P a th © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. …...Ordnance Survey 100024849 .na Scale: 1...

133

125

58

60

1 0

51

118

4

2

6

Path

126

29

23

25

CR

51

1

Playground

43

33

47

45

35

Ward Bdy

Playground

34

29

12

44

20

21

28

19

El

Su

b S

ta

20a

20

27

24

29

57

34

42

140

1

180.1m

14

14

12

17

28

24

12

33

45

24

13

7

159

160A

TCB

9

7

1

11

2

13

166

170

12

20

23

11

31

8

2

1

2

1

5

15

186

1 3

9

20

17

21

El Sub Sta

12

1

5

181.9m

2

198

211

202

1a

40

130

145

135

177.4m

2

Shelter

153

161

144

1b

7

132

148

31

30

2832

52

56

54

171

50

173

24

181.2m

164

181

66

197

78

90

87

24

1 2

2 4

15

10

9

Belvedere

Culham

16

The Croft

3

10

5

1

3

5

1

2

12

333

2

21

6

201

13

4 5

26

16a

18

38

3830

58

3935

5 84 4

44

23

16

30

11

House

268

2

266

264

1

Ashfield

45

32a

36

22

45

37

32

172

7

33

34

43

2

13

11

5

23

12

7

187.4m

22

1

1

TCB

1

1

12

183.0m

6

CLARENCE

10

COURT

7

3

185.2m

216

222

Clarence

Cricket Ground

El Sub Sta

Residential Home

238

LB

213

225

242

2 54

15

1

2

239

251

186.4m

11

35

21

17

31

55

12

33

47

3743

65

10 8

Club

Football Ground

8777

Gardens32

47

49

9

ET

Ls

35

25 Mast

19

5

12

Factory

25

11

15

2

15

81

8

Ke

n muir

Ga

tew

en

29

18

14

22

43 49

68

Factory

4

48

188.4m

2

51

LB

52

Factory

39

29

Victoria

Club

Gardens

Allotment

43

26

El Sub Sta

Allotment

28

1

24

187.7m

El Sub Sta38

32

28

44

39

19

27

Shelter

W orking Mens

19

2711

50

1

39

72

185.9m

23

24

40

65

17

6

4

13

15

17

1

134

140

2

ED Bdy

CH

CF

W ard Bdy

Pa th

s

1

2

1

Track

2

10

2

13

1

12

ROO

LEY L

ANE

Path (um)

C Tk

ED &

War

d Bdy

CP

Path

Pat

h (u

m)

163.4m

Footbridge

Ward B

dy

ED &

War

d B

dy

ED Bdy

7214

55

Pond

Brierley Forest Park

167.4m

Pa th

(um)

53

Well

133

135

131a

47

55

45

ROOLEY LANE (Path

)

© Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Ordnance Survey 100024849 .na

Scale: 1 to

.da

.sc

Residential Development of 201 Dwellings,comprising of 2,3,4, and 5 bedroom units. Creation of Vehicular access.Pedestrian Links,Public Open Space,Car Parking,Hard and Soft Landscaping, a Pumping station and Drainage

Land off Ashland Road West, Sutton in Ashfield

Huthwaite and Brierley

© Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Ordnance Survey 100024849

Date:

COMMITTEE DATE 25/08/2016 WARD Huthwaite and Brierley

APP REF V/2014/0658

APPLICANT David Wilson Homes (East Midlands)

PROPOSAL Residential Development of 201 Dwellings, Comprising of

2, 3, 4 & 5 Bedroom Units. Creation of Vehicular Access,

Pedestrian Links, Public Open Space, Car Parking,

Landscaping and Drainage

LOCATION Land off Ashland Road West Sutton in Ashfield

WEB-LINK https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Ashland+Rd+W,+S

utton-in-Ashfield+NG17+2HS,+UK&ll=53.131903,-

1.285014&spn=0.010776,0.016286&fb=1&gl=uk&ftid=0x

4879969f691cd8b7:0xf24eb726f139295a&hnear=Ashlan

d+Rd+W,+Sutton-in-

Ashfield+NG17+2HS,+United+Kingdom&t=h&z=16

RECOMMENDATION Approve with Conditions

BACKGROUND

PAPERS

A, B, C, D, E, F,

App Registered 28/11/2014 Expiry Date 19/03/2015 Extended Date 30/09/16

Consideration has been given to the Equalities Act 2010 in processing this

application.

This application has been referred to Planning Committee by the Interim Service

Director – Economy, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, since the

proposal is potentially controversial and is of significant public interest.

The Application

This is a full application for the erection of 201 dwellings and associated infrastructure

including two points of vehicular access off Ashlands Road West.

The application site is located outside of the main urban area within countryside as

defined by saved policy EV2 of the Ashfield Local Plan 2002. Appropriate development

within the countryside is set out under the provision of Saved Policy EV2 which

identifies that development for residential purposes is not appropriate. The application is

therefore a departure from saved policy EV2, and has therefore been advertised as

such.

It should be noted that the site was an allocation in the consultation Draft Local Plan

and is being considered for allocation as part of the publication plan.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Ashland+Rd+W,+Sutton-in-Ashfield+NG17+2HS,+UK&ll=53.131903,-1.285014&spn=0.010776,0.016286&fb=1&gl=uk&ftid=0x4879969f691cd8b7:0xf24eb726f139295a&hnear=Ashland+Rd+W,+Sutton-in-Ashfield+NG17+2HS,+United+Kingdom&t=h&z=16






The application site is currently in agricultural use and principally consists of two large

fields which are divided by a hedgerow which runs north to south through the centre of

the site. The site is bound by Brierley Forest Park to the North, Ashland’s Road West to

the south and east, and residential development to the west.

The application site was the subject of a previous planning application in 1988 for

residential development. This was refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal.

Although the site history is a material planning consideration, the current proposal is

required to be considered against up to date national and local planning policies.

The proposed site area has been amended during the processing of the application to

omit a parcel of land which was originally included but lacked any detail contrary to the

purpose of a full planning application. A separate planning application proposing

development on that area will be submitted for consideration in due course.

The latest amendment is for the same number of units, however, sought a number of

amendments to the proposed housing types as well as ensuring that the layout was in

full compliance with local and national policy, and in particular the Ashfield District

Council Residential Design Supplementary Planning Guidance. One of the main

reasons behind the submission of the final amended plans was the whole sites viability.

By amending a number of house types the application is able to provide 100% of the

policy requirement of planning obligations and this includes Education, Libraries, Public

Realm, Highway improvements, and on-site Affordable Housing. This is discussed in

more detail in the main body of this report and is an important consideration in the

overall planning balance exercise. The general layout remains unchanged from the first

submission and the road layout in particular remains the same.

The final plans for consideration are as follows:

Drawing no title Version / revision

S0000/500/01 Site Location Plan B

S6856/100/01 Site Layout phase 1 L

S6856/100/02 Site Layout phase 2 M

There are a number of different house types that are proposed which are listed on the

final submitted layout for each phase and each accompanied by detailed plans. Each

different sized unit has a number of sub house type that differ slightly in appearance

and internal layout. Each sub house type has a number of technical plans which are

listed in the recommend planning conditions. The list and number of house types are

summarised below for the avoidance of doubt:

House type Description No.

DWB21 2 bed affordable bungalow 10

SH27 2 bed affordable house type 9

SH39 3 bed affordable house type 2

DWB21 2 bed bungalow 8



T310 3 bed town house 4

P332 3 bed semi 13

P340 3 bed semi 1

P341 3 bed semi 5

P380 3 bed terrace 4

H403 4 bed detached 17













The final documents for consideration are as follows:

Document Reference/Revision

Design and Access Statement Revision 2

Planning Statement Revision 2

Arboricultural Impact Assessment 8858_AIA.001 Rev A

Landscape Note to accompany original

LVIA

GL0258 – 22nd June 2016

Landscape and Visual Appraisal GL0258 October 2014 (Amended

February 2015)

Transport Position Statement to

accompany original Transport Statement

ADC1032_D

Transport Assessment ADC1032_A (December 2014) –

Amendments made March 2015 (see

below)

Transport Assessment – response to

NCC comments

ADC1032_C_V2 (March 2015)

Travel Plan ADC1032_B (December 2014)

Addendum to the Preliminary Ecological

Appraisal (as amended January 2015)

RSE_51_02-V1 1st July 2016

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal RSE_051_01_V3 (January 2015)

Flood Risk Assessment Rev B July 2016

Viability Assessment (not for public view) December 2014

Ground Investigation Report GRM/P5946/F.1

Consultations

Site Notices have been posted together with individual notification of surrounding

residents. The proposal has also been advertised in the local press.

There have been a number of revisions since the original submission. All consultees

were re-consulted as appropriate. In the majority of circumstances consultees had no

further changes to make to their original consultation response. Those subsequently

received are detailed below. The number of units proposed has not changed and

therefore the bulk of original consultation responses remain valid.

Historically Nottinghamshire County Council Policy responses were provided within one

document with each individual consultee providing their comments. This included

Minerals and Waste, Highways, Education, Libraries and Reclamation. Since the

application was submitted these are provided as standalone responses and are

presented as such within this report.

Ashfield District Council Environmental Health Noise

No objections to this application.

Ashfield District Council Environmental Health Air Quality

No objections with regard to pollution control associated with this development.

Ashfield District Council Environmental Health Contamination

No objections in principle to this application but it is requested that a four stage

contamination condition be applied to any favourable decision.

Ashfield District Council Tree Officer

No objections to this application, but request tree protection measures be secured with

regard to trees which adjoin the site.

Ashfield District Council - Planning Policy

Current position following revised plans and document addendums

National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 14

National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 215

Policy EV2 sets out that permission will not be granted for inappropriate

development in the Countryside.

NPPF Core planning Principles, paragraph 17 gives emphasis to the recognition

of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The Nottinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) 2009 effectively

supersedes ALPR policy EV4 and is a material consideration. The LCA identifies

the site as part of Character Area ML021 which comprises the man-made

landform of a restored former colliery with a raised woodland covered mound

comprising ‘engineered’ slopes of even gradient.

Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to boost

significantly the supply of housing.

The Preferred Approach Local Plan was subject to public consultation during February

& March 2016 and the Council is currently drafting its Publication document which is

anticipated to be taken to Cabinet in September, followed by Full Council in October.

The Ashlands Road site is as a housing allocation within the Preferred Approach Local

Plan and is likely to be considered as part of Publication Local Plan.

Should it be minded to approve the site for residential development, the following

additional policies will apply:-

Saved policy HG3

Saved policy HG4

Saved policy TR6

Saved policy HG5

Saved policy EV8

The ADC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Such an approval would contribute towards sustaining a 5 year land supply moving

forward.

Original consultation response summary

The proposal seeks detailed approval for 201 dwellings with public open space on a

10.5ha site designated as Countryside in the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 (ALPR).

Policy EV2 sets out that permission will not be granted for inappropriate development in

the countryside. Development must not adversely affect the character of the

countryside, in particular its openness. The proposal does not meet the criteria for

appropriate development set out in Policy EV2 of the Ashfield Local Plan Review

(2002). National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Core planning Principles,

paragraph 17 gives emphasis to the recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of

the countryside.


supersedes ALPR policy EV4 and is a material consideration.

Should it be minded to approve the site for residential development, the following

policies will apply:-

• Saved policy HG3;

• Saved policy HG4;

• Saved policy HG5; and

• Saved policy EV8.

The ADC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies 2 incidences of localised flooding,

off North Street and Meden Crescent recorded in 2007, and there is potential for

flooding from culverted watercourses – this will need to be thoroughly assessed. The

emphasis in national planning policy is on utilising Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS).

Any development should not increase surface water run-off from the site and should

ensure that permeable materials are utilised to minimise the risk from surface water.

It is considered that the site is sustainably located, despite being located within the

‘Countryside’ under saved policy EV2.

Ashfield District Council - Locality and Community Empowerment


No objection subject to the following comments which would be included as an

informative to the applicant and expected to be provided as part of a Landscaping Plan

controlled by condition:

Levels and cross sections are requested for the balancing pond areas

The loss of hedgerow H3 requires compensation which could be secured by

condition to plant 212 sqm of new planting to counter the loss of the mature

hedgerow habitat

Details of the inlets into the balancing areas should be provided with information

on how the visual impact of these structure will be mitigated.

The amount of tree planting within the development should be increased along

the internal road frontages

The Flood attenuation recommendations should be included in the scheme along

with the recommendations associated with the provision of a detailed landscape

planting plan.

The recommendations in the report in relation to bats and the effect of potential

light spill into Brierley Forest Park, should be included in the scheme.

The maintenance gate as specified on the drawing should be of metal

construction and not wood. Should the application be approved, contributions of

£502,500 would be required.

This would include £335,000 for Public Realm improvements, £40,000 for Riley

Recreation ground play area improvements, £72,500 for Huthwaite Welfare Park

Play area improvements and £55,000 for Brierley Forest Park access

improvements and additional car parking provision.

Original response

No objection

The site is covered by the EV2 Countryside designation. In landscape terms, the site is

located in close proximity to housing and contains common features of grassland and

hedgerows which are found on other parts of Sutton. The development of this site would

not significantly adversely affect the character of the Countryside as it is bounded by

housing on three sides and Brierley Forest Park with Rooley Tops to the north.

The response from the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust dated 22 December 2014, raises

concerns under Policy EV8. In landscape terms, there will be a change as

acknowledged within the LVIA document but the overall setting of the park in the wider

landscape would not be significantly adversely affected.

The ecology report mentions the SINCs and pond but doesn't mention the wetland /

meadow/ woodland areas. The following comments are made:

The existing hedgerow and trees should be retained to give a landscape

structure. The proposals should have a native species and ecological

composition to help blend the development into Brierley Forest Park.

There should be no access through the SINC areas to protect the existing

biodiversity. There should only be 2 pedestrian / vehicular access points onto the

park. One off the turning head to the east of Brierley Waters and one to the

hammer head turning to the east of the future development area.

The Norwood Close bank boundary needs further thought as to landscape

treatment and future maintenance.

Should the application be approved developer contributions would be required.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways


No objection subject to the same previously identified contributions.

The applicant has undertaken detailed modelling which clarifies that the existing road

network would not be detrimentally affected in terms of capacity at key highway

junctions within the vicinity of the application site.

The level of parking within the application site is considered acceptable. Improvements

to public transport facilities, in the form of two new bus stops, are requested totalling

£19,500.

Conditions are recommended to ensure an appropriate standard of development.

Nottinghamshire County Council Education and Libraries


No objection subject to the same previously identified contributions:

In terms of education it is confirmed that to mitigate the impact that the proposed

development of 201 homes would have on the existing schools in the planning area

then an education contribution at the rate indicated previously required, as follows:

• Primary 42 additional pupils @ £ 11,455 = £481,110

• Secondary 32 additional pupils @ £17,620 = £552,320

In addition it is confirmed that the primary contributions would be used for Brierley

Forest Primary whilst the secondary contributions would be used for either Sutton

Community Academy or Quarrydale.

In respect of libraries, it is confirmed that the contribution towards stock would be

£9,230. This figure is arrived at from the formula 482 (new population) x 1,532 (items) x

£12.50 (cost per item). The stock would be allocated to Sutton in Ashfield where there is

space capacity to house the additional stock.

Nottinghamshire County Council Minerals and Waste

No objection

From a minerals perspective the County Council would not consider the development to

be inappropriate in this location.

From a waste perspective the County Council would be keen to see the best practice of

waste management for the development.

Nottinghamshire County Council Reclamation

No objection

The land in question lies adjacent to the former Sutton Colliery Spoil Tip. Whilst there is

no indication that there is landfill in the immediate proximity it is considered most

prudent that the extent of the spoil tips is delineated. There is little detail in the

information provided however, given the site is adjacent to a former colliery, there is

significant potential for contamination so a full desk study and ground investigation

would be required.

Once the phase one desk study has been completed a site investigation can be

designed to investigate the identified pollutant linkages. The investigation could also be

integrated with the geotechnical investigation required for ground condition assessment

for foundation design.

The geo-environmental site investigation must be comprehensive and enable: -

I. the conceptual site model to be refined;

II. a Phase II Risk Assessment to be undertaken relating to soil and on site and off site

associated groundwater and surface waters that may be affected, and ground gas and

vapour.

III. a Method Statement to be developed detailing the remediation requirements.

The ground conditions of the site should be subject to investigation as described above.

Nottinghamshire County Council Ecology and Conservation


No objection subject to recommended conditions:

The updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) indicates the importance of

securing the production of a detailed landscaping, via a condition, to provide mitigation

for the loss of grassland habitat. In addition, the production of a Reptile Mitigation

Strategy should also be secured through a condition, to be based on details contained

in the updated survey report.

Concerns raised previously about the proposed pedestrian accesses from the

application site that will link into Brierley Forest Country Park.

• Impacts

o Overall, the direct ecological impacts of these proposals appear to be

minimal, provided that precautionary mitigation measures are put in place

• Mitigation and enhancement

o The following mitigation measures should be secured through planning

conditions, in the event that planning permission is granted:

Vegetation clearance should take place outside the bird nesting

season

Hedgerow boundaries and other areas of retained vegetation

should be protected during development

Hedgerow removal should be carried out sensitively in late autumn

or early spring

A detailed lighting scheme should be produced

The production of a Japanese Knotweed Management Plan

In terms of mitigation for loss of habitat (albeit of generally low

ecological value), it is evident that the development has the

potential to deliver modest ecological benefits through landscaping

works

The incorporation of bat and bird boxes

Nottinghamshire County Council Rights of Way


No definitive paths are affected by this development but it is always possible that other

public rights of way exist which have not yet been registered.

Sutton in Ashfield Public Footpath 47 runs parallel to the North East boundary of

the site;

The County Council requires that the above path is not affected or obstructed in

anyway by the proposed development at this location unless subject to

appropriate diversion or closure orders;

An informative will be used to ensure that the Applicant is aware that any

required path closure or diversion application should be made via consultation

with the County Council as well as in relation to any re surfacing or gating issues.

Coal Authority

No objection

The application does not fall within the defined development high risk area and is

located instead within the defined development low risk area. There is no requirement

under the risk based approach. Standing advice is recommended.

They were re-consulted however reaffirmed their stance and have no objection to the

development.

Environment Agency

No objections to this application subject to the imposition of conditions to control

drainage and contamination.

NHS England

No objection

Request a contribution towards health based on £551 per dwelling based on 2.3 person

occupancy to cope with increased demand for primary care resources.

Severn Trent Water

No objections to this application subject to condition requiring a scheme for foul and

surface water drainage to be agreed. `

Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust


Concerns have been raised regarding the indirect impacts of the proposed pedestrian

accesses from the application site that will link into Brierley Forest Country Park to the

north and the impact of the proposal. This is addressed later in this report where

conditions are recommended for buffer planting mitigation to form part of a landscaping

plan.

Original consultation response summary

Object to the application due to contradictions with the Ashfield Local Plan, an

insufficient buffer, and potential indirect impacts to the adjacent LNR and Local Wildlife

Site (LWS). Requested further ecological assessments, precautionary measures and

mitigation.

Nottinghamshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer

No concerns are raised in regard to this application.

Natural England

No objections given with regard to this application but offers advice with regard to Bio-

diversity and Geo-diversity, Local landscape character, protected species and green

infrastructure.

Resident representation

Representations received following any further consultations

Following re-notification of residents in relation to the latest plan, comments have been

received from the following addresses within the district:-

• Ashfield Road - 45, 132

• Ashlands Close - 2, 12, 24

• Ashlands Road - 45, 128 (x2)

• Ashland Road West - 104, 124, 132, 136

• Black Country Legal Consultants – Legal representation.

• Brierley Forest Park Trust

• Bonser Cresent - 14 (x2)

• Carnarvon Grove - 51, 55, 62 (x2), 30

• Chesterfield Road - Hilcroft

• Columbia Avenue - 9 (x2)

• Coultons Avenue – 7, 11, 13, 23

• Elmhurst Drive - 29 (x2)

• Evans Avenue - 1, 2, 3 (x2), 5, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 24, 30, 38

• Farcroft Avenue - 11, 15, 29 (x2), 31 (x5), 33

• George Street - 45, 58

• Hartley Road – 83

• Headstocks –

• Huthwaite Road – 104.

• Newcastle street - 21

• Norwood Close - 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 (x2), 10 (x2), 12, 14, 16

• North Street – 53, 133

• The paddocks -

• Pennine Close - 18

• Primrose Way – 20

• Riley Avenue – 52

• Rooley Drive - 2, 5, 6, 7 (x2), 16, 17

• Rooley Avenue – 2, 14

• Springwood View close – 33

• Unwin Road - 47

• Unwin Street - 30

• Windsor Avenue - 35

• Wordworth Avenue 1, 20(x2)

Their comments are grouped under headings and summarised as follows:-

Visual amenity

- Appearance of Brierley Park would be spoilt;

- Domestic paraphernalia is visually detrimental;

- Artists impressions of the development requested;

- 2-3 storey properties are out of keeping with the existing bungalows in

the area;

- Visually detrimental to the residents who would have to look at the

development.

- Loss of open aspect

Residential amenity

- Impact on Residential Amenity;

- Loss of privacy;

- 402 cars is underestimated

- Too many dwellings for the size of the site

Healthcare

- Impact upon doctors, dentists, schools and roads;

- Lack of health care provision

Flooding and drainage

- Flooding and drainage issues;

- Health hazard arising from on-site cess pits and soakaways;

- Pressures on sewage system from additional houses

- No where for water to drain when the land is taken for development

(currently acts as a soakaway)

- Drains often get backed up and flood gardens

Highway safety and air pollution

- Impact on Highway Infrastructure;

- Damage to roads caused by traffic used in construction of

development;

- Highway Safety;

- Light and noise pollution;

- Inaccuracies in Traffic Assessment;

- Highway safety issues;

- Air pollution and noise;

- Amendments to accesses requested;

- Only two entrances off the estate which are close together;

- Highway officers are not familiar with the area;

- Accident waiting to happen

- Access to the site detrimental to nearby property

Conservation and wildlife

- Brierley would be adversely affected, after having had investment;

- Great crested newts found in the back garden of a property off North

Street, adjacent to the site;

- Loss of wildlife;

- The Greenfield site will be lost;

- Countryside land should be protected from development as identified

in the ALPR 2002;

- Negative impact upon the setting of Brierley Forest Park;

- Loss of trees

- New developments should minimise fragmentation of habitats

- Oak tree on the site was used in the design of Ashfield DC logo and

should be saved.

Landscaping

- Boundaries should be landscaped in keeping with the area;

- Maintenance of the ditch between proposed development and 133

north street.

- Plans not detailed enough regarding trees and hedges

Noise

- Disruption during building work;

- Noise will arise from the pedestrian crossing;

Other

- Litter;

- Domestic pets will harm local environment and affect birds and wildlife;

- Alternative land and buildings should be considered instead;

- The proposal amounts to a village being dumped in a beautiful area;

- Loss of green belt land;

- Loss of views;

- Safety issues in relation to the SUDS proposed;

- Future house prices are too high for the area;

- Taxpayers will be affected by the work;

- Contrary to the allocation of the local plan.

- Density of development too high;

- Loss of recreation area;

- Insufficient capacity of sewage network;

- Brownfield site should be used for development before green field

sites;

- The lack of a 5 year housing land supply should not be considered as

a justification;

- Density of development too high

- Contrary to policy, national and local.

- Strain on employment in the area

- Substituted house schemes will still adversely affect the area

A letter in support of the proposal insofar that they wish to buy a new property on the

site has been received from 62 Dalestorth Road.

Comments were received from people with no address and their comments are grouped

under headings and summarised as follows:

• Visual amenity

- Loss of view

• Residential amenity

- Proposed pumping station and associated noise

- Privacy

• Healthcare

- Over stretched doctors surgeries

• Highway safety and air pollution

• Conservation and wildlife

- Impact on bird species in Brierley forest

- Brierley park is the best thing to happen to the area

• Education

- Lack of school provision

• Other

- Flooding caused by large areas of hard standing

- Responsibility for bank of grass

Comments received from residents outside of the district:

• 42 Knightlow Road, Birmingham

• Melton Gardens, Edwalton – 22.

• Main Street, Rush Close

• Featherstone Close, Mansfield

Their comments are grouped under headings and summarised as follows:


- No parking at the proposed pedestrian entrance to Brierley Park.

- Rumble strips don’t solve traffic volume issues

- Child safety on the highway.

Representations received from first consultation

Individually signed standalone letters of objection were received from the following

residents:

• Ashfield Road - 45, 132

• Ashlands Close - 2, 12, 24

• Ashlands Road - 45, 128 (x2)

• Ashland Road West - 104, 124, 132, 136

• Black Country Legal Consultants – Legal representation.

• Brierley Forest Park Trust

• Bonser Cresent - 14 (x2)

• Carnarvon Grove - 51, 55, 62 (x2), 30

• Chesterfield Road - Hilcroft

• Columbia Avenue - 9 (x2)

• Coultons Avenue – 7, 11, 13, 23

• Elmhurst Drive - 29 (x2)

• Evans Avenue - 1, 2, 3 (x2), 5, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 24, 30, 38

• Farcroft Avenue - 11, 15, 29 (x2), 31 (x5), 33

• George Street - 45, 58

• Hartley Road – 83

• Headstocks –

• Huthwaite Road – 104.

• Newcastle Street - 21

• Norwood Close - 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 (x2), 10 (x2), 12, 14, 16

• North Street – 53, 133

• The paddocks -


• Primrose Way – 20

• Riley Avenue – 52

• Rooley Drive - 2, 5, 6, 7 (x2), 16, 17

• Rooley Avenue – 2, 14

• Springwood View Close – 33

• Unwin Road - 47

• Unwin Street - 30

• Windsor Avenue - 35

• Wordsworth Avenue 1, 20(x2)

Their comments are grouped under headings and summarised as follows:-

Highway safety o Impact on Highway Infrastructure; o Damage to roads caused by traffic used in construction of

development; Inaccuracies in Traffic Assessment;

Impact on services o Impact on Schools; o Impact on Health facilities and other public amenities;

Drainage o Insufficient capacity of sewage network; o Flood risk.

Brierley Park o Loss of green buffer between Brierley Forest Park;

Previously developed land o Brownfield site should be used for development before green field

sites;

Detrimental impact upon visual amenity;

Impact on Residential Amenity; o Loss of privacy; o Light and noise pollution; o Litter;

o Vandalism and anti-social behaviour; o Pollution during construction;

Impacts on wildlife and ecology; o Loss of trees;

Housing supply o The lack of a 5 year housing land supply should not be considered as

a justification; o Countryside land should be protected from development as identified

in the ALPR 2002; o The proposed scheme is high in density and out of keeping with the

locality.

A number of pro forma letters have been received from the following addresses below.

The letter states a number of concerns including that the site is subject to countryside

policy EV2, existing road infrastructure is a major concern and that site will cause local

flooding:-

• Alder Way – 1, 3(x2)

• Alfreton Road - 67, 71, 123, 127 (x3), 221, 321

• Anslow Avenue - 41

• Amber Grove (x1 No Number)

• Ashfield Road – 45

• Ashfield Rise -15

• Ashgate – 2, 8, 12, 14, 18

• Ashland Road – 2, 4(x2), 7, 14, 17, 18(x2), 19(x2), 20, 22, 15, 23, 27, 30, 31,

35(x2), 37, 52, 56

• Ashland Road West – 102(x2), 112(x2), 120, 126, 201(x5)

• Ashlands Close - 6, 16

• Ashleigh Avenue - 17

• Aspley Road - 14, 57

• Back Lane - 24 (x2)

• Bainbridge Terrace - 4

• Bank Avenue – 23

• Barker Street - 28, 33, 37 (x2), 39

• Barnes Crescent – 36

• Batemans Yard- 3

• Beacon Drive – 58

• Beechdale Crescent – 4 (x2)

• Beech Avenue - 5, 22, 26(x2)

• Beulah Road – 41

• Bishop Street - 1

• Blackwell Road - 1 (x2), 6, 61, 87 (x2), 116, 222

• Bloomerwood View - 17

• Blueberry Croft - 5

• Bonser Gardens – 2, 16

• Boots Yard – Orchard Cottage, 16

• Brandreth Avenue - 15, 27

• Bramble Croft - 6

• Bramley Court – 105 (x2)

• Briar Close - 14

• Brierley Cottages – 16, 19

• Brierley Road - 37

• Brookhill Court – 1, 26, 33

• Burn Street – 61

• Burton Road - 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, 21 (x2), 24 (x2), 30, 34, 36 (x2), 38 (x2),

45

• Byron Road – 21

• Bythorn Close – 23

• Carnarvon Grove – 2, 51, 55(x2), 62, 64 (x3)

• Carnarvon Road – 17

• Carnarvon Street – 29

• Carsic Road – 63, 76, 87, 149, 150, 210(x2)

• Carrfield Close- 10

• Caton Close – 21

• Caunts Crescent – 51, 69

• Cavendish Avenue – 23

• Cedar Avenue – 3

• Chapel Street – Jasmine Cottage (x2)

• Chatsworth Close – 8

• Chatsworth Street - 4, 7

• Cherry Close - 46

• Chesterfield Road- 36 (x2), 50, Pennine View (x2)

• Charles Street - 17

• Church Avenue -11

• Churchmead – 3

• Clegg Hill Drive – 1a, 7, 36, 50

• Clumber Crescent – 18

• Collins Avenue - (x1 No Address)

• Columbia Avenue - 9(x2), 10, 16(x2), 57, 58, 63(x2)

• Columbia Street – 59b(x2), 108 (x4)

• Common Road - 15, 18, 20, 34, 63(x2), 152, 160

• Commonside - (1 no number)

• Coultons Avenue – 2, 5, 7, 8 (x2), 9, 13

• Co-Op Street - 18, 32

• Coxmoor Road - Woodland House

• Crampton Close - 11

• Dalestorth Road - 22

• Davies Avenue - 79

• Dawgates Lane - Croftfield Farm (x2)

• Deepdale Gardens – 9

• Deepdale Street – 32

• Devonshire Close – 4

• Dovedale Avenue- 25, 57

• Dunelm Close - 5 (x2), 6 (x2), 7, 11

• Elder Street – 40

• Elmhurst Drive- 1, 12, 16

• Ethelbert Avenue – 1a

• Evans Avenue – 6 (x3), 8 (x2)

• Fackley Road – 25

• Fackley Way – 37

• Fairway, Keyworth - 35 (x2)

• Farcroft Avenue – 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 19, 21, 23 (x3), 29 (x2), 31(x2)

• Farndale Road – 13, 57(x2)

• Farnsworth Grove - 28

• Field Place – 34

• Field View – 1 (x2), 4

• Fisher Close – 34, 76

• Forest Road – 80

• Foxhill Close - 21, 26, 28

• Fox Covert Close - 3

• Franklin Road - 61

• Garden Lane – 141

• George Street – 4(x3), 44

• Gill Street – 41, 47, Morval

• Glenside – 7

• Green Avenue – 23

• Greenbank Drive – 29

• Grey Street – 5

• Grosvenor Avenue – Albury House

• Haddon Street – 62

• Hathersage Way- 4

• Hazel Street – 82

• Herne Street- 22

• High Hazels Drive – 30

• High Street – 21, 31, 39

• Highfield Road – 30 (x2)

• High Pavement – 65(x2)

• Hill View Road, Kirkby - 14

• Hillsborough Way – 7, 11 (x2)

• Hollinwell Close – 12 (x2)

• Homecroft Avenue - (1x no number), 41

• Howard Street – 5

• Huthwaite Road – 10 (x2), 34, 67, 140, 150, 152(x3), 154, 160a(x2), 167, 169,

226, 235 (x2)

• Institute Street – 82,

• James William Turners Avenue – 40, 49, 56

• John Street – Millbourne, 58

• Jubilee Road – 1, 34

• Keats Avenue - 4, 5 (x3), 6, 10, 12, 14 (x2), 15, 16, 17

• Kelham Cottages - 2

• Kenilworth Avenue - 33

• King Street – 5, 11, 12 (x2)

• Kirkby Hardwick – 2 The Barn (x2)

• Kirkby Road – (1x no number), 163

• Laxton Avenue – 13

• Leabrook Avenue - 10, 26 (x2)

• Leander Close – 5a

• Leamington Drive – 101, 114

• Leyton Avenue – 25

• Lime Avenue

• Lime Tree Road - 98

• Lindley Street – 6

• Lindrick Road - 21

• Longhill Rise – 2

• Luther Avenue - 7, 23

• Langton Court - 14

• Lime Avenue - 28 (x2), The Bungalow

• Limoceley Road - (1x no number)

• Main Street – 63, 70, 80a, 96, 101

• Manor Road – 11, 30 (x2)

• Market Place – 4

• Market Street – 19

• Marton Road – 36

• Mayfield Street – 37

• Meden Crescent – 1 (x2), 3(x4), 11

• Mill Close – 27(x2), 41

• Mill Lane – 2 Colliery Houses,15, 205

• Morley Street – 6a, 13, 56

• Moorland Close – 24

• Moseley Road - 2

• Mount Pleasant – 1b, 16 (x2)

• Nesbitt Street – 8, 37

• New Street – 36, 44, 47, 52, 63, 74

• Newcastle Street – 21, 25, 28, 31(x2), 51, 52(x2), 54(x2)

• Newark Road –

• Nightingale Crescent – 7

• Northwood Avenue – 22

• North Street- 2, 4, 39, 41 (x2), 53, 131, 133, Victoria WMC

• Norwood Close – 4 (x2), 6 (x2), 8 (x2), 12

• Nursery Avenue - 28

• Old Fall Street- 10

• Oak Street – (1 x No number)

• Oakland Croft - 4 (x2)

• Occupation Road - 70

• Oxford Street - 23

• Overdale Avenue - 24, (1 no number)

• Overstone Close – 46

• Paddocks Close – 1(x2)

• Park Gardens – 4, 5, 9, 10, 14 (x2)

• Parkland View – 36

• Parkside - 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34 (x2), 35,

36

• Parkway - 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 21, 27, 29

• Peel Street – 5, 19

• Pepper Street - 40

• Percival Crescent – 4


• Polperro Way – 26

• Portland Road -12c, 70

• Primrose Way – 11, 20

• Prospect Place - 29

• Quarries Way – 20

• Quarrydale Avenue - 24

• Quarrydale Road - 54, 74

• Redcliffe Street -105

• Regent Street - 20

• Riley Avenue – 2 (x2), 3, 10, 14 (x2), 25, 26 (x2), 28, 47, 50

• Roberts Avenue – 1 (x2), 13, 15, 23(x2)

• Robin Hood Avenue – 62

• Roods Close – 32

• Rooley Avenue – 17, 19, 21, 25, 29

• Rowan Drive – 103

• Ruby Gardens – 6

• Russell Street – 34

• Sandhill Road – 43

• Sandy lane – 25

• Sapphire Drive – 5

• Searby Road – 19, 96, 133

• Sherwood Road – 16, 53 (x3)

• Sherwood Street - 31, 49, 53

• Siddalls Drive - 5, 11, 13

• Silk Street – 31, 83

• Silverhill Lane - Dunsil Farm, Caravan & Camping Club

• Skegby Road - Cavendish House, The Bungalow (x2), 2, 5, 6, 66a

• Smithy Row - 3

• Spa Close - 7

• Springs Close - 22

• Springwood View Close – 41, 55 (x2), 70

• St Andrews Street – 29

• St Marys Road – 26 (x2)

• St Wilfred’s Drive - 10 (x2)

• Stanton Crescent – 19

• Stevenson Crescent – 4

• Stonehills Way – 4

• Stuart Street - 19a, 28, 30, Stuart House

• Summerhill Court - 9

• Sutton Park Road – 71, 125, 127

• Sutton Road – 27, 48, 55, 72, 92, 95, 211

• Swanson Avenue - 1, 2

• The Crescent - 20

• The Croft - 5

• The Fieldings – 7, 10, 17, 31, 43, 45, 47, 51, 57(x2)

• The Green – 33

• The Paddocks – 1

• Thoresby Crescent - 36 (x3)

• Twinyards Close – 18

• Unwin Street- 37, 44

• Victoria Road – 13

• Views Court - 4 (x2)

• Wheatley Avenue – 23

• Wenham lane - 12

• Welbeck Close – 5

• West End – 12

• Westbourne Road - 40, 53, 88, 94, 175

• Westbourne Close - 3

• Weston Close - 19

• Wenham Lane - 3, 5

• Wheatley Avenue – 11, 33

• Whitegates Way – 3, 19, 42

• Whitehead Lane – 22

• Wild Hill – 83, 85 (x2), 129, 203

• Willow Bridge Court – 12

• Willowbridge Lane - 8 Sherwood House (x2), 45 (x2)

• Willow Crescent – 26

• Windmill Way – 2(x2)

• Winterbank Close - 1

• Whilton Close – 21

• Windmill Way – 5

• Windsor Avenue - 5, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 25, 34, 43, 55

• Winterbank Close - 12

• Woodland Close - 12

• Woodlands Way – 4

• Wordsworth Avenue – 3, 4, 6 (x2), 9, 11 (x2), 14, 16, 20, 21

• York Street – 13

• Stubbin Farm, Stanton Hill

A number of comments have also been received from residents outside the District:-

• Danbury, First Drift, Stamford, Lincs

• Westwood Cottage, Seanor Lane, Lower Pilsley (x2)

• 20 Abbots Oak Drive, Coalville (x2)

• 84 Abbot Road, Mansfield

• 38 Alfreton Road, South Normanton (x2)

• 109 Alfreton Road, Pinxton (x3)

• 4 Amersham Rise, Nottingham

• 93 Athleston Way, Burton-on-Trent

• 11 Avon Way, Mansfield

• Baker Street Burntwood, Staffs (1x no number)

• 12 Bakewell Crescent

• 6 Beckett Close, burton-on-Trent

• 9 Belsford Court, Watnall (x2)

• 59 Bernard Street, Woodville

• 42 Berry Hill Lane, Mansfield

• Blackwell, Derbyshire

• 10 Blackfordby Lane, Swadlincote

• 45 Birchwood Lane, South Normanton (x4)

• 92 Birchwood Road, Alfreton

• 3 Brailsford Court, Mansfield

• 10 Bretby Hollow, Swadlincote

• 1 Brook Street, Loscoe (x2)

• 17 Brookhill Lane, Pinxton

• Brookfield, Hammerwich

• 20 Brunswick Court, Pilsley

• 44 Brya Lane, Welbeck

• 134 Burnbridge Road, Chesterfield

• 6 Cardale Road, Mansfield

• 5 Cedar Tree Road- Arnold

• 11 Cherry Grove, Mansfield

• 62 Chesterfield Road South, Mansfield

• 17 Chesterfield Road, North Wingfield

• Chesterfield Road, Tibshelf

• 11 Chestnut Road, Burton on Trent

• 9 Church Lane, Cotgrave (x2)

• 7 Church Street, Eastwood

• 121 Church Street, Stretton

• Cornhill Drive, Alfreton

• 31 Coronation Avenue, Sandiacre (x2)

• 102 Coronation Drive, South Normanton

• 2 Cotterdale Close, Forest Town

• 52 Cranmer Street, Long Eaton

• 15 Dean Road (x2), Nottingham

• 8 Demontford, Melton Mowbray

• 12 Dorchester Drive, Mansfield

• 7 Dunoon Road, Mansfield

• 20 Duke Street, South Normanton

• 7 Eastleigh Drive, Mansfield Woodhouse

• 6 Erica Drive, Alfreton (x2)

• 6 Fairfield Avenue (x2), Hilcote

• 1 Fairway, Newark (x2)

• Fuchsberg, Deutsch Evern, Germany

• 6 Fourth Avenue, Carlton (x2)

• 2 Garabaldi Road, Forest Town

• Gravel Lane, Leytonstone

• 32 Green Acres Drive, South Normanton (x2)

• 19 Gurtrude Road, Derby

• 20 Halstead Close, Forest Town

• 50 Hall Road, Rolleston-on-Dove

• 4 Hamblin Crescent, Sinfin

• 40 Harvey Road, Mansfield

• 58 Hawksley Avenue, Chesterfield

• 38 Heanor Road, (x2)

• 4 Helmsley Road, Rainworth

• 31 Heren Drive, Nottingham

• 1 Highfield Avenue, Mansfield

• 35 Hilcote Street, South Normanton

• 41 Hilton Avenue, Bolton

• 9 Iona Close – Tibshelf

• 5 Knightsyard Court, Long Eaton

• 16 King Edward Avenue (x2), Mansfield

• 73 Kirklington Road, Bilsthorpe

• 30(x3),Lark Hill, Swanwick

• 11 Lea Vale, Broardmeadows

• 8 Ledbury Vale, Nottingham

• 55 Leeming Lane South

• 11 Lincoln Way, Midway (x2)

• 10 Lime Close, Pinxton

• 19 Lordswell Road, Burton-on-Trent

• Matlock Road, Wessington- (2x no number)

• 24 Metro Avenue, Newton

• 95 Milward Road, Loscoe, Derbyshire (x2)

• 61 Newboundmill Lane, Pleasley

• 32 Newport Crescent, Mansfield

• 9 Portland Avenue, Branston

• Rockingham Close, Chesterfield

• Rowan Cottage, Little Lane, Denby Village

• 14 Longstone way, Mansfield

• 3 Lumley Close (x2), Bilsthorpe, Newark

• 83 Kings Stand, Mansfield

• Main Street, Swadlincote- (1x No Number), 5,

• 32 Main Street Rosliston

• 17 Markham Place, Mansfield

• 60 Market Street, South normanton

• 45 Mansfield Road, Edwinstowe

• 18 Mansfield Road, Mansfield Woodhouse (x2)

• 15 Manor Close, Newton

• 23 Mayfair Avenue

• 10 Meadow Bank, South Normanton

• 24 Meadow Grove, Newton

• 33 Mill Street

• 15 Millrise Road, Mansfield

• 26 Mill Lane, Burton-under- Needwood

• 33 Mill Street, Mansfield

• 3 Montgomery Close, Beeston

• 10 Moreham Road, Nottingham

• 511 New Street, Hilcote

• 109 Newhill Road, South Yorkshire (x2)

• 42 Newlands Drive, Forest Town

• 1 Newlyn Drive, South Normanton

• 42 Newlyn Road, Sheffield

• 10 Northfield Drive, Mansfield (x2)

• 13 North Street, Mansfield

• 159 North Wingfield Road, Grassmoor (x2)

• 29 Oak Avenue, Blidworth

• 143 Park Lane, Pinxton

• 84 Parkdale Road, Nottingham

• Parkstone Avenue, Mansfield

• 27 Pencroft Lane, Chesterfield

• 9 Portland Avenue, Burton Upon Trent (x3)

• 14 Rathmines Close, Lenton

• 5 Redgate Street, Bulwell

• 7 Ridale Close, Mansfield

• Rockingham Close, Chesterfield

• 99 Rosleton Road, Burton-on-Trent

• 52 Rugby Road, Rainworth

• 14 Russell Avenue, Newark

• 111 Queensway, Pilsley

• 4 Sancliffe Close, Forest Town

• 67 Saw Mill Way, Burton-on-Trent

• 58 Saxon Street, Burton-on-Trent

• 122 Scalpcliffe Road, Burton-on-Trent

• 5 School Street, Castle Gresley

• 170 Skegby Lane, Mansfield

• 3 South Street, Swanwick (x2)

• 25 Sporton Lane, South Normanton

• 29 St Johns Green, Leyland

• 48 Stainforth Street, Mansfield Woodhouse

• 118 Stanton Road, Burton on Trent

• 27 Stretton Road, Morton (x2)

• 11 Swift Close, Woodville,

• Tall Trees, Forest Town

• 7 Tennyson Street, Stretton

• The Mission House, Orchard Street, Tamworth

• 7 The Fairways, Clifton

• 21 The Pastures, Mansfield Woodhouse

• 66 Trinity Road, Edwinstowe

• 10 Trustley Walk, Mansfield

• 11 Turnley Road, South Normanton

• 330 Tutbury Road, Burton-on-Trent

• 28 Vancouver Drive, Burton on Trent (x2)

• 32 Wainwright Avenue, Mansfield

• 16 Waterside, Burton on Trent

• 12 Winder Avenue, Swadlincote

• 8 Wensley Road

• 30 West bank, Mansfield

• 17 Western Avenue

• 30 Woburn House, Woburn Close, Blackwell

• 2 Woodhouse Lane, South Normanton (x2)

• 40 Wycliffe Road, Norwich

• 38 Yew Tree Road, Hatton

• 5 (x2) Alder Grove, New Ollerton

• 26(x2) Beech Avenue, Pinxton

• 31 Beverley Drive, Mansfield

• 1(x2) Bowes Road, Walton-on-Thames

• 48 Brixworth Way, Retford

• 89 Cordy lane, Brinsley

• 36 Coupland Place, Somercotes

• 12 Dorchester Drive, Mansfield

• 26 Falling Lane, Middlesex

• 78 Forest Road, Clipstone

• 62 High Street, Lincoln

• 1 High Ridge, Forest Town

• 2 Knowles Walk, Arnold

• 47(x2) Joseph Fletch Drive, Wingerworth

• 14 Lump Lane, Grenoside

• 27 Monceux Road, East Sussex

• 44(x2) Norbury Drive, Mansfield

• 8 Simpson Road, Mansfield

• The Dormers, South Road, Alresford, Hampshire

• 46(x2), St Johns Drive, Retford

• 22 St John’s Place, Mansfield

• 10 Wilcox Avenue, Mansfield Woodhouse

• 22 White Rose Avenue, Mansfield

• 1 Woodhouse Court, Mansfield Woodhouse

Their comments are grouped under headings and summarised as follows:


- No parking at the proposed pedestrian entrance to Brierley Park.

- Rumble strips don’t solve traffic volume issues

- Child safety on the highway.

• Visual amenity

- Loss of view


- Proposed pumping station and associated noise

- Privacy

• Healthcare

- Over stretched doctors surgeries


• Conservation and wildlife

- Impact on bird species in Brierley forest

- Brierley park is the best thing to happen to the area

• Education

- Lack of school provision

• Other

- Flooding caused by large areas of hard standing

- Responsibility for bank of grass.

A number of pro forma letters have been received from the following addresses below

that contained additional individual comments:-

• Alder Way - 4, 6

• Alfred Street - 26

• Alexander Avenue, Selston – 11

• Alfreton Road, Sutton in Ashfield – 116, 218, 242, 348

• All Saints Court – 48

• Ashgate - 39 (x2)

• Ashland Road, Sutton in Ashfield – 2(x2), 8, 16, 34, 106

• Ashland Road West, Sutton in Ashfield – 104, 114, 116, 118 (x2), 124 (x2), 126

(x3), 128 (x2), 132 136 (x2), 140 (x2)

• Ashlands Close, Sutton in Ashfield – 1, 4, 20

• Aspley Road, Sutton in Ashfield – 10

• Boots Yard - 8

• Bramley Court - 28

• Brierly Road, Sutton in Ashfield – 2

• Burton Road, Sutton in Ashfield – 45, 59

• Carnarvon Close, Sutton in Ashfield – 66

• Carnarvon Grove – 8, 13, 62, 65, 68(x2), 70

• Carnarvon Road- 25 (x2)

• Carsic Road, Sutton in Ashfield – 208, 210

• Caton Close – 18

• Cavendish Crescent – 27

• Chatsworth Street, Sutton in Ashfield – 56

• Chesterfield Road – 139

• Chestnut Avenue – 53(x2)

• Crompton Street, Teversal – 31(x2)

• Church Lane – 8, 9

• Clumber Crescent, Stanton Hill – 18 (x3)

• Coalfield Close – 9

• Cobum Street - 1

• Colombia Avenue – 6, 28, 41, 45, 51, 54 (x3), 69

• Common Road, Huthwaite – 57, 68, 134

• Coultons Avenue, Sutton in Ashfield – 3, 5(x2), 11 (x2), 13, 15, 21 (x2), 23(x2)

• Deepdale Street, Sutton in Ashfield – 26

• Douglas Road - 10

• Dovedale Avenue - 25

• Dunelm Close, Sutton in Ashfield – 1 (x3), 2, 3 (x2), 8, 9, 12 (x2)

• Elmhurst Drive – 16(x2)

• Evans Avenue – 2, 5, 9, 13, 21, 30, 38, 40

• Fackley Way, Stanton Hill – 61

• Fackley Road - Elbar House

• Farcroft Avenue – 9 (x2), 11 (x2), 15 (x3), 17 (x2), 21, 29 (x2), 31, 33 (x3)

• Fardon Road- 38

• Farnsworth Grove, Huthwaite – 48,

• Frederick Street, Sutton in Ashfield – 55, 66

• Foxhill Close - 29

• Glamis Close - 11

• Grafton Close - 7

• Hardwick Avenue, Skegby – 1 (x2), 55

• Hardwick Lane, Sutton in Ashfield – 47

• Heathcote Court – 20(x2)

• Heathcote Place, Sutton in Ashfield – 28

• Highfield Road, Sutton in Ashfield – 32(x2)

• Hillsborough Avenue - 2

• Howard Street - 24

• Huthwaite Road – 4(x2), 104, 164 (x2), 193, 210

• Keats Avenue – 2 (x2), 3, 9, 10, 11, 15

• Kensington Close - 9

• Kirkby Road -79

• Leander Close - 5a

• Leyton Avenue - 28

• Market Street - Olcote

• Mansfield Road - 57

• Manor Crescent, Kirkby in Ashfield – 70

• Meadow Drive, Sutton in Ashfield – 3 (x2), 5, 9(x2)

• Mowlands Close, Sutton in Ashfield – 56

• North Street, Huthwaite – Crown Cottage (x2), 41, 45, 47, 53, 55, 133

• Norwood Close, Sutton in Ashfield – 10 (x2), 12(x2), 14(x4), 16

• Overstone Close, Sutton in Ashfield – 46

• Owston Road - 79

• Paling Crecsent - 8

• Park gardens – 7

• Parkway, Sutton in Ashfield – 5, 11

• Pepper Street, Sutton in Ashfield – 15

• Priestic Road, Sutton in Ashfield – 3, 31, 37, 72a

• Pheonix Street - 44 (x2)

• Queen Street, Sutton in Ashfield – 14

• Redcliffe Street, Sutton in Ashfield – 2a, 74

• Riley Avenue – 2(x2), 20, 25, 31, 35 (x2), 37(x3), 42, 45 (x2), 49, 50, 52

• Riley Close, Sutton in Ashfield – 6, 23, 52

• Rooley Avenue, Sutton in Ashfield – 2, 8,10, 18, 19, 34

• Rooley Drive, Sutton in Ashfield – 5, 6(x2), 7, 12, 15

• Sapphire Drive, Kirkby in Ashfield – 14

• Sherwood Stree t- 25

• Springfield Way - 8, 11

• St Johns Place – 22

• The Fieldings - 9

• The Green - 14

• The Headstocks – 25, 31

• The Oval - 38

• Shetland Road, Tibshelf – 26(x2)

• Siddals Drive, Sutton in Ashfield – 24

• Skegby Lane - 154

• Skegby Road - 10

• Springwood Terrace, Stanton Hill – 3

• Stanton Crescent, Sutton in Ashfield – 16, 36

• Searby Road - 47

• Skegby Road - 10

• Stella Street, Mansfield – 42(x2)

• Stonemasons Mew, Kirkby in Ashfield – 4

• St Andrews Street, Sutton in Ashfield – 36

• Summerhill Court, Huthwaite – 24

• Thoresby Crescent, Stanton Hill – 26, 36

• Tintern Close - 11

• Welbeck Square, Sutton in Ashfield – 19

• Welford Close - 29

• Westbourne Close, Sutton in Ashfield – 5, 56 (x2)

• Westbourne Road – 40, 96, 98, 106, 108, 117, 159, 171, 180

• Willowbridge Court - 181

• Windsor Avenue, Sutton in Ashfield – 1, 16 (x2), 25, 28, 31, 39, 51, 57

• Woodlands Avenue, Huthwaite – 11, 31

• Wordsworth Avenue, Sutton in Ashfield – 7, 8, 17, 18(x2), 20

Their comments are summarised below:

• Public rights of way

- Loss of local walks;

• Highway safety

- Additional traffic, inadequate roads;

- Additional traffic volume, highway safety issues, congestion;

- Damage to highway during construction;

- Inadequate parking on surrounding road network;

- No new access to the park should be created;

- Highway safety issues, speed humps have been used to deter traffic;

• Housing density

- Numbers of dwellings should be reduced, bungalows only, and only be

built facing onto Ashlands Road;

- Too high density, more single storey dwellings needed;

• Local services

- Impact upon local services such as schools, places are already limited,

and doctors;

- Local facilities are not appropriate, additional services necessary;

- Lack of jobs;

• Conservation

- Loss of agricultural land and countryside;

- Precedent to further encroachment into the park;

- Loss of historic woodland and hedgerow, historical landmark;

- Wildlife corridors should be included in the proposals;

- Loss and effect on wildlife habitats and development;

- There should be no entrance into Brierley Park;

- Loss of green space and local walks and recreation;


- Pollution, including noise;

- Three storey dwellings will result in overshadowing;

- Increase in noise and disturbance;

• Flooding

- Flooding, natural well on the boundary could contaminate surrounding

watercourses;

• Green Belt

- Loss of Green Belt;


- Loss of privacy;

• Ecology

- Detriment to fish in Brierly Lake;

• Other

- Loss of area for children to play;

- Loss of views and value to property.

- Local anti-social problems;

- Concerns in relation to the grouping of affordable housing;

- Need for sheltered housing;

- Litter, fly-tipping;

- Local unused housing;

- Disruption during construction;

- Increase in anti-social behaviour;

- Local residents had no previous knowledge of the proposal;

- Coal mining legacy issues;

- Ashfield has adequate housing numbers;

- Empty homes, including Council housing, within the area should be

brought back into use;

- Loss of mining heritage;

- Increase demand for local employment;

- Disruption during construction;

- A local plan is needed;

- Brownfield/alternative sites should be used;

A letter has been received from Black Country Legal Consultants on behalf of the

Ashland Road West and Brierley Park Residents Association, summarised as follows:-

• Contrary to policies of the local plan;

• Contrary to the Structure plan;

• Contrary to Government policies, including, the commitment to

Sustainable development, PPG’s, the Biodiversity U.K action plan,

regional strategies and local policies;

• Impact on the SINC and southern boundary of Brierley Forest Park;

• Impact on ecology;

• Impact on Green wood Community Forest;

• The site is not allocated for housing in the emerging plan;

• The proposal cannot be compared to a garden city since the layout is not

reflective of such a development;

• The Council has an adequate housing land supply;

• Inadequate infrastructure to serve the site;

• Reference to appeals that have been dismissed/allowed in the District and

how the proposal is different/similar;

• The proposal does not design out crime adequately;

• Traffic generation and highway safety issues;

• Lack of affordable housing.

Planning Policy

Having regard to Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the

main policy considerations are as follows:

National Planning Policy Framework 2012

Paragraphs 6 – 10 on Achieving sustainable development

Paragraph 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Paragraph 14 – The presumption in favour of sustainable development

Paragraph 17 – Core planning principles

Section 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy

Section 4 – Promoting sustainable transport

Section 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes

Section 7 – Requiring good design

Section 8 – Promoting healthy communities

Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Paragraph 173 – Ensuring viability and deliverability

Paragraphs 186 – 187 – Decision-taking

Paragraphs 196 – 197 – Determining applications

Paragraph 204 – Planning Conditions and Obligations

Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 Saved Policies

Policy ST1 – Overall Strategic Policy relating to new development

Policy ST2 – Development to be located in main urban areas

Policy EV2 – Development in the Countryside

Policy HG3 – Housing density

Policy HG4 – Affordable Housing

Policy HG5 – New residential development

Policy HG6 – Public Open Space

Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted

November 2014)

Residential Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted

November 2014)

Relevant Planning History

V/1988/0990

Proposal: Residential Development

Decision: Refuse

Decision Date: 16/02/1989

Appeal Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Comment:

In consideration of this application there are seven main issues:

The principle of development;

Housing Density;

Residential amenity;

Landscape and visual impact;

Highway Safety;

Conservation and Ecology; and

Flooding and drainage.

Principle of Development

NPPF paragraph 14 states that development proposals that accord with the

development plan should be approved without delay. Furthermore it is stated that

where the development plan is silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, permission

should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this

Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate

development should be restricted.

Policy EV2 is a criteria based policy which states that permission will not be granted for

inappropriate development in the Countryside. Development must not adversely affect

the character of the countryside, in particular its openness. The policy then lists a

number of ‘appropriate development’. The proposal does not meet the criteria for

appropriate development set out in Policy EV2 of the ALPR 2002 and is therefore a

departure from the Local Plan.

Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states that due weight can be given to relevant policies in

the Local Development Plan, according to their degree of consistency with the

Framework. The closer the policies in the Plan are to the policies in the Framework, the

greater the weight that may be given.

The NPPF provides a focus on sustainable development and the issue of weight within

decision making. Whilst, in Local Plan Policy terms, the application is inappropriate

development in the countryside by definition paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that

housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of

sustainable development.

Part 6 of the NPPF focuses on housing delivery and in particular paragraph 47 requires

local planning authorities to boost significantly the supply of housing via the

identification of deliverable housing sites and maintain a 5 year housing land supply. As

at April 2015 (Housing Land Monitoring Report 2015) the Council has a 5.02 year

supply of housing land. Despite this current position, the Ashlands Road site has been

proposed within the preferred Ashfield Local Plan as a future housing allocation, to help

ensure the District maintain its 5 year housing land supply moving forward.

The Preferred Approach Local Plan was subject to public consultation during February

& March 2016 and the Council is currently drafting its Publication document which is

anticipated to be taken to Cabinet in September, followed by Full Council in October. It

is likely that this site will be retained as a housing allocation within the Publication Local

Plan.

Following Council approval there will be a final public consultation on the Pre

Submission Local Plan before a submission to the Secretary of State. Formal adoption

is envisaged in April / May 2017.

Whilst the principle of the development is not acceptable the application site is

considered to be within a sustainable location on the urban fringe and is bound by the

main urban area to the southern and western boundaries of the application site.

Furthermore the allocation of the ‘Ashland Road West’ site that is being considered as

part of the pre submission Local Plan and the Applicant has agreed terms to provide

100% of the required S106 planning obligations. These are important material

considerations in the assessment of this application.

Regard is to be given to the sustainability of a proposal in terms of social, economic and

environmental considerations and these three strands are considered throughout this

report.

Housing Density

Saved policy HG3 sets out a minimum density requirement of 30 dwellings per hectare

for a site in this location which would equate to 236 dwellings (allowing for 75% net

developable area). The proposal sets out an indicative layout for 201 dwellings, plus an

area of approximately 0.7ha set aside for future development which could potentially

yield a further 21 dwellings at 30dpa. The policy aims to achieve the most efficient use

of land and encourage a reduction in car journeys, consistent with NPPF paragraph 95.

However, it is recognised that it may not always be possible or appropriate to achieve

minimum requirements, for example, where higher densities are not compatible with the

site or its surroundings, as set out in ALPR paragraph 5.65. The proposed layout is

slightly lower than the required minimum density, but not completely out of character

with the surrounding development which ranges between 20 and 37 dwellings per

hectare.

The application site is Greenfield and measures approximately 10.48 ha. The

application provides a housing density of approximately 27 dwellings per hectare. Whilst

the density overall is relatively low, when assessed against policy HG3 of the Local

Plan, this is attributed to the land required for affordable bungalows and the SUDs

attenuation scheme on the site, and it is therefore considered that the proposed density

is appropriate in the context of the development site. The proposal is also consistent

with the density level achieved on existing developments within the locality.

Residential Amenity

The ADC Residential Design Guide SPD provides guidance to developers and

assessors in relation to designing proposed development to both provide acceptable

levels of residential amenity within an application site and ensure that any surrounding

existing residential amenity is maintained.

Several sets of revised plans have been received since the start of the application

process. The ones being considered currently are set out earlier in the report and whilst

they will cause some difference to the appearance of some parts of the proposal the

dwellings are proposed in their original positions and the internal layout is almost

identical to that originally submitted. Whilst some house types are larger this is not to

the detriment of external amenity space for proposed residents nor would they have a

detrimental impact upon existing residential amenity of existing properties which

surround.

The proposal provides all plots with appropriate private amenity space in accordance

with the ADC Residential Design Guide SPD and achieves appropriate separation

distances between principle and secondary elevations of proposed and existing

properties. Accompanying the latest revised plans are layout drawings showing

external garden calculations. These are all in excess of guidance contained within the

ADC SPD.

The scheme has been designed with a mix of property types and the layout takes

account of changing levels and adjoining properties by placing appropriately designed

dwellings, such as bungalows, where the development site is prominent within the street

scene, to help assimilate the development into its surroundings and reduce any adverse

impacts, principally with regard to views from outside the site, which would result from

the development. The bungalows remain bungalows in the latest revised plans however

will now be used as part of the on-site Affordable Housing scheme.

The proposed properties are considered to provide a suitable standard of

accommodation with all habitable rooms being of an appropriate size in accordance with

the SPD and having an appropriate clear and unobstructed outlook.

The scheme provides pedestrian connectivity through the site onto the existing footpath

network on Brierley Forest Park. Concerns had been raised by the Wildlife Trust with

regards the ecological impact on the Brierley Forest Park and these are discussed later

in this report. ADC Locality and Community Empowerment have recommended a

number of financial planning obligations which includes a contribution towards Brierley

Forest Park access improvements and additional car parking provision. Furthermore an

informative will be included to refer to NCC Public Rights of Way comments and in

particular ensuring that the proposed development does not impact upon existing

footpaths.

Centrally located within the application site is an area of open space which has a

footpath which meanders through the area. The footpath has been designed to take

account of changing land levels will achieve a gentler gradient than if a footpath was

installed which used pedestrian desire lines.

Concern has been raised with regard to the proposed development and its potential to

increase crime and anti-social behaviour. The application has been assessed by the

Police Architectural Liaison officer and no concerns have been raised in any regard.

Concern has also been raised with regard to increased noise and disturbance from the

site both during and post construction. It is inevitable that the construction phase will

generate some noise and disturbance. However, this is considered to be a short term

issue but should this form a statutory noise nuisance then protection would be provided

under separate Environmental Health legislation. The applicant has submitted a Noise

Impact Assessment as part of this application which has been assessed by the

Council’s Environmental Health team and no concerns have been highlighted with

regard to noise. It is therefore considered that the development will not give rise to any

undue noise and disturbance. A condition will be recommended requesting a

construction method statement to further maintain and protect residential amenity during

construction.

It is considered that the proposal does not adversely affect any existing or proposed

dwellings in terms of being overbearing or overshadowing, and does not result in any

loss of privacy. The application achieves appropriate separation distances between

principle elevation and principle to secondary elevations. It is considered that the

proposal is acceptable in residential amenity terms and would not have an adverse

impact.

Landscape and Visual Impact

The NPPF as a whole places a particular focus on good design and paragraph 17 gives

emphasis to the recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

ALPR Policy HS5 sets out more detailed design considerations for residential sites.

The ADC Residential Design SPD (2014) also provides useful local guidance in respect

to design and its content is also taken into consideration when assessing appropriate

design in the Ashfield District.


supersedes ALPR policy EV4 and is a material consideration. This study was carried

out for the whole of Nottinghamshire as a result of increased emphasis on the use of

LCAs to inform policy in Local Development documents. It updates the earlier

Countryside Appraisal (NCC) which formed the basis for EV4. The LCA identifies the

site as part of Character Area ML021 which comprises the man-made landform of a

restored former colliery with a raised woodland covered mound comprising ‘engineered’

slopes of even gradient. Views are enclosed by woodland on low ground with

panoramic views from the top of the colliery mound across urban areas to the south,

and open countryside and high ground at the former Silver Hill colliery to the north.

The application site is located at the southern part of this area and is situated lower than

its surroundings. More importantly the application site is enclosed by existing

residential development on 3 sides. The overall landscape condition and strength is

‘Moderate’, with an overall strategy to ‘enhance’.

Specific actions include to conserve remnant hedgerows and encourage infill planting

within gaps rather than erection of timber fencing, and to conserve and enhance the

wooded boundaries adjacent to the urban fringes.

The applicant has provided a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) as part

of this application. This has been assessed by the Council’s Landscape Officer, and

whilst the proposal would inevitably result in the loss of a Greenfield site, the overall

setting of the park in the wider landscape would not be significantly adversely affected.

The application provides a mix of different property types which include single storey

bungalows and 2-2½ storey detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. The

proposed properties are of a good quality design and appropriate detailing to the

properties has been included to address corner plots and feature properties to enhance

the visual amenity of the proposed street scene.

All plots with boundary treatments which front the highway are of solid construction. A

condition could be used to agree all boundary treatments and a phasing scheme for

implementation.

Feature plots have been positioned at the head of key vistas through the site and it is

considered that the proposal achieves a street scene which is of a high quality and will

result in a positive contribution to the visual amenity of the development. Properties

along the northern boundary of the application site face Brierley Forest Park, providing

natural surveillance to this area.

Details of the materials for use in the construction have not been provided by the

applicant; however it is considered that a suitable materials schedule could be secured

through condition.

The layout provides all houses with on plot parking or frontage parking and no parking

courts are proposed. As part of the consideration of this application, the applicant has

revised the scheme to provide a greater level of ‘on plot’ parking which has allowed for

additional supplementary planting to be achieved within the site.

The application has been assessed by the Council’s Landscape Team and there are no

objections to the proposed development subject to the imposition of suitable conditions

in respect of future landscaping on the site and some off-site improvements required.

The change of any green field site to residential will inevitably have an impact but it is

considered that when this is balanced against other matters detailed in this report that

this does not outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

Revised plans have been received since the start of the application process however

their impact on the visual impact of the proposal is marginal as the location and layout

of each plot and road layout remains largely the same. An addendum to the LVIA has

been produced by the applicant and included a re-visit to the site in June 2016 where it

was concluded that the landscape baseline for the original LVIA assessment remains

substantially unchanged. Furthermore they considered that there have been no

substantive changes to the layout that would necessitate a new LVIA.

It is considered that the visual amenity and design of the proposed scheme is

acceptable and will not have an adverse impact on the area and that it will, in time,

create an attractive new development.

Highway Safety

Saved ALPR policy HG5 seeks to protect amenity and safety in respect of access for

vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists is safe, convenient and integrated with existing

provision. The scheme should also be consistent with the Residential Car Parking

Standards SPD (November 2014) and Residential Design Guide SPD (November

2014).

The application proposes two points of vehicular access off Ashland’s Road West to

serve the development. Internally, the site has a circular loop road which allows for all

vehicles to use both of the proposed vehicular accesses.

At the highway junctions with Ashlands Road West, the application makes provision for

minimum visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres in accordance with the 6C’s

highway design guide and no concern or objections with regard to the proposal has

been raised by the Highway Authority.

The application provides each dwelling with a minimum of 2 off street parking spaces

with the largest properties having 4 off street parking spaces and additional garage

space. It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the Council’s adopted car

parking standards SPD and it is therefore acceptable in this regard.

The Highway authority, in their consideration of this application has identified and

requested improvements to public transport provision within the locality of the site and

developer obligations are requested, as set out later in the report.

The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement as part of this application which has

modelled the capacity of the existing road network and the impact of the additional

traffic generated from the proposed development. This has been assessed by the

Highway Authority and it is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental

impact upon the existing highway network. Furthermore the capacity of the key

junctions around the site are not exceeded.

Concern has been raised with regard to damage to the highway during the construction

of the development. This would be covered under highway legislation which is not

administered under the remit of planning.

Revised plans have been received since the start of the application process however

none have had an impact on the position of the Highway Authority and this has been

confirmed by the consultee.

It is, therefore considered that the application is acceptable in highway terms and would

not have an adverse impact on the area or surrounding road network.

Conservation and Ecology

Saved ALPR policy EV8 should be considered in respect of protecting trees worthy of

retention, and replacement planting where trees are lost.

As part of the application, the applicant has submitted a Preliminary Ecological

Appraisal (PEA) which has been assessed by Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and NCC

Ecology and Conservation. This indicates that the habitat on the site is dominated by

improved grassland, considered to be of low ecological value. The boundary and

internal hedgerows are characterised as being species poor, but are recognised as

being ecological corridors and a Habitat of Principal Importance. No other significant

areas of notable habitats were recorded on the site.

No evidence of, and limited potential for, protected or notable species was found on the

site, although the site boundaries are considered to have the potential to support

reptiles and to provide suitable foraging and commuting habitat for bats. In addition, a

stand of Japanese knotweed was located on the western boundary. No further surveys

are recommended in the Ecological Appraisal. There is an obligation for the Applicant

to treat the Japanese Knotweed and a condition will be provided to highlight the need to

provide a suitable management plan.

The application necessitates the loss of existing hedgerows to facilitate the

development. The ecology survey identifies that the hedgerow, which divides the two

fields (identified as H3 within the Ecology Survey) is UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK

BAP) qualifying and therefore compensation for its loss is required. The application

requires the loss of approximately 53 metres of hedgerow.

The scheme proposes additional planting within the site to supplement the existing site

boundaries although no detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted as part of this

application. This can be controlled by condition. The applicant sets out within the

application that the retained landscape features will be enhanced to provide greater

wildlife habitats and mitigate any potential impact of the proposed development. An

updated PEA has also been provided which indicates that the grassland present on the

site is of higher value than was originally assessed. The updated survey indicates the

grassland is at worst semi-improved and NCC Ecology have stated that this underlines

the importance of securing the production of a detailed landscaping, via a condition, to

provide mitigation for the loss of grassland habitat. It is also recommended that a

Reptile Mitigation Strategy is produced and secured through a condition, to be based on

details contained in the updated survey report.

Concerns have been raised by the Wildlife Trust and NCC Ecology regarding the

proposed pedestrian accesses from the application site that will link into Brierley Forest

Country Park to the north. Whilst it is accepted that the level of public access into

Brierley Forest County Park will increase NCC Ecology state that significant indirect

impacts appear unlikely. The country park is already well established with surfaced

paths and visitor infrastructure, and the Ecological Appraisal considers that this increase

in public access can be absorbed.

NCC Ecology have stated that any new footpath should be sensitively located so as to

avoid impacts on the adjacent Local Wildlife Site (LWS), particularly the Brierley Park

Marshy Grassland LWS. A condition has been recommended that should require that

this is given specific consideration.

A number of conditions have been recommended by NCC Ecology which will be

included as part of the recommendation and include a detailed landscaping scheme,

when vegetation clearance should take place, Hedgerow removal timing and replanting,

the production of a detailed lighting scheme and a Japanese Knotweed Management

Plan. In terms of mitigation for loss of habitat (albeit of generally low ecological value),

it is evident that the development has the potential to deliver modest ecological benefits

through landscaping works, including the proposed balancing ponds. The production of

a detailed landscaping scheme will be secured through condition along with a

Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan to guide the ongoing management of

created and retained habitats. The incorporation of bat and bird boxes into the fabric of

a proportion of the new buildings will also be required. This will provide an opportunity

to deliver additional biodiversity enhancements at the site.

Flooding and Drainage

The ADC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies 2 incidences of localised flooding,

off North Street and Meden Crescent recorded in 2007, and there is potential for

flooding from culverted watercourses – this will need to be thoroughly assessed. In

addition, NPPF para. 103 identifies that when determining planning application the local

planning authority should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere. The Technical

Guidance to the NPPF defines “flood risk” as meaning risk from all sources of flooding –

including from rivers and the sea, directly from rainfall on the ground surfaces and rising

ground water, overwhelmed sewers and drainage systems and from reservoirs, canals

and lakes and other artificial sources. The emphasis in national planning policy is on

utilising Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS). Any development should not increase

surface water run-off from the site and should ensure that permeable materials are

utilised to minimise the risk from surface water.

Concern has been raised in regard to drainage within the application site. The applicant,

as part of this application, has undertaken a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment

(SSFRA) which has been considered by the Environment Agency.

In addition, Severn Trent Water and the Council’s Drainage Team have been consulted

as part of the consideration of this proposal. No objections have been raised in relation

to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions being attached to any favourable

recommendations, to control foul and surface water drainage.

The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 (Low Risk of Flooding, 1 in 1000

years) and it is considered that development within this location is appropriate. The

application proposes the forming of 2 SUD’s attenuation ponds which may have

provision to accommodate all storm water in the event of a flood.

There are no outstanding concerns or objections subject to suitable conditions in

relation to the requirement of details for a surface water drainage scheme based on

Sustainable Urban Drainage Principles, and for details of foul sewage to be agreed. It is

considered therefore, that there would be no adverse impact as a result of drainage on

the site.

Planning Obligations and Financial Viability

The site area is 10.50ha and as such ALPR saved policies TR6 Developer

Contributions to Transport Improvements, and HG6 Public Open Space in New

Residential Developments will apply. In addition, NPPF paragraphs 70, 72 and 73

stress the importance of planning positively for community facilities, ensuring sufficient

choice of school places, and access to high quality open spaces respectively.

Developer contributions are likely to be required in order to ensure a sustainable

development which satisfies NPPF requirements. In accordance with Community

Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations 2010, 122, contributions will only be requested if

needed as a direct consequence of the development.

Saved policy HG4 (as updated by Affordable Housing SPD 2009 Policy 1) requires a

contribution of 10% affordable housing in this location. The requirements of the SPD

were tested more recently in a viability study undertaken in December 2013 and found

to be achievable for the Sutton/Kirkby area.

A number of planning obligations have been recommended by NCC Highways, NCC

Education and Libraries, NHS Healthcare providers and ADC's landscape team. It is

also acknowledged that that a small amount of on-site POS is included in the proposal.

A contribution towards public open space and public realm improvements is requested

towards improvements as identified as necessary within the Locality Plan. A sum of

£72,500 is requested for play area improvements at Huthwaite Welfare Park, £55,000

towards access improvements and additional car parking at Brierley Forest Park,

£40,000 towards play area improvements at Riley Recreation Ground and a sum of

£335,000 towards Public ream improvements to the old Sutton Market Place area off

King Street.

NHS England has identified that the development would be likely to have 2.3 person

occupancy per dwelling and request £110,751 to mitigate future demand on facilities

through enhancements to the capacity/infrastructure within existing local practices.

The Education Authority has identified that the proposal would increase demand for

both primary and secondary school places which cannot be accommodated within the

Sutton Town School Catchment area.

The Education Authority has identified that the proposed development would generate

an additional demand for 42 primary school place and a contribution of £481,110 (42 x

£11,455) is requested. The Education Authority also identifies an additional demand for

32 secondary school places and a contribution of £552,320 (32 x £17260) is requested.

A contribution towards library stock is also sought by the County Council for the

provision of library books which is based on the calculation of 1532 items per 1000 head

of population. The development is likely to add 482 users to the catchment population

for Sutton library and a contribution of £9230 is sought.

The Highway Authority has identified a requirement to improve public transport

provision within the locality and has requested £19,500 towards improvements to bus

stops within the locality. The bus stops identified for improvements are AS0110 at

Norwood Close and AS0128 located on Siddalls Drive.

It is considered that the above requested contributions are necessary to make the

proposed development acceptable in planning terms and are consistent with the tests

as set out within paragraphs 203 and 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework

and are in accordance with Sections 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy

regulations.

As part of this application a number of viability assessments have been submitted to

demonstrate that the site is not deliverable in viability terms to allow the full request of

developer obligations to be provided for and affordable housing.

As a consequence the applicant had initially proposed only 12 intermediate on site

affordable units. A commuted sum was then offered during the application process to

deal with all other proposed planning obligations. Whilst the commuted sum met the

necessary financial planning obligations the applicant was still unwilling to provide the

necessary amount of on-site affordable housing.

As such the viability assessment produced by the applicant was reviewed by the District

Valuer and it was concluded that the scheme was viable and could provide 100% of its

policy requirement. This included 10% on site affordable housing. The main

differences between the Applicant’s appraisal and the District Valuer was the

benchmark land value, standard build costs and interest. Once this report had been

made available in full to the Applicant it was agreed that all on and off site planning

obligations, including affordable housing in the form of 21 units, would be provided. The

caveat to this was that the layout required a number of revisions to house types to

increase their market value and allow the provision of on-site affordable housing to be

more viable. As mentioned previously in this report the layout of the proposal remains

the same and this includes the bulk of the internal road layout and the general

orientation of properties. The house types have changed but this has not been to the

detriment of the overall proposal. The total number of units remains at 201 and now

provides the required planning obligations that are sought. This allows greater positive

weight to be placed on the benefits of the scheme and is a significant improvement from

the original submission.

A sustainable location does not necessarily result in a site being found to acceptable for

its proposed use. The Framework advocates that there are three dimensions to

sustainable development, economic, social and environmental which should be

balanced in a planning decision.

It is considered that the proposal would generate a significant number of dwellings

presently needed in the district and provides investment and jobs in the area during

construction. Future residents would be likely to support local services and businesses

which are considered to be significant positives in favour of the proposal.

Concerns have been raised with regard to the social and environmental sustainability of

the application. However, the application will make a significant provision towards the

social needs of future occupiers of the development and existing local residents in terms

of education, landscape and POS improvements, as well as contributions towards

health facilities, libraries and infrastructure. There will be additional landscaped areas

and trees planted as a part of the development as well as enhancements to local areas.

Therefore, it is considered that the construction of the required new dwellings will have

a positive social and environmental dimension as set out in the NPPF.

Other Issues

Within the application site, there is an area identified for future development. The

council did receive an outline application for this area, but it has subsequently been

withdrawn pending the determination of this proposal. However should another

application be forthcoming in the future, that application would be considered on its own

merits against the appropriate planning polices at that time.

Representations have been raised with regard to the impact of the development on

existing property values. The loss of property value is not a material consideration in the

determination of this application.

Concern has also been raised that the development of this site would result in the loss

of an area where children can play. The application site is in private ownership with no

existing right of public access and the site does not form part of Brierley Forest Park. A

footpath (47) runs adjacent to the site, along the northern boundary, but will be

unaffected by the development.

Some concern has been raised with regard to the coal mining legacy of the site and the

impact this would have on the suitability of the site for residential development. The

application has been assessed by the Coal Authority and it is not considered that the

application site is within a high risk area and is located within the defined low risk area.

There is therefore no requirement for a risk based approach to be adopted and the Coal

Authority recommend standing advice is applied.

Finally concerns have been raised from the County Council, as minerals authority with

regard to the potential for the site to be worked for limestone prior to development. The

applicant has advised that the consideration to the extraction of minerals has been

given, however it is considered that the wider Brierley Park area has been previously

worked for minerals and would have been exploited at that time had this been viable.

Furthermore it is argued that the nature of the site, being adjoined by residential

development on the south, west and eastern boundary would constrain the site from

mineral extraction due to the impacts on residential amenity and the only road

infrastructure which could serve the site would be by the existing residential road

network which would be unsuitable.

The site’s limited size and inability to expand beyond the site boundary due to existing

development would not make extraction a viable land use.

Planning Balance and Conclusion:

Whether or not there is a five year housing land supply can determine the weight to be

attached to the provision of housing. As at April 2015 (Housing Land Monitoring Report

2015) the Council has a 5 year housing land supply however it is currently only 5.02

year supply of housing land. The Ashlands Road site has been proposed within the

Preferred Ashfield Local Plan as a future housing allocation, to help ensure the District

maintain its 5 year housing land supply moving forward. Whilst the plan has not been

approved it has progressed considerably. This is a material consideration and weight

should be attached accordingly.

Significant weight should be attached to the provision of housing in boosting the supply

and meeting the need for affordable housing in the district. In addition there would be

significant additional weight applied to the economic and social benefits which include

financial contributions towards Education, Libraries, Public Realm and Highway

Infrastructure. There would also be some additional weight to the environmental

benefits which include a planting and landscaping scheme and a bird and bat boxes

scheme. Although the scheme would conflict with Policy EV2 of the local plan, there is

only a moderate level of harm to the landscape and no other harm would arise from the

scheme. The low level of harm when considered together with the benefits would be a

material consideration warranting the grant of permission. It would be sustainable

development as sought by the NPPF, and the recommendation is therefore that the

application be approved.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the application is approved subject to conditions. S106 Agreement to deal with the aforementioned planning obligations, to be dated after the Planning Committee if Members agree with the officers recommendation. CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. 2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials and finishes to be used for the external elevations and roof of the proposal have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out with those materials, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written approval to any variation. 3. No development shall take place until the following matters have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority: (a) Full details of the proposed treatment of the site's boundaries. (b) A phasing scheme for the implementation of the agreed boundary treatment. The boundary treatment shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details.

4. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the details and specifications shown on the following plans: Approved plans: S6856/100/01 REV L Planning Layout Phase 1 L S6856/100/02 REV M Planning Layout Phase 2 M S0000/500/01 REV B Location Plan B (submitted via post on 29th June 2016) House type plans: Drawing No. Drawing Title Date submitted/uploaded DWB35.03 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 DWB35.04 Elevations 18th December 2014 DWB21.01 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 DWB21.02 Elevations 18th December 2014 DWB21.03 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 DWB21.04 Elevations 18th December 2014 H411.03 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H411.04 Elevations 18th December 2014 H455.01 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H455.02 Elevations 18th December 2014 H455.03 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H455.04 Elevations 18th December 2014 H421.01 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H421.02 Elevations 18th December 2014 H421.03 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H421.04 Elevations 18th December 2014 H433.01 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H433.02 Elevations 18th December 2014 H433.03 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H433.04 Elevations 18th December 2014 H469.05 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H469.06 Elevations 18th December 2014 H469.07 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H469.08 Elevations 18th December 2014 H597.01 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H597.02 Elevations 18th December 2014 H597.03 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H597.04 Elevations 18th December 2014 H485.01 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H485.02 Elevations 18th December 2014 H485.03 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 H485.04 Elevations 18th December 2014 P332.P.01 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 P332.P.02 Elevations 18th December 2014 P332.P.03 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 P332.P.04 Elevations 18th December 2014 P332.R.01 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 P332.R.02 Elevations 18th December 2014 P332.R.03 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 P332.R.04 Elevations 18th December 2014 P341.09 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 P341.10 Elevations 18th December 2014

P341.11 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 P341.12 Elevations 18th December 2014 T310.01 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 T310.02 Elevations 18th December 2014 T310.03 Floor Plans 18th December 2014 T310.04 Elevations 18th December 2014 DWB47.03 Floor Plans 20th October 2015 DWB47.04 Elevations 20th October 2015 H418.01 Floor Plans 20th October 2015 H418.02 Elevations 20th October 2015 H418.03 Floor Plans 20th October 2015 H418.04 Elevations 20th October 2015 H533.01 Floor Plans 20th October 2015 H533.02 Elevations 20th October 2015 H533.03 Floor Plans 20th October 2015 H533.04 Elevations 20th October 2015 H536.06EM.01 Floor Plans 20th October 2015 H536.06EM.02 Elevations 20th October 2015 H536.06EM.03 Floor Plans 20th October 2015 H536.06EM.04 Elevations 20th October 2015 H587.03 Floor Plans 20th October 2015 H587.04 Elevations 20th October 2015 SH27.I.01 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 SH27.I.02 Elevations 29th March 2016 SH27.I.03 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 SH27.I.04 Elevations 29th March 2016 SH27.E.01 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 SH27.E.02 Elevations 29th March 2016 SH27.E.03 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 SH27.E.04 Elevations 29th March 2016 SH39.E.03 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 SH39.E.04 Elevations 29th March 2016 P340.03 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 P340.04 Elevations 29th March 2016 H452.01 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 H452.02 Elevations 29th March 2016 P380.01 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 P380.02 Elevations 29th March 2016 P380.03 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 P380.04 Elevations 29th March 2016 P380.05 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 P380.06 Elevations 29th March 2016 P380.07 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 P380.08 Elevations 29th March 2016 H403.01 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 H403.02 Elevations 29th March 2016 H403.03 Floor Plans 29th March 2016 H403.04 Elevations 29th March 2016 SH39.I.01 Floor Plans 28th July 2016 SH39.I.02 Elevations 28th July 2016 5. No individual residential unit hereby permitted shall be brought into use until any drive, parking or turning areas associated with that unit are provided, surfaced in a hard bound material (not loose gravel), with any parking bays clearly delineated. The surfaced drives and any parking or turning areas shall then be maintained in such hard bound material for the life of the development.

6. No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principle and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the agreed details before the development is completed. The scheme to be submitted shall demonstrate:

a) Infiltration tests for the site to demonstrate suitability of soakaway features b) The utilisation of holding sustainable drainage techniques. If soakaways

are not appropriate then 2 forms of water treatment will be required prior to the discharge from the site

c) The limitation of surface water runoff to equivalent rates or better d) The ability to accommodate surface water run off on site for a variety of

rainfall storm events 7. Details of measures to prevent the deposit of debris upon the adjacent public highway shall be submitted and approved in writing by the LPA prior to any works commencing on site. The approved measures shall be implemented prior to any other works commencing on site and facilities shall be maintained in working order at all times and shall be used by any vehicle carrying mud, dirt or other debris on its wheels before leaving the site so that no mud, dirt or other debris is discharged or carried on to a public road. 8. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until such time as a suitable maintenance agreement has been put in place to cover the future maintenance of any land within the site that will not belong to the dwellings, or be part of the public highway. 9. No individual residential unit hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the access driveway/parking areas associated with that unit are constructed with provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water from the driveway/parking areas to the public highway in accordance with details first submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water to the public highway shall then be retained for the life of the development. 10. No development shall commence until drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. 11. No development shall commence until such time as details of the specification and position of fencing (and of any other measures to be taken) for the protection of any retained trees from damage before or during the course of development have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the agreed scheme implemented. 12. No development shall commence until a detailed Landscape Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This should include the hedgerow removal timing and replanting, a suitable landscape buffer along the northern boundary, a detailed lighting scheme and a Japanese Knotweed Management Plan. 13. No development shall commence until a Biodiversity Management Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This should include the management of created and retained habitats and proposed biodiversity enhancements. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

14. No development shall commence until a Reptile Management Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 15. None of the development hereby approved shall be occupied or brought into use until such a time as an adequate scheme for the provision of bird nesting and bat roosting boxes has been submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shal be implemented in accordance with the4 approved details. 16. No development shall commence until the following information has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:

A Desktop Study/Phase I Report documenting the historical use(s) of the site and its immediate environs. This shall include a conceptual site model indicating all potential pollutant linkages.

A Site Investigation/Phase II Report where any previous use of the site indicates a potential contaminative use. The applicant/developer shall submit a Site Investigation/Phase II Report documenting the characteristics of the ground at the site. The Site Investigation should establish the full extent, depth and cross-section, nature and composition of the contamination. Ground gas monitoring and chemical analysis, identified as being appropriate by the Desktop Study, should be carried out in accordance with current guidance using UKAS/MCERTS accredited methods. All technical data must be submitted to the LPA.

A Scheme of Remedial Works where the Site Investigation has identified the presence of significant levels of harmful ground gas and/or significant levels of chemical contamination. The scheme should include a Remediation Statement and Risk Assessment Strategy to prevent any significant risk arising when the site is being developed or subsequently occupied.

Any variation to the Remediation Scheme shall be agreed in writing with the LPA, in advance of works being undertaken.

All remediation should be carried out safely, ensuring that no significant risk(s) remain. The applicant will need to have a contingency plan should the primary remediation or subsequent construction phase reveal any additional contamination. Where additional contamination is found the applicant must submit in writing, details of the contingency plan for written approval by the LPA.

On completion of remedial works and prior to the occupation/use of the development, the applicant must submit to the LPA:

A Validation Report with confirmation that all remedial works have been completed and validated, in accordance with the agreed details. The Validation Report must be submitted for the written approval of the LPA prior to the development being put to its intended use.

17. No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

REASONS 1. To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. 2. To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. 3. To safeguard the amenities of residents living in the vicinity of the application site. 4. To define the terms of this permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 5. To promote sustainable travel. 6. In the interest of Highway safety. 7. To reduce the possibility of deleterious material being deposited on the public highway and in the interest of the safety of users of the highway. 8. To protect the structural integrity of the highway and to allow for future maintenance. 9. In the interests of Highway safety. 10. To ensure that the development provides a satisfactory means of drainage. 11. To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. 12. To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. 13. To ensure suitable ecological enhancements on the site. 14. To ensure suitable ecological enhancements on the site. 15. To ensure suitable ecological enhancements on the site. 16. To ensure that the site, when developed, is free from contamination, in the interests of safety. 17. To safeguard the amenities of residents living in the vicinity of the application site. INFORMATIVES 1. The applicant/developer is strongly advised to ensure compliance with all planning conditions, if any, attached to the decision. Failure to do so could result in LEGAL action being taken by the Ashfield District Council at an appropriate time, to ensure full compliance. If you require any guidance or clarification with regard to the terms of any planning conditions then do not hesitate to contact the Development & Building Control Section of the Authority on Mansfield (01623 450000). 2. The works and specification of the bus stop enhancements should be agreed with Nottinghamshire County Council, Transport & Travel Services, 0115-9774608 and carried out at the expense of the applicant/developer.

3. The applicant should note that notwithstanding any planning permission that if any highway forming part of the development is to be adopted by the Highways Authority, any new roads and any highway drainage will be required to comply with the Nottinghamshire County Council's current highway design guidance and specification for roadworks. a) The Advanced Payments Code in the Highways Act 1980 applies and under section 219 of the Act payment will be required from the owner of the land fronting a private street on which a new building is to be erected. The developer should contact the Highway Authority with regard to compliance with the Code, or alternatively to the issue of a Section 38 Agreement and bond under the Highways Act 1980. A Section 38 Agreement can take some time to complete. Therefore, it is recommended that the developer contact the Highway Authority as early as possible. b) It is strongly recommended that the developer contact the Highway Authority at an early stage to clarify the codes etc. with which compliance will be required in the particular circumstance, and it is essential that design calculations and detailed construction drawings for the proposed works are submitted to and approved by the County Council (or District Council) in writing before any work commences on site. To commence the Section 38 process, please contact the Highway Authority's Development Control 4. The proposed off-site highway works requires a Traffic Regulation Order before the development is brought into use, to provide safe access/off-site mitigating works. The Highway Authority considers it prudent that as part of the proposed development, a Traffic Regulation Order will need to be undertaken to provide a safer highway environment. The developer should note that the Order can be made on behalf of the developer by Nottinghamshire County Council at the expense of the developer. This is a separate legal process and the Applicant should contact Major Projects and Improvements Team on 0115 97 73118. Please note that the assessment and implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order is determined by a lengthy public consultation process and therefore the final outcome for implementation is not guaranteed. 5. No part of the proposed building/wall or its foundations, fixtures and fittings shall project forward of the highway boundary. 6. It is an offence under S148 and S151 of the Highways Act 1980 to deposit mud on the public highway and as such you should undertake every effort to prevent it occurring. 7. The Sutton in Ashfield Public Footpath 47 runs parallel to the North East boundary of the site. This path should not be affected or obstructed in any way by the proposed development at this location unless subject to appropriate diversion or closure orders that would be made to Nottinghamshire County Council.

P a th © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. …...Ordnance Survey 100024849 .na Scale: 1...

Documents

Transcript of P a th © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. …...Ordnance Survey 100024849 .na Scale: 1...