6.1

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 31st October 2016 Application No:

HPK/2016/0224

Location Land at Dinting Road, Glossop Proposal Proposed construction of 20 houses including associated

infrastructure and landscaping Applicant IPEA Investments Agent High Peak Architects Parish/ward Glossop Date registered 03/06/2016 If you have a question about this report please contact: Rachael Simpkin, rachael.simpkin@highpeak.gov.uk 01298 28400 extension 4122

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve, subject to conditions as recommended. The proposal was deferred by Members at the 5th September 2016 to allow the applicant to address matters including: reptile survey and awaited consultation responses from Network Rail, highways and trees.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 2.1 The 0.83ha application site is a broadly oblong-shaped area of land. The site is included within the new built up boundary area of Glossop and lies within Flood Zone 1. The site is currently vacant grassland that is used for the grazing of horses. A small dilapidated wooden structure is located near to the protected Ash tree. The site slopes down from the northern to the southern boundary (Dinting Road to the railway line) with a change in levels ranging from approximately 6.5m at the western side of the site to 7.5m at the eastern side. 2.2 There is a track adjacent to the eastern site boundary which provides access to a small number of residential properties beyond the south-eastern corner of the site. Footpath FP124 runs along the eastern boundary. The Manchester to Hadfield railway line passes by the southern boundary of the site. Footpath FP140 is located south of the railway line. Dinting Lane borders the western boundary of the site and Dinting Road runs along the northern boundary. There are residential properties opposite the northern boundary of the site on Dinting Road. There is a well established hedge along the northern boundary of the site and an area of trees along two-thirds of the southern boundary (on its eastern side).

6.2

2.3 There are a few small trees and hedges along part of the western boundary and a large Ash tree, protected by a High Peak TPO (Tree Preservation Order), within the site, close to the northern boundary. There is an unmanned railway crossing on Dinting Lane, which is currently closed and a pedestrian crossing over the railway line near to the south-western corner of the site to providing a crossing over Dinting Lane.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 3.1 This is a ‘revised’ full planning application for the proposed construction of 20 houses including associated infrastructure and landscaping. The housing mix is: 5 x two-bedroom, 12 x three-bedroom and 3 x four-bedroom dwellings. It follows the earlier refusal of a 14-bedroom scheme which raised issues of density, financial viability, drainage and trees. 3.2 The proposed access to the site will be taken from Dinting Road into the north-western corner of the site. There is currently an access from Dinting Lane. This is to be widened, which will include improving the existing visibility splays. The internal road serving the proposed dwellings runs west to east to be broadly parallel with Dinting Road. The new access will include a dedicated footway providing pedestrian access onto Dinting Road. Each dwelling will have a minimum of 2 off-street car parking spaces. Integral garages are to be provided for the three and four bedroom dwellings. 3.3 The proposed dwellings are a mix of two and three-storeys. The split-level dwellings are two-storey at the front (Dinting Road) and three-storey at the rear. The variation in height is accommodated by the existing slope of the land. The proposed external materials are stone and render walls beneath a slate roof. The dwellings would have a rear garden with frontage driveways providing off-street parking. 3.4 The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents:-

• Planning, Design and Access Statement • Arboricultural Statement • Flood Risk Assessment • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment • Preliminary Ecological Appraisal • Reptile Survey • Supporting Statement (Transport Impacts) • Phase 1 Desk Study & Preliminary Geo-environmental

Assessment • Sustainability Checklist • Economic Viability Assessment

6.3

3.5 The application and details attached to it - including the plans, supporting documents, representations made by residents and the responses from consultees - can be found on the Council’s website at:- http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY HPK/2015/0424 - Full application for construction of 14 new, four-bedroom houses, associated infrastructure and landscaping. Refused. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=195244

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016 Policy S1 Sustainable Development Principles Policy S1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy Policy S3 Strategic Housing Development Policy S5 Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy Policy EQ1 Climate Change Policy EQ5 Biodiversity Policy EQ6 Design and Place Making Policy EQ7 Built and Historic Environment Policy EQ9 Trees, Woodlands and hedgerows Policy EQ10 Pollution Control and Unstable Land Policy EQ11 Flood Risk Management Policy H1 Location of Housing Development Policy H3 New Housing Development Policy H4 Affordable Housing Policy CF3 Local Infrastructure Provision Policy CF4 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities Policy CF6 Accessibility and Transport Policy CF7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy Supplementary Planning Guidance

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

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

6.4

6. CONSULTATIONS

Site notice Expiry date for comments: 10th August 2016 Press notice Expiry date for comments: 14th July 2016 Neighbours Expiry date for comments: 28th June 2016 Neighbours 12 representations have been received, details of which can be read on the public file. The following is a summary of the objections and issues raised:-

• Grounds of public safety as access is from a busy rural road, on a blind bend with drivers exceeding the speed limit;

• Many people use the lane adjacent to the proposed site to cross the road to a single footpath and this could lead to a fatality;

• The visibility to Ashes Lane has not been considered in the Transport Assessment (TA) and presents a potential road safety hazard;

• TA also concedes that the access design will have a detrimental effect (increasing the gradient to 1 in 5) on the lower section of Dinting Lane, which provides pedestrian access to the footbridge to both the A57 and nearest primary school;

• It is queried whether prospective buyers will be informed of the decreasing bus services, lack of NHS dentists and rising pupil numbers for school places and traffic congestion;

• Further reduction of green space within this hamlet with increased light and pollution levels;

• Residents already experience pollution and fumes from the nearby chemical works;

• Homes would be overlooked all year round; • Proposed development does not meet any housing shortfall; • Application site is designated as countryside in the Local Plan; • Development of the site would be a scar on the landscape; • There are brownfield sites which can be built on rather than this open

space which retains the rural / village character to the area; • Site has an abundance of wildlife including field mice, voles, moles,

frogs, toads and pheasants. Owls and kestrels use this area as a hunting ground and there are indigenous trees, shrubs and plants which attract butterflies and moths;

• Proposal for 20 dwellings is significantly larger than the number suggested as suitable for the site in the local plan (13) – this would suggest that this proposal represents an over development of the site;

• Density of this development would be out of character for the immediate locality;

• Properties nearby will decrease in value as this location will no longer be a premier area of Glossop;

• Refers to previous objections raised in respect of 2015/0424, however, these are not detailed;

• Proposal will exacerbate flooding issues;

6.5

• Proposal lacks any environmental features such as solar panels, and, • The ability of the developer to meet requirements for provisions of

affordable housing or other financial requirements attached to any approval.

Consultees Consultee

Comment Officer response

HPBC Housing

If the site was in a position to provide an affordable housing contribution under Policy H4, the Council would require a 20% contribution as an 80% rent and 20% shared ownership mix. This would equate to 4 dwellings on the site as a mix of 2 x two-bed and 2 x three-bed to be split as 3 for rent and 1 for shared ownership.

7.8 – 7.10

Arboricultural Officer

The applicant has submitted an amended tree protection plan updated to incorporate amendments at Plots 4 and 5 with the construction exclusion zone extended on the east and south sides for the protected Ash tree. Engineering details for the section of roadway within the RPA of T1 will be conditioned. No objections subject to the following standard conditions: approval of landscaping (LA01), landscaping to be carried out and maintained (LA02), tree retention (LA10) and specific conditions concerning tree protection and method statement.

7.42 – 7.45

Environmental Health

No objections subject to conditions including: contamination, construction management plan and sound insulation.

7.39 – 7.41

Senior Horticulture Officer

Off-site financial contribution of £11,420 sought for improvements to the play area Howard Park and contribution of £3,840 for a new play area at the potential housing sites (G19, G20 and G23).

7.12

DCC Policy & Monitoring

Off-site financial contribution of £45,596.04 for 4 primary places at St. Luke’s CE Controlled Primary School.

7.12

6.6

DCC Archaeologist

No objections subject to a condition for a written scheme of investigation (WSI) for archaeological work.

7.56

DCC Flood Risk Management Team

No objections subject to drainage conditions to SuDs principles.

7.57

DCC Footpaths

Awaited.

-

DCC Highways

No objection subject to conditions, summarised as follows:-

1. Temporary access construction details;

2. Details of site storage etc. during construction;

3. Vehicle wheel cleaning facilities; 4. Construction Management Plan; 5. Construction details of the

residential estate road and footway; 6. Access road constructed in

accordance with application drawing;

7. No occupation of dwellings until parking has been provided;

8. Permitted development removed in respect of conversion of garages to room space;

9. 1 in 10 road gradient to junction with Dinting Road;

10. Full structural designs of the retaining structure adjoining the public highway, and,

11. Future maintenance and management of the estate streets.

7.52 – 7.55

Network Rail

Object. Network Rail believes that the development has the potential to revive the level crossing which of course would increase the risk at the level crossing. It is anticipated that the number of users over the footbridge will increase if the development goes ahead and some work may be required on the footbridge to make it more suitable for an increased number of

7.13

6.7

users. If the LPA is minded to approve the proposal (and if the LPA supports further increases in dwellings around Dinting Lane) which may impact the level crossing Network Rail would remove the objection subject to:- 1.Network Rail would seek legal closure of Dinting Lane Level Crossing; 2.That the LPA, Highways and Rights of Way and developer would support in principle any necessary mitigation measures required on the footbridge to ensure that it is more suitable for an increase in the number of users. 3. That the LPA should consider an S106 or unilateral undertaking with the developer to provide funding for the footbridge mitigation measures (£1500 to £2000 per dwelling).

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust

No objections subject to conditions in respect of: badgers; breeding birds; lighting scheme (bats); control / removal of invasive non-native species protocol of yellow archangel on site and Japanese knotweed adjacent to the site; enhancement / protection of habitats (trees / hedgerows); Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity), and, Landscape and Ecological Management Plan. Further comments regarding the submitted reptile and invasive species surveys confirm that these matters can be adequately dealt with by means of a planning condition.

7.46 – 7.51

United Utilities

No objections subject to a surface and foul water drainage condition.

7.57

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

6.8

(A) Planning policies 7.1 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 7.2 Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Local Planning Authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations". The Development Plan currently consists of the Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016. 7.3 The policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as supplemented by the NPPG are also a material consideration in the determination of this application. 7.4 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. This is reflected in Adopted Local Plan Policies S1 (Sustainable Development Principles) and S1a (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development). 7.5 For decision-taking this means:-

• approving development proposals that accord with the development

plan without delay, and, • where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are

out‑of‑date, granting permission unless:-

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

- specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

7.6 Paragraph 7 of the NPPF identifies the three dimensions to sustainable development as economic, social and environmental. Principle of development 7.7 The Council is considered to have a 5-year housing supply in the context of NPPF paragraph 47. Paragraph 49 advises that LPAs should consider housing applications in the context of sustainable development. The site lies within the built up boundary area of Glossopdale in the newly adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016. The proposal for residential development accords with the development plan in these respects. As a consequence, the

6.9

site is deemed to be suitable for housing development from a policy viewpoint subject to the following considerations. House sizes and density 7.8 Paragraph 50 of the NPPF seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. This policy advises that authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community. They should also identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations reflecting local demand and where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this on site, unless offsite provision or a financial contribution can be broadly justified. 7.9 Local Plan Policy H3 (New Housing Development) requires new residential development to provide a range of market and affordable housing types and sizes that can reasonably meet the requirements and future needs of a wide range of household types. The policy discusses that the mix should contribute positively to the promotion of a sustainable and inclusive community taking into account the characteristics of the existing housing stock in the surrounding locality. Members of the Development Control Committee will recall officers concerns in respect of the low density of the previously refused scheme and that a range of large houses was inappropriate for this location. The amended scheme provides for an improved mix of 5, two-bedroom, 12, three-bedroom and 3, four-bedroom dwellings. Officers have agreed that this split between two, three and four bedroom units would be acceptable on this site given the size of site and surrounding context where 24 dph (dwellings per hectare) would be achieved. Planning Obligations 7.10 Local Plan Policy H4 (Affordable Housing) requires all new residential development to meet the requirements of local people by seeking to achieve 20% of affordable housing provision on sites between 5-24 units that are 0.16ha or larger. The affordable housing provision should seek to achieve a target of 80% rented accommodation with the balance being provided as intermediate housing. Affordable housing provision should normally be provided within the development site itself and in perpetuity. In exceptional cases, the Council may allow provision off-site or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value. Policy H4 states that where the provision of affordable houses proposed is below the requirement as set out above, the Council will require the applicants to provide evidence by way of a financial appraisal to justify a reduced provision. The required onsite affordable provision for this site would be 4 dwellings. This would be sought as a combination of 2, two-bedroom and 2, three-bedroom dwellings to be split as 3 for rent and 1 shared ownership.

6.10

7.11 Policy CF7 (Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy) requires development proposals to provide, or meet the reasonable costs of providing the on-site and off-site infrastructure, facilities and/or mitigation necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms through the appropriate use of planning obligations and/or conditions. 7.12 The Council’s Horticulture Officer has advised that an off-site financial contribution of £11,420 is sought for improvements to the play area Howard Park and a contribution of £3,840 for a new play area at the potential housing sites (G19, G20 and G23). The County Council require an off-site financial contribution of £45,596.04 for 4 primary places at St. Luke’s CE Controlled Primary School. In total, this equates to a financial contribution of £60,856.04, in addition to onsite affordable housing provision. 7.13 Network Rail have objected to the scheme, stating that is anticipated that the number of users over the footbridge will increase if the development goes ahead and some work may be required on the footbridge to make it more suitable for an increased number of users. Amongst other matters, it is stated that the LPA should consider a S106 or unilateral undertaking with the developer to provide funding for the footbridge mitigation measures (£1500 to £2000 per dwelling) to overcome their objections. The financial contributions sought by Network Rail, however, fail the legislative tests as they are considered to be neither necessary or directly related to the development nor are they fair and reasonable in relation to the scale and kind of the development proposed. 7.14 In implementing Policy CF7, the Council will have regard to economic viability considerations, consistent with meeting the Local Plan objectives. 7.15 Paragraph 173 of the NPPF in ‘ensuring viability and deliverability’ states: ‘Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable’. 7.16 Paragraph 176 of the NPPF states: Where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms (such as environmental mitigation or compensation), the development should not be approved if the measures required cannot be secured through appropriate conditions or agreements.

6.11

7.17 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) provides guidance on ‘Viability and decision taking’ as follows: Decision-taking on individual applications does not normally require consideration of viability. However, where the deliverability of the development may be compromised by the scale of planning obligations and other costs, a viability assessment may be necessary. This should be informed by the particular circumstances of the site and proposed development in question. Assessing the viability of a particular site requires more detailed analysis than at plan level. A site is viable if the value generated by its development exceeds the costs of developing it and also provides sufficient incentive for the land to come forward and the development to be undertaken. In making decisions, the Local Planning Authority will need to understand the impact of planning obligations on the proposal. Where an applicant is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the planning obligation would cause the development to be unviable, the local planning authority should be flexible in seeking planning obligations. This is particularly relevant for affordable housing contributions which are often the largest single item sought on housing developments. These contributions should not be sought without regard to individual scheme viability. The financial viability of the individual scheme should be carefully considered in line with the principles in this guidance. 7.18 The earlier refused scheme did not offer any s106 contributions normally expected for a residential scheme of this scale as the applicant had attempted to justify scheme viability issues on the basis of abnormal site development costs. Officers had advised the applicant of the requirement to justify their high abnormal costs whilst increasing scheme density to positively impact upon scheme viability. For the current scheme, the applicant has submitted further viability evidence to show that the scheme cannot support the required planning obligations of affordable housing, open space and school places as set out above. The applicant’s case is supported by further evidence, particularly in relation to abnormal costs of scheme development. 7.19 The Council’s Independent Consultant has undertaken a comprehensive review of the applicant’s submitted Economic Viability Assessment to see whether the scheme can support the required s106 contributions. Updated information from the feasibility cost assessment has been incorporated within the consultants review. This review for the Council has also involved detailed analysis of values for the residential units and associated costs in developing the scheme. 7.20 The report sets out that the developer has identified a target profit rate of 18% of GDV (Gross Domestic Value). Allowing for the provision of four affordable units (amounting to 20% of total provision) alongside other S106

6.12

contributions, it is stated that the scheme is calculated to be capable of supporting a developer profit of approximately £13,000 (equating to 0.24% of GDV). On this basis, the report considers that a developer would not proceed with the development, as it does not achieve an adequate level of profit such that development would ordinarily proceed. It is set out that the ‘No Affordable’ scheme supports a profit of almost £510,000 amounting to 8.55% of GDV. Although this would be below the target profit level identified, a developer may nevertheless choose to proceed on the basis of this level of return. 7.21 The Council’s consultant discusses that the appraisal is sensitive to assumptions in relation to the sale price of market units. The Laurel View scheme currently being delivered by Taylor Wimpey is reportedly achieving sales prices of £2,690 sqm. (£250 sq.ft.). This is considered to be the upper end of the range for the local market and reflects the proposed configuration of the units which may be more attractive than the proposed scheme. On this basis, it is set out that the identified sale price of £2,260 per sq.m. (£210 per sq.ft.) is considered to be more realistic (and this view has been supported by a local agent). Nevertheless, if the units at Dinting Lane were to achieve similar values to those at Laurel View, the scheme would be capable of supporting affordable housing at 20% and section 106 contributions while achieving a profit margin of 15%. 7.22 The provision for scheme abnormal costs (c.£988K) relates to specific site constraints principally in relation to: the topography of the site which slopes from north to south, with particular provision made for foundation treatments and a retaining wall to be incorporated into the design; the shape of the site, which runs for approximately 100m along Dinting Road resulting in the need for an access road to be constructed along the full length of the site and the situation of the site between Dinting Road and the railway line, which necessitates additional boundary measures. 7.23 The conclusions of the independent analysis undertaken is that the scheme as proposed is not considered to be capable of delivering affordable housing or supporting any other S106 contributions. This reflects the specific difficulties associated with developing the application site, particularly the gradient as well as the linear nature of the site as discussed above. As a result of these difficulties, it is stated that significant ‘abnormal’ costs will be incurred in bringing the site forward for development relating to providing access and appropriate foundation treatments. These costs could potentially be in excess of £1 million and account for as much as 25% of the development costs. 7.24 Based on an assessment of house prices, the Council’s consultant estimates that a scheme comprising of 20 market units (with no S106 contribution) could provide for a developers profit of 8.55%. While this is below the target rate of 18% of GDV, a developer may still proceed with the scheme based on this level of return. Whereas, allowing for affordable housing at 20% and S106 contributions, the level of profit generated through

6.13

the sale of houses (0.2% of GDV) would not be sufficient for a developer to proceed with the scheme. 7.25 The Council’s Consultant states that the proposed scheme remains at a relatively early stage of design development. Whereas the assessment of site costs is based on benchmark rates from other schemes. As such, there is potential for further investigation works to result in a reduction in the cost estimate. In addition, it is noted that other schemes currently being developed out are reportedly achieving premium sales values for this location. Changes in these variables would impact upon the assessment of viability. 7.26 It is stated that the comparable analysis suggests premium values are achievable within this locality and therefore, although the identified values in the order of £210 -£220 per sq ft are agreed through contact with a local agent, it might be that the values achieved are higher. Therefore any decrease in costs (specifically remediation) and increase in value would substantially impact upon scheme viability. In these circumstances, it is considered that it would not be unreasonable for the Council to propose a clawback type provision whereby a re-assessment is undertaken upon the disposal of xx number of units from the completed scheme. This would allow a full understanding of actual development costs incurred and achieved values to be referenced. Should the position be improved over and above the position as identified within our report for the non-contribution scenario, the developer would be bound to payback 50% of any uplift to an agreed maximum sum (i.e. the totality of the policy compliant S106 obligations and also value of policy compliant affordable housing provision, calculated as an off-site contribution) and after a developers return in the order of say 15% is achieved. 7.27 The overall conclusion based on the current independent assessment is that the level of profit generated through the sale of the houses is not considered to be sufficient for the developer to proceed with the scheme should s106 contributions be requested including affordable housing provision. In these circumstances, therefore, it is not considered necessary to secure a re-appraisal of the viability via a s106 agreement as the scheme is built out and a clawback provision is therefore recommended in these circumstances to be secured via a legal agreement. 7.28 Accordingly, the proposal is considered to accord with paragraph 173 of the NPPF and Adopted Local Plan Policies, in particular: S1, H3, H4 and CF7 to overcome the previous objections to the scheme. Design/ Scale / Appearance / Layout/ Landscaping 7.29 Section 11 ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ of the NPPF, confirms that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valuable landscapes. Further, the NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 58

6.14

requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area for the lifetime of the development. It should respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials whilst reinforcing local distinctiveness. 7.30 Adopted Local Plan Policies S1 ‘Sustainable Development Principles’ and EQ6 ‘Design and Place Making’ seek to secure high quality design in all developments that responds positively to its environment and contributes to local distinctiveness and sense of place by taking account of the distinct character, townscape and setting of the area. The adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Residential Design (2005) also provides guidance on the approach to new residential development and the factors which contribute toward local distinctiveness. 7.31 The residential properties in the area are mainly detached, two-storey dwellings with a small number of semi-detached properties. There is some variation in architectural style and a mixed palate of materials including stone, brick and rendered walls beneath slate and tiled roofs. Given the size and orientation of the site, the proposed layout of the road and housing is broadly acceptable. There is an extensive, high hedge bordering the site to the Dinting Road elevation and this is proposed to be retained. The site would be accessed from Dinting Road with an internal road culminating in a cul-de-sac serving the new houses. The proposed houses are split level with two storeys to the front and 3 storeys at the back to accommodate the existing topography, which slopes steeply to the south ‘rear’ of the site. Dinting Road is especially visible from views north across the valley. The rear aspect of the units will be particularly visible and prominent requiring a traditional facing material as is discussed below. 7.32 The revised scheme seeks to assimilate better within its context by proposing a mix of house types in an attempt to overcome the Council’s previous concerns in relation to the refused 4-bedroom detached property lower density scheme. The units were arranged in a regimented pattern with little variation between the house types. The applicant has presented a more varied range of house types, with some of the units linked to create a more interesting layout. Stone to the front and rear elevations is further proposed with some use of render to the projecting bay / gable features, in addition, to the side elevations. The majority of the dwellings have gardens to the front and rear. Off-street parking is provided for all the dwellings within the scheme. Planning conditions will ensure that suitable facing material conditions are imposed for the scheme if Members are minded to approve the scheme before them. 7.33 Overall, the layout and design of the scheme is considered to accord with Policies S1 and EQ6 of the Adopted Local Plan along with guidance contained in Paragraph 17 and the Design Chapter of the Framework, all of which seek to ensure that the overall scale, density, massing, landscaping and layout are in character with the area and that new development integrates into the natural, built and historic environment.

6.15

Amenity 7.34 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF requires a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ6 also stipulates that development should achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development and should not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shadowing, overbearing or other adverse impacts on local character and amenity. 7.35 The topography of the site is such that the ‘upper’ northern Dinting Road boundary of the site is approximately 7.0m higher than the ‘lower’ southern boundary. There are existing residential properties opposite the northern boundary of the site, beyond the eastern boundary of the site and close to the south-eastern corner of the site beyond the railway line. The submitted plans illustrate how the development will relate to site topography, as well as showing the finished floor levels of the proposed dwellings within the site. 7.36 The Adopted Residential Design SPG states that the distance between habitable room windows should be 21.0m and for every change in level of 0.5m, the increase in distance between properties should be 1.0m. The guidance in the SPG allows for variation in distances in order to accommodate particular site circumstances. 7.37 The nearest existing residential properties to the proposed development are those situated east of the rear of the proposed two-storey properties of Plots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. The privacy distance between the habitable room windows of these properties is in excess of 21.0m and the levels are broadly similar. On Dinting Road, the nearest property is no. 62. However, there is a separation distance of some 35.0m to the closest proposed plot. Overall, there is some moderate variation in levels between the existing properties on Dinting Road and the proposed scheme, which is some 5.0m lower. The proposal clearly accords with the amenity standards outlined in the SPG in respect of overlooking, shadowing and overbearing issues. As such, the existing amenity standards enjoyed by the residents of surrounding properties are considered not to be significantly harmed. In addition, it is considered that the scheme would further provide a good standard of amenity for its future occupiers. 7.38 Overall, it is considered that there would be sufficient space to accommodate the proposed development within the site whilst safeguarding the residential amenity of both existing and future residents. As such, the scheme accords with Policy EQ6 of the Adopted Local Plan and paragraph 17 of the NPPF. Contaminated Land 7.39 Section 11 of the NPPF seeks to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land stability to ensure new development is appropriate for its location. Similarly, Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ10 ‘Pollution Control and

6.16

Unstable Land’ seeks to protect people and the environment from unsafe and polluted environments, requiring mitigation if necessary. 7.40 The Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that the development of the site for residential use would be acceptable with appropriate site investigation (and remediation if required). The railway line lies beyond the southern boundary of the site. The Officer is satisfied that the protection from noise and disturbance of future incumbents of the scheme can be dealt with by condition securing a scheme of noise insulation for the proposed dwellings. These matters can be addressed by appropriate conditions to protect the amenity of existing neighbouring residents and proposed occupiers. 7.41 As a consequence, the proposed development is considered to comply with Policy EQ10 of the Adopted Local Plan and Chapter 11 of the NPPF. Trees & Hedges 7.42 Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ9 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’ seeks to protect trees and hedgerows. There is a large TPO (Tree Preservation Order) Ash tree within the site, close to the northern Dinting Road boundary. In addition, to the eastern side of the site, there is an area of trees along two-thirds of the southern boundary. There are some smaller trees and hedges forming part of the western boundary and a well established hedge along the northern Dinting roadside boundary of the site. 7.43 The updated LVIA (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) submitted by the applicant states that the protected Ash tree within the site will be retained together with the majority of the mature hedgerow along the northern boundary albeit a small area will be removed to allow for the widened access and improved visibility splays. The applicant proposes additional hedging and trees to be planted within the site to mitigate against this loss. The LVIA concludes that the design of the proposed dwellings, along with screening through additional planting will ensure that the proposed development will be assimilated into the landscape network thereby reducing any visual impact that the development may have on its surroundings. Landscaping proposals are indicative at this stage. However, precise details of soft landscaping would be secured by condition. It is considered that the broad principles of the landscaping proposals are acceptable within the context of the surrounding area. 7.44 On matters of tree protection, the Council’s Arboricultural Officer is now satisfied that the mature TPO Ash tree can be successfully incorporated into the development owing to the additional information submitted the applicant. This consists of an amended tree protection plan updated to incorporate modest amendments at Plots 4 and 5, which allow the construction exclusion zone to be extended on the east and south sides of the protected Ash tree. Precise engineering details for the section of roadway within the RPA of the TPO Ash tree will be secured by way of a planning condition. The Arboricultural Officer confirms that the loss of a small number of low category trees from the site does not raise any concerns.

6.17

7.45 As a consequence, sufficient has now been submitted at this stage in relation to the protected Ash Tree to accord with Policy EQ9 of the Adopted Local Plan. Biodiversity & Ecology 7.46 Section 11 of the NPPF outlines that Local Planning Authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Paragraph 109 seeks to minimise impacts and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ5 Biodiversity’ echoes this advice, advising that biodiversity and ecological resources should be conserved. 7.47 Previously, Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) noted that the existing hedge along the northern boundary was likely to meet the UK BAP priority habitat definition for hedgerows. The site layout shows that a stretch of approximately 10.0m of the hedge along the northern boundary of the site will be removed in order to accommodate the widened access onto Dinting Lane / into the site and improved visibility splays. DWT still considers that the loss of this stretch of hedge can be mitigated against with additional hedge planting, along the eastern and southern boundaries as illustrated on the submitted layout. 7.48 DWT also note that since the original application, the number of dwellings has increased from 14 to 20. Therefore, it considers that this has left little scope to provide mitigation and compensation if reptiles are found on site. In addition, two non-native plant species Japanese knotweed and non-variegated yellow archangel were noted. Notwithstanding these concerns, DWT consider that matters pertaining to birds, reptiles, badgers and bats can be appropriately secured via conditions. 7.49 In response to this and following the deferral of the proposal from the September Development Control Committee, the applicant has submitted a reptile survey, in addition to an invasive species report. Notwithstanding some minor reservations concerning the applicant’s submitted reptile ecology report, DWT confirm that the likelihood of reptiles being on site is still classified as low. With regards to the proposed mitigation, DWT state that due to the vegetation present on site along with the hedgerow, log piles and hibernacula, removing these during November and December could affect reptiles. Further, installing fencing would suggest there is a population of reptiles on site. In conclusion, DWT agree with the recommendations of the submitted reptile ecology report, which recommends that RAMs (Reasonable Avoidance Measures) in respect of reptiles should be implemented to be secured by way of a planning condition. 7.50 In addition, it should be a requirement that a 'fit for purpose' RAM is submitted and agreed as part of this condition rather than rely on the report submitted to date. DWT recommend that an invasive non-native species protocol shall be secured by way of a planning condition by a suitably qualified consultant, detailing the containment, control and removal of

6.18

Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam and non-variegated archangel on site. 7.51 It is considered that the proposals will not adversely affect any ecological or biodiversity interests subject to the conditions and advice set out in the comments received from DWT being secured as conditions to any consent granted. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ5 and Chapter 11 of the NPPF. Access & Highway matters 7.52 The NPPF promotes sustainable transport and recommends that local planning authorities should seek to encourage and facilitate where possible sustainable patterns of transport using practical alternatives to private motor vehicles so that people have a real choice about how they travel. 7.53 Adopted Local Plan Policy CF6 ‘Accessibility and Transport’ seeks to ensure that new development can be accessed safely, provides access to a range of transport modes and minimises the need to travel by unsustainable modes. The site is now included within the built-up boundary area of Glossop. It is considered to be in a sustainable location within easy access of public transport, walking and cycling routes and key services and facilities. 7.54 The existing access onto Dinting Lane from Dinting Road is to be widened and modified, with improved visibility splays as part of the scheme. The Local Highways Authority is satisfied that the proposed access is an improvement to the existing sub-standard access and accepts the proposed visibility sight-lines in view of the passing vehicle speeds of 30mph on Dinting Road. Sufficient parking is provided for each dwelling. Modest revisions in relation to the driveways of Plots 4 and 5 required concerning the protected Ash Tree have raised no objections from the County Highways Officer. 7.55 In light of the above comments, it is considered that there would be no adverse impact on the local road network, the scheme would provide for adequate access, turning and parking and incumbent residents would have access to public transport, cycle and pedestrian routes. As such the proposals comply with Adopted Local Plan Policy CF6 and Chapter 4 of the NPPF. Other material matters 7.56 The County Archaeologist concludes that the archaeological potential of the site is low. Should the application be approved, a condition could be attached requiring development groundworks to be monitored to comply with Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ7 ‘Built and Historic Environment’ and Chapter 12 of the NPPF. 7.57 Despite the recent submission of a further revised FRA, the County Flood Risk Management Team consider that insufficient information has been submitted to be able to fully assess the impact of the proposal in respect of

6.19

flooding and drainage. Furthermore, United Utilities raise no objections subject to a drainage condition for foul and surface water. In these circumstances, conditions are recommended securing the detailed design and associated management and maintenance plans of surface water drainage for the site, which should accord with national SuDs standards. In these respects, the proposal accords with Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ11 ‘Flood Risk Management’ and Chapter 10 of the NPPF.

(B) Planning balance

7.58 The National Planning Policy Framework provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Sustainability includes economic, social and environmental roles. The ‘presumption’ in favour of sustainable development entails approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. 7.59 The site lies within the built-up boundary area of Glossop and is designated in the Adopted Local Plan for residential development. The site is adjacent to public transport links and within a suitable distance to local services and facilities. The scheme would deliver modest social benefits as 20 dwellings would contribute towards meeting the housing needs of the Borough. The scheme would also provide modest economic benefits through the creation new jobs during the construction phase and contributions to the local economy from future residents. In terms of environmental benefits, the design of the dwellings and amenity standards are generally satisfactory. Overall, highways and biodiversity matters are satisfactory subject to conditions. 7.60 The revised scheme now represents the most efficient use of land. Consequently, the proposal would contribute towards a suitable mix of housing to meet local needs. Although, there is no provision of any affordable housing on site or agreed contribution to off-site provision or other s106 obligations as discussed above owing a demonstration of scheme viability. 7.61 Overall, the proposal complies with the requirements of the newly adopted Local Plan and the NPPF and in the absence of any other material considerations, and subject to the above matters being resolved, it benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 It is recommended that planning permission be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions and completion of a s106 securing a clawback provision: Condition No

Brief description Comment

TL01 Time Limit (3 years).

6.20

AP01 The development hereby permitted shall be

carried out in accordance with the following approved plans (to be confirmed).

DE01 Samples of all materials to be used in the development shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

DE14 Existing and proposed levels to be used in the development shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

LB21 No door or window to recessed less than 100mm from the external face into which it is set shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

LA01 A landscaping scheme shall be submitted and agreed in writing and thereafter implemented within the first planting season following the completion of the development shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

LA12 Tree Protection and construction methodology (Ash Tree) shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

NC06 Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity) shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

LA05 A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan shall be submitted and agreed in writing and thereafter implemented within the agreed timescales following the completion of the development shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

NC03 Control / removal of invasive non-native species protocol of yellow archangel on site and Japanese knotweed within the site shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

Non STD A scheme to protect badgers protected during construction shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

COM15 A lighting scheme in respect of bats shall

6.21

be submitted and agreed in writing.

Non STD RAMs (Reasonable Avoidance Measures) in respect of reptiles should be implemented shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

LA10 No trees, shrubs or hedges shown within the site as retained to be removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Non STD The temporary access construction details shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

Non STD The construction details of the residential estate road and footway shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

Non STD The access road shall be constructed in accordance with approved application drawing.

Non STD Permitted development removed in respect of conversion of garages to room space.

Non STD There shall be no occupation of dwellings until parking has been provided shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

HA04 A 1 in 10 road gradient to junction with Dinting Road shall be achieved.

Non STD Full structural designs of the retaining structure adjoining the public highway shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

Non STD Future maintenance and management of the estate streets shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

PDR01 Removal of permitted development rights in respect of Classes A, B, C, D, E and F of the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

DRA05 Surface and foul water drainage details shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

CL01 Further Contamination Assessment shall be submitted and agreed in writing

6.22

NS04 Sound Insulation Scheme to Dwellings shall

be submitted and agreed in writing.

AR01 Archaeology (development groundworks to be monitored) shall be submitted and agreed in writing.

8.2 The recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. 8.3 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 Head of Regulatory Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Site Plan