Case Officer: Sarah Kay File No: CHE/16/00175/FUL Tel. No: (01246) 345786 Plot No: 2/2404 Date: 16th May 2016

ITEM 4

DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNIT FOR CLASS B8 PURPOSES WITH ANCILLARY OFFICE SPACE, GATEHOUSE PLUS CAR PARKING LORRY PARKING, SERVICE YARD & SPRINKLER TANKS WITH ASSOC. SITE ACCESS, DRAINAGE, SITE LEVELLING, ENGINEERING AND LANDSCAPING WORKS AT PLOT 13 MARKHAM VALE, CHESTERFIELD, DERBYSHIRE FOR HENRY BOOT DEVELOPMENTS LTD Local Plan: Unallocated Ward: Lowgates & Woodthorpe 1.0 CONSULTATIONS

DCC Highways Comments received 20/04/2016 – see report

Lead Local Flood Authority Comments received 14/04/2016 and

29/04/2016 – see report Derbyshire Wildlife Trust No comments received Environment Agency No comments received Historic England No comments received Yorkshire Water Services Comments received 13/04/2016 –

see report Design Services Comments received 08/04/2016 –

see report

DCC Archaeology Comments received 12/04/2016 – see report

Environmental Services Comments received 14/04/2016 and

03/05/2016 – see report Coal Authority No comments received

Economic Dev. Unit Comments received 15/04/2016 –

see report Highways England Comments received 11/04/2016 –

see report Bolsover District Council Comments received 18/04/2016 –

see report

Ward Members No comments received Staveley Town Council No comments received Neighbours/Site Notice One letter of representation received

2.0 THE SITE 2.1 The site the subject of the application lies within the development

platform of Plot 13 (as varied and approved by app. CHE/15/00291/REM1), which forms part of the wider Markham Vale Regeneration Area known previously as MEGZ. The site is approximately 9.02 hectares in area and is the north western plot of the Seymour Junction development phase (Phase Vb), which lies south of Woodthorpe village and north of the M1.

3.0 RELEVANT / ASSOCIATED SITE HISTORY

3.1 CHE/0502/0312 - Commercial (not major retail), office, industrial

and warehouse development; new and altered road (including a new motorway junction); land reclamation, ground re-modelling, drainage, landscaping and re-use of railheads on 360 hectares of land in Bolsover, Staveley, Sutton-cum-Duckmanton on both side of the M1 in the vicinity of the former Markham Colliery, A632 (Chesterfield Road), Erin Road, Lowgates, Eckington Road, Hall Lane and the A619 south of Staveley at land off Chesterfield Road, Erin Road, Lowgates and Eckington Road. Approved 16/05/2005.

3.1.1 CHE/09/00778/REM1 – Variation of Condition 21 of Planning Permission CHE/0502/0312 (MEGZ). Approved 23/04/2010.

3.1.2 CHE/13/00014/REM1 – Variation of conditions 7, 11, 20, 21, 47, 49 and 50 of CHE/0502/0312 (Markham Vale). Approved 24/09/2013.

3.2 CHE/13/00781/EOT – Extension of time to CHE/0502/0312.

Approved on 12/05/2014

3.2.1 CHE/15/00291/REM1 - Variation of conditions 6, 7, 9, 13, 18, 20, 21, 31, 32, 34, 37 and 39 of CHE/13/00781/EOT. Approved 17/11/2015.

3.3 CHE/15/00283/FUL - Development of 43,200 square metre

industrial unit for B8 purposes with 1,264 square metres of office space, a 73 square metre gatehouse plus car parking, a service yard and lorry parking, site access, drainage and landscaping at Plot 1 south. Approved 04/09/2015.

3.4 CHE/15/00645/FUL - Erection of a warehouse and distribution unit

(class B8), associated office accommodation, cycle shelter, smoking shelter, pump house and gatehouse with associated site levelling, parking and landscaping revised plans received on 25/11/2015 and 26/11/2015 on Plot 14. Approved 08/12/2015.

4.0 THE PROPOSAL 4.1 This planning application submission is seeking full planning

consent for the ‘development of an industrial unit for Use Class B8 purposes, with ancillary office space, a gatehouse plus car parking; lorry parking, a service yard; and, sprinkler tanks, with associated site access; drainage; site levelling; engineering and landscaping works’ at Plot 13 North, Markham Vale.

4.2 The proposed building size is set out below: Distribution Centre – 43,588sqm Two Storey Office – 1,346sqm Gatehouse – 89sqm Total Development – 45,023sqm 4.3 The proposed site layout is shown on Drawing No. 5998-102C

Proposed Site Plan. The proposed use will be served via an access point on the site’s eastern boundary that will connect to Seymour Link Road. Access into and out of the site for cars and HGVs will be via separate access points, with HGV access being controlled by security personnel stationed in the proposed gatehouse. A further access road is proposed along the northern extent of the site, which will serve the remaining development plot located to the rear of the proposed unit.

4.4 The main warehouse (with ancillary office space) unit is located

along the western boundary of the site with car parking fronting the Seymour Link Road. Pedestrian access from the car park will be into the proposed two storey ancillary offices on the northern elevation of the building.

4.5 The proposed service yard will be in the eastern part of the site,

with 47 no. dock leveller doors and 5 no. level entry doors along the eastern elevation to manage Goods In and Out Lorry parking will also be provided in the Service Area, as will a HGV fuelling area. The car park will provide 261 no. car parking spaces, including 10 no. disabled spaces. The development also includes 98 no. lorry parking spaces. Two sprinkler tanks are proposed to be installed to the rear of the main warehouse unit.

4.6 The internal layout for the building is shown on Drawing Nos 5998-

104A. The office accommodation is proposed over two floors; the ground floor will includes a driver reception, lift, locker area, kitchenette, canteen, male and female W/Cs, disabled W/C, and a main warehouse office; and the first floor will include further office space, meeting rooms, and male and female W/Cs. The proposed office space will have access from, and windows overlooking the eastern elevation of the building, to provide an active frontage overlooking the car parking area.

4.7 The proposals have been submitted as a full planning application, as opposed to an application for reserved matters under the extant outline planning permission, due to the fact the building for which consent is being sought is higher than the AOD building height parameter set out in the approved Markham Vale Design Framework (required by condition of CHE/13/00781/EOT and CHE/0502/0312). Overall, the development height of the plot will be 2.75m higher than that approved in the outline planning permission (by virtue of the Plot level AOD also now being lower as the revised Plot levels were approved in accordance with app. ref CHE/15/00291/REM1). This comparison is set out in the table below:

Plot Level AOD

Building Height in Metres

Overall development Height

Approved Outline Planning Permission CHE/13/00781/EOT – Design Framework

61m 20m 81m AOD

Proposed Development the subject of this application

59m 24.75m 83.75m AOD

4.8 The application submission is accompanied by the following

documentation: Plans and Drawings Design & Access Statement; Planning Statement;

Coal Mining Risk Assessment; Ground Condition Summary Report;

Land Drainage Consent; Ecology Surveys; Flood Risk Assessment;

Heritage Statement (received on 30/03/2016); Transport Statement & Travel Plan; and

Visual Representations 5.0 CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Planning Policy Background & Principle of Development 5.1.1 Since granting outline planning permission in in 2005 and the

adoption of the 2006 Local Plan the land the subject of the MEGZ permission was allocated as a proposed employment development site. Since then the policy framework has seen a number of key changes including publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012 and in July 2013 adoption of the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy. The Markham Vale Design Framework (MVDF) has also now been in place since April 2008 and the site became part of the Sheffield City Region Enterprise Zone in April 2012.

5.1.2 In assessing proposals the subject of this application for full

planning permission regard must be had primarily to policy PS4 of the Core Strategy. Regard must also be had to the objectives of the NPPF to “support sustainable economic growth” (para. 17 & 19) and that plans “should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment, including a poor environment or any lack of infrastructure, services or housing” (para 21). Policies CS1 (Spatial Strategy) and CS13 (Economic Growth) of the Core Strategy also seek to support economic regeneration and facilitate inward investment.

5.1.3 The principles of Policy PS4 are clearly met having regard to the

nature of the development hereby proposed, which assists to deliver the principal objectives of Markham Vale. The development will create jobs, support regeneration and in all but one aspect adhere to the guidelines of the MVDF. Furthermore in regard to Policy CS13 the development is located in area purposely regenerated for new employment development, will deliver inward investment and in respect of largescale B8 uses comply with

criteria d) of the policy. The principle of development is considered to accord with the provisions of policies CS13 and PS4 of the Core Strategy.

5.1.4 Having regard to the detailed material issues set out in turn below

Policies CS7, CS9, CS18 and CS20 of the Core Strategy are also considered to apply.

5.2 Neighbour Effect 5.2.1 The principle of a certain development scale and its relationship

with the surrounding neighbouring business units and wider neighbouring properties is established by the parameters set under the approved outline planning permission and the Markham Vale Design Framework (MVDF). Furthermore changes to the plot levels have also already been approved under app. ref CHE/15/00291/REM1 which are reflected in the design of this particular scheme.

5.2.2 As can be seen from the comparative table in para 4.7 above, the

height of the building proposed is 24.75m – which exceeds the 20.0m height parameter set in the MVDF by 4.75m. Notwithstanding this when taking into account the overall plot level changes which have been consented the building will actually stand 2.75m higher than a MVDF compliant building, had the plots levels not been changed.

5.2.3 Whilst it is accepted that the development will stand higher than a

scheme that could have been submitted as a reserved matters submission fully compliant with the MVDF, overall what has to be considered is whether or not the 2.75m extra height building would impose a unacceptable impact visually upon existing and proposed neighbours and business units in the wider area of Markham Vale.

5.2.4 The application submission is accompanied by a cross sectional

detailed drawing which illustrates the relationship of the proposed development (in particular the proposed building height), the platform levels as reduced by the approved S73 application and the nearest neighbouring dwellings on the edge of Woodthorpe village (Drawing No. 5998-109 A). This drawing clearly illustrates the visual relationship of the development and these nearest neighbouring properties (which are located at least 250m from the closest neighbouring property on Seymour Lane and 440m from

the closest neighbouring property on Bridle Road). Notwithstanding the relative separation distance however this cross section drawing does quite clearly demonstrate the importance and function of the bund which now runs alongside the northern edge of Plot 13 and the importance / function of any strategic off plot soft landscaping which will need to take place along this bund to achieve the function of the screening as illustrated in these cross sectional drawings. It was always the intention to provide a landscaped bund along this boundary / northern edge (the amendments to which were dealt with alongside the S73 application in 2015) and the Council is separately in discussion with Derbyshire County Council on the provision of this detail in association with condition 27 of the outline planning permission. The details of this landscaping should have been submitted within 12 months of works commencing on Phase Vb; subsequently the LPA has already chased the submission of these details several times given the clear breach in condition. This will continue to be pursued as a separate matter with the County however it can be assumed for the purpose of this application that the landscaping will be secured.

5.2.5 Clearly in the short-term the visual impact of the development upon

the closest neighbouring properties will be more significant as this bund has been remodelled and as a result is no longer landscaped and this places a greater emphasis upon the need to secure an appropriate and enhanced off plot soft landscaping scheme alongside the development of Phase Vb overall (see above).

5.2.6 It is however considered that subject to this landscaping being

secured the overall visual impact of the development being 2.75m higher behind what is actually a more substantial bund would not be significantly different to a fully compliant MVDF scheme and therefore the change would not warrant refusal of planning permission; particularly when the Council has already approved instances of development on Plot 14 and Plot 1 South of Markham Vale which were also both in excess of the MVDF parameters set.

5.3 Design / Appearance Issues (inc. Heritage) 5.3.1 When outline planning permission was granted for the wider

Markham Vale site the Markham Vale Design Framework (MVDF) was produced to guide and inform the design / appearance of any subsequent applications for reserved matters in the interests of

delivering piecemeal developments which responded to a comprehensive and consistent design approach site wide. Members will note from the developments which have already taken place on plots 1, 2, 5 and 6 (in NEDDC area) that the industrial units reflect a degree consistency in their appearance, scale, finish and layout which demonstrate the success of the MVDF.

5.3.2 As explained in para. 4.7 above the development the subject of

this application could not be submitted as a reserved matters application under the established parameters of the extant outline planning permission and the MVDF due to the fact the building proposed will stand 2.75m higher that the building height restrictions set in the MVDF.

5.3.3 A key purpose of setting height parameters in the MVDF was to

manage the overall height of the development taking place within Markham Vale due to the fact the site lies within the wider landscape setting of Sutton Scarsdale Hall and Bolsover Castle which are both Grade I Listed Buildings. In addition development was also proposed to be introduced to the south of Woodthorpe village and MVDF sought to steer these parameters to also limit the visual impact of the development upon these closest bordering residential properties. Height parameters were seen as a way of mitigating the visual impact upon the setting of these wider heritage assets and the village and was further assisted by identification of each development plots high, medium and low sensitivity relative to Bolsover Castle and Sutton Scarsdale Hall and the adoption of a palette of materials / colours which would further tone down the visual impact of the developments in the wider landscape.

5.3.4 Plot 13 lies within an area identified as medium sensitivity having

regard to the relationship with the wider setting of Bolsover Castle and Sutton Scarsdale Hall and the MVDF sets an on plot design strategy for Plot 13 on pages 143 – 152 which considers its visual and landscape context; identifies surrounding constraints and suggests an on plot design strategy and indicative solution.

5.3.5 It was originally identified in the MVDF page 144 that development

on Plot 13 would be visible from 2 of the 7 surrounding listed buildings (Church of St Peters and Sutton Scarsdale Hall) and 3 of the 8 primary viewpoints in the surrounding landscape. On the

basis of this visual context the application submission is accompanied by Accurate Visual Representations which have been prepared from viewpoints 3 and 4 identified in the MVDF and these show the visual impact of the development proposed. The visuals illustrate that the whilst no doubt visible the development will be screened by pockets of mature landscaping that already exist and on the basis it is known these areas of landscaping will be enhanced as off plot strategic landscaping is implemented and matures it is not considered that the greater visual impact of 2.75m higher building will be severely harmful. A view point from Sutton Scarsdale Hall was not prepared; as this exercise had been undertaken previously for development which was consented on Plot 1 South and Plot 14 adjacent and given the relative separation distance to this asset the comparative differences between a MVDF and the buildings as were proposed was undistinguishable.

5.3.6 Historic England was invited to comment on the application

proposals on Plot 13 having regard to the specific issues of heritage asset setting; but no comments have been received. Notwithstanding this given the comments which have been made by Historic England on previous none MVDF complaint schemes (such as Plot 1 South) it is likely that Historic England would maintain their previous views that they are unconvinced the harm to the setting of Bolsover Castle and Sutton Scarsdale Hall as a result of development at Markham Vale is justified.

5.3.7 Having regard to para. 132 and 134 of the NPPF however the

Local Planning Authority as decision maker are required to balance the harm against any public benefits associated with the proposed development and in this respect having regard to the fall-back position which exists to permit a building up to 20m in height on Plot 13 as a reserved matters submission it is considered that the visual significance of a building 2.75m higher is not on balance substantially harmful to the setting of Sutton Scarsdale Hall or the nearer Church of St Peters. The visual imagery previously produced by the applicant had clearly demonstrated that by virtue of their separation and intervening landscape form the greater degree of visibility formed by the higher building has no more than a negligible visual impact upon the setting of surrounding heritage assets. Having regard to the balance of other material considerations it is considered that the benefits of the development proposals overweigh the harm such that the design of the building

and impacts resultant impact upon the setting of nearby heritage assets is acceptable.

Archaeology

5.3.8 The Derby and Derbyshire Development Control

Archaeologist has reviewed the application submission and has confirmed that, ‘the proposal site has been considered as part of the archaeological mitigation strategy for the MEGZ development as a whole, and has been identified as zero potential because of the former colliery and opencast uses. I therefore recommend that there is no need to place an archaeological requirement upon the applicant. I note that because of the increased height of the proposed unit there may be visual (setting) impacts to designated heritage assets. Because of the high level of some of these designations (such as Bolsover Castle) I advise that Historic England should also be consulted on the application.’

5.3.9 As a result of the comments received above it is noted that the

development does not pose any threat to below ground archaeology.

5.3.10 Looking in turn at other elements of the proposed development in

respect of the context of the MVDF it is noted that the building as proposed will be orientated on a north – south axis as opposed to the MVDF suggested east – west axis and this is due to the fact that the development plot is potentially affected by the published alignment of the proposed HS2 route. This essentially sterilises half of Plot 13 and this is reflected in the application site boundary. As a result of this constraint (the status of which is unknown and has been indicated by the applicant to deter interest / investment in the remainder of Plot 13) this has also steered the applicant to the layout as proposed and as a result to orientate the loading bays of the development to the east, rather than as suggested to the south in the MVDF. It is considered that this is an acceptable compromise to deliver economic growth in the interests of Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy. Another disparity with the MVDF which occurs as a result of this application submission relates to the materials in which the unit is to be finished. The MVDF steers development on Plot 13 to be finished on its north and western elevation in the Palette 1 of materials which are recessive colours; however the MVDF is now almost 10 years old and the names of

the colours stipulated in this document relate to a specific material specification of cladding and manufacturer which although still available, better performing materials are now available on the market which offer greater guarantee and energy performance which the developer is keen to utilise to offer occupants a higher quality build. In this case the application submission indicates the use of pure grey, albatross and sargasso blues finishes; which are considered to be very similar to the alaska grey and oyster finishes stipulates in Palette 1 of the MVDF (sargasso blue is already named in palette 1). Overall therefore it is accepted that the development finish is acceptable.

5.4 Highways Issues 5.4.1 Both the Local Highways Authority and Highways England

have been consulted on the planning application, with Highways England raising no objections. Detailed comments have been provided by the Local Highways Authority as follows:

‘It’s noted that the site benefits from existing permissions associated with the wider Markham Employment Growth Zone.

The submitted details demonstrate a proposed total development comprising 44,454sq.m. GFA of storage and distribution and 73sq.m. GFA of presumed ancillary office space.

Vehicular access between the existing adopted public highway and the site is to be taken via the Seymour Link road that is currently under construction and will be of suitable layout to serve the proposed development.

The proposed service yard and car park access layouts to the Seymour Link road are considered to be acceptable subject to exit visibility splays of 2.4m x 82m to the nearside carriageway channel in each direction being secured and maintained clear of any obstruction greater than 1.0m in height (600mm in the case of vegetation) relative to the same channel level.

It’s proposed to provide 261no. off-street parking spaces to serve the total development. This is significantly less than would be expected to be required to serve a development of this nature and scale and I trust that you are satisfied that the proposed level of parking, clear of manoeuvring areas, will be sufficient.

Alternatively, the applicant should be requested to submit details to support the proposed off-street parking provision.

The Travel Plan has been passed to this Authority’s Transportation Section for comment and these will be forwarded when received.

Therefore, subject to inclusion of the following Conditions, there are no highway objections to the proposals:-

1. No development shall be commenced until a temporary access

for construction purposes has been provided in accordance with a detailed design first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The access shall be retained in accordance with the approved scheme throughout the construction period, or such other period of time as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, free from any impediment to its designated use.

2. Before any other operations are commenced, excluding Condition 1 above, space shall be provided within the site for storage of plant and materials, site accommodation, loading, unloading and manoeuvring of goods vehicles, parking and manoeuvring of employees and visitors vehicles, laid out and constructed in accordance with detailed designs first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once implemented the facilities shall be retained free from any impediment to their designated use throughout the construction period.

3. Prior to the proposed development being brought into use, new

vehicular accesses to serve both the service yard and car parking area shall be formed to the Seymour Link road in accordance with the approved application drawings, and provided with visibility sightlines extending from a point 2.4 metres from the carriageway edge, measured along the centreline of the access, for a distance of 82 metres in each direction measured along the nearside carriageway edge. The land in advance of the visibility sightlines shall be retained throughout the life of the development free of any object greater than 1m in height (0.6m in the case of vegetation) relative to the adjoining nearside carriageway channel level.

4. There shall be no gates or other barriers within 15m of the nearside highway boundary and any gates shall open inwards only, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

5. No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or use

commenced until the facilities for loading, unloading, circulation and manoeuvring have been completed in accordance with the approved drawings. Thereafter, these areas shall be kept free of obstruction and available for these uses.

6. No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or the

use commenced until the car/vehicle parking area shown on the approved drawings has been completed, surfaced and demarcated, and thereafter, the area shall be kept free of obstruction and available for the parking of vehicles associated with the development.

7. Prior to the commencement of the development details shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the means to prevent the discharge of water from the development onto the Seymour Link road. The approved scheme shall be undertaken and completed prior to the first use of the access and retained as such thereafter.

8. The proposed development shall not be brought into use until

the Seymour Link road has been completed and opened for use by the general public.

9. The Approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance

with the timescales specified therein, to include those parts identified as being implemented prior to occupation and following occupation, unless alternative timescales are agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The Approved Travel Plan shall be monitored and reviewed in accordance with the agreed Travel Plan targets.’

5.4.2 In respect of the above the Transport Statement (prepared by

BWB Consulting) has considered the highways impacts of the development. The quantum of development proposed is consistent with the quantum of floor space approved for Use Class B8 uses in the existing outline planning permission and the development would not have any adverse impacts on junction 29A

of the M1 motorway and will have a beneficial impact on the local highway network surrounding the site when compared to traffic figures that had previously been considered for the MEGZ site.

5.4.3 The levels of parking provision indicated to be provided have been

considered against the Council own adopted Parking Standards set in the Core Strategy as follows: Proposed B8 – 43,588sqm

Proposed Offices 1,346sqm Total B8 43,588sqm with a requirement of 1 space / 180sqm = 242 spaces + Total Office 1,346sqm with a requirement of 1 space / 30sqm = 45 spaces.

5.4.4 The calculation above would indicate that the maximum number of

spaces acceptable for a scheme of this quantum would be 287 spaces, therefore it is accepted that there would be a shortfall based upon the 261 spaces being proposed. Notwithstanding this based upon the fact the standards are set to maximum it would unsustainable to refuse the proposed development on this basis. Particularly as a Travel Plan has been prepared and submitted alongside the application submission to promote sustainable modes of transport. Indiscriminate parking is unlikely to be an issue at this site given its remote location and the fact the Seymour Link Road (once built) will the subject of a TRO to prevent parking off plot.

5.4.5 On the basis of the conclusions reached above there would be no

adverse impact on the highway network as a result of the proposed development and therefore the development is considered to be in accordance with national and local planning policies in respect of highway safety and traffic impact.

5.5 Flood Risk / Drainage 5.5.1 The Council is aware that alongside the original outline planning

permission and the S73 condition amendments to Phase Vb considered under app. ref CHE/15/00291/REM1 the development platforms and many of the off site strategic infrastructure works are well underway / already complete. This includes alterations to the alignment of Hawks Brook (south of Plot 14) already approved by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and a site wide surface water drainage strategy comprising of infrastructure forming

phased balancing ponds with discharge connection to the Doe Lea water body.

5.5.2 In respect specifically to the proposals the subject of Plot 13 the

development proposals will be connected to the site wide infrastructure which has already been designed and implemented to accommodate development on Phase Vb. An on plot drainage strategy plan has been provided which is detailed on drawing no. MVS-BWB-HDG-13-DR-D-500 S1 P3 which details surface water connection to the Phase Vb drainage infrastructure (as approved) and foul connection is detailed into the new foul drainage infrastructure being provided beneath the ‘Seymour Link Road’ being constructed by DCC. The Councils Design Services (DS) team and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have both reviewed the application submission and subject to some details of clarification provided by the applicant dated 28/04/2016 have both confirmed that they have no objections to the application submission in relation to flood risk and surface water drainage.

5.5.3 Yorkshire Water Services (YWS) have also reviewed the

application submission and their comments dated 13/04/2016 indicate that the drainage details submitted are not acceptable to them. YWS would only be concerned with the foul connections of the drainage system, given the wider surface water scheme connects to a private separate system, and therefore their issues relates to the fact there is a fuel point connection to foul water which is not installed with an oil / fuel interceptor. In respect of these concerns an appropriate planning condition can be imposed to address this omission, requiring an amendment to the drainage system details.

5.5.4 Overall, it is considered that given that the scheme demonstrates

connection with the site wide approved drainage strategy it is considered that the development proposals demonstrate suitable (and subject to condition - acceptable) drainage connection such that the requirements of policy CS7 have been met.

5.6 Ecology 5.6.1 As part of the wider extant Markham Vale outline planning

permission annual ecological surveys have been undertaken by the developer for each Phase / Plot of Markham Vale which are subsequently reviewed and agreed by the Local Planning Authority

by way of planning condition. The latest ecological survey concerning Phase Vb of Markham Vale (which includes Plot 13) is submitted to support the application.

5.6.2 On 13/08/2015 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust agreed the scope of the

2014 surveys and therefore it is considered that the surveys appropriately address matters concerning potential ecological interest on site.

5.7 Land Condition / Contamination 5.7.1 In respect of matters relating to land condition and contamination

the application submission is supported by a Ground Conditions Summary Report and Coal Mining Risk Assessment both which have been prepared by BWB. The documents have been forwarded to the Councils Environmental Services and the Coal Authority for comment.

5.7.2 The Councils Environmental Services team responded as

follows:

Lighting Presumably the lorry parking will be in use 24 hours and will require to be flood lit. I cannot see from the planning file any information relating to a lighting plan or a lux contour map. As there are residential properties within the vicinity of the development site; the applicant will need to demonstrate that all lighting on site will not cause a statutory light nuisance off site. Contaminated Land I cannot see from the file any evidence of a desk study and/or site investigation for this site. I recommend that a desk study is carried out and submitted and approved in writing prior to commencement of development. If a site investigation is required, this will also need to be submitted and approved in writing prior to commencement of development. Officer comment - In receiving the comments above it appeared that the EHO had not looked at the complete application submission; as both an external lighting scheme and ground condition summary report accompanied the proposals. On the 28/04/2016 the EHO was provided with copies of this plan and document with a request for further comment.

As a result the EHO commented that the report submitted suggested there was low level gas contamination on site and that suitable gas protection measures will be required to be installed and verified. The EHO has requested therefore that a validation report is provided with photographic evidence and confirmation from the building inspector of these measures being implemented. No further response was received on the external lighting plan.

5.7.3 At the time of preparing the report the Coal Authority had not

responded to the application consultation however based upon the data, evidence and conclusions reached in the accompanying CMRA it is clear that alongside the site preparation which has been taking place at Phase Vb with DCC, any coal mining legacy issues have or are proposed to be appropriately dealt with such that there are no outstanding coal mining risk issues arising from the development proposals the subject of this specific application.

5.7.4 Based upon the comments received above, there are no

outstanding issues in respect of land condition and on this basis the development is acceptable.

5.8 Noise / Air Quality 5.8.1 Having regard to issues in respect of noise and air quality

alterations to the design / height of the building the subject of the application will not adversely alter the magnitude, type or significance of noise or air quality impacts of the development above those already considered acceptable as part of the extant outline planning permission (see history above).

5.9 Other Considerations 5.9.1 It is noted that in the consultee responses summarised in section

1.0 above the Councils Economic Development team have suggested in their review of this major application the need for a S106 agreement to require the developer to commit to a local labour clause under policy CS13 of the Core Strategy.

5.9.2 Notwithstanding these comments the applicant has provided a copy of the Markham Vale Employment in Construction Code of Practice, which is a document the applicant, is already committed alongside the wider Markham Vale Regeneration Scheme. Given the commitments which already tie the applicant / developer as part of this wider documentation it is not considered necessary to duplicate this via a further permission specific S106 agreement.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 The application has been publicised by site notice posted on

23/03/2016; advertisement placed in the local press on 31/03/2016; and sixty nine neighbour notified letters were sent on 24/03/2016. As a result of the application publicity one letter of representation has been received as follows:

15 Bridle Road The site was previously owned by UK Coal and was used for coal

stocking under a permission issued by DCC that conditionally required it to be restored to agricultural use. The site therefore retained its greenfield status due to the restoration conditions. The Markham Vale team and the developers are still stating that this is a brownfield site and my concern is that the development will be less sympathetic to the area if this site is classed as brownfield;

The assessment of the development proposals will be based

upon material considerations and against compliance with the principles Markham Vale Design Framework.

Conditions previously imposed on the UK Coal permission required

by condition that reversing alarms vehicles at site should be non-audible, ambient or low-tone and it is essential that this requirement is re-imposed on the new development;

The Council’s EHO has not requested any restriction on

audible HGV alarms. Furthermore given the separation distances between the site and the nearest neighbouring properties it is not considered that any such restriction is required.

The only sustainable element of the Plot 13 development was the

proposed re-use of the railway and the southern part of the site was to be retained for a rai user (condition 13 of outline consent).

The original report says it should be held for 10 years – which would be 10 years from 2014 renewal and this means the land should remain undeveloped until 2024;

Condition 13 of the outline planning permission was amended

as part of the S73 App. dealt with in 2015 under app. CHE/15/00291/REM1. There is no restriction preventing development on Plot 13 until 2024.

Condition 10 of the outline consent requires a park and ride – has

the location been approved? Condition 14 of the original outline app. required a park and

ride scheme to be explored, and this condition was discharged under app. CHE/14/00702/DOC in September 2015.

Condition 26, 27 and 28 relate to landscaping and the retention of

trees. The photograph provided shows the complete destruction that was carried out when the site preparation began in 2014. Works affected the northern bund and a whole range of flora and fauna against the assurances I was given by the LPA and DWT at the time the outline permission was being considered.

If planning consent is given for plot 13 it is obvious that the pile of soil (all that remains of the bund) will need to be raised considerably. A maximum height of 16m for plot 13 was set and the design framework states a maximum of 20m. At 24.75m, even with ground lowering this still means an increase in height of 2.75m and therefore the building will be visible from nearby residences of Woodthorpe village and also the new wall at Bolsover Castle;

See section 5.2 and 5.3 above. The Colours proposed are totally unsuitable and not from the

Design Framework – Meadowland would be suitable for this green environment;

See section 5.2 and 5.3 above.

The planning application form incorrectly answers questions about

affecting public rights of way and trees;

The bund, to which the objector is referring lies outside of the application site boundary of this specific application and therefore the form is correct.

The original planning report stated that only a third of the site area

would be covered, however given the scale of development this is more like 47%. It also stated amenity areas, but as building sizes increase amenity areas are being lost;

The variation to plot platforms and sizes have already been

agreed under the S73 App. dealt with in 2015 under app. CHE/15/00291/REM1.

The ecological survey submitted with the application makes

reference to the need for specific surveys if the design framework conditions remain. Clearly the site is no longer as stated in the design framework;

See section 5.2 and 5.3 above. An additional road is now proposed along the northern edge of the

plot, bringing traffic even closer to the village. The access road shown to the north of the plot would provide

access to the rear of the building for servicing purposes but would also provide access to further development taking place on the western end of Plot 13 if HS2 is not implemented. Looking at the MVDF indicative plot solutions it was always indicated that development on Plot 13 would have access along the northern edge for HGV traffic and therefore it is not considered that the position of this new access road presents any greater impact.

The original applicant also assured the LPA that building would be orientated such that loading bays would face away from the village thus screening these operations from the village;

See section 5.2 and 5.3 above. The travel document has been set using reference to other

employment sites in the country that may have significantly different characteristics and will bear no relation to plot 13. The document also only refers to the effect on junction 29A. What

about the effect on local residents with the movement of hundreds of HGVS a day?

The introduction of traffic movements on this site is

established by the outline planning permission where a quantum of floor space and uses was set for the whole of the Markham Vale. The impact of this traffic upon the wider surrounding area has already been accepted. The reason the TA assessed specifically the impact of the development upon J29A is because this is the direction traffic from Plot 13 will travel. No traffic from the development of Plot 13 will be directed through Woodthorpe village.

The LP and NPPF require new development to protect and

enhance the environment; and to integrate into the natural environment locating development where travel is minimised and sustainable travel maximised. Having read the supporting planning statement one has to ask whether the author has actually ever visited the site?

No response necessary. The application is poorly presented and in places deliberately

misleading. For a development of this size there needs to be a great deal more fine tuning. Perhaps a screening exercise by the Council would be appropriate?

No response necessary. The lighting positioned below eaves will now be 9ft higher; No adverse comments on the lighting proposals have been

received from the Councils EHO. The development will far exceed the worst case scenario that were

considered as part of the original proposal and the planning statement makes no mention of any mitigation measures around the site;

The only material difference requiring this application

submission to be considered as a full application rather than a reserved matters submission is the fact the building stands 2.75m higher that the MVDF. This is not considered to far

exceed the ‘worst case scenario’ as considered in the report above.

If the company moving to this site believes it to be brownfield they

will probably treat it as such, it is up to the Council to ensure everyone knows it is greenfield. Companies should be prepared to pay more for the privilege of relocating to greenfield sites;

No response necessary. If permission is granted for a higher building it should only be so

with a condition it has a green roof. This would mitigate the visual impact of the building, set it into the landscape and offer some pay back for the sites destruction in the first place;

See section 5.2 and 5.3 above. It is difficult to make any operational comments as no working

hours, vehicle movements or employee numbers are provided. Obviously local residents are still resentful that the original planning conditions on UK Coal were not fulfilled. The polluter did not pay and now the proposal is to put an even larger polluter on the site;

Working hours will not be restricted. The onus is on the Council to ensure that development on this site

is as sustainable and as visually acceptable as possible. No response necessary. 6.2 As the adjacent Local Planning Authority Bolsover District

Council have also commented on the application proposals as follows:

No objections in principle to the development however comment that it is disappointing that the main elevation of the building facing the access road (east elevation) comprises the main working area of the unit with its loading bays. The MVDF seeks landmark features to upgrade and enhance frontage treatments. The offices, which usually perform this function, appear in this case to be subservient undistinguished and lacking in presence. Has consideration been given to positioning the building on an east west axis (so that the loading bays and service areas are to the

side) rather than on a north – south axis proposed? The design framework also advocated the use of a number of ridges and valleys to keep the roof low and break up the roof area on large buildings.

See section 5.3 above. 7.0 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 7.1 Under the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2nd

October 2000, an authority must be in a position to show:

Its action is in accordance with clearly established law

The objective is sufficiently important to justify the action taken

The decisions taken are objective and not irrational or arbitrary

The methods used are no more than are necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective

The interference impairs as little as possible the right or freedom

7.2 It is considered that the recommendation is objective and in

accordance with clearly established law. 7.3 The recommended conditions are considered to be no more than

necessary to control details of the development in the interests of amenity and public safety and which interfere as little as possible with the rights of the applicant.

7.4 Whilst, in the opinion of the objector, the development affects their

amenities, it is not considered that this is harmful in planning terms, such that any additional control to satisfy those concerns would go beyond that necessary to accomplish satisfactory planning control.

8.0 STATEMENT OF POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE WORKING WITH

APPLICANT 8.1 The following is a statement on how the Local Planning Authority

(LPA) has adhered to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 in respect of decision making in line with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

8.2 Given that the proposed development does not conflict with the NPPF or with ‘up-to-date’ Development Plan policies, it is considered to be ‘sustainable development’ and there is a presumption on the LPA to seek to approve the application. The LPA has used conditions to deal with outstanding issues with the development and has been sufficiently proactive and positive in proportion to the nature and scale of the development applied for.

8.3 The applicant / agent and any objector will be provided with copy

of this report informing them of the application considerations and recommendation / conclusion.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The principle of development is considered to accord with the

provisions of policy CS2, CS13 and PS4 of the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy in so far as the proposals are an employment based development which is to be located in the approved Markham Vale site. The proposals are considered, with the exception of one issue, to broadly accord with the approved Markham Vale Design Framework.

9.2 Where is has been concluded that the development does not

accord with the Markham Vale Design Framework it is considered that siting and scale of the proposals are acceptable and their visual impacts upon the wider setting of Bolsover Castle and Sutton Scarsdale Hall are not deemed to be of any greater harm than a fully compliant Markham Vale Design Framework scheme.

9.3 Subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions it is

considered that the development will accord with the provisions of policy CS7, CS9, CS18 and CS20 of the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy and the wider National Planning Policy Framework.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION 10.1 It is therefore recommended that the application be GRANTED

subject to the following:

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason - The condition is imposed in accordance with section 51 of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004.

02. All external dimensions and elevational treatments shall be

as shown on the approved plans (listed below), with the exception of any approved non material amendment.

5998-102C, 103A, 104A, 105, 106A, 107, 108 and 109A; MVS-BWB-HDG-13-DR-D-500 S1 P3 (Drainage Strategy); MVS-BWB-HGT-13-DR-D-600 S1 P2 (Earthworks Strategy); NT0165-AG-EX-XX-DR-E-2401 P2 (External Lighting); and NT0165-AG-OO-XX-DR-ME-4001 P2 (External Plant Layout)

Reason - In order to clarify the extent of the planning permission in the light of guidance set out in "Greater Flexibility for planning permissions" by CLG November 2009.

03. The development hereby approved shall be constructed in

accordance with the Drainage Scheme detailed on Drawing No MVS-BWB-HDG-13-DR-D-500 S1 P3 (Drainage Strategy) which shall include the addition of an oil / fuel interceptor at the fuel point connection as shown on the plan. The building shall not be occupied until sewage disposal and drainage works have been completed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason - In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.

04. No development shall take place until space is provided

within the site curtilage, for site accommodation, storage of plant and materials, parking and manoeuvring of site operative's and visitor's vehicles together with the loading/unloading and manoeuvring of goods vehicles. The space shall be constructed and laid out to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear, in surface materials suitable for use in inclement weather and maintained free from impediment throughout the duration of construction works.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety.

05. Prior to the development being bought into use the cycle

parking spaces shown on AJA Architects Drawing No 5998-

102 C and 108 shall be provided on site. The cycle parking shall be retained thereafter in perpetuity.

Reason – In the interests of promoting sustainable transport measures in accordance with policy CS20 of the Core Strategy.

06. No development shall be commenced until a temporary

access for construction purposes has been provided in accordance with a detailed design first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The access shall be retained in accordance with the approved scheme throughout the construction period, or such other period of time as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, free from any impediment to its designated use.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety.

07. Prior to the proposed development being brought into use,

new vehicular accesses to serve both the service yard and car parking area shall be formed to the Seymour Link road in accordance with the approved application drawings, and provided with visibility sightlines extending from a point 2.4 metres from the carriageway edge, measured along the centreline of the access, for a distance of 82 metres in each direction measured along the nearside carriageway edge. The land in advance of the visibility sightlines shall be retained throughout the life of the development free of any object greater than 1m in height (0.6m in the case of vegetation) relative to the adjoining nearside carriageway channel level.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety.

08. There shall be no gates or other barriers within 15m of the

nearside highway boundary and any gates shall open inwards only.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety.

09. No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or use

commenced until the facilities for loading, unloading,

circulation and manoeuvring have been completed in accordance with the approved drawings. Thereafter, these areas shall be kept free of obstruction and available for these uses.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety.

10. No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or the

use commenced until the car/vehicle parking area shown on the approved drawings has been completed, surfaced and demarcated, and thereafter, the area shall be kept free of obstruction and available for the parking of vehicles associated with the development.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety.

11. Prior to the commencement of the development details shall

be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the means to prevent the discharge of water from the development onto the Seymour Link road. The approved scheme shall be undertaken and completed prior to the first use of the access and retained as such thereafter.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety.

12. The proposed development shall not be brought into use

until the Seymour Link road has been completed and opened for use by the general public.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety.

13. The Approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in

accordance with the timescales specified therein, to include those parts identified as being implemented prior to occupation and following occupation, unless alternative timescales are agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The Approved Travel Plan shall be monitored and reviewed in accordance with the agreed Travel Plan targets.

Reason – In the interests of promoting sustainable transport measures in accordance with policy CS20 of the Core Strategy.

14. Work shall only be carried out on site between 8:00am and

6:00pm Monday to Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm on a Saturday and no work on a Sunday or Public Holiday. The term "work" will also apply to the operation of plant, machinery and equipment.

Reason - In the interests of residential amenities.

15. Within 2 months of the commencement of development, a soft landscaping scheme shall be submitted for approval. Only the subsequently approved soft landscaping scheme shall be implemented on site, prior to the development being bought into use and thereafter maintained in accordance with the associated maintenance condition 16 below. Reason - The condition is imposed in order to enhance the appearance of the development and in the interests of the area as a whole.

16. If, within a period of five years from the date of the planting of

any tree or plant, that tree or plant, or any tree or plant planted as a replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree or plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason - The condition is imposed in order to enhance the appearance of the development and in the interests of the area as a whole.

17. Prior to occupation a validation report detailing

implementation of the appropriate gas protection measures (inc. photographic evidence and building inspector agreement) as detailed in the Ground Condition Summary Report prepared by BWB dated March 2016 shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and written approval. Only once written confirmation has been given shall the building be occupied.

Reason - To protect the environment and ensure that the redeveloped site is reclaimed to an appropriate standard.