Case Officer: Sarah Kay File No: CHE/16/00016/OUT Tel. No: (01246) 345786 Plot No: 2/218 & 4127 Ctte Date: 14th March 2016

ITEM 1

RESUBMISSION OF CHE/14/00873/OUT - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND SURFACE WATER BALANCING (ALL MATTERS RESERVED SAVE FOR MEANS OF ACCESS INTO THE SITE) AT LAND TO THE WEST OF DUNSTON LANE, CHESTERFIELD, DERBYSHIRE FOR WILLIAM DAVIS LIMITED Local Plan: Open countryside and other open land Ward: Dunston 1.0 CONSULTATIONS

Consultee Response

Derby & Derbyshire Development Archaeologist

Comments received 02/02/2016 - refer to our comments on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT dated 19/01/2015 – Appendix 1

Environment Agency Comments received 20/01/2016 advising that they have no objections but since their comments on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT dated 20/01/2015 the Lead Local Flood Authority have become the statutory consultee in respect of surface water therefore the LPA should consult with them direct.

Coal Authority Comments received 29/01/2016 - refer to our comments on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT dated 21/01/2015 – Appendix 1

CBC Environmental Services

Comments received 22/02/2016 - refer to our comments on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT dated 26/01/2015, 17/02/2015, 26/02/2015, 17/07/2015, 20/07/2015 and 04/11/2015 – see

Appendix 1

Crime Prevention Design Advisor

Comments received 08/02/2016 - refer to our comments on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT – see Appendix 1

CBC Design Services Comments received 08/02/2016 - refer to our comments on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT – see Appendix 1

Yorkshire Water Services Comments received 10/02/2016 – no objections subject to conditions and restricted flow rate of 49 l/second as previously agreed – see Appendix 1

CBC Housing Comments received on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT dated 30/01/2015 – no further comments received – see Appendix 1

DCC Planning Comments received 02/03/2106 – see report

DCC Lead Local Flood Authority

Comments received on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT dated 18/03/2015 – no further comments received – see Appendix 1

CBC Conservation Officer Comments received on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT dated 16/02/2015 – no further comments received – see Appendix 1

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust Comments received 26/02/2016 – refer to our comments on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT dated 16/02/2015 and 13/10/2015 – see Appendix 1

CBC Strategic Planning Team

Comments received 15/02/2016 – see report and Appendix 1

CBC Urban Design Officer Comments received 02/02/2016 - refer to comments on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT dated 02/03/2015 – see Appendix 1

CBC Tree Officer Comments received on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT dated 11/03/2015 – no further comments

received – see Appendix 1

CBC Leisure Services Comments received on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT dated 22/02/2015 – no further comments received – see Appendix 1

CBC Economic Development

Comments received 05/02/2016 – local labour conditions sought as per comments on app. CHE/14/00873/OUT – see Appendix 1

DCC Highways Comments received 29/02/2016 – see report

C/Field Cycle Campaign Comments received on appl. CHE/14/00873/OUT dated 22/02/2015 – no further comments received – see Appendix 1

C/Field Civic Society No comments received

NHS PCT No comments received

Fire Officer No comments received

Ward Members No comments received

Publicity - Site Notice / Neighbours

24 no. individual letters of representation and a 265 no. signatory petition of objection received

2.0 THE SITE 2.1 The site remains unaltered since the previous report considered

and attached as appendix 1. 3.0 SITE HISTORY 3.1 The report attached at appendix 1 remains up to date other than

the reference to the outcome of application CHE/14/00873/OUT. 3.2 CHE/14/00873/OUT - Outline application for residential

development, along with associated access, public open space, landscaping and surface water balancing (all matters reserved save for means of access into the site) – additional information received on 16/10/2015 at land to the west of Dunston Lane, Chesterfield, Derbyshire for William Davis Limited. The application was refused by planning committee on 19/11/2015 against the advice of officers for the following reasons:

01. The application site is served by a single access point off Dunston Lane which is a busy rat run for traffic between the Sheepbridge area and the built up areas to the north and west of the town. Notwithstanding the proposed improvements to the alignment of Dunston Lane and at its junction with Dunston Road, it is not considered that Dunston Lane can safely accommodate the impact of traffic arising from the 300 dwellings proposed contrary to the requirements of policy CS2 of the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011 - 31 which requires all development to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of users or adjoining occupiers taking account of traffic.

02. Policy CS2 and CS4 of the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core

Strategy 2011 - 31 require developments to utilise existing capacity in social infrastructure or where they are of sufficient scale to provide additional capacity either on site or through contributions towards off site improvement. The local planning authority does not consider that the offer of funding for 57 primary school places is sufficient to meet the needs arising out of the development given the capacity of the local school. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies CS2 and CS4 of Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011 - 2031.

The decision is currently the subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate (Ref. APP/A1015/W/15/3141227 – start date 20/01/2016) which is due to be heard by the Inspector at a 4 Day Public Inquiry beginning on the 26th July 2016. The appellant has indicated that a full costs award will be sought at the public inquiry on the basis of unreasonable behaviour by the Council.

4.0 THE RESUBMISSION PROPOSAL 4.1 The application (which is a resubmission of planning app.

CHE/14/00873/OUT) seeks outline planning permission for the erection of up to 300 dwellings on site with all matters except for means of access being reserved. Access is shown to be formed as a new junction from Dunston Lane (located in the lower half of the eastern application site boundary).

4.2 An illustrative Masterplan drawing is provided for the purposes of setting the Design & Access Statement into context and this plan gives an illustration how the site might be laid out and the development formed.

4.3 The application submission is accompanied by the following

documentation:

Planning Statement (prepared by Pegasus Group December 2014) and Consultation Statement (prepared by Pegasus Group December 2014)

Design & Access Statement (prepared by Pegasus Urban Design December 2014)

Transport Assessment (prepared by BWB December 2014) and Transport Assessment Addendum (prepared by BWB June 2015)

Travel Plan (prepared by BWB December 2014)

Flood Risk Assessment (prepared by BWB October 2013 - updated December 2014)

Foul Water & Utilities Statement (prepared by BWB December 2014)

Phase I Geo-Environmental Assessment (prepared by BWB December 2014)

Noise Assessment (prepared by WYG June 2015)

Arboricultural Assessment (prepared by FPCR December 2014) and Historic Hedgerow Assessment (prepared by CGMS April 2015)

Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (prepared by FPCR December 2014)

Heritage Statement (prepared by Heritage Collective December 2014)

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (prepared by CGMS March 2014), Geophysical Survey Report (prepared by GSB Prospection Ltd March 2014) and Archaeological Trial Trench Evaluation (prepared by CGMS October 2014)

Extended Phase I Habitat Survey (prepared by BSG Ecology July 2014) and Further Ecology Surveys (prepared by BSG Ecology December 2014)

Soils Resources and Agricultural Use / Quality Report (prepared by Land Research Associates Ltd February 2014)

Supplementary Noise Assessment (prepared by Waterman dated October 2015)

Transport Assessment Addendum Part 2 (prepared by BWB October 2015)

Revised Drawings – Proposed Site Access (revision P2) and Concept Masterplan (August 2015)

Planning Statement Addendum (prepared by Pegasus Group January 2016)

4.4 The submission is the same as that already considered by

planning committee apart from the additional addendum containing more information regarding the two issues the subject of the refusal.

5.0 FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 The key document of this resubmitted planning application as

highlighted in para. 4.3/4.4 above is the Planning Statement Addendum dated January 2016 which has been prepared by the applicant with a view of addressing the 2 no. reasons for refusal of planning application CHE/14/00873/OUT. The Addendum specifically pulls together details of the submission which related to the 2 no. reasons for refusal including copies of the consultee correspondence from the Local Highways Authority and from Derbyshire County Council (Education) on the refused application; as well as copies of further correspondence between the applicant and Derbyshire County Council (Education) on the specific issue of education contributions. The Addendum also includes supplementary information / advice in the form of reference to correspondence between the applicant and DCC dated 26 November 2015 (post decision); the Department for Education Building Bulletin 103 June 2014; a Highways Note from BWB; and a supporting statement prepared by EFM on the impact of the development on the local schools infrastructure. The applicants conclusion contained in the Addendum is that this evidence replicates and provides further justification that the development proposals are in accordance with S38 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

5.2 With the exception of the Planning Statement Addendum the latest

application submission and the material planning considerations of the resubmitted application are the same (given that the development proposals are exactly the same) therefore the previous case officers committee report is attached as Appendix 1 of this report to avoid duplication in the consideration of those

individual issues / material planning considerations which did not form the previous reasons for refusal of planning permission.

5.3 The remainder of this report is prepared in respect of the 2 no.

reason for refusal which are looked at in turn, and include the latest advice from Derbyshire County Council in respect of both highway matters and Developer Contribution matters relating specifically to Education.

5.4 Reason 01 - Traffic Impact 5.4.1 The following comments on the latest application submission have

been received from the Local Highways Authority:

‘I refer to the above outline application that has recently been forwarded to this Authority for highway comments together with previous correspondence concerning development of this site.

It’s noted that an earlier application for the same scale and nature of development was refused in November 2015 on two Grounds, one of which was highways related.

The latest submission is supported by further details intended to address the original Grounds for Refusal and include a Highways Note with an issue date of 8 January 2016.

The Highways Note further clarifies the findings of the original Transport Assessment and uses increased predicted traffic flows in demonstrating suitability of the modified highway network (e.g. new junction with Dunston Lane, signalising of the existing junction of Dunston Road with Dunston Lane) to serve the proposed development. In addition, with regard to the capacity of Dunston Lane, the junction at Littlemoor and connectivity for sustainable modes of transport have been further scrutinised and the Highway Authority does not consider that there is an evidence base to suggest that the conclusions are incorrect.

The proposed new junction layout remains the same as that submitted in association with the earlier application and, this being the case, the Highway Authority’s comments with respect to this also remain the same i.e. generally acceptable with some elements needing to be satisfactorily addressed (e.g. suitability of

visibility available at the proposed pedestrian/ cycle crossing points; increased traffic lane widths; verge widths; etc.)

Highways comments/ recommendations concerning screening of development from the highway, the Transportation Assessment, Travel Plan, signalisation of the existing Dunson Road/ Dunston Lane junction, creation of a pedestrian/ cycle link between the south of the site and existing highway network, review of bus stops and future internal site layout also remain the same as those made in response to the earlier application.

Therefore, if you are minded to approve these proposals, it is recommended that the same Section 106 obligations, conditions and notes as those given previously should be included as a part of the Consent.’

5.4.2 With regard to the above it is noted that the same response and

conclusions are reached by the LHA in respect of the acceptability of the development and its impact upon the wider highway network. With their response (as the advising Authority on all matters relating to highway safety and traffic impact) and with their conclusions in mind, it is not considered that there is reasonable reason or justification to refuse planning permission for the development proposed on the grounds of highway safety or traffic impact.

5.4.3 Looking in more detail at the conclusion presented above regard

must be had to the key issues raised in the previous reason for refusal against the advice given by the LHA, who are required to provide expert advice to the LPA on all highway matters. It is clear in dissecting the previous reason for refusal that the main issues related to the fact the development was proposed to be served by a single point of access; that access was to be located on a busy rat run; and it was considered that Dunston Lane was not able to safety accommodate traffic arising from the development proposals.

5.4.4 In their response the LHA has clearly indicated that they accept the

development of up to 300 dwellings served by a single access point onto Dunston Lane, subject to the access being of an acceptable geometrical design to meet their standards. Concerns regarding excessive cul de sac lengths generally apply to safety issues in the event of emergencies. The LHA has clearly indicated

that (subject to minor amendment – which can be dealt with by condition) the access design as proposed is acceptable and will inter alia therefore be safe. Whilst it is accepted that limiting the development to a single point of access concentrates traffic movement on a particular highway location the evidence prepared and accepted by the LHA in support of this application confirms that there is a design solution to the access point that meets relevant highway standards and is forecast to operate within capacity with minimal queuing or delay. It is the case that any cul de sac arrangement is limited by the one point of entry/exit however within this site there will be numerous opportunities for loops such that the only section where no alternative will be available will be the short section on entry into the site. This section of access however is shown to be a 6.75 metre wide carriageway with 3.0 metre wide footway/cycleways both sides (12.75 metres overall) and which creates a broad open swathe of land which is likely to be sufficient to allow for passage even in the event of an accident at this point.

5.4.5 In so far as the issue of Dunston Lane being a rat run opportunity it

is accepted that such routes will be used to link urban areas of Chesterfield through to the A61 bypass to Sheffield. Dunston Lane is appropriate for such connections. The proposed scheme delivers improvements to the route by straightening the road and signalising the junction with Dunston Road. This will sufficiently mitigate the suggested capacity issues and would not be inappropriate in highway safety terms. Traffic approaching from the south direction or leaving in that direction will not necessarily pass the primary school or route through the Littlemoor Centre since there are options available depending on destination. To the west Keswick Drive and Kirkstone Road are available with Coniston Road, Lindale Road and Kendall Road available for easterly destinations. This will have the effect of diluting the impact on the Littlemoor junction and supporting the conclusion that the highway network can comfortably accommodate the traffic arising from the development.

5.4.6 The NPPF gives clear guidance (section 4, para. 32) that decisions

should take account of whether ‘safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people’ and ‘improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the

residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’. Clearly in this case there is a scheme of improvements and a clearly acceptable access design detailed alongside the development proposals that are supported by the LHA such that it cannot be justifiably determined the cumulative impacts of the development are severe. There is likely to be an impact arising as a result of any development however in line with the applicants highway consultants and the local highway authority advisors to this Council, it is considered that the impacts arising from this scheme are suitably mitigated through junction and highway improvements such that the impacts of the development could not be regarded as severe.

5.5 Reason 02 - Social Infrastructure / Developer Contribution to

Education 5.5.1 Permission was previously refused on the basis that the

developers offer of funding 57 primary school places (contribution of £672,541.59) was not sufficient to the meet the needs arising out of the development. This was against the specialist expert advice of the local education authority.

5.5.2 As a point of establishing a background to the developers previous

offer, the figure of 57 places was in fact reached by a calculation made by Derbyshire County Council (DCC) Education service who provide advice to the Local Planning Authority on appropriate levels of developers contributions arising from particular development proposals. In this case the advice given from DCC was based upon a well-established and accepted method of calculating contributions (as set out in the Developer Contributions Protocol dated November 2013) which takes into account the latest available school subscriptions, school capacity and projections as well as population growth. This is measured against the demand arising from the development proposals.

5.5.3 In most circumstances the education contributions figure reached

by DCC is not challenged (as DCC are seen to be the expert in this field) and the figures are subsequently accepted and secured by S106 agreement, unless a viability argument is presented to justify a differing figure. There have been no examples of cases where a greater contribution has been sought and furthermore the contribution sought by DCC in relation to a nearby site (Cammac – CHE/15/00116/OUT) which triggered a contribution to the same

school from a development within the same catchment/ward was accepted by the Council planning committee without any discussion or dispute (29 primary schools places equalling £330,571.29).

5.5.4 As a result of consultation with Derbyshire County Council on this

latest planning application an updated response has been received seeking a financial contribution of £341,970.30 towards the provision of 30 primary places to be spent at Dunston Primary School on Project B. This is identified as a proposed extension of classroom provision and associated ancillary accommodation (toilets and group space). Below is an extract from the response received which sets out exactly how the contribution has been calculated:

The County Council has a Statutory Duty to make education provision available for each young person at the school(s) in whose normal area they reside. The number of places at the normal area school is assessed through a system provided by the Department of Education which produces a net capacity. The number on roll at a school reflects the number of pupils attending the school, and the difference between the net capacity and the number on roll is the number of places available (or not) to accommodate future requests for places.

The requirement for financial contributions towards education provision is based on the net capacity and current number on roll as well as projected pupil numbers over the next five years. The level of contribution required is fair and reasonable in scale and kind and is determined using multipliers provided by the Department for Education. These multipliers are revised every two years and are based on their analysis of building costs per pupil adjusted to reflect regional variations in costs. The thresholds and level of contribution required is below.

Per 100 dwellings

Cost per pupil place

Cost per 1 dwelling

Cost per 10 dwellings

Cost per 100 dwellings

Primary school

20 places

£11,399.01 £2,279.80 £22,798 £227,980

Secondary school

15 places

£17,176.17 £2,576.42 £25,764.20 £257,642

Post-16 6 places £18,627.90 £1,117.67 £11,167.70 £111,677

education

The proposed development falls within the normal area of Dunston Primary and Nursery School and the normal area of Outwood Academy, Newbold. We anticipate that the proposed development of 300 dwellings would generate 60 additional primary pupils, 45 secondary pupils and 18 post 16 pupils.

Dunston Primary and Nursery School has a net capacity of 270 and has 250 pupils currently on roll. Latest projections are indicating that the number of pupils on roll will fall slightly to 240 during the next 5 years, giving a surplus of 30. Please note that the projections have changed since November 2015 when the County Council provided advice on application CHE/14/00873/OUT in relation to the appeal and entered into a Statement of Common Ground with the appellant.

Dunston Primary School would therefore have capacity to accommodate 30 of the 60 pupils from this proposed development and the County Council requests a financial contribution of £341,970.30 towards the provision of 30 primary places at Dunston Primary School – “Project B: extension of classroom provision and associated ancillary accommodation (toilets and group space)”.

The County Council is aware of another development for 146 dwellings coming forward at Dunston Road within the normal area of Dunston Primary School (application CHE/15/00116/OUT) which is subject to a Chesterfield Borough Council resolution to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 agreement.

The County Council understands that the Section 106 for the development at Dunston Road has not yet been signed and dated and therefore the decision notice has not been formally issued. If planning permission for this proposed development at Dunston Lane (CHE/16/00016/OUT) is granted and a Section 106 Agreement is signed and dated prior to a decision notice for CHE/15/00116/OUT being issued, the Section 106 Agreement relating to CHE/15/00116/OUT would need to be revisited to reflect the fact that the projected surplus capacity will have been ‘taken up’ by the development at Dunston Lane.

Outwood Academy Newbold has a current net capacity of 1,139, with 883 pupils currently on roll. Projections indicate numbers

increasing slightly to 909 within the next 5 years, giving a surplus of 230.

An analysis of recently approved residential development in the area shows committed proposals for 158 dwellings which would generate 24 secondary and 9 post-16 pupils within the normal area of Outwood Academy Newbold.

There would be sufficient surplus capacity to accommodate this number of pupils and the number of secondary and post-16 pupils that would be generated by this proposed development. Therefore the County Council is not requesting a financial contribution towards the provision of secondary or post-16 places.

5.5.5 Clearly the County in providing their latest response have taken

into account the pending resolution to grant planning permission for 146 dwellings on the Cammac site (CHE/15/00116/OUT) and also up to date school projections which explains the change in figures from their previous response to CHE/14/00873/OUT. The issue raised in relation to the timing of the S106 and permission for the Cammac site however is somewhat unprecedented as essentially the advice from the County puts the signing of any respective S106 decisions into a race, which is unreasonable given that the Borough Council can control the timing and signing of the decisions and S106s agreements and it would present a case where the Council might be open to unfair accusations about preferential treatment of one developer or site over the other. In this instance it would be fair to suggest, if this resolution is accepted, that both S106 agreements are signed at the same time.

5.5.6 It is the case that all decision taken must be made on the basis of

the latest up to date information. If this is the case it is now a fact that there are 30 spaces capacity in the primary school. It is also the case that the County Education Authority has signed the Statement of Common Ground confirming as such for the forthcoming public inquiry. On the basis that the Council has two schemes before it – both for residential development in the same school catchment and both potentially to be signed, if this resolution is accepted, with their legal agreements before the end of March (signed on same day) it appears that the only fair and proportionate way of arriving at an equitable solution would be to apportion the contribution needed to support the additional capacity required at the school on a pro-rata basis. This would

mean a reduction in the Cammac contribution from 29 places to 19 places (146 houses) but an increase in the Dunston Grange contribution from 30 places to 40 places (300 houses). This would be an approximate one third / two third split reflecting the number of dwellings proposed on each site and would allow a fair share of the existing capacity available within the school. This would be the alternative to the race suggested by the County Council and would be fair and proportionate. There would need to be clauses in both the Dunston Grange and Cammac agreements which allow for a refund of any contributions received which cannot be shown to have been spent or applied for the appropriate purpose within a reasonable period after they have been collected.

5.5.7 The approach referred to above has since been generally

supported by the County Council in that they have indicated a decision to apportion the contributions would need to secure the total funding to deliver project B to accommodate 59 primary school places.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 This resubmitted application has been publicised by site notices

posted on 20/01/2016; by advertisement placed in the local press on 21/01/2016 and by neighbours notification letters sent on 21/01/2016. As a result of the publicity above a total of 24 individual letters / emails of representation and a petition (signed by 265 people and presented by local ward members) have been received (as listed and summarised below):

Dunston Lodge We must again express our concerns associated with the project; We live at Dunston Lodge and operate the boarding kennels from

the same site which is a long established business which is very well used by the local and wider community;

Kennels, by their nature, can generate significant amounts of noise due to barking dogs and the noise cannot be controlled and may occur during anti-social hours resulting in significant and demonstrable harm upon living conditions of nearby residents. Fortunately our current operation is divorced from the nearest residents;

The proposals will introduce new residential units closer to our long established business which is an incompatible land use. Kennels

by their nature are not located in urban area due to problems with noise, in comparison with catteries where noise is not a problem;

The proposals will bring housing close to the kennels and hence will likely result in complaints being made about our legitimate and long established business. In the event of complaints the implications for our business are considerable and this will threaten the longevity of our business and livelihoods;

We note that the applicants have undertaken Noise Assessments and make recommendations for the use of planning conditions including the setting of noise levels to be achieved. We remain concerned that the complaints will be made should the housing be allowed and the perception for noise from new local residents will be a greater factor as opposed to recorded and empirical calculations;

We note the suggested conditions however these do not go far enough and in the event housing is approved accurate monitoring of noise levels needs to be undertaken and the developers forced to ensure mitigation measures demonstrate noise levels are met. We would ask that a margin exists to allow for exceptional and unforeseen activity form the kennels occurring;

We are very well aware the Council have previously refused permission a this site for reasons which will need to be defended and we also understand that it will not be possible for the Council to reasonably introduce further grounds of refusal. The risks of doing so are well documented however it is important that Members of Planning Committee are alerted to our legitimate and material concerns;

In the event the Council supports the latest submission (and hence avoid the risk associated with the forthcoming appeal) we would at least ask for more robust and detailed planning conditions in relation to noise mitigation; and

We also note the concerns expressed by other objectors and would also wish to add our support to the issues raised particularly with regard to highway safety.

See Appendix 1 - Section 5.10 below.

As was reported to planning committee when the previous application was determined, the conditions suggested in connection with measures to mitigate and manage the impact of noise from the adjacent commercial activity are considered to offer an appropriate level of control to protect the amenity of future occupants of the development.

It is not however possible to formulate / build in a buffer to allow for exceptional circumstances arising at the kennels as this would be an unreasonable requirement / restriction placed upon the developer.

See Section 5.4 above and Appendix 1 - Section 5.5 below.

Dunston Grange, Dunston Lane 7 Springwood Close 82, 99, 120 and 122 Dunston Lane 46 and 54 Lindale Road 10 Hollin Close 21 and 24 (x2) Bainswood Close 30 and 31 Rose Wood Close 9 Silverdale Close 3 Mardale Close 14 and 20 Nesfield Close 13 and 20 Kingswood Close A Local Resident (address not identified) x 3

Principle / Greenfield / Housing Need This is greenfield land outside the existing built up area; Me and many other local residents enjoy walking our pets on this

land; We have countless brownfield sites which should be used for

development first (waterside, Robinson factory and former dog racing track); As further developments are permitted in the local area this will place more strain on local services and the road network; The development proposals appear contrary to the scheme put forward by William Davies in 2014 which was rejected. Previously their plans did not include developing the field to the south of the farmhouse at all, so why is this now being put forward? We have invested a lot and taken decisions to develop Dunston Grange based upon the rejection of this scheme in the Core Strategy; If this scheme is accepted it is only a matter of time before the remaining parcels of land adjoining are developed which will reduce the buffer (albeit not greenbelt) between the edge of Dunston and the National Park; The fields are used to provide local produce to the town; We are now in a position of being overdeveloped. See Appendix 1 - Section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.

Heritage / Archaeology

The proposed development would impact on the setting of Dunston Grange; The hedgerow running along Dunston Lane is of important and this will be disrupted by the development; A 1.8m high fence to address noise from the Dog Kennels will not be attractive or in keeping with the adjacent farmhouse; We don’t feel the ‘buffer zone’ proposed to protect the setting of the listed building is big enough and the development will result in the loss of this buildings intended rural setting; With reference to the Archaeological Desk Based Assessment, we can see no further consideration of the structure identified. Are they to be preserved? It may be they are not worthy to preserve but has a further survey been done? See Appendix 1 - Sections 5.6 and 5.7.

Traffic The proposed development would greatly increase traffic on Dunston Lane; Dunston Lane is a narrow rat run for traffic heading towards Sheepbridge and A61 bypass; The roads are not good enough and are too busy without more traffic; We are not convinced that 180-190 extra car journeys a day at 2 peak times will not have a significantly adverse impact on capacity or safety; Each new house will have at least 2 cars each; Traffic at the Dunston Lane / Littlemoor junction is a major problem; The offer of free bus travel would not solve the traffic problems; As well as nearby junctions which will be affected, Whittington Moor roundabout is busy and congestion would also increase here; Dunston Lane is busy with children and elderly residents who already struggle to cross. If the development goes ahead it won’t be long before someone is killed; Dunston Lane (by its name as a lane) suggests it is narrow and changes to it would alter it beyond recognition as such; We already experience congestion and parking issues and this development will contribute to that;

The new submission amends the site access, however I feel this only window dresses the proposal as it cannot change the volume of traffic that would need to use the single access point; The inclusion of street architecture at the access point will restrict emergency vehicles as they will not be able to overtake on this stretch of Dunston Lane; Emergency vehicle attending this development will be delayed by the single access point. No developer would offer to install (costly) sprinkler systems to the houses if they are not admitting response time may be compromised; The traffic light controls to be installed at Dunston Lane / Dunston road will also create tailbacks and congestion which will impinge access to the site and the Camac development; I would question the timing of the surveys undertaken to inform the supporting documents which in my view means they are based on insufficient information; The commitment by the developer to appoint a Travel Plan Advisor is yet another admission of the potential traffic problems which would arise; There seems a complete mismatch between the likely income and lifestyle profiles of the new population and the traffic estimates of the developers; The knock on effects of traffic will need to be alleviated, but who will be responsible for funding improvements to Whittington Moor Roundabout and Littlemoor? Given some of the survey work was undertaken in support of an application prepared almost 2 years is the data fully up to date? How will construction site traffic and safety be managed if the development does go ahead to ensure pedestrian safety in the locality? See Section 5.4 above and Appendix 1 - Section 5.5 below.

Noise / Disturbance / Amenity Noise and disturbance from construction is a concern; Its absurd, I’ve only lived here a year and I don’t want any disruptions as it’s a quiet area. Ask William Davies to build somewhere else; We will be inconvenienced by digging up water pipes etc; Long-term the development will increase noise, air and light pollution; I live just opposite the proposed build and will have new houses overlooking my back garden;

Noise from the local kennels will affect the new properties as we live 320m away but can still hear them clearly; The mock up drawings in no way illustrate the actual lay of the land between the site and the properties which bound the southern edge of the site. The 5m buffer indicated will in no way protect the my amenity and privacy – the council and planning committee have a duty of care under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act to ensure my privacy is not encroached; The development was indicated at the last meeting to take approximately 6 years to complete and I query how will pollution, noise and disturbance be managed for nearby neighbours. See Appendix 1 - Section 5.4 and 5.10. Drainage Rain and runoff from the land has been more noticeable since the previous permission, and with the issue faced in Yorkshire and Cumbria of late this is now of greater concern; It is not clear from the plan where the western 3rd of the site will drain to, but if this is intended to go to the existing land drain this will cause overflow problems as the drain already backs up to the farmhouse and causes flooding to the dog kennels; I am worried about flooding as the land is higher than the surrounding properties; See Appendix 1 - Section 5.8.

Infrastructure The local doctors and dentists are too full and cannot cope; The development will increase the amount of school places that are needed; It is currently impossible to get a same day doctor’s appointment; Given that permission has been granted at Cammac, this development would put further strain on already overstretched services; Figure provided by DCC originally suggested a shortfall of 57 school places however this has now reduced and been recalculated to only 33. Such a difference is worrying; Should an increase in Dunston primary School be needed DCC suggest this will not be a problem, but this does not take into account the related impacts of such an extension to the school in the locality (traffic, disturbance etc);

There is an overall lack of local amenities in the area (GPs, Schools etc) and therefore this will impact upon sustainability as people will have to drive to access these types of facilities; I understand the new proposals assume that the County Council will spend more that the developers on increasing capacity at Dunston School, hence losing a considerable amount of open space attached to the school and I object to this; I am struggling to find any information of the proposed S106 finance that William Davies are proposing to give to CBC, is the amount offer proportionate to the development itself? See Section 5.5 above and Appendix 1 - Section 5.11 below.

Ecology / Habitat Soon there will not be any wildlife habitat left and we have seen a decline since the industrial units were built; Who will manage the hedgerows and attenuation lakes retained within the site; We will lose a rather charming family of Pheasants that regularly wander the fields in question; Only last week we noticed a pair of Buzzards; The site is used by many rare birds as well as other common species of birds and wildlife; See Appendix 1 - Section 5.6. Other Why is the Council reconsidering the application? Having houses instead of countryside will have a negative impact on the health of people in the area; There is only a legal minimum commitment made by the developers to environmental / social issue like renewable energy, low carbon buildings, walking / cycling, social housing, mixed communities etc. A number of representations summarised above also ask for their previous comments to be taken into account, which are contained in Appendix 1 of this report.

This application can be assessed only on its own merits and the developer has a right to re-submit subsequent planning applications, notwithstanding a previous refusal.

6.2 Please note that in addition to the representations received exclusively in response to this resubmission the report contained in Appendix 1 also include details of all previous representations made against application CHE/14/00873/OUT. In addition 4 no. separate letters have been sent to the Council against the current planning appeal relating to app. CHE/14/00873/OUT from 20 Nesfield Close, 26 Bainswood Close, 6 Hollin Close and a local resident (address not identified) and the petition also refers to the appeal as well as the current planning application.

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 objectors, the development will affect

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 Whilst it is accepted that on face value the development proposals

are not in accordance with policy EVR2 of the Local Plan as the site is greenfield, wider regard has been had to the Council’s current position in respect of its failure to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. In accordance with para. 49 of the NPPF having regard to the provisions of policy CS10 of the Core Strategy, the boundary / allocation effectively drawn by policy EVR2 is not considered to be ‘up to date’ and therefore the Council is required to consider any greenfield site in its commitment of housing delivery.

8.3 Prior to the formal application submission and during the

application process the applicant has sought to engage proactively with the Local Planning Authority. The applicant has sought to address and respond to any matters raised throughout the formal application process by consultees and officers accordingly.

8.4 In reaching the recommendation the Council has accepted on

balance of all other material planning considerations the development 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.

8.5 The report will be made available to the applicant / agent and any

objector informing them of the application considerations and recommendation / conclusions.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposal the subject of the application is deemed to be

contrary to the provisions of policy EVR2 of the Local Plan in so far as the application site is situated on land allocated as open countryside / other open land. Approval of the application would be a departure. The Council is currently in a position where it cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply and therefore para. 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework is triggered

rendering policy EVR2 (which would ordinarily prevent housing development on unallocated greenfield sites) out of date.

9.2 Given the position above the Council has considered the proposals

the subject of the application against all remaining up to date development plan policies, including policies CS1 (Spatial Strategy), CS2 (Location of Development), CS3 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development), CS4 (Infrastructure Delivery), CS6 (Sustainable Design), CS7 (Management of the Water Cycle), CS8 (Environmental Quality), CS9 (Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity), CS10 (Flexibility in delivery of Housing), CS11 (Range of Housing), CS13 (Economic Growth), CS18 (Design), CS19 (Historic Environment) and CS20 (Demand for Travel) of the Core Strategy. In addition consideration has been given to the wider National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Councils Supplementary Planning Document on Housing Layout and Design ‘Successful Places’.

9.3 It is considered that the proposed development is able to

demonstrate its compliance with policies CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS4 of the Core Strategy in so far as its ability to provide connection (and where necessary improvement) to social, economic and environmental infrastructure such that the development meets the definitions of sustainable development. The application submission is supported by the preparation of assessment and reports which illustrates the proposed developments ability to comply with the provisions of policies CS6, CS7, CS8, CS9, CS11, CS13, CS18, CS19 and CS20 of the Core Strategy and where necessary it is considered that any outstanding issues can be mitigated and addressed in any subsequent reserved matters submission or any appropriate planning conditions being imposed.

10.0 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 10.1 That a S106 agreement be negotiated and signed concurrent with

the planning permission and dealing with:

A 20% Affordable Housing contribution.

Negotiations up to 1% of the overall development cost for a Percent For Art scheme

The management and maintenance of any on site green open space and SuDS infrastructure.

A contribution to fund 40 primary pupils at Dunston Primary School equalling £455,960.40 towards Project B: extension

of classroom provision and associated ancillary accommodation (toilets and group space).

Funding for investigation into, and subsequent implementation of, bus stop relocation / enhancement works.

Funding for investigation into, and any subsequent implementation of, traffic management measures on the local highway network e.g revision of speed limit.

Funding for the construction costs of providing the footpath / cycle link from the southern boundary of the site onto Hollin Close

10.2 That a Tree Preservation Order be served to protect the trees on

site in accordance with the Tree Officers recommendations contained in para. 5.6.4 – 5.6.5 of the Appendix 1 report below.

10.3 That on the basis of the updated information concerning the

education position that the agreement on Cammac (CHE/15/00116/OUT) be amended to reduce the education contribution from that based on 29 places to 19 places (equalling £216,581.19).

11.0 RECOMMENDATION

11.1 That on completion of the S106 agreement that the application be

GRANTED subject to the conditions as set in section 11.0 of the officer’s report attached at Appendix 1.

APPENDIX 1 – COMMITTEE REPORT FROM 16TH NOVEMBER 2015 FOR APP. CHE/14/00873/OUT Case Officer: Sarah Kay File No: CHE/14/00873/OUT Tel. No: (01246) 345786 Plot No: 2/218 & 4127 Ctte Date: 16th November 2015

ITEM 1

OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND SURFACE WATER BALANCING (ALL MATTERS RESERVED SAVE FOR MEANS OF ACCESS INTO THE SITE) – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED ON 16/10/2015 AT LAND TO THE WEST OF DUNSTON LANE, CHESTERFIELD, DERBYSHIRE FOR WILLIAM DAVIS LIMITED Local Plan: Open countryside and other open land Ward: Dunston 1.0 CONSULTATIONS

Consultee Response

Derby & Derbyshire Development Archaeologist

Comments received 19/01/2015 – see report

Environment Agency Comments received 20/01/2015 – see report

Coal Authority Comments received 21/01/2015 – see report

CBC Environmental Services

Comments received 26/01/2015, 17/02/2015, 26/02/2015, 17/07/2015, 20/07/2015 and 04/11/2015 – see report

Crime Prevention Design Advisor

Comments received 26/01/2015 – see report

CBC Design Services Comments received 26/01/2015 – see report

Yorkshire Water Services Comments received 29/01/2015 and 30/03/2015 – see report

CBC Housing Comments received 30/01/2015 – see report

DCC Planning Comments received 02/02/2015 (Infrastructure) and 22/04/2015 (Policy) – see report

DCC Lead Local Flood Authority

Comments received 18/03/2015 – see report

CBC Conservation Officer Comments received 16/02/2015 – see report

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust Comments received 16/02/2015 – see report

CBC Strategic Planning Team

Comments received 23/02/2015 – see report

CBC Urban Design Officer Comments receive 02/03/2015 – see report

CBC Tree Officer Comments received 11/03/2015 – see report

CBC Leisure Services Comments received 27/02/2015 – see report

CBC Economic Development

Comments received 27/02/2015 – see report

DCC Highways Comments received 23/02/2015, 05/03/2015 (Travel Plan), 08/07/2015, 23/07/2015, 29/10/2015 and 04/11/2015 - see report

C/Field Cycle Campaign Comments received 22/02/2015 – see report

C/Field Civic Society No comments received

NHS PCT No comments received

Fire Officer No comments received

Ward Members A 177 signatory petition presented by Cllrs Hollingworth, Rayner and Simmons

Publicity - Site Notice / Neighbours

63 letters / emails received (and a petition – see above)

2.0 THE SITE

2.1 The site the subject of the application is an area of agricultural land 15.81 hectares in area which is located on the northern edge of Dunston. Access into the site is currently only available from a gated entrance off a private lane leading to Dunston Grange, which adjoins the immediate northern boundary of the application site.

2.2 The aerial photograph below shows the application site as

comprising the whole of the central field to which the arrow is pointing and the three smaller fields adjoining to the west. There are residential properties immediately adjoining the southern boundary of the site, the eastern boundary is defined by Dunston Lane, the northern boundary is defined by the private access road which runs from Dunston Lane to Dunston Grange and beyond, and the western boundary is a dividing hedgerow (which runs northerly from the western settlement boundary edge of Dunston). The site is undulated in part and predominantly slopes down from north to south.

3.0SITE HISTORY 3.1 CHE/14/00641/EIA – Request for screening opinion for proposed

residential development at land to the south of Dunston grange, Dunston Lane, Chesterfield, Derbyshire for Pegasus Group. LPA decision dated 23/09/2014 concluded that the proposals were EIA development; however the LPA decision was appealed to the

National Planning Casework Unit and subsequently the Secretary of State decision dated 19/11/2014 concluded that the proposals was not EIA development.

3.2 CHE/0993/0562 - Outline application for residential development

with playing fields and road improvements on land surrounding Dunston Grange Farm, Dunston Lane, Chesterfield. Refused on 10/02/1994 for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is contrary to the policies of the Chesterfield Local Plan and the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan which deal with: a) allocation of the site as ‘open land protected from development’, b) the setting of the grade II listed Dunston Grange, c) the effect on the ecological interests of the site.

2. The proposal is in conflict with the Derbyshire Structure Plan General Development Strategy Policies 2 + 4, Housing Policies 4 + 15 and Environmental Policy 8.

4.0 THE PROPOSAL 4.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for the erection

of up to 300 dwellings on site with all matters except for means of access being reserved. Access is shown to be formed as a new junction from Dunston Lane (located in the lower half of the eastern application site boundary).

4.2 An illustrative Masterplan drawing is provided for the purposes of

setting the Design & Access Statement into context and this plan gives an illustration how the site might be laid out and the development formed.

4.3 The application submission is accompanied by the following

documentation:

Planning Statement (prepared by Pegasus Group December 2014) and Consultation Statement (prepared by Pegasus Group December 2014)

Design & Access Statement (prepared by Pegasus Urban Design December 2014)

Transport Assessment (prepared by BWB December 2014) and Transport Assessment Addendum (prepared by BWB June 2015)

Travel Plan (prepared by BWB December 2014)

Flood Risk Assessment (prepared by BWB October 2013 - updated December 2014)

Foul Water & Utilities Statement (prepared by BWB December 2014)

Phase I Geo-Environmental Assessment (prepared by BWB December 2014)

Noise Assessment (prepared by WYG June 2015)

Arboricultural Assessment (prepared by FPCR December 2014) and Historic Hedgerow Assessment (prepared by CGMS April 2015)

Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (prepared by FPCR December 2014)

Heritage Statement (prepared by Heritage Collective December 2014)

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (prepared by CGMS March 2014), Geophysical Survey Report (prepared by GSB Prospection Ltd March 2014) and Archaeological Trial Trench Evaluation (prepared by CGMS October 2014)

Extended Phase I Habitat Survey (prepared by BSG Ecology July 2014) and Further Ecology Surveys (prepared by BSG Ecology December 2014)

Soils Resources and Agricultural Use / Quality Report (prepared by Land Research Associates Ltd February 2014)

4.4 On the 16 October 2015 the applicant also submitted further

details as follows:

Supplementary Noise Assessment (prepared by Waterman dated October 2015)

Transport Assessment Addendum Part 2 (prepared by BWB October 2015)

Revised Drawings – Proposed Site Access (revision P2) and Concept Masterplan (August 2015)

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 National/Local Planning Policy 5.1.1 The site the subject of the application is land allocated as Open

Countryside / Other Open Land which is a protected allocation of Policy EVR2 from the 2006 Local Plan, which was saved alongside the adoption of the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011 - 2031. Having regard to the nature of the application proposals and the allocation above policies CS1 (Spatial Strategy), CS2 (Location of Development), CS3 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable

Development), CS4 (Infrastructure Delivery), CS6 (Sustainable Design), CS7 (Management of the Water Cycle), CS8 (Environmental Quality), CS9 (Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity), CS10 (Flexibility in delivery of Housing), CS11 (Range of Housing), CS13 (Economic Growth), CS18 (Design), CS19 (Historic Environment) and CS20 (Demand for Travel) of the Core Strategy and the wider National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) apply. In addition the Councils Supplementary Planning Document on Housing Layout and Design ‘Successful Places’ is also a material consideration.

5.2 Local Planning Policy History 5.2.1 It should be noted that the site forms part of a wider area of land

that has been the subject of representations in the past on the preparation of various Local Plans for the Borough

5.2.2 Part of the land (about 18ha) was put forward by developers as a

housing site when the council was preparing the 1996 Local Plan, with the Inspector at the time concluding that the site was not needed to meet the Council’s (then) housing targets, although he did note that the boundary of the green belt had been held back from the edge of Dunston, on the expectation that the land would be needed at some point in the future. In the meantime, the land was identified in the adopted 1996 Local Plan as open countryside to be protected from development.

5.2.3 It was put forward again (the full 40ha) when the Council was

preparing the 2006 Local Plan. At this point the emphasis from Central Government was very much on the re-use of brownfield sites first and, as the Council were able to demonstrate at that time enough sites for housing on such sites, the Inspector concluded that there was no need for any greenfield housing sites to be allocated and the open countryside protection was continued.

5.2.4 Most recently, a wider site was promoted by William Davis as a

Strategic Site through consultation on the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted in July 2013). The Local Plan Inspector concluded that “the provision of a strategic greenfield site such as Dunston is not necessary to meet the current need for growth in the Borough, nor is it necessary to include Dunston as an RPA (Regeneration Priority Area)”. It is noted that the Inspector did not rule out development of the land completely, leaving this as an issue to be

determined through preparation of the Local Plan Sites and Boundaries DPD or through consideration of a planning application.

5.2.5 In November 2012 the Council published an Issues and Options

consultation for a Sites and Boundaries DPD. This identified land west of Dunston Lane as a potential area of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period. A number of objections and some letters of support were received in response, but the DPD has not been progressed further to date.

5.3 Principle of Development (Open Countryside, 5yr Housing

Supply & Spatial Strategy) 5.3.1 The site is currently designated as Open Countryside under saved

policy EVR2 of the 2006 Local Plan. This policy has been saved until the Local Plan; Sites and Boundaries SPD has been adopted. Under policy EVR2 residential development would not normally be permitted. Policy CS10 of the recently adopted Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted July 2013), also states that residential development on greenfield sites that are not in an adopted Local Plan will not normally be permitted whilst the Council is able to demonstrate a supply of deliverable housing sites sufficient for five years.

5.3.2 The council is not currently able to demonstrate the required 5 year

supply of deliverable land for housing1, however, and as such, other local and national policies come into consideration. The policy implications of the lack of 5 year supply of housing land are primary considerations and will be dealt with first.

5.3.3 In particular, paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy

Framework stipulates that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. The council is of the view (informed by a recent appeal decision APP/A1015/A/14/2214996) that paragraph 49 refers to policies of general application which seek to control the supply of housing

1 At a recent inquiry the realistic up-to-date supply, applying a 20% buffer and the Sedgefield approach, was

agreed as being about 3 years.

such as settlement boundaries or those which seek to prevent development generally, rather than those which are intended to protect specific features or areas. EVR2 is, therefore, considered to be out of date in relation to residential proposals as it applies very broadly and restricts development generally. Policy CS10 is worded in such a way that the limitation on greenfield development falls away in these circumstances. On this basis, as it is not currently possible to demonstrate a five year supply of housing sites, there is a case to support the principle of some level of housing development in this location, subject to consideration of other local and national planning policy

5.3.4 The other policies of the Local Plan do continue to apply, the most

relevant in this case being CS1 ‘Spatial Strategy’, CS2 ‘Principles of Location of Development’ and CS9 ‘Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity’. Indeed, all proposals for development must accord with CS1 and CS2 to be acceptable, regardless of whether it is a residential proposal and/or whether the council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land.

CS1 & CS2

5.3.5 CS1 sets out that the overall approach is to concentrate new development within walking and cycling distance of centres2 and focus on areas that need regenerating. Dunston is not identified as an RPA, therefore the main consideration is whether the development is within walking and cycling distance of a centre.

5.3.6 Littlemoor Local Centre is approximately 800m from the entrance

to the site, or approximately a five minute walk. Although Littlemoor is only identified as a Local Centre in the adopted Core Strategy, it is recognised that it does provide a better range of facilities than most Local Centres, with a Spar, a Co-op, and range of other shops and a library, school and medical facilities immediately adjacent to the Local Centre. However the site is extensive and properties at the western end would have a significantly longer journey to access facilities, in the region of a 40 minute round trip to the Local Centre, which is likely to encourage a greater proportion of trips to be made by car. As a result parts of the site are at the margins of what might be considered a

2 According to the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT), walking is a

suitable travel mode for journeys up to 2km in length and cycling for journeys up to 5km in length.

reasonable walking distance from a centre, and it is questionable whether it meets the requirements of CS1 in this regard.

5.3.7 It is noted that the applicant’s supporting information and access

strategy in the Design and Access Statement indicate the potential to create additional pedestrian and cycle links along the southern boundary of the site, specifically into Hollin Close and Baines Wood Close. This does not appear to have been carried through to the Illustrative Masterplan. Securing these additional links would go some way towards to improving accessibility and, whilst at the upper end, would arguably put the whole of the development within walking and cycling distance of the facilities at Littlemoor, and meet the ‘Concentration’ aspect of the Spatial Strategy set out in CS1.

5.3.8 CS2 sets criteria for assessing proposals for development on

unallocated sites. In relation to criteria (a), as mentioned above, parts of the site are at the margins of what might be considered a reasonable walking distance from a centre however improved pedestrian and cycle linkages should be secured if the proposal is to deliver the Spatial Strategy in this regard. The spatial strategy does also, however, set out the overall housing requirement for the borough, and the proposal would undoubtedly make a contribution to delivering that, particularly in light of a lack of demonstrable 5 year supply for housing.

5.3.9 Although the development does not accord with criteria (b) of this

policy, this must be seen in the light of policy CS10 and Paragraph 49 of the NPPF, which allow for development on greenfield sites in exceptional circumstances (specifically in this case, the lack of a demonstrable five year supply of deliverable housing sites). It is not necessary for a development to meet all of the criteria set out in CS2 in order to be granted planning permission, but weight should be given to the extent that they are able to.

5.3.10 It is considered that the proposal accords with criteria (c) and (g) of

this policy, and, subject to comments from Derbyshire County Council (see section 5.11 below), it would also accord with criteria (e) provided contributions are made to providing additional capacity in schools and public open space through appropriate planning obligations or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments . The proposal does not, however, offer significant wider regeneration and sustainability benefits to the area aside from

those directly associated with new housing (eg: New Homes Bonus, standard Local Labour clauses) (d). As currently set out the development does not maximise opportunities for walking and cycling and the use of public transport (f), and improved connections should therefore be sought. These may include planning obligation contributions towards improved public transport facilities.

5.3.11 As the development is broadly in accordance with CS1 (in the light

of the operation of CS10 and para 49 of the NPPF), criteria i and ii do not apply in this case.

CS9

5.3.12 The site is not within an area where the Core Strategy Key diagram indicates a Strategic Gap or Green Wedge, and is not in an area of ancient or non-ancient woodland, Criteria (a) and (g) therefore do not apply. Consideration should still be given to the other criteria of policy CS9, in particular (e) ‘conserve or enhance the local distinctiveness and character of the landscape’. A landscape and visual impact appraisal has been submitted with the application and, the views of the DCC landscape team on this are valuable in determining the application.

5.3.13 The applicant has confirmed that they will provide open space on

site and would be prepared to contribute to off-site provision. A management regime for the on-site open space should be sought if planning permission is granted, or alternatively a commuted sum paid if it is to be adopted by the Local Authority (see section 5.11 below).

5.3.14 It is noted that a number of hedgerows and trees surrounding and

within the site are to be retained, and enhanced, but as it stands this does not seem sufficient to meet the requirements of CS9 (f) and (h). The development does have the ability to create a net gain in quality or function of green infrastructure (see comments from DWT in section 5.6 below) and therefore an appropriate scheme of habitat improvements through landscaping and provision of measures such as roosting opportunities should be sought and secured by condition if necessary.

5.4 Design/Appearance

5.4.1 In respect of matters concerning design and appearance the application is submitted in outline, with all matters apart from access being reserved. The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement with a Masterplan illustration indicating some design principles, however beyond the consideration of the principle of development and the design of the access junction, any matters concerning appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are simply indicative.

5.4.2 The proposals have been appraised by the Councils Urban Design

Officer having regard to policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and the Successful Places SPD and the comments incorporated into the considerations set out below.

5.4.3 The application does not stipulate the amount of housing being

sought, but simply seeks to establish the principle of residential development on this land. However, the previously submitted Screening Opinion (ref. CBC/14/00642/EIA) was sought on the basis of a development of up to 300 dwellings. In addition, the supporting technical reports and Design and Access Statement (DAS) also refer to this figure. It is therefore reasonable to assume that a development of around 300 units is the likely amount that will be sought through subsequent reserved matters submissions, in the event of outline planning permission being granted.

5.4.4 On the basis of a developable area of 11.37 hectares this will

achieve a net density of 26dph. The DAS further explains that the density of development will vary according to the location within the site and that this will be linked to the creation of three character areas within the scheme. The main street will be up to 35dph, general areas up to 30dph and the rural edges up to 25dph. This approach is acceptable and is consistent with the guidance set out within the Successful Places SPD, which seeks to vary densities across developments of this scale and to achieve a graduated transition from urban to rural by reducing housing densities around settlement edges. At this stage no overall layout has been provided to demonstrate how this number of dwellings could be reasonably accommodated, having regard to design / quality of place and density requirements. However, this should be able to be achieved given an average density of 26dph across the site as a whole (notwithstanding the difference in density intended within the layout).

5.4.5 Internally, the illustrative layout comprises a highly permeable network of interconnected streets which will create the ability to move around the site in different ways. This is appropriate and is supported, although it is noted that some indicative lengths of private drive appear over-long and may cause difficulties in respect of adoption, access for service vehicles / waste collections. Some sections of adoptable road are likely to be required to be extended in order to link up and provide additional loops to afford access for waste collections. Given the indicative nature of the Masterplan drawing no connections to the existing residential area to the south are shown in detail to be provided. However it is clear that there may be scope to secure a pedestrian / cycle link with the existing neighbourhood to the south via Hollin Close.

5.4.6 The illustrative layout seeks to retain and incorporate the existing

mature trees within the site, all of which are shown to be integrated into spaces within the development. This approach is appropriate and is supported. A number of green spaces of varying size and shape are included within the layout, these primarily relate to the retained mature trees. In addition, a large green space incorporating a LEAP provides the primary focus and has been aligned to provide some setting for the nearby listed building to the north. The existing hedgerows are shown to be retained and incorporated into the development. This is appropriate and supported in principle, although the detail of how this achieved will require careful design.

5.4.7 The proposals represent a major urban extension to the northern

part of the Borough and encroachment into the open countryside. If the principle of the development is found to be acceptable, the scheme would need to establish a sensitive design treatment for the creation of a new long term settlement edge for this part of Chesterfield where it meets the surrounding countryside. This should include:

Orientating buildings to address the landscape positively (not backing onto the landscape).

Creating a gentle transition / feathered edge from urban and rural, not an abrupt or solid edge.

Meaningfully reduce density of development towards the countryside/edges of the site to support the transition;

Incorporating landscape to soften edges, views and assimilate the development into the landscape.

Broader gaps between units and larger plots to allow space for meaningful on-plot tree planting.

The proposed Illustrative Masterplan demonstrates some of these characteristics, including a suggested reduction of density around the fringes of the site against the countryside. The provision of a green corridor around the outside edges of the development is an important aspect of this transition and is supported. The nature of the associated block densities against these spaces will be important determinants in creation of a successful transitional edge. The northern and western fringes of the site are shown as an informal green corridor that incorporates a number of SUDS features to manage the sites drainage. This is considered to be an appropriate design treatment against the exposed countryside edges and should assist in achieving a transitional interface between town and countryside.

5.4.8 The concept Masterplan suggests that the proposals will include a

series of ‘keynote’ buildings, frontages and spaces. This approach is supported and acceptable in principle. The creation of meaningful buildings and locations within a development of this scale will assist with its legibility and support the creation of a positive sense of place. Two and half storey buildings are identified as the height of feature buildings to terminate views and vistas. The detailed design of these elements will be crucial in terms of successfully defining a genuine place hierarchy within the scheme. In addition to expressing importance through additional height, it will be important that key buildings should also comprise a distinctive appearance and be subject to a higher standard of architectural design and finish, so as to differentiate them from the less distinguished areas of townscape in between. The use of the suggested hierarchy of street types would also assist in supporting a sense of hierarchy across the development.

5.4.9 Locations for keynote buildings and frontages are associated with

the creation of focal green spaces, primarily centred on retained mature trees and intersections. This approach is supported and will assist in establishing the development in association with these features, acknowledging their importance, strengthening the identity of these locations and improving the legibility of the development.

5.4.10 At this stage the detailed design is yet to be undertaken.

Nevertheless, as a major site it will be important to ensure that the

quality of the built environment achieves the objectives set out under the NPPF and NPPG that a good standard of design is achieved in a manner that supports the positive characteristics and local distinctiveness of Chesterfield. The DAS includes an appraisal of several areas (p. 13-15) although the selected locations do not exhibit a strong identity, character or local distinctiveness that is particular to Chesterfield. It is not recommended that the detailed designs should emulate these locations. The DAS does however include a set of design ‘principles’ (section 5, p. 31-45) by which the indicative proposals have been developed. These are generally sound principles and in the event that outline planning permission is granted, these principles should form the basis of any subsequent reserved matters proposals.

5.4.11 The proposals will need to ensure that the amenity of existing

residents located along the southern boundary of the site is protected in terms of overlooking and proximity. At present the existing dwellings are mainly situated below the level of the site. In addition, many have relatively short rear gardens and in numerous places the existing hedge line breaks down to reveal open gaps and clear views into the rear of the neighbouring dwellings. The DAS (p. 36-37) indicates that the design of the scheme will address this by ensuring that any development against this boundary will include longer rear gardens (a minimum of 10.5m) and an additional landscape buffer of approximately 5m depth. The increased separation and provision of additional planting to strengthen the existing hedge boundary will ensure that neighbour amenity is maintained.

5.4.12 The north-east part of the site is situated in relatively close

proximity to Dunston Lodge Kennels, which is a source of potential noise nuisance. The proposals deliberately separate the residential area from the kennels through the location of the proposed SUDS ponds and noise mitigation measures are also recommended in the supporting Noise Report, such as locating non-habitable spaces on the elevations facing the kennel site. Nevertheless, it will be important to ensure that the separation distance and mitigation is sufficient to achieve adequate protection for future occupants and to avoid complaints being made against an established business. This matter is dealt with in more detail in section 5.10 of the report below.

5.4.13 Just less than 30% of the site is given over to public open space and landscaping, including the provision of formal space (2.17ha) which incorporates play areas and green corridors, as well and informal green spaces (1.63ha) to provide a setting to the northern and eastern site boundaries and storm water attenuation areas. The disposition of green space is arranged logically to retain existing green features, such as established trees and hedges, to manage surface water and to create a soft landscaped edge against the open countryside. In addition the primary formal green space provides separation from the adjacent listed building and maintains something of a setting to this former farm complex.

5.4.14 Connections to the existing residential area are not currently

shown or proposed. The provision of only a single point of access essentially creates a very large cul-de-sacs environment. This is a critical weakness of the current scheme, limiting the ability of future occupiers to access local facilities, increasing inconvenience and discouraging future residents from opting to walk or cycle in preference to driving.

5.4.15 Any development of this scale should therefore seek to maximise

its connectivity with the existing urban area, or else risk becoming an isolated, inward looking estate that fails to integrate with the established settlement. Only limited opportunities are available to provide such links. Nevertheless, two locations have the potential to afford good links between the proposed site and the established neighbouring residential area, namely Baines Wood Close and Hollin Close.

5.4.16 Hollin Close has sufficient carriageway width to provide a

secondary vehicular link between the site and the Cordwell Avenue area. The carriageway is approximately 5.5m wide and a narrow green space between the edge of the close and the site could allow for a connection to be made. The carriageway at Baines Wood Close is narrow (approximately 4.1m wide) and does not lend itself to additional vehicular traffic without improvement, although a further pedestrian and cycle link through this cul-de-sac is feasible. The case officer has explored the possibility of securing a connection with the Cordwell Avenue area and the land over which the connection would be secured lies within the Councils ownership. It would be possible to explore this connection in more detail alongside a layout reserved matters

submission and at the very least a pedestrian / cycle connection is deemed necessary.

5.4.17 It is considered that in respect of design, appearance and amenity

issues the proposals (subject to reserved matters) accord with the requirements of policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and the principles set in the Successful Places SPD and are therefore acceptable.

5.5 Highways / Demand for Travel 5.5.1 Having regard to the nature of the application proposals and the

fact that access is detailed for consideration alongside this outline planning application the submission is accompanied by a detailed Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. The proposals and these supporting documents have been reviewed by the Local Highways Authority (LHA) and correspondence exchanges have subsequently taken place between the LHA and the applicants Highway Consultant to clarify various points / comments raised.

5.5.2 The details submitted in the TA and its subsequent 2 no.

Addendums indicate necessary alteration to Dunston Lane at the point where the new access is proposed to serve the application site; a reduction of the speed limit from 60mph to 40mph; and details of a proposal to signalise the junction of Dunston Road and Dunston Lane.

5.5.3 The most recent alterations to the junction design (which

accompanied the TA Addendum 2) have been informed by detailed and ongoing discussions between the applicant and the LHA which involved the applicant undertaking speed surveys and detailed topographical surveys to agree the requisite access alignment, location and appropriate exit visibility based upon appropriate surveys and evidence. The LHA has supported the applicants approach and methodology for all survey work undertaken. The access has also been designed to take into account comments from Chesterfield Cycle Campaign which was raised early in the application process.

5.5.4 It is necessary to ensure that the latest detailed junction design,

visibility splays and works to the existing highway offer an appropriate access solution to the wider development site, without compromising the safety of existing highway users and as a result

of the latest package of revisions being made the LHA has reviewed the details and commented as follows:

‘The submitted details indicate that exit visibility sightlines of 2.4m x 85m minimum would be available from the revised junction location. The Highway Authority considers that objection on visibility grounds to development of the scale and nature proposed, served via a junction in this vicinity provided with such sightlines, would be unlikely to prove sustainable.

Notwithstanding the above, there are some elements of the proposed layout that will need to be satisfactorily addressed including:- - Suitability of visibility available at the proposed pedestrian/ cycle

crossing points will need to be demonstrated. - A Right Turn Harbourage width of 3.0m is considered

acceptable, however, the through lanes of Dunston Lane should be 3.25m minimum width. There would appear to be adequate space within existing highway/ control to accommodate this.

- It’s unlikely that ‘speed control refuges’ would be required within the approach tapers to the pedestrian/ cycle crossing points. Introduction of a 40mph speed limit may warrant a further central island although this will be somewhat dependent on location of the proposed speed limit change and the form of the ‘gateway’ should such change be approved and implemented.

- Verges should be of 1.0m minimum width (NB between the realigned carriageway and cycle/ footway on the north-eastern side of the junction).

In addition, and as previously stated, it’s considered that the proposed development should not be screened from Dunston Road as exposure of the buildings would extend the built frontage thereby changing the nature of the road and contributing towards perceived ‘side friction’ for passing drivers of vehicles.

Comments and recommendations with respect to the Transportation Assessment, Travel Plan and future internal site layout have been made in earlier responses.

The applicant has proposed introduction of traffic signal control at the Dunston Road/ Dunston Lane junction in order to mitigate the impact of the development at this location. Detailed designs for

these Works will need to be prepared prior to the commencement of any Works on site.

It’s understood that creation of a pedestrian/ cycle between the existing highway network and the south of the site has been the subject of discussion with the Borough Council (owners of the land) and the latter does not have objection subject to there being no cost implications for the Council. This being the case, it’s recommended that a condition is included within any consent requiring detailed designs for such link to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of any works on site.

In association with the above, a review of the existing bus stops in the vicinity will need to be undertaken in association with the Highway Authority’s Public Transport Unit with any requisite relocation/ enhancement Works identified being implemented at the applicant’s expense. It’s suggested that funding for this is secured under a S106 Agreement.

Therefore, if you are minded to approve these proposals, it’s recommended that the following should be included as a part of the Consent:-

S106 a. Funding for investigation into, and any subsequent

implementation of, traffic management measures on the local highway network e.g. revision of speed limit.

b. Funding for investigation into, and any subsequent implementation of, bus stop relocation/ enhancement works.

c. £10,000 for approving and monitoring the Travel Plan over a 5 year period.

Conditions 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. No development shall take place including any works of demolition until a construction management plan or construction

method statement has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for:

o Parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors o routes for construction traffic o hours of operation o method of prevention of debris being carried onto highway o pedestrian and cyclist protection o proposed temporary traffic restrictions o arrangements for turning vehicles

3. Notwithstanding the submitted information a subsequent reserved matters or full application shall include design of the internal layout of the site in accordance with the Highway Authority’s current design guide.

4. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, a new junction shall be formed to Dunston Lane 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 minimum distance of 85 metres in each direction measured along the nearside carriageway edge in accordance with a scheme first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The area in advance of the visibility sightlines shall be retained throughout the life of the development free of any object above ground level relative to adjoining nearside carriageway channel level.

5. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall not be commenced until a detailed scheme for highway improvement works involving signalisation of the junction Dunston Road - Dunston Lane, together with a programme for the implementation and completion of the works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use until the required highway improvement works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt the developer will be required to enter into a 1980 Highways Act S278 Agreement with the Highway Authority in order to comply with the requirements of this condition.

6. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall not be commenced until a detailed scheme for highway improvement works involving creation of a pedestrian/ cycle link between the existing adopted

highway and southern part of the application site, together with a programme for the implementation and completion of the works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use until the required highway improvement works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt the developer will be required to enter into a 1980 Highways Act S278 Agreement with the Highway Authority in order to comply with the requirements of this condition.

7. No development shall take place until construction details of the residential estate roads and footways (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing, lighting and means of surface water drainage) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8. The carriageways of the proposed estate roads shall be constructed in accordance with Condition 7. above up to and including at least road base level, prior to the commencement of the erection of any dwelling intended to take access from that road. The carriageways and footways shall be constructed up to and including base course surfacing to ensure that each dwelling prior to occupation has a properly consolidated and surfaced carriageway and footway, between the dwelling and the existing highway. Until final surfacing is completed, the footway base course shall be provided in a manner to avoid any upstands to gullies, covers, kerbs or other such obstructions within or abutting the footway. The carriageways, footways and footpaths in front of each dwelling shall be completed with final surface course within twelve months (or three months in the case of a shared surface road) from the occupation of such dwelling, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

9. The premises, the subject of the application, shall not be occupied until space has been provided within the site curtilage for the parking/ loading and unloading/ manoeuvring of residents/ visitors/ service and delivery vehicles, located, designed, laid out and constructed all as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and maintained throughout the life of the development free from any impediment to its designated use.

10. There shall be no gates or other barriers within 6.0 metres of the nearside highway boundary and any gates shall open

inwards only, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

11. The proposed access drives to the proposed estate streets shall be no steeper than 1 in 14 for the first 6.0 metres from the nearside highway boundary and 1 in 10 thereafter.

12. No part of the development shall be occupied until details of arrangements for storage of bins and collection of waste have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and the facilities retained for the designated purposes at all times thereafter.

13. 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 highway. The approved scheme shall be undertaken and completed prior to the first use of any affected access and retained as such thereafter.

14. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in Annex F of PPS25 (or any subsequent version), and the results of the assessment provided to the Local Planning Authority. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall:

i. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;

ii. include a timetable for its implementation; and iii. provide a management and maintenance plan for the

lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

15. No development shall be commenced until details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development

have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a private management and maintenance company has been established.

16. The Travel Plan, once approved, 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.

5.5.5 In respect of the comments received above it is considered that the

majority of the Highways Authority’s suggested conditions and S106 contributions would be considered reasonable, however there are some requirements / conditions which have been suggested which need further consideration.

5.5.6 Having regard to the comments detailed above it is accepted that

the TA Addendum 2 demonstrates there is a design to the access junction and wider highway which is acceptable to the LHA and accordingly providing the detailed designs are subsequently agreed by the LHA the site access can be modelled safely such that the highway impact of the development proposals can be mitigated against and are acceptable. This will require investigation and potential funding of traffic management measures and bus stop relocation / enhancement works; as well as an agreed funding mechanism to deliver the footpath / cycle connection to the south of the site. Through ongoing discussions with the applicant it has been agreed that these measures will form part of the S106 agreement offer, which is considered to be acceptable.

5.5.7 In respect of the approval / monitoring of the Travel Plan

contribution which the Highways Authority also seek, clarification has been sought from the LHA as to why they consider this necessary. The LHA have explained that the contribution is only necessary if the LHA are subsequently going to be tasked with monitoring the Travel Plan, which is not the case. It is appropriate to require the applicant to provide a Travel Plan for the site (and this is normally dealt with by condition), but the responsibility for

the ongoing monitoring of the Travel Plan will be detailed within the actual Plan and this is ordinarily taken as being the responsibility of the developer not the Highways Authority. This contribution will not therefore be sought as a conditional mechanism is considered to address this matter.

5.5.8 Looking in detail at the 16 no. conditions the LHA have sought,

these are not disputed in general however it is suggested that condition 5 be amended due to the fact its wording includes a superfluous requirement in its second part to not using any part of the development until the works have been constructed. Given that the first part of the condition requires an implementation programme to be agreed, the condition should instead require the works to be completed in accordance with that programme. Finally in respect of condition 6 suggested by the LHA above the land upon which the footway / cycle connection only lies within the ownership of the applicant up to the application site boundary and thereafter the land upon which the link would be provided is third party (Council) owned land. It would therefore be unreasonable to require a Grampian condition upon the developer as some of the works would be on land beyond their control. In this respect it is considered that the link can be reasonably secured (due to the land being in the Councils ownership) and the applicant has therefore agreed that they can provide the link up to their site boundary and thereafter via S106 agreement pay a contribution to the Council for them to undertake the works on their own land. This is considered to be a more appropriate mechanism for securing this footway / cycle path link delivery and therefore condition 6 would need to be amended to just require delivery of the link up to the application site boundary (detailed in any reserved matters application) and thereafter the terms of the S106 would secure the necessary triggers for delivery of the link beyond.

5.5.9 In all other respects the suggested conditions of the LHA detailed

above are acceptable. 5.6 Ecology / Trees / Hedgerows Ecology 5.6.1 The site the subject of the application is undeveloped and has in

part an established arable agricultural use and in part has been used for grazing. Given the presence of mature trees and hedgerows within the site and furthermore the open nature of site

and land beyond there is potential for biodiversity / ecological interest to exist which must be considered.

5.6.2 In accordance with para. 118 of the NPPF and policy CS9 of the

Core Strategy the application submission is accompanied by an Extended Phase I Habitat Survey and further Supplementary Survey Work relating to protected species. Consultation therefore took place with Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) who operates a service level agreement with the LPA on planning matters.

5.6.3 DWT has confirmed that the survey work undertaken has been

carried out to a high standard and provides a robust assessment of the nature conservation interest associated with the site and comment in detail as follows: ‘The site is identified to comprise arable fields and a single horse-grazed field of species-poor neutral grassland. The fields are bounded by hedgerows with trees.

All of the eleven hedgerows on the site meet the definition as Habitats of Principal Importance with one of the hedgerows (Hedgerow 5) also qualifying as an “important” hedgerow under the wildlife and landscape criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations. It is understood that hedgerow H5 will be retained in its entirety within the development.

It is stated in section 2.2.7 of the Design and Access Statement that the proposed development will not require any trees to be lost and only “minimal” hedgerow loss. We are aware that hedgerow removal will be required to facilitate the new junction arrangements for access off Dunston Lane but clarification is also required with regard to the formation of a footpath alongside the hedgerow along Dunston Lane and whether this will require further hedgerow removal. The Ecology report indicates that four of the hedgerows will require sections to be removed to construct road and pedestrian access, amounting to a total of 60 metres. However, we are of the view that the extent of roadside hedgerow removal to form the primary access and the proposed pedestrian route may have been somewhat underplayed in the supporting information and that further removal may be necessary to achieve the required visibility splays. We would advise that it will be necessary to compensate for the loss of any hedgerow priority habitat through new native hedgerow planting and if possible the sections of roadside hedgerow required to be removed to create the new

access arrangements should be transplanted to a suitable location behind the required visibility splays in accordance with an agreed method statement to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of any works as a condition of any consent. We would advise that the evaluation has informed an appropriate layout design and presented an acceptable Green Infrastructure framework with the provision of a green buffer to the edge of the development, retention of the majority of hedgerows and trees and the creation on water attenuation ponds to the north of the site. It is important that this green infrastructure framework is fully reflected in the reserved matters submission by way of a suitably worded planning condition attached to any outline consent.

Thirteen trees were identified as supporting suitable features for roosting bats but no bat roosts were identified in any of the trees on the site during the bat activity survey or the tree climbing inspection. Two of the trees are proposed to be felled due to health and safety concerns. Although no evidence of roosting bats was identified in these trees during the survey it is possible that these trees could be used by bats in the future and, as such, we fully support the recommendation that these trees need to be re-surveyed for bats prior to felling. This should be secured by an appropriately worded planning condition as follows: “An evening bat emergence survey or aerial tree climbing survey of trees T2a and T11 shall be carried out, with the results together with any mitigation, if required, submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the felling of the trees.”

Some areas of the site were considered to provide suitable habitat for the reptile species, grass snake and common lizard, but no reptiles or amphibians were recorded during the targeted reptile survey.

A number of bird species of principal importance were recorded within the site during the surveys including skylark, house sparrow and yellowhammer. Kestrel was confirmed as breeding in one of the trees on the site Tree T11. This tree is proposed for felling on account of health and safety concerns. It is unclear whether skylark was confirmed as breeding on the site. Whilst the mitigation and compensation measures proposed in paragraph

4.22 of the Further Ecology Surveys report are acceptable for the majority of species concerned and should be fully implemented as a condition of any consent these measures are not appropriate for skylark. Further information is therefore required to confirm the presence or otherwise of breeding skylark in the survey area and, if so, appropriate compensatory measures should be put forward.

The trees, scrub, hedgerows, arable fields and grassland were considered to provide suitable habitat for nesting birds. We support the recommendation in paragraph 4.19 of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey report for the removal of any suitable bird nesting habitat to be carried out between late August and mid-February inclusive to avoid the risk of committing an offence, which should be secured by a condition attached to any consent. If this is not possible, the site should be surveyed for active bird nests by a suitable qualified ecologist before the proposed work is carried out and if active nests are found, work in the vicinity of the active nests should be delayed until all young have fledged.

Although no evidence of badger activity was recorded on the site during the survey, it is considered likely that badgers may use the site for foraging, due to the presence of badger setts in close proximity to the site. We support the recommendation in paragraph 4.29 of the Further Ecology Surveys report that a pre-commencement survey for badger should be undertaken within 3 months of the proposed start of the development to ensure that any newly excavated setts can be identified and appropriate mitigation proposed and agreed. This should be secured by a condition attached to any consent.

We also recommend that a further condition in relation to badger is imposed as follows to ensure that badgers are not trapped or harmed during the works: “No works which include the creation of trenches or culverts or the presence of pipes shall commence until measures to protect badgers from being trapped in open excavations and/or pipe and culverts are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The measures may include: a) creation of sloping escape ramps for badgers, which may be achieved by edge profiling of trenches/excavations or by using planks placed into them at the end of each working day; and b) open pipework greater than 150 mm outside diameter being blanked off at the end of each working day.”

All hedgerow and trees identified for retention should be protected from damage during site preparation and construction activities by the erection of adequate temporary fencing in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of work as a condition of any consent.’

5.6.4 Having regard to the comments and advice provided by DWT it is

considered that the submissions and the recommendations therein pose appropriate assessment, measures and means to mitigate any adverse impact upon biodiversity arising as a result of the development such that the proposals demonstrate an acceptable compliance with the provisions of policy CS9 of the Core Strategy and the wider NPPF. Where DWT has recommended the need for further survey work appropriate conditions can be imposed, if permission is given, to secure these.

Trees 5.6.5 The application is accompanied by a detailed Tree Survey which

alongside the application proposals has been reviewed by the Council Tree Officer. The following comments were made:

‘There are three trees on the eastern boundary reference T1 Horsechestnut and T2 & T3 Oak covered by tree preservation order 4901.286 which should be retained and protected by fencing conforming to BS 5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, demolition and construction - Recommendations’ 2012 before any development commences.

There are also 12 individual trees scattered around the site which should be retained and incorporated into any development scheme with the exception of one mature Ash tree reference T4 in the Arboricultural Assessment by FPCR dated December 2014, a Sycamore reference T20 and an Ash reference T21. There is no objection to the removal of these 3 trees on safety grounds and their poor condition. As stated in the ‘Further Ecology Surveys’ by BSG Ecology chapter 4.14 a further survey should be carried out to check for any bats before they are felled.

Based on the current layout drawing reference EMS.2304-003E1 the mature trees identified on the site are to be retained as part of the development proposals. It is therefore recommended that the

remaining 10 trees consisting of 8 Oaks and 2 Sycamores are protected with a tree preservation order if outline planning consent is granted so that the Council has more control of the protection measures during any development. Construction exclusion zones should also be placed around the retained trees and protective fencing installed at the distances shown in appendix A and detailed in chapter 5 of the Arboricultural Assessment by FPCR dated December 2014 and as recommended in BS 5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, demolition and construction - Recommendations’ 2012. Where possible these trees should be incorporated into the open spaces and corridors leading to them to provide a good stand off distance from and roadways or structures. T14 Oak would not normally be placed under a tree preservation order because of it condition however this is a veteran tree and with good management and a suitable open space around the tree then I see no reason why this tree cannot be retained.

T13 Oak as shown on drawing 3920-A-02 within the Arboricultural Assessment is to be retained and incorporated into the proposed landscaping buffer strip which runs along the length of the southern boundary. Any proposed dwellings in this area should be positioned away from the rooting environment of this tree and beyond the calculated 11.9 metre RPA to avoid any perceived nuisance in the future.

Hedgerows There are also 12 species rich hedgerows within the site and east boundary which enhances the character of the site on the urban fringe. The hedgerows provide a valuable corridor for wildlife and due to their species richness are ecologically important and should be retained as much as possible. They should not be enclosed in the development which would over time result in the hedgerow being removed in sections by individual owners of each plot. The hedgerows should therefore be incorporated into the design preferably linked to open spaces and buffer zones provided to reduce any perceived pressure by the development.

The boundary hedgerow to the east of the site adjacent Dunston Lane has previously been found to be ‘Important’ when assessed for a previous planning application. Presumption is in favour of protecting and retaining important hedgerows which is stated in regulation 5 (5) (b) of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 which places a requirement on the local planning authority to issue a

hedgerow retention notice unless satisfied that the circumstances justify removal of an important hedgerow.

Based on the current layout drawing reference EMS.2304-003E1 all the hedgerows are to be retained as part of the development however some sections of hedgerow will be lost where roads will be constructed. Due to the historic past of the site and hedgerow species stated in the Dunston Grange Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report dated July 2014 then I would presume at this stage that the other hedgerows on the site would be deemed important also. A survey has been carried out on the hedgerows in the report Dunston Grange ‘Further Ecology Surveys’ dated December 2014 however only Part ll, paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 were carried out to identify the species within the hedgerow and a further survey is required to identify their archaeological and historic value. A full survey and desk top study therefore needs to be carried out before consent is granted for any removal or even partial removal. As stated in the ‘Further Ecology Surveys’ by BSG Ecology chapter 4.5 it is proposed to remove sections of these hedgerows for the construction of roadways. It also states that the loss of the sections of hedgerow will potentially give rise to impacts on the species that use them for foraging and breeding purposes i.e. bats and breeding birds and that in general the loss of the hedgerow sections will reduce their effectiveness to act as dispersal routes and commuting for a range of wildlife. If consent is granted to the application then the measures described in Chapter 4.6 & 4.7 to reduce the impact should be conditioned.

Main Access Route To provide the main access route into the site off Dunston Lane it is proposed as shown on drawing WMD/512/005 Rev P2 that the entrance point would be 54 metres from the boundary of 122 Dunston Lane. This would result in the loss of approximately 65 metres of ‘Important’ hedgerow which is totally unacceptable. As previously mentioned the presumption is in favour of protecting and retaining important hedgerows unless satisfied that the circumstances justify their removal. In this case I believe an alternative layout to the one proposed should be considered which would considerably reduce the amount of hedgerow to be lost. The main access point into the site should be further to the south towards 122 Dunston Road which would reduce the amount of hedgerow lost. There is also the option of moving the new highway layout further east into the grass verge area which would create a

better visibility splay and retain other sections of the hedgerow. It is already proposed on drawing WMD/512/005 Rev P2 to realign the road in this location so to move the road further to the east should not bear any additional costs. I therefore object to the proposed access into the site off Dunston Road as shown on drawing WMD/512/005 Rev P2 in its current form because of the loss to an ‘Important’ hedgerow when there is a viable alternation solution.

Surface Water Attenuation The proposed landscaping for surface water and open spaces is welcomed and would enhance any new development whilst creating areas for wildlife and acting as buffer zones for the retained trees and hedgerows. There should however be new tree planting within these areas to give a varied age structure to the tree stock. Where the surface water attenuation ponds are to be located then there should be no grading or removal (excavations) of the ground within the root protection areas of these trees. Protective fencing should therefore be installed at the distances shown in appendix A, Arboricultural Assessment by FPCR dated December 2014 and as recommended in BS 5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, demolition and construction - Recommendations’ 2012 before any development commences. A detailed method statement therefore needs to be submitted showing how the trees will be protected and detailed a drawing showing the exact location of the ponds in relation to the retained trees and their root protection areas.’

5.6.6 In respect of the comments raised by the Councils Tree Officer

notwithstanding the Hedgerow matter, which is dealt with below, the proposal to require appropriate protection measures to the tress already covered by tree preservation order and the further proposal to extend a wider preservation order to protect the mature trees which lie within and around the site which are not protected is supported.

Hedgerows 5.6.7 As can be seen from the comments of both DWT and the Tree

Officer there are several hedgerows which they consider should be deemed ‘important’ in accordance with specific criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. DWT comment that Hedgerow 5 (as identified in Ecology Assessment to lie west of Dunston Grange) should regarded as ‘important’; and the Tree Officer comments that Hedgerow 1 (as identified in the Ecology Assessment to lie

along the entire eastern boundary of the application site) has already been evaluated to be ‘important’ in accordance with a previous application. The Tree Officer also comments that further evaluation of all the hedgerows is necessary to assess whether any of them meet the Hedgerow Regulations ‘important’ criteria in respect of archaeological and historic value.

5.6.8 To address these points a Historic Hedgerow Assessment

(prepared by CGMS dated April 2015) was prepared and this document has subsequently been examined by the Derby and Derbyshire Development Archaeologist who commented as follows:

‘I concur with the study submitted by the applicant, that the hedgerows at the north and east of the site (hedgerow 1, 2 and 3 in part) may be considered historically ‘important’ under criterion 5(a) at Schedule 1 Part II of the hedgerow regulations, in that they are shown on mapping pre-1845 to be ‘an integral part of a field system’ which pre-dates the enclosure acts.

The hedgerows thus identified are however isolated survivors of a field system which no longer survives to any extent, due to the impacts of opencasting and housing development to the west and south respectively. There is consequently no broader historic landscape value within the site which would be eroded by housing development, and the significance of the surviving hedgerows is therefore very limited – to the hedgerows themselves and the routes of the historic boundaries which they represent. Given that the applicant proposes to retain 90% of the hedgerows by length, I feel that the hedgerow proposals do not represent material harm to historic significance.’

5.6.9 From the comments received a conclusion can be reached that

Hedgerow 1, Hedgerow 2, part of Hedgerow 3 and Hedgerow 5 meet the criteria set out in the Hedgerow Regulations to be deemed ‘important’ and therefore it is accepted that there lies a presumption in favour of protecting and retaining such features in accordance with these Regulations. The Regulations however do not prevent the Local Planning Authority from considering their removal in full or part in association with a planning application.

5.6.10 In respect of the outline application proposals it is clear that

Hedgerow 1 will be affected by the access proposals, however with

regard to Hedgerows 2, 3 and 5 any subsequent applications for reserved matters (if permission is granted) will ensure the design detail protects the significance of these features without the need for them to be removed or altered.

5.6.11 The details submitted indicate that in order to form the new access

junction into the eastern boundary of the application site, a section of hedgerow 1 will need to be removed to provide sufficient visibility. The application drawings accompanying the Transport Assessment illustrate that a section of hedgerow 1 for 60m in length will need to be removed to achieve a suitable standard of exit visibility in the critical direction. Realignment of the highway will mean hedgerow 1 north of the proposed junction is unaffected as non-critical visibility is achieved within highway limits.

5.6.12 It is clear from the view expressed by the Development

Archaeologist that the remaining significance of hedgerow 1 is limited and therefore where it is considered that there are overriding material benefits to an application proposal these benefits outweigh the loss of the 60m section of hedgerow 1. In mitigation, and as suggested by DWT above, it is considered that the developer should seek to transplant sections of the hedgerow and re-establish an eastern hedgerow boundary further into the application site but behind the required visibility splay lines.

5.7 Heritage / Archaeology Heritage 5.7.1 The application site is adjoined to the north by a designated

heritage asset comprising the grade II listed buildings at Dunston Grange.

5.7.2 In accordance with paragraphs 128 and 129 of the NPPF,

consideration should be given to the impact proposals will have on the setting of heritage assets and the landscape context in which they sit. The significance of heritage assets derives not only from their physical form and fabric but also from their setting (i.e. the surroundings in which they are experienced).

5.7.3 In this instance, the setting is primarily made up of an undulating

and open rural landscape with Dunston Grange farmstead and Dunston Lodge immediately adjacent to the north. Notwithstanding large-scale modern housing estates to the south and modern

industrial development to the east, the defining characteristic of the area is primarily rural, with a sense of tranquillity and wide open views. The rural experience is bolstered by hedgerows and scattered tree cover. There is a strong sense of a functional and aesthetic relationship between the adjacent farm buildings and surrounding landscape.

5.7.4 In assessing what impact development proposals may have on

heritage assets, the NPPF requires applicants to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected. The applicant has prepared a Heritage Statement which aims to fulfil these objectives.

5.7.5 Overall the Heritage Statement is consistent with relevant

guidance and includes an appropriate methodology when determining the significance of heritage asserts and the potential impacts of new development. It considers the setting and significance of Dunston Grange as having considerable historic and architectural interest. This interest is increased due to the surrounding surviving seventeenth century farm buildings and the presence of the fields to the south.

5.7.6 The document also acknowledges a relationship between Dunston

Grange and Dunston Hall (both buildings and surrounding land may historically have been in the same ownership). It acknowledges that whilst there is no direct visual connection between these two sites, their shared history and spatial connections mean that there is a shared relationship of the wider setting.

5.7.7 The Heritage Statement concludes that there will be a degree of

change to the setting of Dunston Grange due to a loss of openness and encroaching urbanisation. However, this is addressed by the retention of an area of open space directly south of the listed building and its approach from Dunston Lane. The careful design and visual separation demonstrates that the development will result in less that substantial harm to the significance of Dunston Grange.

5.7.8 The applicant has demonstrated that there will be some impact on

the setting of Dunston Grange and the wider historic estate farmland (including Dunston Hall) but that the harm would be less than substantial given the attention to landscaping and buffer

zones which will minimise the impacts. The impact of the proposal having regard to the appreciation of the heritage asset by the local community will not be so harmful to the point which justifies a refusal of permission. In accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF, the assessment highlights any harm should be balanced against the public benefits of a development proposal, which in this case would be significant levels of new housing.

5.7.9 It is the view of the Councils Conservation Officer that this is an

accurate and appropriate conclusion. There will be some harm caused to the setting of the heritage assets, but the harm is limited, given the proposed open space and buffer zones. It is also accepted that, notwithstanding other planning policy considerations, the proposals would have public benefits in the form of new housing for the local populace.

5.7.10 Given that the application is in outline form, any reserved matters

should be carefully assessed to ensure that important elements of the scheme, such as the architectural detailing of the housing types and boundary treatments, are designed appropriately. A design palette which utilises natural materials such as stone and timber would be effective in a semi-rural environment where traditional stone farmsteads make up an important element of the setting.

Archaeology

5.7.11 Given the undeveloped nature of the application site in accordance with para. 128 of the NPPF and policy CS19 of the Core Strategy the application submission is accompanied by a Desk Top Archaeological Assessment; and a further Geophysical Survey. The Assessment and Survey are necessary to address any potential archaeological interest which might lie beneath the site, which would potentially be affected by the development proposals being considered.

5.7.12 The Geophysical Survey results, which have been reviewed by the

Derby & Derbyshire Development Archaeologist, confirm there are probable archaeological features within the north eastern quadrant of the site and therefore whilst the presence of these features would not prevent development from taking place the archaeological interest should be addressed through a conditional scheme of works, requiring archaeological evaluation to take place with the results to be submitted concurrent with any reserved

matters application (if permission is granted). The Derby & Derbyshire Development Archaeologist confirms that this scheme of works would allow for further mitigation excavation to take place (if the results of trial trenching so require) pre-commencement of the development.

5.7.13 Given that the Derby & Derbyshire Development Archaeologist

would be responsible for monitoring the conditioned work on behalf of the LPA subject to the imposition of an appropriate planning condition it is considered that the development proposals can appropriately address the potential for archaeological interest to exist on site, demonstrating acceptable compliance with the provisions of policy CS19 of the Core Strategy and the wider NPPF.

5.8 Flood Risk / Drainage 5.8.1 Policy CS7 requires all new development proposals to consider

flood risk and incorporate, where appropriate, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to ensure the maximum possible reduction in surface water runoff rates are achieved commensurate with the development being proposed.

5.8.2 In accordance with policy CS7 of the Core Strategy and wider

advice contained within the NPPF the application submission is supported by a Flood and Drainage Assessment which has been reviewed alongside the wider application submission by DCC as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), the Environment Agency (EA), Yorkshire Water Services (YWS) and the Councils Design Services (DS)team.

5.8.3 Responses have been received from the LLFA, EA and DS team

confirming that they all have no objections, in principle, to the development proposals subject to an appropriate drainage design being agreed either as part of any reserved matters submission or by planning condition to ensure the SuDS drainage design proposed is appropriately modelled and its future maintenance secured either by adoption or management agreement via S106. The drainage design will need to ensure that surface water runoff rates are appropriately restricted on site in accordance with guidance issued by the LLFA or the LPA (which is currently the Councils Minimum Standards for Drainage Guidance)

5.8.4 Notwithstanding the above, despite an initial comment being received from YWS dated 29/01/2015 raising no objection to the scheme subject to conditions, a further comment was subsequently received dated 30/03/2015 objecting to the discharge rate detailed for surface water drainage in the Flood and Drainage Assessment. No explanation was given as to why the rate was unacceptable, as all other consultees had agreed the rate reflected greenfield run off (plus an appropriate amendment to take account of climate change).

5.8.5 In respect of the above the applicant has sought clarity and

justification from YWS as to why a lower run off rate is sought, when that being proposed meets with the requirements of the NPPF and is essentially unjustified. At the time of writing this report no response has been agreed, however in accordance with the recommendations of the other consultees a detailed drainage strategy would need to be agreed commensurate with a reserved matters submission or planning condition and therefore this matter is not considered insurmountable given the outline nature of the proposals.

5.8.6 It is considered that if the principle of development is accepted,

and appropriate planning condition and agreement by S106 can be imposed / secured to meet the requirements above in accordance with policy CS7 of the Core Strategy.

5.9 Contamination / Land Condition 5.9.1 Albeit that the site is an undeveloped greenfield it is essential to

ensure that the ground conditions are appropriate, or can be appropriately remediated to an appropriate level, to ensure that the ground is suitable for the development being proposed.

5.9.2 In accordance with policy CS8 of the Core Strategy and wider

advice contained in the NPPF the application submission is accompanied by a Phase I Geo-Environmental Assessment which has been reviewed alongside the application submission by both the Councils Senior Environmental Health Officer (EHO) and the Coal Authority (CA) in respect of land condition.

5.9.3 The Senior EHO acknowledges that the outline application is

supported with a Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report and this report recommends that an intrusive site investigation is

necessary. Should planning consent be granted the EHO concurs with this report and advise that a detailed site investigation is carried out (prior to the commencement of the construction phase). Depending on the results of this site investigation, it may be necessary to implement remedial measures. Remedial measures must be agreed in writing. Validation and verification will form part of this process. All remedial measures must be validated/verified and it may be necessary to get sign-off for individual plots.

5.9.4 The CA also concurs with the recommendations of the Phase 1

Geo-Environmental Assessment Report (December 2014, prepared by BWB Consulting Ltd); that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and that intrusive site investigation works should be undertaken prior to development in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site.

5.9.5 The CA recommends that the LPA impose a planning condition

should planning permission be granted for the proposed development requiring these site investigation works prior to commencement of development. The site investigation works should extend to determining the location of the mine entries and their condition. In the event that the site investigations confirm the need for remedial works to treat the mine entry/shallow coal mine workings, this should also be conditioned to ensure that any remedial works identified by the site investigation are undertaken prior to commencement of the development.

5.9.6 The CA considers that the content and conclusions of Phase 1

Geo-Environmental Assessment Report are sufficient for the purposes of the planning system and meets the requirements of the NPPF in demonstrating that the application site is, or can be made, safe and stable for the proposed development.

5.9.7 In respect of the comments made above, if the principle of

development is accepted, an appropriate planning condition can be imposed to secure the works sought to ensure the site and any coal mining legacy is appropriately laid out and remediated to make the site suitable for development.

5.10 Noise

5.10.1 Having regard to the nature of the application proposals and the presence of a commercial business located adjacent to the northern boundary of the application site the application submission is accompanied by a Noise Assessment prepared by WYG (June 2015) and a further Supplementary Noise Assessment prepared by Waterman (October 2015) which considers the potential impact of both traffic noise and noise from the adjacent commercial dog kennels business upon the development proposals. Given that the application is submitted in outline, the assessment seeks at this stage to demonstrate that an acceptable level of amenity for future occupants of the development can be secured.

5.10.2 The Noise Assessment Report, its subsequent catalogue of

revisions and the receipt of the Supplementary Noise Assessment illustrate the ongoing dialogue which has taken place between the applicants Noise Consultant and the Councils Senior Environmental Health Officer (EHO) since the application submission.

5.10.3 Adjacent to the northern edge of the application site lies Dunston

Lodge Ltd, which is an established dog boarding kennels. The kennels were licensed in January 2015 to board 100 dogs.

5.10.4 Given the nature of the business and the environment which

influences the behaviour of boarded animals there is inevitably noise emitted by the business operation which can be sporadic and unpredictable. It is however accepted that noise levels emitted from the premises are likely to increase as a result of certain circumstances, activities or triggers (capacity levels, feeding time, interaction etc) and the way in which these noises are heard in the round will also be influenced by orientation, separation, topography etc.

5.10.5 From discussions with the Councils EHO they have confirmed that

in their opinion BS4142:2014 ‘Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound’ should be applied against applications for residential development in close proximity to an established commercial premise. Initially early in the application process the Councils EHO raised a number of concerns about the Noise Assessment provided with the application submission, as the conclusions reached were based upon modelled data from another dog kennels elsewhere in the country rather than from

actual readings (according with BS4142) from around the site the subject of the application. The EHO considered that the use of modelled data did not present them with an accurate picture of the sites noise climate to inform their comments on the planning application.

5.10.6 As a result of these concerns the applicant agreed to undertake a

further Noise Survey of the site and these results were presented in the Supplementary Noise Assessment dated October 2015. In addition a draft condition wording was suggested that the applicant considered would meet the remaining concerns of the EHO given the fact the application is only submitted in outline (with no exact detail of house types / layout etc) to show how mitigation measures could be imposed. Such measures, as detailed in the Noise Assessment Oct 2015 would include:

Orientation of external amenity areas located at the rear of dwellings away from the Kennels;

Provision of acoustic garden fencing;

Appropriate glazing and mechanical ventilation to rooms within the zone of influence (which is shown to be an area 95m from the north eastern boundary of the site).

5.10.7 The Councils EHO provided the following comments / observations

on the latest Noise Assessment and the applicants Noise Consultant responded to these queries comment as per the bold italic text:

1. The Executive Summary states that acoustic grade fencing

will be used – will this be for both the barking dog noise and traffic noise? Or, will different grades of fencing be used in different locations? Can the consultant specify the type of fencing that will be used? My research suggests that acoustic grade fencing is not suitable for barking dog noise.

Acoustic grade fencing can be used for all noise sources to mitigate noise in external amenity spaces. This fencing would be used, if and where it is identified from further assessment at the detailed design (reserved matters) stage that it is required (i.e. if/where WHO guideline noise levels are not predicted to be met). However, it should be noted that the illustrative masterplan layout presented within Figure 2 of the Supplementary Noise Assessment Report would not result in the need for any mitigation for external amenity spaces, so it

is not anticipated that acoustic grade fencing would be required anywhere within the site at present. Given this and the outline nature of the planning application it is not therefore necessary to specify acoustic grade fencing at this stage.

2. Can permission be given for part of the site rather than the

whole of the site?

No, permission would be granted for the whole of the site but we are content for the scope of the permission to be restricted to the Concept Masterplan EMS.2304_003F attached. This identifies that the nearest dwellings to the Dog Kennels would be located at a distance of approximately 65m from the Kennels, noting that actual bedrooms and outdoor amenity space would be located even further away than this. For this reason, in advance of the detailed design for the site, the requirement is to demonstrate that the site is deliverable and that satisfactory residential amenity with respect to noise can be achieved, with a small number of properties likely to require perfectly acceptable mitigation measures. This is demonstrated by the Supplementary Noise Assessment Report with respect to the Dog kennel noise.

3. The consultant has recommended a condition which reads

“The reserved matters submission shall be accompanied by an updated noise assessment to confirm that internal noise levels in bedrooms and living rooms should not exceed 35dB LAeq(1hr) during the daytime (between 07:00 and 23:00) and 30dB LAeq(1hr) or 45dB LAmax(1hr) during the night-time (between 23:00 and 07:00). Similarly, daytime (between 07:00 and 23:00) garden noise levels should not exceed 55dB LAeq(1 hr ).”

Ø I do not agree with the wording of this proposed condition.

Ø What time of year would the updated noise assessment be carried out?

Ø An averaging period of 1hr can ‘dilute’ short period, high noise events (i.e. dog barking noise).

Ø It would be more representative to have the updated noise assessment averaging period set to 5 minute intervals, which would be in keeping with the averaging period used in August 2015.

The Condition wording is a suggestion and it aims to achieve two things: 1) ensure an updated assessment of the detailed design is undertaken to inform need for mitigation and 2) if mitigation is required, design it so that guideline noise levels for residential amenity are achieved across the site. There seems to be some confusion between the assessment and the monitoring/measurement/survey. The reason for the updated assessment is to take into account the detailed design at reserved matters stage because this isn’t available currently for an outline application, not necessarily so that further survey can be undertaken. The survey undertaken in August 2015 is complete and robust so data can be re-used within the updated assessment which will focus on the modelling of the detailed scheme layout. This assumes the question on timing really relates to the survey rather than assessment and that the summer period would be most desirable for survey as the Dog kennels are likely to be at maximum capacity. The timebase of 1 hour used in the condition for achieving a noise level is expressed as the unit to be achieved but does not necessarily need to be surveyed on this timebase. So the 5 minute surveying periods results can be used to model and establish the noise levels in the units expressed in the suggested condition.

4. Section 2.3 makes reference to BS 8233:2014 and a

measurement average, LAeq,T, ‘T’ is the time period and has not been specified.

The time period T is presented in Table 1 on the same page, whereby daytime is LAeq,16hr and night time is LAeq,8hr. Specifically this covers the period between 0700 and 2300hrs for the daytime, and 2300 to 0700 for the night time. As noted above, it is important to distinguish between a measurement period and the timebase for the unit given as the guideline criteria. In this particular context the unit used in the criteria set are not directly related to the measurement period for any survey results. This unit can be derived from noise survey data for any period including the 5 minute measurements taken in August 2015. It should also be noted that although 16 hour for daytime and 8 hour for night time is set by BS 8233: 2014, the suggested planning condition used a timebase of 1 hour which is slightly more onerous; however, if the

preference is to maintain exactly the criteria then the timebase of 16 hour for daytime and 8 hour as shown in Table 1 can be used.

5. Section 2.4 makes reference to WHO guidelines and states

the internal noise standard as 30dB LAeq,8hr which suggests that the measurement period is over an 8 hour period; as stated above this would ‘dilute’ short period, high noise events.

This isn’t correct. As set out above, it is important to distinguish between a measurement period and the timebase for the unit given as the guideline criteria. As with the BS 8233: 2014 criteria set out in Section 2.3, the unit used in the criteria set are not directly related to the measurement period for any survey results. This unit can be derived from noise survey data for any period including the 5 minute measurements taken in August 2015.

6. For outdoor noise levels, WHO advise that noise levels in

gardens should not exceed 50dB,T or an upper value of 55dB,T when the noise is steady and continuous. In my experience, dog barking noise is not steady or continuous.

Agreed. For this reason the lower noise level of 50dB has been used for the assessment of external amenity noise. As stated above and in the Noise Assessment Report, noise levels only exceed the 50dB level within approximately 23m of the Dog Kennels. As the nearest dwellings in the illustrative masterplan are located approximately 65m, it is predicted that the WHO guideline noise levels would be met within external amenity spaces for all dwellings, should the illustrative masterplan be built out.

7. Also, WHO guidelines, does not specify a value for ‘T’. I

would expect this to be representative of the measurement period, i.e. 5 minutes.

Section 2.4 does identify the time base for the criteria, that being 16 hour daytime and 8 hour for night time. As set out above, it is important to distinguish between a measurement period and the timebase for the unit given as the guideline criteria. As set out above, the unit used in the criteria set are

not directly related to the measurement period for any survey results. This unit can be derived from noise survey data for any period including the 5 minute measurements taken in August 2015. 8. Section 2.5 makes reference to BS4142:2014 and states that

the BS is not suitable for domestic animals. However, in this instance, the domestic animals are in a commercial setting.

The reason why BS4142: 2014 is not suitable for use with noise from domestic animals is due to the type of noise from domestic animals, not whether their owners are paying for them to be at that location.

9. Section 3 states that at measurement locations LT1, LT2,

ST1 and ST2 the noise climate is dominated by ‘noise from barking dogs’.

Section 3 reports the results of the noise survey, so does report the main noise sources observed at each monitoring location as well as further detail of the general pattern of noise and at what times it was found to increase (food and walking times) and decrease (night time).

10. At 4m high, the noise readings are higher because there is

no natural ground level screening and screening from the kennels. The proposed 1.8 meter high acoustic fence would not offer any noise reduction at 4m high (i.e. bedrooms).

Acoustic grade fencing is recommended where WHO guideline noise levels would not be met in external amenity spaces for the purpose of achieving suitable amenity within external amenity spaces, not indoors. Where found to be required, separate mitigation measures (glazing type and ventilation type) are proposed for internal spaces within dwellings. 11. In Table 5, ‘T’ is not specified.

The timebase (T) is specified in Table 5 in the Duration column. Values given are representative of the average or percentile over the specified time periods.

12. In Section 4.3 there is a suggestion that an open window offers a sound reduction/attenuation of 15dB(A); research suggests that this is only possible when the window is open ajar. Very little sound attenuation would be offered if the window was open fully.

As identified in Section 4.3, this sound attenuation level is used as this is identified within BS 8233: 2014 representative of a “partially open window”.

13. Section 4.3 goes on to state that the first row of houses

would provide barrier attenuation for the remainder of the site. Does the noise consultant therefore accept that the dog barking noise could materially impact upon the residential properties nearest the kennels? And, the rest of the site if not in-situ? How much attenuation is the consultant hoping to achieve by using the first row of housing as ‘barrier attenuation’?

As set out in Section 4.3 of the Supplementary Noise Assessment Report, there is potential for dwellings within 95m of the Dog Kennels to be exposed to internal noise levels in excess of the guideline levels set out in BS 8233: 2014 with windows open at night time and for this reason mitigation should be considered. The appropriate mitigation (i.e. glazing type and ventilation type) is then set out in Section 5 of the Supplementary Noise Assessment Report. The reason for highlighting the fact that nearest structures to the Dog Kennels would provide attenuation is because the noise modelling carried out is based on a clear site as a detailed design is not available at this time. This is why it is recommended that further assessment is carried out at the detailed design (reserved matters) stage so that it can be identified which, if any, dwellings would require mitigation. The detailed assessment would model the detailed layout taking account of not just topography but the location, layout, orientation and massing of all buildings proposed. The assessment undertaken to date which identifies the potential need for mitigation for dwellings within 95m of the Dog Kennels in terms of achieving internal guideline noise levels with windows open presents the worst case scenario.

14. How will the first row of houses be designed to protect the occupants from detrimental noise (should planning consent be granted)?

The mitigation recommended within Section 5 of the Supplementary Noise Assessment Report (i.e. glazing type and ventilation type) would be suitable for all dwellings, whether in the first row or not, if / where it is predicted that internal noise levels would not meet the guidelines levels set on in BS 8233: 2014.

15. Would the first row of houses be apartments (with the

stairwells, kitchens and bathrooms orientated nearest the kennels)?

As the application is in outline, this is not yet determined. However, note that the mitigation set out in Section 5 of the Supplementary Noise Assessment Report (i.e. glazing type and ventilation type) would be suitable for all dwellings, including those with living rooms and bedrooms which face the Dog Kennels.

16. Section 5 refers to sound proofing. Is this for the houses

across the whole site, in a portion of the site, or just the first row of houses which aim to provide ‘barrier attenuation’?

The mitigation recommended within Section 5 of the Supplementary Noise Assessment Report (i.e. glazing type and ventilation type) would be suitable for all dwellings, whether in the first row or not, if / where it is predicted that internal noise levels would not meet the guidelines levels set on in BS 8233: 2014. Further assessment at the detailed design (reserved matters) stage would determine which, if any, dwellings require mitigation (i.e. glazing type and ventilation type).

17. Section 5.1 refers to acoustic fencing at a height of 1.8m; I

refer to my point (1) above.

Section 5.1 relates to mitigation for external amenity spaces only, not internal rooms (see response to Point 10 above).

18. Section 5.2 refers to ‘passive attenuating ventilation’ and if windows are kept closed “internal noise levels will be met”. Is the consultant accepting that internal noise levels cannot be achieved with windows open (i.e. during summer months)?

As set out in Section 4.3 of the Supplementary Noise Assessment Report, there is potential for dwellings within 95m of the Dog Kennels to be exposed to internal noise levels in excess of the guideline levels set out in BS 8233: 2014 with windows open at night time and for this reason mitigation is considered. The appropriate mitigation (i.e. glazing type and ventilation type) is then set out in Section 5 of the Supplementary Noise Assessment Report. Passive attenuating ventilation is recommended as this would provide adequate ventilation within dwellings without the need to open windows. Again, as mentioned previously further assessment would be undertaken to determine if / where mitigation is required.

Should planning consent be granted for housing on the whole site, I am concerned that future occupants will be disturbed by barking dog noise from the kennels.

The Supplementary Noise Assessment Report shows that noise from the Dunston Lodge Boarding Kennels can be mitigated such that the IANL and external noise levels specified in BS 8233: 2014 and the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise are satisfied. The exact specification and location of the mitigation required should be determined at the detailed design stage once the location, height and layout of the proposed residential dwellings has been established. This can be secured through a suitably worded condition.

As this is an outline application, I feel I am unable to comment further because the detail is missing. The orientation of the buildings and the internal layout of the houses is not provided – and so much of my decision making process relies on this information (in terms of noise issues).

The detail is not ‘missing’ as it is only an outline planning application. The Supplementary Noise Assessment Report shows that noise from the Dunston Lodge Boarding Kennels can be mitigated such that the IANL and external noise levels

specified in BS 8233: 2014 and the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise are satisfied. The exact specification and location of the mitigation required should be determined at the detailed design stage once the location, height and layout of the proposed residential dwellings has been established. This can be secured through a suitably worded condition.

It is not clear which properties would need sound attenuation measures and the proposed sound reduction measures mean that internal noise levels are not achieved when a window is opened. Is it reasonable to expect people to live in properties where windows are permanently closed?

There is no detailed design yet in order to know where dwellings would be located. The Supplementary Noise Assessment Report shows that noise from the Dunston Lodge Boarding Kennels can be mitigated such that the IANL and external noise levels specified in BS 8233: 2014 and the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise are satisfied. The exact specification and location of the mitigation required should be determined at the detailed design stage once the location, height and layout of the proposed residential dwellings has been established. This can be secured through a suitably worded condition. Residents would not be prevented from opening windows. However, by providing passive attenuating ventilation (if and where considered necessary following further assessment) residents would be able to keep windows closed to maximise the attenuation afforded by the glazing whilst rooms are still adequately ventilated.

5.10.8 In respect of the above it is considered that the applicant has

provided an appropriate response to all the EHOs comments / questions. It is not disputed that noise emitted from the adjacent kennels has the potential to impact upon the development proposals which are located in close proximity to the source of noise and therefore the amenity of future occupants. This is the reason why the applicant has identified a zone of influence / exclusion where development will require / include mitigation measures in accordance with further Noise Assessment works. This zone is detailed in the Masterplan.

5.10.9 What the Councils EHO is seeking in their comments to see

demonstrated at this stage is the way in which the scheme can be

designed such that these impacts do not reach unacceptable levels. This is however impossible / unreasonable when the application is submitted in outline with no design detail beyond illustrative figures to be considered.

5.10.10 As a result of the position presented above the case officer has

discussed this circumstance with the Councils EHO at length. The Councils EHO did accept that the reports and illustrative layout figures demonstrate that by way of separation, layout and design a scheme could be drawn up to demonstrate noise levels within the properties can be mitigated to an appropriate level however the EHO remains concerned, given the nature of the key noise source (barking dogs), that the sporadic noise emitted would be lost when the noise data is averaged out over a longer period of time.

5.10.11 In respect of the above the purpose of an outline application is to

establish nothing more than principle of development and whilst the application indicates up to 300 dwellings, a layout may not include this many properties and the question which has to be asked is if the applicant chose not to build in the areas of the site closest to the dog kennels where noise is potentially an issue, is it reasonable to refuse an outline application on this basis?

5.10.12 In this circumstance the case officer has expressed concerns to

the Councils EHO’s that a reason for refusal on the basis of inadequate information could not be sustained, as ultimately such a conclusion would mean that controls which can be placed upon an outline permission by way of planning condition would not be effective in securing an adequate level of technical detail to later inform a detailed reserved matter application. It is considered that an appropriate condition could be imposed to require demonstration of appropriate noise mitigation measures to achieve an appropriate and acceptable noise environment to prospective properties and gardens. This is likely to include a range of measures as set out in the latest Noise Assessment and may include mechanical ventilation or rooms with none opening windows if these measures are necessary to meet the noise environment levels the applicant has suggested they can. It is noted the EHO has questioned whether it is reasonable to expect people to not open windows in potentially affected elevations and the simple answer is yes if this is a measure deemed necessary to provide an appropriate level of amenity. Any future occupier would be purchasing a property in the knowledge of this and that would

be their own choice in full knowledge of the nearby commercial business.

5.10.13 Whilst is it accepted that the Councils EHO continues to express

concerns it is the opinion of the LPA that these concerns can be appropriately controlled / mitigated against such that it would be unreasonable behaviour on the LPAs behalf to continue to withhold making a decision on the planning application.

It is therefore considered that the following condition be imposed as it offers the LPA sufficient control to manage the noise impacts upon the development:

‘The reserved matters submission shall be accompanied by an updated noise assessment to confirm that internal noise levels in bedrooms and living rooms should not exceed 35dB LAeq(1hr) during the daytime (between 07:00 and 23:00) and 30dB LAeq(1hr)

or 45dB LAmax(1hr) during the night-time (between 23:00 and 07:00). Similarly, daytime (between 07:00 and 23:00) garden noise levels should not exceed 55dB LAeq(1 hr ).’

5.10.14 Subject to the above it is considered that both the application

proposals and the existing commercial premises can coincide with appropriate mitigation without an adverse amenity issue arising compliant with para. 123 of the NPPF.

5.11 Other Considerations 5.11.1 S106 etc

Having regard to the nature of the application proposals, if the principle of development is accepted, several contribution requirements would be triggered given the scale and nature of the proposals. Policy CS4 of the Core Strategy seeks to secure necessary green, social and physical infrastructure commensurate with the development to ensure that there is no adverse impact upon infrastructure capacity in the Borough.

Internal consultation has therefore taken place with the Councils

own Economic Development, Leisure Services and Housing teams, as well as externally with Derbyshire County Councils Strategic Infrastructure team on the development proposals to ascertain what specific contributions should be sought.

The responses have been collaborated to conclude a requirement

to secure S106 Contributions / Legal Agreements in respect of negotiations for up to a 30% Affordable Housing contribution (Policy CS11); negotiations up to 1% of the overall development cost for a Percent For Art scheme (Policy CS18); a contribution to fund 57 primary pupils at Dunston Primary School equalling £649,743.57 (Policy CS17); and appointment of an external management company to manage and maintain the on-site green open space and SuDS infrastructure (Policies CS7 and CS9).

In respect of the remaining comments arising from the DCC Strategic Infrastructure team to the Council it will be necessary to look to secure by planning condition the requirement for local labour and the provision of on-site high speed broadband connections (Policy CS13). The Leisure Services team gave no indication by way of response to their consultation on this application of their wish to adopt any on site public open space. The contribution of £7554.00 towards the provision of a new Household Waste Recycling Centre cannot be secured as there is no development plan policy to secure such provision.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 The application has been publicised in accordance with the GDPO

with site notices being posted on 06/01/2015; an advertisement placed in the local press on 15/01/2015; and 72 individual neighbours were notified by letter on 05/01/2015.

6.2 The application was further publicised by site notice on 20/05/2015

and by local press on 28/05/2015 advising that the development proposals would not be in accordance with the Local Plan, if the Council were minded to approve the application.

6.3 As a result of the receipt of revised information (see para. 4.4

above) all neighbours / contributors were again re-consulted for a period of 14 days on 19/10/2015.

6.4 As a result of the publicity above a total of 63 individual letters /

emails of representation and a petition (signed by 177 people and presented by local ward members) have been received (as listed and summarised below):

CBC (Kier) Estates Confirmation from Kier (CBC Estates) that the site is not owned by the Council and the land which may be affected by the proposed changes to the highway is owned by DCC. Noted.

Campaign to Protect Rural England – Chesterfield Group

CPRE do not wish to lodge a formal objection, but we would like to raise concerns.

We sympathise with the Councils need to meet housing targets but would remind the Council of their pledge to build on brownfield sites where possible.

The proposed access onto Dunston Lane is at a point where it is very narrow and winding and an increase in 300 homes would prove to be a hazard. Access through the housing estate would cause unsustainable pressure on existing roads.

Though outside the greenbelt, the site is close to its boundary and it may be only too easy to encroach on to the greenbelt in the future.

Local schools, medical facilities and transport links will become overstretched.

See section 5.2, 5.3, 5.5 and 5.11. Dunston Lodge Ltd, Dunston Lane Concerned about the impact the development will have on the

future / viability of our business from the increased likelihood of noise complaints and for security reasons. The business has operated for 30 years in its rural, private woodland location where there is an adequate buffer between the kennels and housing estate of Dunston. Any complaints could have an effect on the viability of our business, which is established as a ‘best practice’ example of boarding kennels employing 12-15 members of staff. We support the local community, schools (work experience), apprenticeship programmes and students from local colleges.

We note that small areas of public space have been proposed between ourselves and the new dwellings – but this buffer is not adequate. The closer new residents are to us the more intolerable noise from our kennels will be and if public access is permitted into the areas of open space this will disturb dogs on our premises.

We would question the suitability of the noise assessment presented (which is not easy to digest). We understand that report

uses some readings which were taken when our kennels were only at 10% capacity and therefore they have used measurements from another kennels – but this cannot be representative of our operation.

Some of the boundaries to our property are not clearly defined by gates, fences or walls and whilst this is currently and mutually well respected by our immediate neighbours however we worry how the occupants of 300 new homes will behave as we have a responsibility to look after so many peoples dogs.

Access onto a 60mph stretch of highway is less than ideal and this combined with the additional traffic movements the development will bring is of considerable concern. There have been accidents on the bad bend along Dunston Lane but there is no reference made to these. We also worry about the capacity impacts the development will have in the wider area, Littlemoor, Sheepbridge Lane, Whittington Moor etc.

Whilst we understand Chesterfield needs more housing, the development site is greenfield land and brownfield sites should be considered first. Chesterfield has already laid out clear plans of how they are to achieve their housing targets and this did not include the land at Dunston.

We invite the planning committee to come out and view the areas of concerns highlighted above for themselves.

See section 5.5 and 5.11.

20 no. Emails / Letters were received from members of the public who did not identify their specific home address. Correspondence has also been received from the following property addresses: 45 (x2), 82, 99 (x2), 109, 120 and 122 (x2) Dunston Lane 21, 22 and 31 Rosewood Close 8, 49 and 54 Lindale Road 14 and 20 Nesfield Close 13, 20, 21 (x2) and 28 Kingswood Close 24 (x2) and 26 (x2) Baines Wood Close 6 (x2), 10 and 12 Hollin Close 73 Cordwell Avenue 15 Arnside Close 2 Silverdale Close 8 Amesbury Close Dunston Hall Farm and Dunston Hall, Dunston Road Dunston Lodge and Dunston Grange (x2), Dunston Lane

42 New Road, Holymoorside Principle / Greenfield / Housing Need

The site is a large Greenfield site which should be retained as farmland; There are large derelict Brownfield sites in the Borough which should be developed first (Staveley, Waterside, Robinsons, Cammac etc); The development will greatly impact on this edge of town ‘green wedge’; What would be gained from building in an area untouched for years? The area is greenbelt; I do not believe there will only be 300 homes; There is a brownfield site within a couple of hundred yards of the site which is ready to be built upon; Will the rural edge of Chesterfield keep moving? I see no reason to grant further permission when there are 2000 homes with permission that are yet to be built; I understand that Chesterfield is not fulfilling its quotas for new build houses set by the government and therefore should brownfield site not be accelerated to avoid the need for greenfield sites to be considered? What was the outcome of ‘safeguarding’ land north of Dunston for housing in 2013? I gather there are adequate unoccupied houses in the Borough to meet any quota of housing provision – I am told 2000 houses surplus to requirements; The proposals are contrary to the existing local plan both in terms of land use and overall strategy / structure; Why is the Council not proposing to build new homes in the area using Council workers skills, rather than letting a private company like William Davies Ltd propose it. See section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. Highways / Traffic Dunston Lane has a sharp bend at this point and it is clearly unsuited to the volumes of traffic the proposed development would generate; The amount of traffic already using Dunston Lane is excessive and it is generally used as a short cut for HGVs and the development

will make the situation impossible due to parking, traffic volume, noise, pollution; One access road for 300 homes is insufficient and will compromise road safety for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians; Traffic heading towards Littlemoor will pass the primary school so there is a safety concern and the junction to join the main road is busy and congested; This is a main bus route; The access location is on the brow of a hill, which is a dangerous position; Extensive traffic management / calming measures could be needed; Visibility from the new access will be poor and the development will create an accident ‘black spot’; One access into the site for Fire, Ambulances etc is insufficient; A cycle / pedestrian link with Hollin Close was proposed during the public consultation then removed due to public opposition – it is clearly shown on the masterplan as being revisited. If a link is not provided residents are likely to trample an unofficial link due to the size and shape of the site; Cordwell Avenue cannot carry additional traffic volume; Existing buses are likely to be swamped by new residents; I am not against the development providing the development company pays for all properties onto Dunston Lane to have their kerbs dropped to allow vehicular access to existing properties in order to relieve the traffic congestion the new development will cause; The access proposed to connect Hollin Close should not go ahead; There has been no consideration into the impact of the development upon the Sheepbridge Land Junction, the Whittington Moor Roundabout the impact of the new Eco Dome; Cycle paths are mentioned but there is no provision for cyclists travelling north and Dunston Road is dangerous for cyclists; There is currently poor bus service in the area and it can be a struggle to get bus companies to re-route into new development (let alone existing). Only a small proportion of houses in the new development will have convenient access and thus this will encourage car use creating further traffic; In my opinion the revised access details do nothing to address our previous concerns, the development will still result in the same amount of cars exiting onto Dunston Lane which is already too busy.

See section 5.5. Sustainability Reference to the site being only 800m away from Littlemoor shops is questioned – people are unlikely to walk there, there is no bus provision and the far end of the site is further than 800m away; In what ways will the developer contribute to a reduction in CO2 – will there be solar panels for example? See section 5.3. Visual / Neighbouring Impact One of the areas redeeming features is its rural setting and the views make this area an attractive place to live, the sight of a housing estate can only be detrimental; I would not like to see brickwork of houses and walls replace the rural scenic view I enjoy now; The layout of the houses will impact on the privacy of myself and local residents; A proposed garden length of 10m is insufficient to retain a degree of privacy to adjoining neighbours; The new properties will be positioned at an elevated level to the southern boundary neighbours therefore the buffer indicated does not offer sufficient privacy; The siting of bungalow on the southern edge of the site would offer some privacy – how can this be secured? Screening / planting intended to provide a buffer will take time to establish and therefore the impacts of the development will be felt during this time; I am concerned about the density of the development proposed; The area of land where development is proposed is currently unlit and therefore there will be an introduction of light pollution as a result of new street lighting and lights from new houses; See section 5.4. Noise I challenge the conclusions of the Noise Assessment where it states the development is not expected to have an adverse impact on health / quality of life – new houses being built and occupied with 11m of a neighbouring boundary will most certainly have an impact;

I was told that the development would take 6 years to complete, therefore please consider how this will impact upon the amenity of local people who live in close proximity to the site; What about Dunston Kennels? They are a long established business serving Chesterfield and no doubt will get a lot of complaints from new residents, new residents over the wall will also disturb the dogs; I would question the viability of the application with its impact upon the established kennels adjoining the site, as an established business future tenants will have no grounds to close them down if noise is a problem; We note in the latest noise assessment a proposal to erect a 1.8m high boundary fence along the northern edge of the site. This will not be attractive or in keeping with the adjacent farmhouse. See section 5.4 and 5.10. Wildlife / Trees / Ecology We enjoy the wildlife and pleasant walking in the area where the buildings are proposed – yet another positive aspect that will be taken away from the community; Sight of the wildlife in these fields is pleasing and reminds me I live near the countryside; I walk my dogs in this area and it looks beautiful in summer, there would be a loss of trees, hedgerows and wildlife would be moved on again; We are led to believe the hedgerows will stay in place, but for how long and who will maintain these? Also will the roads proposed not require part of them to be removed? There is an established badger sett close to the development site and this would be negatively impacted upon by the development; The site is used by many rare birds as well as other common species of birds and wildlife; The biodiversity of this site will be irrevocably destroyed by the development. Any changes that are proposed to be beneficial are often not and the addition of select species does not offset the loss of what was already present; The development would detract from the open character of the site and compromise wildlife habitat; The hedgerow running alongside Dunston Lane is protected and the new access point will involve the removal of part of this feature. Is this allowed?

See section 5.6. Heritage / Archaeology The development will ruin the setting of the nearby Grade II Listed building which has been untouched for years; I understand the area in question is of high archaeological value and any development will have a negative impact on our history; We do not feel the buffer zone indicated is big enough to protect the setting of Dunston Grange. A much larger proposal for developing this site was rejected on appeal last year and we have subsequently invested heavily in a prestigious development that is sympathetic to Dunston Grange – if this development goes ahead Dunston Grange will be defined by a housing estate rather than its current setting; The Desk Based Archaeology Assessment suggests the presence of archaeological features south of Dunston Grange yet we can see no evidence that these feature are to preserved, has further analytical survey work been done? We wrote to William Davis to ask for amendments to the scheme to be made as we felt the buffer area offered to the listed farmhouse was not big enough and the cycle / footways were too close. There have been no changes made as far as we are aware. See section 5.6 and 5.7.

Drainage / Services We have problems with drainage over the fields and surface water runoff, which will be exacerbated by the development; The soils in the local area are clay based and have problems soaking in heavy rainfall. There is often water under our floor boards which could only get worse; Is there sufficient capacity in the current network for the additional loads; Water pressure is already poor in the area and is already variable – can gas / water / electricity supply extra users? I am very concerned that the revised details do nothing to address the concerns that have been raised by residents about surface water drainage from the site exacerbating flooding issues already experienced by residents which adjoin the southern boundary of the site. See section 5.8.

Local Services / Social Housing

The local services such as the GP and Schools are already busy and extra homes will put more pressure on these overstretched services where it is already difficult to get appointments / places etc; I am not in favour unless more doctors / school facilities are put in place to accommodate the extra people; I was told by the developers they only intend to meet minimum obligations / guidelines for social housing provision; See section 5.11. Other Matters There are not enough jobs in the local area; The site is a conservation area; The market value of my house has dropped by £10,000 as a result of the plans submitted; I would like to know how much the applicant is contributing for the S106 Agreement; I am upset by the proposals as I planned to retire here; I appreciate that the applicant will be paying the Council well for the site and will be sweetening the deal with the provision of X number of properties for rent by the Council; Added expense will involve the Council making major alterations to the road to create the junction; With the Council consent a new footpath will go straight across our drive (Hollin Close) and then it will only be a matter of time before a road is put in its place; There are historic mine workings in the area and disturbance of these could cause subsidence to current or new buildings; This country imports far too much food and further reducing agricultural land availability is a retrograde step – does the term ‘food security’ mean nothing to planners and developers? The local estate agents have no shortage of homes on offer so where is the need for this development at this time? I suggest William Davis consider developing the Cammac site instead; Could I reserve the right to raise further issues if an extension to the consultation period can be granted?: The site is not a designated conservation area.

Property devaluation is not a material planning consideration. See section 5.11. The applicant has not purchased the land from the Council and any social housing provided will accord with the provisions of policies CS11 of the Core Strategy. The Council will not be responsible for the costs of the junction / highway alterations. See section 5.9. This application can be assessed only on its own merits. Reference to any other sites which may be the subject of an alternative planning application is not relevant in this case.

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 objectors, the development has the

potential to affect 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 Whilst it is accepted that on face value the development proposals

are not in accordance with policy EVR2 of the Local Plan as the site is greenfield, wider regard has been had to the Council’s current position in respect of its failure to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. In accordance with para. 49 of the NPPF having regard to the provisions of policy CS10 of the Core Strategy, the boundary / allocation effectively drawn by policy EVR2 is not considered to be ‘up to date’ and therefore the Council is required to consider any greenfield site in its commitment of housing delivery.

8.3 Prior to the formal application submission and during the

application process the applicant has sought to engage proactively with the Local Planning Authority. The applicant has sought to address and respond to any matters raised throughout the formal application process by consultees and officers accordingly.

8.4 In reaching the recommendation the Council has accepted on

balance of all other material planning considerations the development 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.

8.5 The report will be made available to the applicant / agent and any

objector informing them of the application considerations and recommendation / conclusions.

9.0 CONCLUSION

9.1 The proposal the subject of the application is deemed to be contrary to the provisions of policy EVR2 of the Local Plan in so far as the application site is situated on land allocated as open countryside / other open land. Approval of the application would be a departure. The Council is currently in a position where it cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply and therefore para. 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework is triggered rendering policy EVR2 (which would ordinarily prevent housing development on unallocated greenfield sites) out of date.

9.2 Given the position above the Council has considered the proposals

the subject of the application against all remaining up to date development plan policies, including policies CS1 (Spatial Strategy), CS2 (Location of Development), CS3 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development), CS4 (Infrastructure Delivery), CS6 (Sustainable Design), CS7 (Management of the Water Cycle), CS8 (Environmental Quality), CS9 (Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity), CS10 (Flexibility in delivery of Housing), CS11 (Range of Housing), CS13 (Economic Growth), CS18 (Design), CS19 (Historic Environment) and CS20 (Demand for Travel) of the Core Strategy. In addition consideration has been given to the wider National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Councils Supplementary Planning Document on Housing Layout and Design ‘Successful Places’.

9.3 It is considered that the proposed development is able to

demonstrate its compliance with policies CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS4 of the Core Strategy in so far as its ability to provide connection (and where necessary improvement) to social, economic and environmental infrastructure such that the development meets the definitions of sustainable development. The application submission is supported by the preparation of assessment and reports which illustrates the proposed developments ability to comply with the provisions of policies CS6, CS7, CS8, CS9, CS11, CS13, CS18, CS19 and CS20 of the Core Strategy and where necessary it is considered that any outstanding issues can be mitigated and addressed in any subsequent reserved matters submission or any appropriate planning conditions being imposed.

10.0 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION 10.1 That a S106 agreement be negotiated and signed concurrent with

the planning permission and dealing with:

Negotiations for up to a 30% Affordable Housing.

Negotiations up to 1% of the overall development cost for a Percent For Art scheme

The management and maintenance of any on site green open space and SuDS infrastructure.

A contribution to fund 57 primary pupils at Dunston Primary School equalling £649,743.57.

Funding for investigation into, and subsequent implementation of, bus stop relocation / enhancement works.

Funding for investigation into, and any subsequent implementation of, traffic management measures on the local highway network e.g revision of speed limit.

Funding for the construction costs of providing the footpath / cycle link from the southern boundary of the site onto Hollin Close

10.2 That a Tree Preservation Order be served to protect the trees on

site in accordance with the Tree Officers recommendations contained in para. 5.6.4 – 5.6.5 above.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION

11.1 That on completion of the S106 agreement that the application be

GRANTED subject to the following conditions (which were revised a reported to Planning Committee at the meeting on 16th November 2015 as follows):

01. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and external

appearance of the building(s) and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason - The condition is imposed in accordance with article 3 (1) of The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended).

02. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be

made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason - The condition is imposed in accordance with sections 91, 56 and 93 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

03. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either

before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, or in the case of phased development, before the expiration of one year from the date of approval of the last or the reserved matters to be approved in respect of the first phase.

Reason - The condition is imposed in accordance with sections 91, 56 and 93 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

04. No development shall take place (or in the case of phased

development, in respect of the relevant phase) until details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off-site works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site.

Reason - To ensure that full drainage details (which influence principle site preparation / ground work) are agreed prior to development commencing and that the overall development can be properly drained.

05. Development shall not commence (or in the case of phased

development, in respect of the relevant phase) until intrusive site investigations have been carried out by the developer to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site and approval for commencement of development given in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and conclusions shall include any remedial works and mitigation measures required/proposed for the stability of the site. Only those details which receive the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out on site.

Reason - To fully establish the presence and / or otherwise of any coal mining legacy and to ensure that site is remediated, if necessary, to an appropriate standard prior to any other works taking place on site.

06. a) No development shall take place (or in the case of phased

development, in respect of the relevant phase) until a Written Scheme of Investigation for archaeological work has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing, and until any pre-start element of the approved scheme has been completed to the written satisfaction of the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and 1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording 2. The programme for post investigation assessment 3. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording 4. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation 5. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation 6. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation Before submission of any reserved matters application with details of layout, the trial trenching phase of the archaeological scheme shall have taken place in accordance with an agreed specification, and the resulting report shall have been submitted to the local planning authority. b) No development shall take place other than in accordance with the archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (a). c) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (a) and the provision to be made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.

Reason – To ensure that any archaeological interest is appropriately assessed and documented prior to any other works commending which may affect the interest in accordance with policy CS19 of the Core Strategy and the wider NPPF.

07. A. Development shall not commence (or in the case of

phased development, in respect of the relevant phase) until details as specified in this condition which accord with the recommendations of the BWB Phase I Geo-Environmental Assessment Report dated December 2014 have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and those details, or any amendments to those details as may be required, have received the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. I. A site investigation/Phase 2 report where the previous

use of the site indicates contaminative use(s). The site investigation/Phase 2 report shall document the ground conditions of the site. The site investigation shall establish the full extent, depth and cross-section, nature and composition of the contamination. Ground gas, groundwater and chemical analysis, identified as being appropriate by the desktop study, shall be carried out in accordance with current guidance using UKAS accredited methods. All technical data must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

II. A detailed scheme of remedial works should the investigation reveal the presence of ground gas or other contamination. The scheme shall include a Remediation Method Statement and Risk Assessment Strategy to avoid any risk arising when the site is developed or occupied.

B. If, during remediation works any contamination is identified that has not been considered in the Remediation Method Statement, then additional remediation proposals for this material shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. Any approved proposals shall thereafter form part of the Remediation Method Statement. C. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a written Validation Report (pursuant to A I and A II only) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A Validation Report is required to confirm that all remedial works have been completed and

validated in accordance with the agreed Remediation Method Statement.

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

08. In accordance with the recommendations of the Extended

Phase 1 Habitat Survey and subsequent Ecology Surveys prepared by BSG Ecology 2014, an evening bat emergence survey or aerial tree climbing survey of any tree which is to be felled shall be carried out, with the results together with any mitigation, if required, submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the felling of the trees.

Reason – To ensure that any ecological interest on site is appropriately addressed and can be mitigated against, prior to any development taking place, in accordance with policy CS9 and the wider NPPF.

09. A pre-commencement survey for badgers should be

undertaken within 3 months of the proposed start of the development to ensure that any newly excavated setts can be identified and appropriate mitigation proposed and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – To ensure that any ecological interest on site is appropriately addressed and can be mitigated against, prior to any development taking place, in accordance with policy CS9 and the wider NPPF.

10. No works which include the creation of trenches or culverts

or the presence of pipes shall commence until measures to protect badgers from being trapped in open excavations and/or pipe and culverts are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The measures may include: a) creation of sloping escape ramps for badgers, which may be achieved by edge profiling of trenches/excavations or by using planks placed into them at the end of each working day; and b) open pipework greater than 150 mm outside diameter being blanked off at the end of each working day.

Reason – To ensure that any ecological interest on site is appropriately addressed and can be mitigated against, prior to any development taking place, in accordance with policy CS9 and the wider NPPF.

11. There shall be no removal of hedgerows, trees, shrubs,

brambles or ground clearance take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed check of the area for active birds’ nests immediately before the work is commenced. Provided that the ecologist is satisfied that no birds will be harmed, and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site and the Local Planning Authority receive written confirmation of such (which shall subsequently need to be approved in writing), works will thereafter be permitted to take place in accordance with any protection measures recommended without restriction.

Reason – To ensure that any ecological interest on site is appropriately addressed and can be mitigated against, prior to any development taking place, in accordance with policy CS9 and the wider NPPF.

12. Prior to the commencement of works Root Protection Areas

(RPAs) shall be established and protective fencing conforming to BS 5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, demolition and construction - Recommendations’ 2012 shall be erected to all hedgerows and trees which are legally protected or identified for retention. Within these areas there shall be no excavation work and no storage of building materials or plant / machinery. The protective fencing shall remain in situ during site clearance and throughout the life the construction phases. Any works to take place within the defined RPAs shall be by means of an approved above ground construction method only which shall first have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – In the interest of safeguarding the protected trees, having regard to their root protection areas, and in the interest of the appearance of the surrounding area.

13. Prior to commencement of development, full details of the site access junction off Dunston Lane as indicated on drg no WMD/512/SK002 revision P2 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety.

14. Each reserved matters application shall include an Open

Space Scheme showing all areas of open space to be provided within that phase of the development. The scheme shall also include details of the location, layout, size, timing of provision, proposed planting, location and specification of boundary structures and materials.

Reason - To ensure the satisfactory development of open space.

15. Prior to development commencing an Employment and

Training Scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and written approval. The Scheme shall include a strategy to promote local supply chain, employment and training opportunities throughout the construction of the development.

Reason - In order to support the regeneration and prosperity of the Borough, in accordance with the provisions of Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy.

16. The development hereby approved shall include the

provision of appropriate infrastructure to enable the dwellings to have high speed broadband, in accordance with details to be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – In the interests of sustainable development and to ensure that the development is capable of meeting the needs of future residents and / or businesses in accordance with policy CS4 of the Core Strategy and para. 42 of the NPPF.

17. 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.

18. Before construction works commence or ordering of external

materials takes place, (or in the case of phased development, in respect of the relevant phase) precise specifications or samples of the walling and roofing materials to be used shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration. Only those materials approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be used as part of the development.

Reason - The condition is imposed in order to ensure that the proposed materials of construction are appropriate for use on the particular development and in the particular locality.

19. 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 interest of highway safety.

20. No development shall take place including any works of

demolition until a construction management plan or construction method statement has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for: - Parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors - routes for construction traffic - hours of operation - method of prevention of debris being carried onto

highway

- pedestrian and cyclist protection - proposed temporary traffic restrictions - arrangements for turning vehicles Reason – In the interest of highway safety.

21. Notwithstanding the submitted information a subsequent reserved matters or full application shall include design of the internal layout of the site in accordance with the Highway Authority’s current design guide.

Reason – In the interest of highway safety.

22. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, a new junction shall

be formed to Dunston Lane 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 minimum distance of 85 metres in each direction measured along the nearside carriageway edge in accordance with a scheme first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The area in advance of the visibility sightlines shall be retained throughout the life of the development free of any object above ground level relative to adjoining nearside carriageway channel level.

Reason – In the interest of highway safety.

23. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority, the development shall not be commenced until a detailed scheme for highway improvement works involving signalisation of the junction Dunston Road - Dunston Lane, together with a programme for the implementation and completion of the works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development thereafter shall only be implemented and any dwelling occupied in accordance with the agreed implementation programme. For the avoidance of doubt the developer will be required to enter into a 1980 Highways Act S278 Agreement with the Highway Authority in order to comply with the requirements of this condition.

Reason – In the interest of highway safety.

24. A scheme for highway improvement works involving creation of a pedestrian/ cycle link between the existing adopted highway and southern part of the application site shall be prepared commensurate with the reserved matters details for that part of the site. Only those details which receive written approval alongside any such application shall be implemented on site in accordance with the approved details and an agreed development phasing programme. For the avoidance of doubt the developer may be required to enter into a 1980 Highways Act S278 Agreement with the Highway Authority in order to comply with the requirements of this condition.

Reason – In the interest of highway safety.

25. No development shall take place until construction details of

the residential estate roads and footways (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing, lighting and means of surface water drainage) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – In the interest of highway safety.

26. The carriageways of the proposed estate roads shall be

constructed in accordance with Condition 25 above up to and including at least road base level, prior to the commencement of the erection of any dwelling intended to take access from that road. The carriageways and footways shall be constructed up to and including base course surfacing to ensure that each dwelling prior to occupation has a properly consolidated and surfaced carriageway and footway, between the dwelling and the existing highway. Until final surfacing is completed, the footway base course shall be provided in a manner to avoid any upstands to gullies, covers, kerbs or other such obstructions within or abutting the footway. The carriageways, footways and footpaths in front of each dwelling shall be completed with final surface course within twelve months (or three months in the case of a shared surface road) from the occupation of such dwelling, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – In the interest of highway safety.

27. The Travel Plan, once approved, 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 interest of highway safety.

28. Prior to commencement of development (or in the case of

phased development, in respect of the relevant phase) or concurrent with the submission of the landscaping reserved matters a scheme compliant with the recommendations of the Ecology Survey prepared by BSG Ecology 2014 detailing ecological mitigation measures, habitat improvement measures and soft landscaping (which shall include exploration of the feasibility of transplantation of hedgerow 1 – as defined in the Ecology Survey prepared by BSG Ecology 2014) to be implemented shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration. Only those details which receive subsequent written approval shall be implemented on site in accordance with a timetable that shall first have been agreed.

Reason - To ensure that any ecological interest on site is appropriately addressed and can be mitigated against, prior to any development taking place, in accordance with policy CS9 and the wider NPPF.

29. Concurrent with the submission of reserved matters

applications in relation to the relevant site areas, a detailed scheme shall be submitted which provides a pedestrian / cycle link from within the application site across its southern boundary to enable a suitably designed linkage to either Hollin Close or Baines Wood Close beyond. Only those details which receive subsequent written approval shall be implemented on site in accordance with a timetable that shall first have been agreed.

Reason – In the interests of sustainable development and to improve pedestrian / cycle connectivity.

30. The reserved matters submissions shall be accompanied by

an updated noise assessment to confirm that internal noise levels in bedrooms and living rooms should not exceed 35dB LAeq(1hr) during the daytime (between 07:00 and 23:00) and 30dB LAeq(1hr) or 45dB LAmax(1hr) during the night-time (between 23:00 and 07:00). Similarly, daytime (between 07:00 and 23:00) garden noise levels should not exceed 55dB LAeq(1 hr ).

Reason – In the interests of the amenities of any future occupants.

31. The reserved matters details shall be in general conformity with the Concept Masterplan Plan Drg No: EMS:2304_003 F and LAmax Noise Contour Overlay Drg No: EMS:2304_017 A. Reason – To clarify the extent of the outline planning permission and to ensure a comprehensively designed scheme which takes account of the parameters set therein.