Forge Mill House

15

14

River Orchard House

FBSM

SM

The

Coach

House

Leen

9

3

24

34

2

ESSIlkeston

2018

66

11

51

106

114

124

MP 130.50

MILL LANEMILL LANEMILL LANEMILL LANEMILL LANEMILL LANEMILL LANEMILL LANEMILL LANE

to 60

50

94 to 110

92

112

80

51.8m

Weir

Weir

Path

(um

)

Sluice

River Leen

51.5m

El Sub Sta

SP

90

82

Ward

Bd

y

© Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Ordnance Survey 100024849 Scale: 1 to

25 May 2016

1250

V/2015/0759 - Internal and External Renovationof Former Mill Building to Create Offices, Cafe, Restaurant, Worship Area, Factory Workshop with Recreation Areas and 3 Person ManagersApartment

Forge Mill House Mill Lane Bestwood VillageHucknall South

© Crown Copyright and database right 2016. Ordnance Survey 100024849

Date:

COMMITTEE DATE

09/06/2016 WARD Hucknall South

APP REF V/2015/0759

APPLICANT Michael Pepper PROPOSAL Internal and External Renovation of Former Mill Building to

Create Offices, Cafe, Restaurant, Worship Area, Factory Workshop with Recreation Areas and 3 Person Managers Apartment

LOCATION Forge Mill House Mill Lane Bestwood Village BACKGROUND PAPERS A, B, D, F, G, I, J, K

WEB LINK https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=mill+lane+bestwood+village&ll=53.018975,-1.184815&spn=0.000003,0.002411&hnear=Mill+Ln,+Bestwood+Village,+Nottingham,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.019073,-1.185338&panoid=-GF59FszdhadwI3LlHqzYg&cbp=12,300.73,,0,-2.16 RECOMMENDATION Approval App Registered 27/11/2015 Expiry Date 04/02/2016 Consideration has been given to the Equalities Act 2010 in processing this application. This application has been referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor P.M. Rostance due to a number of concerns including the buildings conservation, increased traffic, relationship with the community and the likely users of the building. The Application This is a full application for internal and external renovation of the former mill building to create offices, café, restaurant, worship area, factory workshop with recreation areas and 3 bedroom managers apartment at Forge Mill House, Mill Lane, Bestwood. This application was accompanied by a Listed Building Consent application as Forge Mill is a listed building (v/2015/0760). Consultations Site Notices and press notices have been posted together with individual notification of surrounding residents. The following representations have been received: Ashfield District Council Conservation and Design officer – In compliance with policy 128 of the NPPF the applicant has submitted a Heritage Statement – this is a reasonable summary of the significance of the building and the impact the proposals shall have.

Forge Mill is a Grade II listed former water powered cotton spinning mill built in 1787. Built on the site of a forge. The cotton mill was rebuilt and converted to a corn mill in 1819 but then later devastated by fire in 1838; this destroyed the north wall and one of the two water wheels. At this time according to newspaper reports the building was 5 storey’s with over 100 sash windows. The mill was rebuilt by 1844. By the early 20th century there is no record of waterwheels, instead power appears to be provided by two water turbines. By the 1930s the building is acquired by Bayles and Wylie distributors of seeds and fertilizers and was in an industrial use until its closure in the early 2000s. Attached to the north wall of the west wing was a lean-to stable, it was roughly constructed of stone and brick and was of later date to the building. The stable had partially collapsed, it is understood to have been removed as part of implementing previously approved application V/2010/0153. Proposed alterations An application was submitted in 2015 (reference V/2015/0334 & V/2015/0333) which proposed similar uses and alterations to the building as proposed here with this application. The changes proposed with this application include:

Use of second floor as part of a 3 bed apartment instead of workshop;

The addition of 2no 1700mm screens on second floor; and

Use of café as combined café and worship area.

The second floor will be largely retained as open plan thus reflecting the historic plan form of this space. The additional 1700mm screens do not extend to the full height of the space and are easily removable structures. The use of the café as a worship space shall result in no physical alteration to the building and provides further potential for the building to have a long term viable use consistent with the building’s conservation. With regard the impact on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building which the local planning authority must have a statutory regard to under section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 the above changes are not considered to significantly affect the special interest of the building. Other external alterations proposed include:

External staircase;

External rails/handrails;

Rooflights;

Burner flue;

Enlarging of windows to East elevation;

External ramp;

Heat pumps; and

New windows.

Other proposed internal alterations Both building regulation requirements and the listed building legislation has been considered in detail to achieve a balanced approach to the internal alterations. In general the balance has been achieved successfully to respect the special interest of the building and achieve increased insulation levels and adequate fire safety and access.

Building at Risk & Use Forge Mill has long been regarded as a building at risk by Ashfield District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council and is included on the County Council Buildings at Risk Register. The condition and lack of use being reasons for inclusion on the list. Although work of restoration has been undertaken in recent years listed buildings are at considerable risk where they lack a use, where a building remains vacant it easily becomes subject to vandalism and arson. Policy 126 of the NPPF reminds local planning authorities to set out a positive strategy (and in decision taking) for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. The determination of applications at this site should considered whether the proposals are capable of removing this risk and putting the building into a use consistent with its conservation interest, conserving it for future generations. The proposed uses at Forge Mill shall result in some level of alteration and subdivision to the building however the harm to the internal layout and exterior appearance cannot be considered to be substantial in NPPF policy terms. The uses proposed allow for a practical retention of internal features such as large open spaces, the iron columns and exposed floor joists and ceilings with minimal external alteration. Bringing a building into a new and different use than that which is was built for inevitably will result in the need to make alterations to a listed building. In accordance with policy 134 of the NPPF where less than substantial harm is identified this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposals including securing its optimum viable use. The NPPG outlines what is a public benefit, enhancing our historic environment is a public benefit. These include;

Sustaining and enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting.

Reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset.

Securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset in support of its long term conservation.

Summary In considering previous planning and listed building consent approvals and in paying special regard to preserving the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building as required by section 16 (2) and 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 along with considering policies 126; 128; 129; 131; 132 and 134 of the NPPF the proposals are considered to bring the building into a viable use consistent with its longer term conservation thereby removing the risk to the listed building. The harm identified is limited and minimal and considered to be less than substantial harm. The benefits that shall arise from these alterations are considered to outweigh this harm. An objection is unlikely to be sustained on the grounds of harm to the special interest of the listed building. Ashfield District Council Environmental Health Contaminated land officer – No contaminated land condition required. Nottinghamshire County Council Highways officer – Given the general nature of Mill Lane and that traffic on this section of Mill Lane will either be stopping or slowing down for the end of the cul-de-sac or turning into south into Mill Bank Place Highway Authority (HA) considers the visibility splays are adequate.

The applicant is proposing 24 car parking spaces which is sufficient and exceeds the normal maximum parking standards stated in the 6C’s highway design guide. The HA has also taken into account the site is located within walking distance of local bus, train and tram services. The gates and entrance to the car park to the west of the site are existing and will not require a Section 278 agreement with the HA. However in relation to the proposed parking area to the east of the building which is currently a mix of grass verge and existing footway (complete with tactile paving for the dropped pedestrian crossing point) the applicant will be required to enter in a Section 278 agreement with the HA. On the basis of the available information; the Highway Authority is content with the proposed development subject to conditions. In coming to this conclusion the Authority has considered issues of highway access, capacity and safety, parking, servicing and sustainability. In order to undertake any offsite works the applicant will need to enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Act. Resident representation – Individual letters of representation were received from the following addresses:

Bowden Avenue – 27(x2)

Lancaster Road – 20

Mill Lane – 5, Coach House, Forge Mill House, Orchard House

Millbank Place – 1(x2), 4(x2), 5, 12 (x2), 17(x2), 80, 90

Moor Road – 557, 674, 646

School Walk – Bestwood Village Hawthorne Primary & Nusery School

Shelton Avenue – 112

The Mount – 8(X2)

The Square – 3 (x2)

Yeoman Avenue – 18

No address x9

Their content is summarised as follows:

Lack of transparency, consultation and engagement by the applicant;

Applicant already started work without the appropriate permission (failure to obtain listed building consent);

The building will be used as a hostel for ex-offenders and this is not mentioned in the application;

There has been a deliberate attempt to hide information by the applicant; which will have an adverse impact on living conditions in the village;

Previous applications have been declined, this is now the third retrospective application;

Inappropriate development for a rural village;

Business needs to be sustainable to protect the Listed Building;

Negative impact on highway infrastructure including inadequate access to the site, highway safety concerns and insufficient parking on surrounding road network;

Impact upon public services such as local schools, police force and health facilities;

Inadequate infrastructure to serve site – lack of public transport, recreational facilities and other public amenities, additional services necessary;

Detrimental impact upon residential amenity from overlooking, overshadowing and loss of privacy;

Noise and light pollution;

Contamination/pollution of the River Leen;

Detrimental effect on drainage due to the hard standing area;

Litter, fly tipping - hazardous materials buried on site;

Negative impact upon the aesthetics of a Grade II listed building; namely UPVC windows roof lights and external stairs

Concerns regarding the position of the bins in respect to visual appearance;

Impact on the character of the green belt;

Lack of garden space in the plan;

Detrimental impact upon visual amenity – loss of views;

Loss and effect on wildlife habitats and development;

Scale and size of the development is out of keeping with the locality;

Impact on quality of life and community cohesion;

Devaluation of property prices;

Development conflicts with nearby land use;

No economic benefits - will provide no employment to locals;

Out of date ecological survey;

Inaccuracies in the Design and Access Statement;

Intention from the applicant to hide and deceive villagers, which will have an adverse impact upon the living conditions of villagers.

Contrary to government policies including the National Planning Policy Framework, Planning Policy Guidance (PPG’s), the Commitment to Sustainable Development, Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act (1990), Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (Historic England 2008)

Contrary to Listed building prosecutions: best practice guidance, and Heritage works (revised 2015)

Contrary to policies of the Ashfield District Council Local Plan (2002);

Insufficient information on the application to properly assess the impact;

Lack of independent and professional assessment on the potential impacts of the proposal:

o No independent noise survey o Full heritage assessment should be included predicted rate of

deterioration;

More appropriate use of the Heritage asset should be found;

Internal harm to the building, namely intensity of the sub-divisions

References to other locations within the district have not seen such levels of development;

Location on the edge of the district is inappropriate;

Vulnerable adults living close to railway lines;

Potential user group poses risk of vandalism and damage to a listed building;

Transient residents would increase chances of crime;

Lack of competency from ADC;

Applicant should enter into a 106 agreement;

Condition should be attached to ensure cannot be used as a ‘bail hostel’

Inadequate narrow pavements near development site

Fear of crime and disorder;

219 Copies of identical letters signed, have been received from the addresses below:-

Beeston Close – 12(2 X Signatures), 21(2 X Signatures), 23(1 X Signature), 24(1 X Signature), 39(2 X Signatures)

Bowden Avenue – 19(1 X Signature), 22(2 X Signature), 23(2 X Signatures), 27(2 X Signatures) Unknown Number (2 X Signatures)

Broad Valley Drive – 1(1 X Signature), 3(3 X Signatures), 7(2 X Signatures), 10(2 X Signatures), 14(2 X Signatures), 18(1 X Signature) 19(2 X Signatures), 20(2 X Signatures), 22(2 X Signatures), 26(2 X Signatures), 28(2 X Signatures), 31(2 X Signatures), 41(2 X Signatures), 42(1 X Signature), 44(2 X Signatures), 48(2 X Signatures), 49(1 X Signature), 52(2 X Signatures), 53(2 X Signatures), 61(2 X Signatures), 62(2 X Signatures), 65(1 X Signature), 87(2 X Signatures), 91 (2 X Signatures) Number Unknown(2 X Signatures)

Church Road – 3(2 X Signatures), 10(2 X Signatures)

Coronation Road – 8(2 X Signatures), 15 (1 X Signature), 32(2 X Signatures), 35(1 X Signature), 37(1 X Signature), 43(2 X Signatures)

High Main Drive – 2(2 X Signatures), 4(2 X Signatures), 16(2 X Signatures), 30(2 X Signatures), 33(2 X Signatures), 38(2 X Signatures), 44(2 X Signatures), 49(2 X Signatures), 54(2 X Signatures) 57(1 X Signature), 62(2 X Signatures), 68(2 X Signatures), 72(2 X Signatures), 77(1 X Signature), 83(2 X Signatures), 96(1 X Signature), 115(2 X Signature), 117(2 X Signatures), 103(1 X Signature)

Hill Road – 9(2 X Signatures), 10(2 X Signatures), 31(2 X Signatures), 33(2 X Signatures), 38(2 X Signatures), 40(2 X Signatures)

Hopkinson Court – 8(1 X Signature), 15(3 X Signatures), 17(1 X Signature), 24(2 X Signatures), 27(2 X Signatures), 28 (1 X Signature), 29 (2 X Signatures)

Keepers Close – 4(2 X Signatures), 6(2 X Signatures), 7(1 X Signature), 11 (2 X Signatures) 12(1 X Signature), 14(2 X Signatures)

Lancaster Road - 6(1 X Signature)

Langley Close – 7(2 X Signatures), 8(2 X Signatures), 11(2 X Signatures), Langley Close - 21(1 X Signature), 25(1 X Signature)

Leen Close – 1(2 X Signatures), 3(1 X Signature), 4(2 X Signatures), 5(2 X Signatures), 6(2 X Signatures), 10 (2 X Signatures)

Mayes Rise – 15 (1 X Signature)

Mill Lane – 3(1 X Signature), 5(2 X Signatures), 7 (2 X Signatures), Coach House(2 X Signatures), Forge Mill House(2 X Signatures)

Millbank Place – 1(1 X Signature), 2(2 X Signatures), 4(2 X Signatures), 8(2 X Signature), 10(2 X Signature), 12 (2X)(1 X Signature), 17(2 X Signature), 19(2 X Signature), 21(2 X Signature), 23(1 X Signature), 25(1 X Signature), 27 (1 X Signature), 31(2 X Signature), 45(2 X Signature), 47(2 X Signatures), 49(2 X Signatures), 52(2 X Signatures), 54(2 X Signature), 92 (1 X Signature) 102(1 X Signature), 112(2 X Signatures)

Ripley Court – 1(1 X Signature), 12(1 X Signature)

Ilkeston Court -4(2 X Signatures), 5(1 X Signature)

Moor Road – 35(1 X Signature), 557(2 X Signatures)(X2) 558(2 X Signatures), 580(1 X Signature), 586(2 X Signatures), 599(2 X Signatures), 606(2 X Signatures), 608(2 X Signatures), 621(2 X Signatures), 634(2 X Signatures), 646(2 X Signatures), 648(1 X Signature), 664A(2 X Signatures), 668(2 X Signatures), 672(2 X Signatures), 680(2 X Signature), 682(2 X Signatures), 684(2 X Signatures), 686(2 X Signatures), 690(1 X Signature), 708(2 X Signatures), 718(2 X Signatures), 720 (2 X Signatures), Station Cottages 2(2 X Signatures), 3(2 X Signatures)

Old Mill Close – 1(1 X Signature), 2(2 X Signatures), 5(3 X Signatures), 8(2 X Signatures), 9(2 X Signatures), 12(2 X Signatures), 12A(1 X Signature), 16 (1 X Signature)

Park Road – 9(1 X Signature), 11(2 X Signatures), 27(1 X Signature), 28(2 X Signatures), 36(1 X Signature), 38 (2 X Signatures), 47(2 X Signatures), 52(1 X Signature), 54(1 X Signature), 77(2 X Signatures)

School Walk – 2(2 X Signatures), 8(2 X Signatures), Bestwood Village Hawthorne Primary & Nursery School(1 X Signature)

Shelton Avenue –58(2 X Signatures), 88(2 X Signatures), 124(2 X Signatures), 130 (1 X Signature)

St Albans Road – 2(1 X Signature), 13(2 X Signatures), 22(2 X Signatures), 26(1 X Signature), 27(2 X Signature), 31(2 X Signatures), 37(2 X Signatures), 38 (1 X Signature) 39 (2 X Signatures)

The Spinney – 1A(2 X Signatures), 11(2 X Signatures), 15(2 X Signatures), 17(2 X Signatures), 21(5 X Signatures), 22(2 X Signatures), 25(2 X Signatures), 29(2 X Signatures), 37(2 X Signatures), 40(2 X Signatures)

The Square – 3(2 X Signatures), 8(2 X Signatures), 12(2 X Signatures), 16(1 X Signature)

Wren Drive – 2(2 X Signatures), 6(3 X Signatures), 7(2 X Signatures)

Yeoman Avenue – 3(2 X Signatures), 4(2 X Signatures), 5(4 X Signatures), 6(1 X Signature), 8(2 X Signatures), 14(1 X Signature), 17(1 X Signature) 18(2 X Signatures), 20(2 X Signatures), 21(2 X Signatures), 23(2 X Signatures), 24(2 X Signatures), 26(2 X Signatures)

The content of these letters was as follows:

Lack of transparency and consultation from the applicant;

Proposal is contrary to saved policies ST1 (b) and ST1 (e) of the Ashfield Local Plan Review (2002);

Applicants third retrospective application contrary to planning practice guidelines;

Applicant started work on a Grade II Listed Building without correct planning permission;

Additional comments raised within the letters are as follows:

Unsuitable location in rural village;

Timing of submission of application just before holiday period;

Questions the sustainability and viability of the proposal;

Fear of crime and Impact on community safety;

Significant local opposition should be taken into account;

Inadequate access;

Development conflicts with adjoining land use

Negative impact on a Listed Building;

Additional traffic volume, highway safety issues and congestion;

Noise pollution from vehicles and workshop machinery;

Inappropriate development on green belt land;

Lack of transparency from the applicant;

Lack of public transport;

Applicant started work without correct approval;

Impact on residential amenity;

Inadequate public facilities in the locality;

Previous applications rejected;

Ashfield District Council should enforce reversal of the works already undertaken;

Depreciation of property values;

Lack of public consultation;

Loss of community spirit;

Application should have more information on intended use; and

References to other locations within the district have not seen such levels of development.

Policy Having regard to Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the main policy considerations are as follows: The National Planning Policy Framework Part 1 - Delivering a strong competitive economy Part 4 - Promoting sustainable transport Part 6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Part 7 - Requiring good design Part 8 - Promoting healthy communities Part 9 – Protecting green belt Part 12 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment The Ashfield Local Plan Review (ALPR) 2002 (saved policies 2007) Policy ST1 - Development Policy ST3 - Named settlement Policy HG5 - New residential development Policy HG8 – Residential flats Policy EV1 – Green belt Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Relevant Planning History V/1988/0521 – Conversion of Mill to Offices – approved 08/09/1988 V/1993/0541 – Conversion of Mill to Offices – approved 19/10/1993 V/2007/0019 – Conversion of Mill to 8 Residential Units – Refused 04/04/2007 V/2010/0152 – Conversion of Listed Building to 11 Apartments – approved 30/06/2010 V/2013/0217 – Internal and External Renovation of Former Mill Building for Mixed Uses Comprising Offices (B1) , Restaurant and Tea Room (A3) and Industry (B2), New Entrance Wall and Gates. Car Park and Landscaping – approved 12/06/2013 V/2013/0219 – listed Building Consent for Internal and External Renovation of Former Mill Building – approved 12/06/2013 V/2014/0596 - Internal and External Renovation of Former Mill Building to create Residential Training and Education Facility incorporating First Floor Workshop and overnight Residential Accommodation. Ground Floor Cafe and Worship Area, Second Floor Manager's Residential Apartment and Offices (Sui Generis) – Withdrawn 19/1/15 V/2014/0597 – Listed Building Consent for internal and external renovation – withdrawn 19/1/2015 V/2015/0111 – approval of conditions reserved by v/2013/0217 and v/2013/0219. Conditions approved were 6, 9 and 13 on 16/6/15

V/2015/0333 – Internal and external renovation of former mill building to create offices, café restaurant, worship area, factory workshop with recreation areas and staff/visitor accommodation. This application was recommended for approval by the case officer but refused at planning committee on 24/9/15. There was one reason for refusal, which stated that the proposal would form a development requiring a mix of different uses not in keeping with the residential locality with varying activities, hours of operation and comings and goings. The combined uses would result in a detrimental impact upon residential amenity and public safety. The proposal is contrary to saved policy ST1 ‘development’ of the ALPR 2002 parts a, b and e. The new full application and listed building consent applications are similar to previous submissions v/2015/0333 and v/2015/0219. The main differences are highlighted below:

Second floor - now proposed as 3 bedroom apartment

Second floor – addition of 2 no. 1700mm screens on second floor

Use of café as combined café and workshop area V/2015/0334 – this is the Listed Building Consent twinned with application v/2015/0333. This application remains undetermined following a planning committee deferral on 24/9/2015. Background The refurbishment programme has been divided into two stages. Approved full application v/2013/0217 was regarded by the applicant as stage 1 and dealt with the lower ground floor (basement), ground floor, and first floor. The current submission primarily deals with the proposed refurbishment of the second and attic floors to provide a three bedroom ‘managers apartment’ and the addition of a worship area within the existing ground floor approval. The current application also seeks to use the open mill floor at first floor level as a workshop which is consistent with the previous approval and with the buildings original use. Externally the rooflights which form part of the proposal have already been implemented and were included as part of the previous consent. The disabled access ramp and some additional external rails and handrails did however not form part of previous consents and requires approval as part of this application. Internal alterations to basement and ground floor levels are consistent with previous approvals. The first floor level consists of the same uses as previously approved but now also includes the additional dual use of the café as a church worship area. Main considerations The main considerations in determining this planning application are the principle of development, visual amenity, residential amenity and highway safety. These are discussed in turn as follows: Principle of development The Forge Mill building is sited within the named settlement of Bestwood Village, where under the provisions of saved policy ST3 ‘named settlements’ of the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 (ALPR), the principle of limited development is acceptable.

Part of the application site beyond the Mill building is sited within the Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) part 9 ‘Protecting Green Belt’ paragraph 79 states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Mill building is not sited within the Green Belt but the remaining application site is, that predominately consisting the car park. In terms of the wider application site forming part of the Green Belt parking provision on this land has been approved twice previously to serve 11 apartments in 2010 and subsequently for the ground floor café and workshop in 2013. A car park for the café and workshop could still be implemented and is a material planning consideration for the provision of a car park to serve the current proposals. Planning permission has previously been granted for 11 apartments to the building under planning reference V/2010/0152 on 30/06/2010. Although this consent has expired and cannot be implemented, it is a material planning consideration in the determination of this application in terms of introducing a residential use to the Mill. The 2010 approval included a greater intensity of subdivision when compared to the current planning proposals which essentially maintains the open plan of the building. Similarly the previously approved ground floor café with first floor workshop and offices under planning reference V/2013/0217 approved on 12/06/2013 is also a material planning consideration. This planning permission is extant since it has been partially implemented and any residential use would need to be assessed in the context of the mix of uses now proposed. The applicant has continued works to the ground and first floors, which are in accordance with the 2013 approval. An application, with associated Listed Building Consent, was submitted in 2015 (V/2015/0333) which sought changes from the approval received in 2013. These were primarily internal changes and included a worship area staff/visitor residential accommodation. This application was refused at planning committee as it was considered that the proposed uses were not in keeping with the residential locality. As stated the main differences between previous approval 2013/0217 and the current proposal is the use of the second and third floors as a 3 bed apartment and the additional use of the café as a church worship area. The differences between the current submission and the previous refusal is the primary use of the second and third floors as a single ancillary apartment and the additional use of the café as a church worship area. It is considered that the use of the second and third floors, being primarily residential is more consistent with surrounding uses and therefore more acceptable in residential amenity terms. It is considered that the additional use of the café as a church worship area can be accommodate without a detrimental impact upon residential amenity and highway safety. It is expected that the users of the worship area will invariably use other parts of the building when visiting. Even if this did not happen and the café was used as a church worship area the capacity of this area is fixed and therefore whether using the café or worship area the impact on both residential amenity and highway safety would be the same. A parking provision of 24 parking spaces has been included and it is considered that this is acceptable for the proposed uses. Saved policy ST3 permits in principle limited development within the area in order to provide for housing and other small scale employment uses as proposed as part of this application. The proposed uses could in principle be considered to be in accordance with saved policy ST3 assuming the mix of the proposed uses are acceptable.

Part 1 of the NPPF ‘Delivering a Strong Competitive Economy’ paragraph 18 states the Government is also committed to securing growth in order to create jobs and prosperity. Paragraph 20 states that to help achieve economic growth, Local Authorities should plan proactively to meet the needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st Century. The proposal would enable a business operation, which would employ the full time equivalent of 21 employees, supported by Part 1 of the NPPF. Taking the above into consideration this planning application has to be considered on the basis of the uses sought as part of the planning application and based on the information submitted with it. It is considered that the differences between the current application and the previous approval 2013/0217 primarily consists of a workshop to the first floor rather than the approved factory and a ‘managers apartment’ to the second and third floors rather than temporary accommodation for workers and visitors. When considering that 11 apartments were previously proved one apartment ancillary to the proposal is considered in principle to be acceptable. The changes when compared to the previous refusal have sought to address concerns raised by members of the public and at planning committee regarding a more intense residential use. As discussed later in this report a condition will be recommended to restrict to a C3 (dwellinghouses) use. The principle of the proposed uses within the building are acceptable and in accordance with planning policy providing no other material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Visual Amenity This application has been considered against the requirements of Part 7 of the NPPF ‘Requiring Good Design’ paragraph 56, which states that the Government attaches great weight to the design of the built environment. Paragraph 58 states that planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of areas and which are attractive as a result of good architecture. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunity available for improving the character and quality of the environment. Saved policy ST1 ‘development’ of the ALPR 2002 states that development will be permitted where it will not adversely affect the character and quality of the environment. External alterations proposed to the Mill that require full planning permission include the installation of skylight windows to the rear roof plane, an external staircase, flue and access ramp. This application is accompanied with a Heritage Impact Assessment, which is required to explain and justify the alterations to the building.

External Staircase The submitted Heritage Impact Assessment explains that without the external staircase, there would be a Building Regulations requirement to install an internal staircase. This would result in internal harm to the timber floors of the historic Listed Building. The Conservation Officer has confirmed that industrial staircases of this style are not uncommon and would not appear as alien to the Mill. It is considered the external staircase would be acceptable visually with conditions imposed to agree materials in its construction prior to the installation of the fire escape.

External Openings to facilitate the Stair case First and second floor openings are proposed beneath existing windows on the northern elevation. The openings are required to facilitate the external staircase. It is considered that the harm caused by installing an internal staircase from ground floor to the attic space would be substantial when compared to two relatively small openings on the northern elevation. The openings are considered to be visually acceptable.

Roof lights The roof lights within the northern elevation have been previously approved in 2010 when consent was granted for 11 residential apartments. The previous planning permission, whilst not implemented, remains a material planning consideration to the current proposal.

The Council’s Conservation Officer confirms there is insufficient grounds to object to the skylight windows and that their position on the rear elevation and use of conservation rooflights mitigated against their visual impact. They skylights also assist in enabling the attic space to be put to use, optimizing the viable use of the building. All skylights have now been installed and considered acceptable by the Conservation officer.

Burner Flue One burner flue is proposed on the north elevation. The flue projects two metres above the northern roof plane, but does not project above the ridgeline of the roof. It is therefore not prominent from the street scene where there are vantage points on the front elevation. The flue is also an easily removable / reversible addition. Providing it is painted black there are no concerns in relation to the flue addition.

External Ramp A ramp has been constructed on site to comply with the Equality Act to provide access to all users. The ramp is not considered to result in a detrimental visual impact nor is it considered harmful to the special interest of the building.

Heat pumps Three air source heat pumps have been installed in the northern elevation. The pumps are free standing structures within the setting of the Listed Building. The Conservation Officer raises no objection to the pumps given their discreet siting and due to the fact that they are easily removable.

Car Park The proposed car park is sited within the Green Belt, where permission will only be given to development that does not adversely affect the openness and purposes of the Green Belt. Planning permission for a car park on the site has been granted twice previously. Firstly, in 2010, a car park was approved to serve 11 apartments. Secondly, a car park was approved in 2013 to serve the approved ground floor café and factory. It is considered that the use of grass-crete results in a sympathetic appearance and since no additional volume by way of additional buildings within the Green Belt are proposed, it is not considered that the car park is contrary to Green Belt policy. The previous planning permissions for car parking within the site are also material planning considerations to the current application.

Very careful consideration has been given to the visual impact of the external alterations in accordance with part 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework ‘Requiring Good Design’, which seeks to approve developments which are attractive as a result of good architecture. Residential Amenity The ADC Residential Design Guide 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. Consideration has also been given to one of the core planning principles of the NPPF in determining this application, which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings. Residents have raised objections in the past to the proposed end user being ex-offenders and a subsequent detrimental impact upon surrounding residents by way of crime and anti-social behaviour. Residents feel that the application does not properly explain the nature of the business. The current application has also received objections from residents on this basis. The concerns are listed within the summary of objections contained within this report. The submitted Design and Access Statement states that the applicant is a trustee of OPTIM, a charity working with ex-offenders. Planning consent seeks an assessment surrounding the appropriate use of a building and the technical issues which surround that use. The planning system is not in place to assess the suitability or not of the end user. Furthermore other legislation exists outside of the planning system, such as the Council’s Environmental Protection team, Community Protection Officers and the Police, all of whom would have the powers to assist with these issues should future issues arise. Unlike the last application the current proposal includes a three bedroom apartment. The description of the development refers to this as a ‘managers apartment’ and therefore ancillary to the overall use of the building. Concerns have been raised by residents with regards the residential use proposed as part of the application. Whilst the residential use has been reduced from the previous application a residential use is still sought. As such it is recommended that a condition is used to restrict this use to C3 (dwellinghouse) and exclude any other uses within the General Permitted Development Order. This restriction will ensure that further planning consent would be required if an alternative use or a more intense residential use is sought. Having regard to overlooking, the application proposes no external changes to fenestration fronting the nearest residential dwellings at Millbank Place. Existing outlook from the Mill to surrounding residents is not to be exacerbated by any additional fenestration. There are no concerns in relation to overlooking and loss of privacy. Furthermore overlooking resulting from the previously approved uses for residential are considered to be comparable to the current proposed uses within the building. It is not considered reasonable to refuse the application for reasons of loss of privacy. Opening Hours No opening times have been proposed for the offices, café and workshop area however due to the nature of the proposals a condition can be attached to the application restricting the opening hours.

Other issues During the assessment of application 2015/0333 the applicant submitted a Protected Species Survey. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust assessed the submitted information and confirmed no objections, stating that bats would not be constraint to the development. Since this time there has been a significant amount of work undertaken under approved application 2013/0217. As such it was considered that this issue does not require a reassessment. Highway Safety Residents have raised objections with regards to the impact of the development upon highway safety, in particular traffic congestion, potential for accidents and additional on street parking. Consideration has been given to part 4 of the NPPF ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport’ in the determination of this application. Paragraph 32 states that decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. Paragraph 35 states developments should be located and designed where practical to create safe and secure layouts which minimize the conflicts between traffic and cyclists and pedestrians. In terms of local policy, saved policy ST1 ‘Development’ of the ALPR states that development will be permitted where it will not adversely affect highway safety. The Highway Authority (HA) has confirmed no objections to the development subject to conditions on surface water runoff and the proposed gates at the access point. Concerns have been raised by residents with regards the access into the site. Previous planning consents exist on the site and one has been implemented, that being v/2013/0217. The main difference between the current application and implemented approval is the use of the second and third floors as an apartment. The apartment is ancillary use to the building and as such the net impact of this on the highway network is limited. Notwithstanding this the HA have recommended a condition to set the proposed access gates 5 metres from the edge of the carriageway and to only open inwards. This application is submitted with a car parking layout that shows spaces on site for 24 cars. It is considered that the additional second floor workshop and apartment in the roof space does not require additional off street parking to that already approved in 2013. Consideration has been given to the additional uses proposed to the building, to ensure appropriate parking provision can be provided for staff, occupiers and visitors to and from the application site and to assess the development based on the mix of uses within the building. In order to undertake any offsite works the applicant will need to enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Act and this will be recommended as an informative. Other issues This report has sought to objectively assess the application, reach a set of conclusions and make a balanced recommendation. There have been other comments made by residents that have not been directly addressed within the report and these are responded to as follows.

A number of comments have been raised with regards the location of the proposal and its relationship with the surrounding village. In particular concerns have been raised with regards noise, the depreciation of property values as well as the lack of public engagement and loss of community spirit. For an application of this type pre application engagement with the public by the applicant is not a requirement. It is advised as best practice however the local planning authority cannot enforce such a procedure and cannot stop a planning application being submitted. The consultation during the planning application stage and in this case included a press notice, site notice and neighbour notification. As such it is considered that the public have been suitably informed about the proposals. The building has been in existence in some form since 1787 and in an industrial use until its closure as a distributors in the early 2000’s. Residential development has grown around the mill building over time however the building has only recently fallen out of use. The mill building is considerable in size and at a suitable distance from residential properties. Along with an existing car park the building would readily lend itself to an alternative use, such as that proposed. Indeed the site already benefits from previous planning consents, some of which have been implemented. There are no objections from consultees and it is considered that the proposed use of the building would not conflict with the surrounding residential use of the area. Comments have been made regarding the timing of the submission. This cannot be controlled and members of the public and consultees are able to respond up until the date the application is determined. Comments have also been made about the lack of transparency from the Applicant. Documents required to meet national and local validation requirements have been submitted and this includes details surrounding the proposed use of the building. As stated earlier in the report the planning system cannot control the users of a property but can control the use of a property. Comments have been received regarding the lack of public transport and public facilities on the site. The building is of private use and does not require public facilities. There are facilities associated with the proposed use and these are considered adequate. Public transport contributions are not required for this type and size of proposal. Comments regarding the depreciation of property values are not a planning consideration. Impacts upon residential amenity are a planning consideration and these have been detailed earlier in the report. Further comments have been made regarding litter, fly tipping and hazardous waste on site. The proposal will secure the premises and once open will allow regular maintenance to occur and provide day-to-day natural surveillance and crime prevention. There have been a significant number of objections received consisting of individual letters and a number of pro-forma letters. Whilst any planning considerations are taken into account during the assessment process the volume of negative representation alone is not sufficient to warrant the refusal of an application. The planning balancing exercise is a careful and considerate process where all the ‘benefits’ behind the proposal are weighed against the ‘harm’. In this case the proposal is, on balance, acceptable in planning terms and compliant with both local and national planning policy.

Conclusions:

External alterations have been previously approved and therefore the current application seeks only internal alterations

The only internal alterations proposed when compared to previous approvals, most notably in 2013, primarily relate to the residential use at the second and third floors

The proposals are considered to bring the building into a viable use consistent with its longer term conservation thereby removing the risk to the listed building

The benefits that shall arise from these alterations are considered to outweigh this harm. An objection is unlikely to be sustained on the grounds of harm to the special interest of the listed building

It is considered that the car parking provisions with 24 number of spaces would reasonably be acceptable in serving the facility without any detrimental impact upon highway safety

A condition will be recommended which will restrict this use to C3 and exclude any other uses within the General Permitted Development Order.

All other objections raised from members of the public have been taken into consideration during the assessment of the application however the proposal is still considered to be acceptable when assessed against national and local planning policy

Recommendation: It is recommended that the application is approved subject to conditions. CONDITIONS

1. This permission shall be read in accordance with the following plans: Site Location Plan dated Oct 14 (dwg 13113-L01) Basement & Ground Floor Plan (dwg 13113-W01 Rev C) First, Second and Attic Floor Plans dated Feb 15 (dwg 13113-W02 Rev F) Proposed Elevations dated March 13 (dwg 13113-W03 Rev C) Proposed Sections dated March 13 (dwg 13113-W04 Rev D) The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with these plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 2. Mortar for the purposes of re-pointing shall be carried out using hydraulic lime or lime putty, sand mix, the colour, texture and pointing finish shall closely match the original work found elsewhere on the building. 3. Notwithstanding the submitted details, the siting, appearance and materials to be used in the construction of all extractor vents, heater flues, meter boxes, airbricks, soil pipes or any other external accetion shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before their installation. 4. All existing internal window shutters the south elevation of the lower ground floor shall not be removed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

5. Details of the design, materials and profile of the external staircase and handrails shall be submitted in the form of drawings at 1:50 for general appearance and 1:5 for details. The proposed development/works shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details. 6. No further works shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping. All planting, seeding or turfing indicated on the approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. 7. The first floor windows on the south elevation serving the factory floor shall be non-opening and maintained as such in perpetuity. 8. The uses of the hereby permitted development shall take place during the following hours: Ground Floor Restaurant/Café/worship area - 10am to 4pm Monday to Friday 10am to 5pm Sundays First Floor Factory workshop - 7am to 5pm Monday to Friday First Floor Offices - 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday 9. The managers apartment on the second and third floors of the building shall be used as a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) and for no other purpose, (including any other purpose in Part C of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification). 10. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the access driveway is constructed with provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water from the driveway, parking, and turning 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. 11. The gates at the access point shall open inwards only, be set back 5 metres from the edge of carriageway and constructed in accordance with details which have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The approved gates shall then be retained for the life of the development. 12. Trickle vents shall not be installed in any window on the building. REASONS 1. To ensure that the development takes the form envisaged by the Local Planning Authority when determining the application. 2. To safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building 3. Inadequate details of these matters have been submitted with the application and in order to ensure that the development respects the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.

4. To safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building. 5. To safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building. 6. To ensure the satisfactory overall appearance of the completed development and to help assimilate the new development into its surroundings. 7. To safeguard the amenities of residents living within the vicinity of the application site. 8. To safeguard the amenities of residents living in the vicinity of the application site. 9. To safeguard the amenities of residents living within the vicinity of the application site. 10. To ensure surface water from the site is not deposited on the public highway causing dangers to road users. 11. To enable vehicles to stand clear of the highway whilst the gates are opened/closed. 12. To safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building

INFORMATIVES Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) In order to carry out the off-site works required you will be undertaking work in the public highway which is land subject to the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and therefore land over which you have no control. In order to undertake the works you will need to enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Act.