application would raise no objections in terms of potential impacts upon archaeological remains. Impact upon Residential Amenity 8.18 The National Planning Policy Framework (Chapter 7) emphasises that good design is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. The NPPF also states that developments should function well and add to the overall quality of the area. Core Strategy policy DC1 requires that all development proposals should ‘protect the amenity of the area, including residential amenity, in terms of satisfactory daylight, sunlight, outlook, privacy and soft landscaping.’ The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Space About Dwellings’ details standards that should be considered and met to ensure privacy for existing and proposed residents. 8.19 The amendment to the layout of the application site now sees the bungalows facing towards the south east. Within the property frontages are windows serving bedrooms (principal) and bathrooms. To the rear (facing towards Brough Park) are principal windows serving the open plan kitchen and living room areas. The presence of significant trees on the north, west and eastern boundaries lead to significant shading of the plot and a clear sense of enclosure. The amendments to the scheme have seen the footprint of the terrace being pushed closer to the north of the site and closer to the substantially sized trees, therefore worsening the adverse amenity impact in terms over shading and overbearing presence of the trees. The rotating of the building now means that the principal windows serving the kitchen and living room areas would be significantly and harmfully impacted upon to the detriment of residential amenity. Whether inside of the dwellings or within the garden areas there will be substantial overshading and at all times the trees

will be imposing and overly dominant. It is noted that the indicated extent of the crown spread of trees T1, T2 and T3 (or T3, T4 and T5 respectively as listed in the TPO) on the site is still under-represented and would directly overhang the bungalows. 8.20 The cumulative effect of the tree locations, size of their crowns and the positioning of the terraced block would result in a very heavily shaded and restricted outlook in which the trees would be significantly dominant and over-bearing, creating a poor quality living environment. This would inevitably lead to strong and recurring pressure for felling and/or substantial reduction of trees. Members are advised that notwithstanding the protection of the Tree Preservation Order, such pressure would be very difficult to resist having granted planning permission for the development in the knowledge that such problems would arise. 8.21 As with the previous scheme, the embankment to the south would also impact upon the living conditions of potential future residents. Whilst the building has been moved further to the north of the site to increase the separation distance between the embankment and the terraced wall to the south (thus making the amenity relationship with the protected trees much worse), it still causes concern in how its relationship with the dwellings would impact upon residential amenity. The embankment would sit behind a retaining wall which, as illustrated by the cross section plan, shows the wall as being higher than the eaves of the terrace. The bungalows would be located at an angle to the retaining wall and the separation distance ranges between 3.5m at the western end of the terrace to approximately 11m at the eastern end. Plot 4 would therefore have a principal bedroom window positioned at only 3.5m away from a high level retaining wall higher than eaves level together with a steeply sloping embankment behind. This relationship is unacceptable, particularly the harm it would have upon a principal room and the small area of amenity space at the front. It is noted that the Space About Dwellings Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) states that the distance required between a principal window and any site boundary or any solid obstruction higher than the top of the window, is at least 6m. Clearly this standard cannot be met along the whole length of the building but it is noted that simply meeting this standard does not make the development acceptable. The SPG states that the standards are minima to be applied on flat sites, but on sloping sites or sites with other unusual characteristics, a greater distance may be required. It is considered that this plot has unusual characteristics, the constraints relating to the land means that if the properties are pushed further to the north, the tree overbearing relationship becomes worse and if the properties are moved to the south the impact from the high embankment becomes worse. 8.22 For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the application is unacceptable in terms of amenity impact upon any future resident, conflicting with the planning policies in place to clearly control and ensure acceptable amenity standards.

Highway Safety 8.23 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states: ‘Plans and decisions should take account of whether: the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.’ The NPPF requirements are replicated within the Core Strategy via policy T1 which advocates sustainable travel modes and secures new development within locations where the traffic levels can easily be accommodated by the surrounding highway network. 8.24 The application site is located within a highly sustainable area. Public car parks are very close by and any future occupants of the dwellings would be able to easily access public transport and/or walk to a range of social and commercial facilities. The access to the site is via the road leading to the Moorlands House rear car park. No alterations are proposed to the Stockwell Street access and it is noted that the County Highways officer raises no objection to the development. Parking and turning space would be provided within the site and it is borne in mind that, although not currently used as such, the site is occupied by garages and has the potential to generate more vehicle comings and goings than that which is likely should this development be allowed. 8.25 It is noted that the application documents do not recognise the existence of Public Footpath numbers 12, 13 and 14 Leek Town which run in very close vicinity to the proposed development site. The developer’s attention should be drawn to the existence of the paths and to the fact that in the event any planning permission is approved, it does not give automatic right to divert, extinguish/close or obstruct any part of the public path network. If the paths do need diverting as part of these proposals the developer would need to apply to the Council under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 before development commences. 8.26 For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the application is acceptable in terms of impact upon highways but if Members were minded to approve the application then the developer must be made aware of potential public footpath issues. Biodiversity 8.27 Planning policies require the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. Trees within the site are protected, either by means of designated Tree Preservation Orders and by virtue of the site being located within a Conservation Area. The proposal to relocate the parking area towards the south of the site is welcomed by the Trees and Woodlands officer as it

now avoids car parking provision (hardstanding) under the crowns and root protection areas of the large mature trees along the north western boundary. The locating of the parking area near to the southern boundary would require the removal of a semi-mature Sycamore (T14 in the applicant’s tree survey and site layout plans), however this is of very little amenity value or significance and there are no objections to its loss. The footprint of the terrace would now sit outside of the root protection areas of the 5 large trees on the north western boundary, therefore subject to any currently unknown additional associated features such as drainage and underground services, the dwellings themselves would have no significant direct impact on these major 5 trees. The revised layout now proposes the main vehicular site access based largely on the existing access into the main garage yard area. On this basis, such a development access would be less potentially damaging to the adjacent Hollies T11 and T12, indicated for retention, than the previously proposed new access point to the immediate north of these trees. 8.28 Notwithstanding the above, the Council's Trees and Woodlands Officer still maintains an objection to the application in terms of the adverse amenity impact that would result due to the presence of the mature trees. Should planning permission be approved it is extremely likely that ongoing pressure for the felling or substantial reduction in height and/or crown spread of the trees would occur, a pressure that would be very hard to dismiss if planning permission was granted in the full knowledge that such a situation could arise. In this respect it is considered that the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the protected trees and therefore the proposal fails to accord with Core Strategy Policies DC1 and NE1 and the National Planning Policy Framework in this regard. 8.29 A preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been submitted alongside the application. The Council’s Ecology officer has been consulted and considers that the garage buildings have very low potential to provide roost sites for bats however a condition is recommended in that precautionary working methods should be followed and applied during the course of the development (if permission is granted). In addition, the survey identifies that two of the trees have moderate potential to provide habitat for bats and in the event that work needs to be undertaken to these trees such as pruning, further assessment for bats should first be undertaken to determine appropriate safeguards. The applicant/developer should also be made aware of the likely bird nesting sites (garages and ivy covered wall) and remind them that in addition to bats, all wild birds including their nests and eggs are protected by law. For these reasons it is considered (subject to conditions/informatives) that the development would be acceptable in terms of impact upon bats/birds. Section 106 Matters 8.30 The scheme for 4 dwellings does not trigger the requirement for any S106 contributions.

9. CONCLUSION AND PLANNING BALANCE 9.1 Planning policies set out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development i.e. economic, social and environmental which should not be undertaken in isolation. Although the removal of the existing dilapidated lock up garages would result in a positive enhancement to the character and appearance of the area (and would be welcomed) it is not considered that the proposal as submitted responds positively to the context of the area including impact upon residential amenity. Accordingly, the proposal would not represent sustainable development as required by the Framework. Notwithstanding, the lack of a five year supply of housing in the District it is considered that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole.

10. RECOMMENDATION

A. Planning Permission be refused for the following reason(s);

1. The proposed development due to its scale and layout would result in an unacceptable form of development which fails to add to the overall quality of the area, respond to local character or adequately address the constraints of the site. In this respect the application is contrary to Core Strategy policies SS1, SS1a, H1, DC1 and DC2 and the National Planning Policy Framework including chapters 7 and 12.

2. The proposed development due to its design and layout, within close proximity to the existing southern boundary, in particular the embankment and retaining walls, would have a significant detrimental and harmful impact upon the residential amenity of potential future occupants by virtue of providing a poor quality outlook, being overbearing, causing overshadowing and overall oppressive feature. The application is considered to be contrary to Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Space About Dwellings’, policy DC1 of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework including chapters 6 and 7.

3. The combination of the tree locations, size of their crowns and the

positioning of the dwellings would result in a very heavily shaded and restricted outlook in which the protected trees would be significantly dominant and over-bearing. The impact of the trees would create a poor quality living environment for potential future occupants both internally and externally where the trees would overhang the dwellings and garden areas and which would highly likely cause ongoing pressure for the felling, substantial reduction in height and/or reduction in crown spread to the detriment of the trees. In this respect the application is contrary to Core Strategy policies DC1 and NE1 and the National Planning Policy Framework including chapters 7 and 11.

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) has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.