OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR MIXED USE … · 1.16 The exhibition boards and questionnaire were also uploaded onto First City’s web site. 1.17 The public consultation event

CONTENTS;

PLANNING STATEMENT

OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION

FOR

MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

AT

GLENVILLE FARM OFF TUTBURY ROAD (A511)

WEST OF ROLLESTON ROAD AND NORTH OF HAREHEDGE LANE,

OUTWOODS BURTON UPON TRENT

STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

FEBRUARY 2015

lisa.roberts

Text Box

P/2015/00202 Received 10/02/15

Staffordshire County Council Planning Statement

1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Pre application engagement Summary

2. THE PROPOSAL

The Proposal Planning Obligation Supporting Documentation

Figure 1 the application site

3. THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

Figure 2 the site in context

Figure 3 Aerial view of the site

4. PLANNING POLICIES

National Planning Policy Framework East Staffordshire Local Plan Review “saved policies” Emerging Development Plans Other Material Supplementary Planning Guidance

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

A. What national policies and development plan policies are relevant B. Does the development conform or conflict with relevant policies, or cause

any other harm C. If harm is identified what weight should be given to the material

considerations in favour of the application D. Conclusion on the balance

Prematurity

6. CONCLUSION

APPENDICES:

1. Previous East Staffordshire Council Screening 2. Facilities Plan

2 of 38


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This planning statement has been prepared by First City Limited on behalf of

Staffordshire County Council in support of a planning application as follows;

“Outline Application (with all matters reserved except access) for Outline Application (with all matters reserved except access) for mixed use development including up to 500 dwellings (use class C3); local centre providing up to 500 sq. metres of floorspace (use class A1, and public house (use class A5) together with associated car parking and servicing, specialist care housing (use class C2); public open space; structural landscaping and provision of drainage; and internal highway network to include the provision of access junctions to the A511 Tutbury Road and Rolleston Road and realignment of Harehedge Lane and formation of two mini-roundabouts together with the construction of an off-street car park at land at Glenville Farm, east of Tutbury Road (A511), west of Rolleston Road and north of Harehedge Lane, Outwoods , Burton upon Trent”

1.2 In December 2011 Staffordshire County Council, under Regulation 3 (County

Matter) of the Town and Country Planning Regulations 1992, granted consent for the construction of a new primary school with places for between 210 and 420 pupils with associated works and construction of a new vehicular access from Tutbury Road together with the a roundabout on the Tutbury Road/Beam Hill/Harehedge Lane junction. This school which is now complete and open since September 2014 is intrinsically linked to the application for housing as it will provide a hub for new community facilities to serve the wider development and community of Outwoods.

1.3 This application is a resubmission within 12 months following the refusal of our

previous application (P/2014/00502) on 11th August, 2014, contrary to the recommendation of Officers. Since the decision further pre application discussion have taken place with Officers and you will recall we presented our initial revisions at our meeting on 11th December, 2014 (P Somerfield, A Millar and M Brown represented the LPA; G Fergus, M Winks and G Perry represented the applicant) which were accepted as a basis to move forward with this re submission.

1.4 Staffordshire County Council is the owner of the application site. Certificate A

accompanies the application. 1.3 The application site edged red on Figure 1 extends to some 20.5 hectares. The

site would provide for the development of up to 500 dwellings (see Illustrative Schematic Development Framework Plan and Design and Access Statement).

1.4 Section two of this report looks at the site and surrounding area; section three

the proposals, section four the policy at national, regional and local level; section five the planning considerations including the need for housing to be located within this part of East Staffordshire; section six sets out the Heads of Terms and section seven provides a summary and the conclusions.

1.5 1.6 The application is accompanied be the following further documents and reports:

3 of 38


1.7 Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with the advice contained in

paragraph 32 of the NPPF. The TA considers the following;

(i) Staffordshire County Council Design Guide and Local Transport Plan.

(ii) Means of access for pedestrians, cyclists and cars. (iii) Traffic counts, traffic growth and modelling, arising from the

development of the site (iv) Trip generation, distribution and assignment of traffic from the

school and the new housing. (v) Junction assessments. (vi) Sustainable Transport.

The Assessment has been prepared by JMP Consultants Limited;

1.8 A Framework Travel Plan has been prepared by JMP Consultants Limited;

1.9 A Design and Access Statement

This sets out the design principles and concepts that inform the development and how access issues have been addressed. These are reflected in principles established for the amount, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the proposed development. It also shows how the site proposals relate to the areas surrounding the site. The report includes an Illustrative Schematic Development Framework Plan.

The Statement has been prepared by First City Limited.

1.10 Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (prepared by Waterman

Limited) including soil percolation tests (prepared by Opus International Limited).

Geo-Environmental Study including Phase 1 and Phase 2 site investigations (prepared by Opus International Limited)

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Pleydell Smithyman Limited; Affordable Housing Statement prepared by DBK; Statement of Community Involvement prepared by First City Limited;

Phase 1 Extended Habitat survey and Bat survey reports prepared by Middlemarch Environmental Limited;

Topographical site survey prepared by Robotic Surveys Limited;

Site Location Plan FC/1 with the application site edged in red;

Schematic Framework Strategy Plan FC/2

Phasing Plan;

4 of 38


Application Forms, Certificate of Ownership and Agricultural Holdings Certificate;

1.11 Staffordshire County Council has appointed the following consultant team to

prepare and submit the proposals for the development of the land situated off Tutbury Road;

• First City Limited. Town Planning consultants • Geoff Perry Associates Limited – Master Planners • DBK Affordable housing consultant • JMP Consultants Limited. Consulting Highway Engineers • Waterman Limited – Consulting Drainage Engineers • OPUS International Limited. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers • Pleydell Smithyman Limited. Landscape Architects • Middlemarch Environmental Limited. Ecologists • Robotic Surveys Limited. Land Surveyors

Pre-Application Engagement

1.12 The applicant has conducted a pre-application consultation with the statutory

undertakers (Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water and Staffordshire Highways). The local community were providing with information relevant to the emerging proposals and the development team responsible.

1.13 With the Localism Act now in place we have considered the developer’s

statutory duty to consult which will be a material factor in determining the application. We have approached this from the standpoint of engaging with the technical consultees and the community rather than just saying here is the planning application.

1.14 The Act stipulates that applicants should “have regard to any responses to the

consultation” when they subsequently submit applications. “Developers must show what they’ve done to take the comments on board”.

1.15 The applicant arranged a public exhibitions in 2001 and more recently on 15th

July, 2013 that were held at Outwoods Primary School to announce the forthcoming planning application and also to seek general views and also specific responses to a range of questions included within a questionnaire that attendees were encouraged to complete.

1.16 The exhibition boards and questionnaire were also uploaded onto First City’s

web site. 1.17 The public consultation event was publicised by means of a leaflet and

invitation letter posted to around 600 households and businesses in the locality. The exhibition was advertised in the Burton Mail.

1.18 The exhibition was held between 4.00pm and 8.00pm. It is estimated that

around 150 people attended and to date 85 responses have been received overall; 67 completed all or part of the questionnaire; the remainder were either emails or letters received either by SCC or First City.

1.19 A Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) has been prepared and this

includes details of the exhibition boards and illustrative material that was

5 of 38


available. The response of the public exhibition can be summarised as follows:

• Many respondents confirmed that they would prefer not to see any

development on the site (the phrase green fields not houses‟ was coined by a number of residents). There was comment concerning the loss of agricultural land. A large number of replies criticised the decision to build a new primary school in this location and some considered that the emphasis should be placed on secondary provision as the existing De Ferrers Academy was at capacity. The existing parking problems on Harehedge Lane featured strongly. The problem is associated with inconsiderate parking by parents dropping off and picking up children and access for the bus. Some made reference to other alternative locations for the school and for housing. Many residents were concerned about their loss of a view over open fields, but there was some acknowledgement that the site would eventually be developed and that the development would provide a range of housing that would allow younger people seeking this first home to stay within the area. In these circumstances the objective should be to secure the most attractive development they could and the widest benefits for the local community.

• Most people liked the informal layout and density and general character of

the development illustrated on the layout. There were many comments that recent developments in Burton appeared over-engineered and claustrophobic with very little car parking.

• It was generally agreed that affordable housing needs were adequately

catered for closer into the centre of Burton.

• There was unanimous support for off street parking spaces to be created on Harehedge Lane, coupled with more stringent parking restrictions on street. This sentiment extended to the new school and most residents considered that dedicated parking bays outside the school boundary were a good idea.

• There was widespread concern about the capacity of a single access

onto Tutbury Road to accommodate the development proposed. The Tutbury Road/Harehedge Lane road junction and in particular queuing traffic at the junction in the peak period. There was support for improvements. Existing residents complained about high traffic speeds and difficulties with access to the road from their properties.

• There were a number of people who considered that the scheme should

provide for bus access with a possible bus only link out onto Rolleston Road. Some people considered this should be for school buses only. A number of people agreed that the site should have two access points or that access should only be from Rolleston Road leaving the school to access from Tutbury Road.

• Flooding and drainage was raised by many people. It was stated that

localised flooding took place at the comer of Rolleston Road and Harehedge Lane at present equally there was acknowledgement that an engineered drainage scheme could alleviate the current problems. Many people questioned the off-site provision for surface and foul water.

6 of 38


• In terms of facilities and services there was some support for a neighbourhood shop and it was noted that skateboard parks and basketball was well catered for elsewhere.

• The majority of replies to the questionnaire supported the development looking for ways to reduce the consumption of fuels, such as electricity and gas and agreed that we should plan for the development to include measures.

1.20 Rolleston on Dove Parish Council publicised the exhibition proposals on their

web site. The points raised by the Parish claim “coalescence of Rolleston with Horninglow and Outwoods, the current demand for school places is already met; increased traffic congestion; and the site is not close to facilities and services”

Summary

1.21 The emerging proposals have been the subject of appropriate pre-application

consultation with the technical consultees, and the local community. 1.22 The applicant is grateful for the constructive advice that has been provided

and also the comments that have been received from all residents who attended the exhibition and took the time to complete a questionnaire. The feedback has been carefully considered and taken into account when formulating this application including a refined proposed layout the inclusion of off-site improvements to road junctions in the vicinity of the site, and the Heads of Terms for the Planning Obligation.

7 of 38


2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 “Outline Application (with all matters reserved except access) for Outline

Application (with all matters reserved except access) for mixed use development including up to 500 dwellings (use class C3); local centre providing up to 500 sq. metres of floorspace (use class A1, and public house (use class A5) together with associated car parking and servicing, specialist care housing (use class C2); public open space; structural landscaping and provision of drainage; and internal highway network to include the provision of access junctions to the A511 Tutbury Road and Rolleston Road and formation of two mini- roundabouts together with the construction of an off-street car park at land east of Tutbury Road (A511), west of Rolleston Road and north of Harehedge Lane, Outwoods , Burton upon Trent”

2.2 In addition William Davis Homes are currently constructing a residential

development of 27 dwellings on land adjoining the Beacon Hotel off Harehedge Lane.

Figure 1: The Application Site

8 of 38


Planning Obligation 2.3 Circular 05/2005 at paragraph B5 sets out the Secretary of State’s policy

which is that “planning obligations are only sought where they meet the following tests” and that “these tests must be met by all local planning authorities in seeking planning obligations”. The onus is therefore on the local planning authority in seeking obligations to demonstrate that whatever is sought does meet the tests. Having regard to the advice the applicant is proposing that the following issues be covered by a Section 106 obligation.

• Affordable Housing

• Open Space

• Education Contribution

• Travel Plan monitoring fee

Supporting Documentation

2.4 The application is supported by the following:

• A set of completed application forms; • Plan identifying the land to which the application relates (Staffordshire

County Council); • Schematic Development Strategy Proposals Plan showing the

approximate location of buildings, routes and open spaces proposed (Geoff Perry Associates Ltd);

• Schematic Framework Strategy Plan FC/2 showing the density,key land uses and frontages (First City Limited);

• Phasing Plan showing 3 distinct phases for the development of the site (Geoff Perry Associates) Ltd;

• Scale and Massing Statement (First City Ltd); • Building for Life Statement (First City Limited); • Affordable Housing Statement (DBK) • Statement of Community Involvement (First City Limited); • Plans showing proposed access from Tutbury Road and Rolleston

Road (JMP Consultants Ltd); • Plans showing the off-site highway improvements on Rolleston

Road (JMP Consultants Ltd.); • Plan showing foul and surface water drainage and connection points

(JMP Consultants Ltd); • Supporting Planning Statement including the draft Heads of Terms for

Section 106 Agreement (First City Limited); • Design and Access Statement (First City Ltd); • Statement of Community Involvement (First City Ltd); • Transport Assessment including Draft Travel Plan (JMP Consultants

Ltd); • Ecological and Bat Surveys (prepared by Middlemarch Environmental Ltd); • Ground Investigation report (prepared by Opus International

Consultants Ltd); • Flood Risk Assessment ( Waterman); • Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (Pleydell Smithyman Ltd);

2.5 The documents submitted with these planning applications and in particular

the Design and Access Statement, will ensure a commitment to a sustainable development of high quality design which will be well integrated with the existing built up area.


2.6 It is considered that a design solution can evolve through the reserved

matters that will create a spacious layout of detached and semi- detached properties with some maisonettes, possibly in a grouped arrangement, with provision for garages and ample off street parking, mainly to the side of each dwelling to minimise the visual impact of vehicles upon the street scene. The scheme will provide adequate space about dwellings.

2.7 The spacious nature of the layout will allow for high quality landscaping being

undertaken and maintained in accordance with local guidance, including the East Staffordshire Design Guide and Saved Policies BE1 and H6. It is proposed to plant native trees along the northern boundary to provide higher level screening from northerly views. The primary access road and distributor road will include medium sized structural native tree species to frame views into the development and softening the built form of dwellings. Trees around the smaller access roads and private drives will be smaller focal native trees selected for their ornamental and wildlife attracting features. Specimen shrub planting will be utilised in frontages, to provide a soft landscape structure to the built form.

2.8 The scheme is mixed use because it seeks outline consent for a local centre

that could contain two neighbourhood shops (up to 500 sqm) and a public house, with ancillary car parking. A site of 0.23ha is also shown on the Schematic Development Strategy Plan for a specialized residential care use, (Class C2) adjacent to the local centre on the Tutbury Road frontage of the site. The care use is defined in terms of the accommodation, as up to 18 units. However no details are available at this stage other that it is likely to be a bespoke use that will be a private development.

2.9 Primary vehicular access to the application site will be from Tutbury Road and

from Rolleston Road. A full assessment of the access arrangements for the application is set out within the accompanying Transport Assessment prepared by JMP Consultants Limited.

2.10 The scheme includes also for off-site junction alterations to form two mini

roundabouts with off-street car parking to accommodate school dropping off and picking up and also be available for use in conjunction with the adjacent open space outside of these times.

2.11 Finally, the applicant has sought a fresh Screening Opinion for the proposal

and the local planning authority’s opinion previously is that the proposal does not require an Environmental Statement as it is therefore unlikely to have significant effects on the environment.

2.12 In summary, the proposed development will be of a size and scale, in keeping

with an appropriate Greenfield urban extension as envisaged by the Council‟s SHLAA and emerging Pre Submission Local Plan reflecting the character of the surroundings. The proposals have been carefully formulated to minimise any potential impact upon interests of acknowledged importance.

10 of 38


3.0 THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 3.1 The site is located to the east of Tutbury Road (A511) to the west of Rolleston

Road and to the north of Harehedge Lane on the northern edge of Burton upon Trent, the principle town in East Staffordshire and the accepted focus for future development and growth.

3.2 The town has a population of 48,400 according to the 2001 Census and it

offers a wide range of essential facilities within a 2km radius from the site.

Figure 2: The Site in Context 3.3 The application site is well related to the adjoining built development. It is

also within walking distance of primary and secondary schools and ideally placed to use to new Primary school and its facilities as the hub of the new community. A recreation ground and play ground and leisure facilities will all be close at hand. The site is located on a bus route with regular services to the town centre and bus stops near to the site entrance. (See Facilities Plan – Appendix 2)

3.4 The site comprises approximately 20.5 hectares of gently sloping and regular

shaped land. The site is surrounded on three sides by existing predominantly residential development. To the south off Harehedge Lane there are existing residential dwellings opposite the site and two existing schools, the De Ferrers Academy and Outwoods Primary. The Beacon Hotel/public house and existing residential dwellings adjoin the south western and eastern site boundary (Tutbury Road and Rolleston Road). The northern boundary adjoins open fields.

11 of 38


3.5 The agricultural land was surrendered from an agricultural tenancy

under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 on 2014 as at that point it was deemed to have potential for development. Since that date the land has been occupied on a short term Grazing Licence.

3.6 The County Council’s farm Estate extends to 8,600 acres with a

Strategic Management Plan to retain the farming estate, providing opportunities for new starters in Agriculture whilst providing an income to the County Council in revenue from the letting of farms and capital receipts from surplus property and development opportunities. The County Council has recently purchased 60 acres of Agricultural Land to add to the portfolio from previous capital receipts providing a sustainable estate for the future.

Figure 3: The Site Aerial View 3.5 The Design and Access Statement describes and analyses the site and

surroundings in greater detail. In summary however, it can be noted that within the context of Burton upon Trent the site is in an accessible location in relation to existing amenities and is development that could by definition, be regarded as “sustainable”.

12 of 38


4. PLANNING POLICIES

4.1 The development plan relevant to the application is formed by:

• The East Staffordshire Local Plan 1996 – 2011 (saved

policies) adopted 2006

National Planning Policy Framework

4.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on Tuesday 27th March 2012 and came into effect immediately. It replaced all of the PPS, PPGs, NPGs, 2 Circulars and a number of letters to Chief Planning Officers. These are set out Annex 3 of the NPPF. As expected Circular 11/95 has not been replaced by this document.

4.3 Key elements of the NPPF relevant to this application are:

• Paragraph 7 states that there are three dimensions of

sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles;

• An economic role – contributing to building a strong responsive

and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and co-coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure.

• A social role – supporting, strong, vibrant and healthy communities,

by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural wellbeing; and

• An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing

our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimize waste and pollution and mitigate and adapt to climate change including to moving to a low carbon economy.

4.4 NPPF paragraph 8 makes it clear that these roles do not operate in isolation

of each other, because they are mutually dependent. That is they need to be addressed together and as part of a balancing exercise, as there are many over lapping factors to their operation. This need to address the “planning balance” is well illustrated in the “Award of Costs” letter against Stratford on Avon District Council (Appendix x) (APP/J3720/A/12/2185727) where the Inspector concluded at paragraph 10;

13 of 38


“At the time of the Regulatory Committee’s decision the Council failed to adequately explain why it had not followed its officer’s advice, and failed to demonstrate how it had assessed the planning balance. Even at appeal stage, for the reasons set out in the Appellant’s submission, evidence of the Council’s balancing exercise has been limited. Although the balance included judgments on character and appearance, this was only part of the exercise, which involved more. The Council’s shortcomings in this respect are unreasonable

4.5 It is further reinforced by the costs decision in APP/E3715/A/12/2186128

paragraph 16, where the Inspector concludes:

“ To my mind the balance is an essential step and necessary for the authority to be able to justify the decision, particularly in the light of the officer assessment and recommendation and past identification of the suitability of the site in planning documents for housing development”.

4.6 Paragraph 14, which set down the presumption in favour of sustainable

development. For decision taking this means:

Approving development proposals that accord with the Development Plan without delay; and

Where the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out- of-date, granting permission unless;

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

-specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted (Footnote 9 sites the examples of sites protected under the Birds and Habitat Directives and or sites designated as SSSI, Green Belt, Local Green Space, AONB etc).

4.7 Paragraph 47, which sets what Councils should do to boost significantly the

supply of new homes. This requires the need to identify annually sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing requirements with additional buffers of 5% and 20%, depending on whether there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

4.8 Paragraph 49, which states significantly that housing applications should

be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

4.9 Paragraph 208-216, which sets out how weight should be attributed to

Development Plan Polices.

14 of 38


4.10 Paragraph 218 confirms that Local Planning Authorities may also continue

to draw on evidence that informed the preparation of regional strategies to support Local Plan policies, supplemented as needed by up-to-date, robust local evidence.

4.11 The NPPF makes it clear that development plan policies have to be considered in the light of the publication of the NPPF.

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (2008) RSS11

4.12 The Government revoked RSS11 in May 2013, following the completion of a

Strategic Environmental Assessment. The RSS therefore no longer forms part of the Development Plan.

4.13 It is important however to be clear that the 2008 version of the RSS is a

revision of the 2004 adopted document which includes the result of the Phase One review of the RSS. This relates to aspects concerning the Black Country. In respect of housing land supply issues the policies remain as they were approved in 2004. They are based on the old now out-of-date 1996 based household projections. The Plan therefore in terms of housing land supply issues was significantly out-of-date.

Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2011

4.14 The Structure Plan saved policies were revoked on 20th May 2013. These

policies are no longer material to the application.

East Staffordshire Local Plan Review Adopted 2006 4.15 The East Staffordshire Local Plan Review was adopted in July 2006 and has

an end date of 2011. It is therefore time-expired in terms of its housing policies. Under the provisions of the planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Secretary of State has assessed the Local Plan Policies and certain policies no longer form part of the development plan. The Secretary of State issued a direction on 7th September 2007 that inter alia the following Core Strategy and housing development policies are not saved:

Policy CSP 1 Sustainability Policy CSP2 Locational Strategy for Development and Containment Policy CSP3 Design Policy H1 Housing Provision Policy H3 Housing: Small Windfall Sites and Conversions Policy H4 Housing and Community Provision Policy H7 Housing outside Development Boundaries

4.16 The primary aim of the adopted plan is to set out the Borough Council’s

planning position in relation to development but it is shortly to be replaced by the East Staffordshire Core Strategy. The Local Plan is still important in that it represents part of the approved Development Plan; it also stresses that proposals must reflect the needs and aspirations of local people and businesses. The vision of the plan is expressed as:

15 of 38


“ a commitment to protecting and enhancing the environment and heritage of East Staffordshire whilst allowing development to take place in order to maintain and strengthen the local economy and to promote the social well-being of the community”.

4.17 The land use strategy directs development towards the two main towns of

Burton-upon Trent and Uttoxeter and maximises the use of previously developed land. Limited development is directed towards the largest villages within rural areas, Barton under Needwood, Rolleston on Dove, Tutbury and Rocester.

4.18 The key provisions of the East Staffordshire Local Plan, relevant to the

development of the site summarised below; 4.19 Policy CSP4 sets out the Borough Council‟s Strategy for locating new

development up to 2011 with the focus on the towns of Burton and Uttoxeter. 4.20 Policy CSP5 builds upon the principles of Policy CSP4 making reference to

the 3 Area Strategies within East Staffordshire and the objective set for the National Forest in the 2004 Strategy.

4.21 Policy BE1 covers Design and requires applications to respond positively to

the context of the surrounding area and to have no adverse effects on any of the following:

• The layout of the development and circulation routes • The relationship of open spaces within any scheme to the buildings • The density and mix in relation to context • The height of the proposed development and vistas views of skylines • The materials to be used in the development • The detailing and construction techniques to be used • Any adverse impacts on the immediate surroundings in terms

emissions • The extent to which the development takes into account the safety of

users and reduces the potential for crime. 4.22 Policy H2 allows Greenfield development on “Large Windfall Sites” if

insufficient brown field land is available to meet housing requirements. In effect it is a sequential test that is now confirmed in the Council‟s Brownfield/Greenfield Land Release Policy Statement (BGPS) adopted in June 2011.

4.23 Policy H6 is a policy that is introduced to reflect the need to increase density

as required by PPG3 whilst striking the balance that inevitably arises where “town-cramming” becomes an issue through adverse effects on neighbours. The Policy therefore covers new development and extensions confirmed that then published national density requirement of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare with general guidance concerning space about dwelling requirements, the needs of the disabled and Lifetime Home standards.

16 of 38


4.24 Policy H6 does however recognise the there may be instances where

development below the minimum density figures should not be adhered to where this would conflict with surrounding character.

4.25 Policy NE1 is designed to prevent coalescence or unwarranted sporadic

development in the countryside beyond the development boundary for Burton. 4.26 Policy T1 sets out general transport principles for all new development

requiring development that makes a significant impact to make appropriate and related contributions through formal agreements. Public transport is also concerned by this Policy as are the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. Finally “Green Transport Plans are encouraged as a means of encouraging alternative forms of transport.

4.27 Policy T6 covers the design and layout of parking whist acknowledging the

Council’s desire to encourage more sustainable modes. It is acknowledging the need to sensitively design such facilities for both private cars and Lorries and to ensure adequate landscaping.

4.28 Policy T7 builds upon Policy T6 by referencing the approach to Planning

Guidance Note 13 and the extant Council, SPD y stating that the Council will not support developers who propose more parking than is necessary reinforcing the fact that this use can be a wasteful and costly use of land.

4.29 Policy L2 sets out the Borough Council’s requirement for landscaping and

green space in all residential schemes of 10 or more dwellings in areas that are deficient in terms of basic access to green space or in terms of quality. Reference is made to the Council’s Green space SPG and to the need for formal legal agreements on or before the issue of planning permission to ensure provision and future maintenance.

4.30 Policy IMR2 confirms the Council’s approach to planning obligations and

related legal agreements to overcome any adverse social, economic or environmental impact arising from development. Financial contributions to be clearly related in scale and kind to the development and returned if not spent within a reasonable period.

Emerging Development Plans

Emerging East Staffordshire Borough Local Development Framework 4.31 East Staffordshire Borough Council published a local development scheme

(LDS) which sets out details of documents that will make up the Borough’s Local Development Framework. This LDS which was approved by the Government Office for the West Midlands GOWM) originally in August 2005 has been reviewed and updated a number of times. The current LDS came into effect on 2nd June 2010.

4.32 Phase Two of the Revision to the West Midlands RSS 2026 set out three

spatial options relating to allocating sustainable housing and employment growth. Burton upon Trent has been identified as the area where most potential growth could be accommodated.

17 of 38


4.33 In addition under the previous Government East Staffordshire was designated as a “growth point” area essentially this was an opportunity for the Borough Council to create sustainable communities with additional funding secured from the growth point initiative to ensure the necessary infrastructure is in place to support high quality and levels of housing and employment.

4.34 Progress with the LDF Core Strategy has been delayed. The Strategic

Options of the Core Strategy went out for public consultation in September 2010; however the Council has agreed to defer consultation on the next stage in the preparation of its Core Strategy for two main reasons;

• To await clearer guidance on the process for the LDF from

Government. In particular, the anticipated decentralisation and localism bill and detailing of the big society agenda.

• To await the next publication of household projection figures. 4.35 The Core Strategy Strategic Options Consultation that took place in August

2011 Whilst this document has been superseded by the more recently published Pre Submission Plan 2013, which is commented on below, it is noted that the Council promoted three option In terms of housing development;

• Option 1 :concentrating growth on two sites in Burton and some

growth in Uttoxeter and the strategic villages • Option 2; concentrating most growth in the Outwoods and Stretton

areas of Burton and some development in Uttoxeter and the strategic villages.

• Option 3: more dispersed growth surrounding Burton and some development in Uttoxeter and the strategic villages.

4.36 The options were supported by plans graphically illustrating the implications of

the development options. It is noted that the application site is listed in Table 12 Option Two as Harehedge Lane.

4.37 The Council also identified their housing targets at this time in line with the

RSS expectation of some 13,000 dwellings (2006 – 2013).

East Staffordshire Local Plan Pre Submission – September 2013

4.38 In September 2013, East Staffordshire Borough Council published their Pre Submission Local Plan, which sets out the Council‟s vision for the Borough over the plan period 2013-2031.

4.39 The Pre Submission vision built upon previous consultation exercises

including “Issues and Options” in 2007 and the “Strategic Options” in 2011 and the Preferred Option 2012.. It established a preferred option for delivering growth within the Borough including the strategic allocation of land for new housing and employment. There is recognition within the plan that some of this growth will need to come forward on Greenfield sites (paragraph 2.35). The plan recognizes priorities and issues identified by residents and at

18 of 38


paragraph 2.5 acknowledges that it is a change in direction from the previous strategy of “compact urban growth”.

4.40 The Interim Sustainability in 2012 promoted five principal options for

consideration which included:

• Option 1: urban extensions

• Option 2: urban extensions plus villages

• Option 3: equal distribution

• Option 4: single urban focus

• Option 5: new settlement 4.41 The Pre Submission plan concludes that the appropriate spatial strategy was

one based around Option 2 – urban extensions plus villages and then further sought to consider the implications of this through a series of strategic sub- options, subdivided into four groupings option 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d). The implications of these were previously illustrated through a set of high level “cartoons” which indicated the broad effect of the Option in terms of strategic directions of growth. Even within this high level assessment, however, it is apparent from the illustrative nature of the supporting material that option 2(d) was ultimately identified as the Council‟s preferred option. This includes the application site with the inactive figure of 500 dwellings.

4.42 In that context the application site is surrounded on three sides by existing

development which informs the layout. Green infrastructure proposed on the northern site boundary links to corridors or open space running along the eastern and western boundaries and in the south west corner of the site. These elements form part of a comprehensive approach to green infrastructure and to rule out any possibility of the site being expanded to the north in the future. Pedestrian and cycle links to the east and west and from within the development can be achieved at a number of points.

See Appendix 3 Inset Map 1 Pre Submission Proposals Map – Burton and District

4.43 With regard to housing growth, the Pre Submission Strategic Policy 3 moves

away from the RSS target figures of 13,000 dwellings (2006-2026 i.e. 650 dwellings per annum and alternatively promotes a target of 11,648 dwellings (2012-2031) (613 dwellings per annum).

4.44 The emerging Local Plan includes an overarching principle confirming how

the Authority will apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It confirms that the Council takes a positive approach when considering development proposals reflecting the presumption on favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF. It notes that the Council will always seek to work proactively with applicants to find solutions which result in the approval of development proposals wherever possible and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental

19 of 38


conditions in the area. It confirms that applications in accordance with the policies of the Local Plan will be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise and that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision, the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise having regard to;

• Any adverse impacts of granting planning permission which would

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, or

• Specific policies in the Framework indicate the development should

be restricted. 4.45 In developing the proposals, now the subject of this application, reference

was made to the following policies contained within the emerging Pre Submission Local Plan.

• Strategic Principle 1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable

Development

• Strategic Policy 1 –East Staffordshire Approach to Sustainable Development

• Strategic Policy 2 –A Strong Network of Settlements

• Strategic Policy 3 – Provision of Homes and Jobs 2012 – 2031

• Strategic Policy 4 – Distribution of Housing Growth 2012 – 2031

• Strategic Policy 7 – Sustainable Urban Extensions

• Strategic Policy 9 – Infrastructure Delivery and Implementation

• Strategic Policy 16 – Meeting Housing Needs

• Strategic Policy 17 Affordable Housing

• Strategic Policy 22 – Supporting Local Communities

• Strategic Policy 23 – Green Infrastructure

• Strategic Policy 24 – High Quality Design

• Strategic Policy 27 – Climate Change, Water Management and

Flooding

• Strategic Policy 29 – Biodiversity and Geo-diversity

• Strategic Policy 32 – Outdoor Sports and Open Space

• Strategic Policy 34 – Health and Wellbeing

20 of 38


• Strategic Policy 35 – Accessibility and Sustainable Transport 4.46 The following detailed Local Plan policies have been considered:

• Detailed Policy 1 – Design of New Development

• Detailed Policy 2 – Designing in Sustainable Construction

• Detailed Policy 7 – Pollution

• Detailed Policy 8 – Tree Protection

4.47 In terms of progressing with the preparation of their Local Plan, it is currently

anticipated by the Council that the Plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State in April/May 2014 and adopted in December 2014.

The Emerging Local Development Framework: Evidence Base

4.48 The application site has been assessed as a potential location for housing (760 units) in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which forms part of the evidence base for the emerging LDF Core Strategy.

Other Material Planning Guidance

Design Guide SPD (2008)

4.49 The Design Guide SPD was formally adopted by the Council in September 2008 and seeks to promote and deliver high quality design in new developments.

4.50 Although the planning application seeks outline planning approval, the

proposed development has had regard to the guidance contained within this SPD along with the saved policies of the Local Plan. An indicative layout has been prepared by the scheme’s architects who demonstrate that up to 500 dwellings could be delivered at the site.

4.51 As part of the deign process the project teams architects have undertaken a

full context appraisal which is included within the supporting Design and Access Statement.

Open Space SPD (2010)

4.52 The Council’s Open Space SPD was adopted in September 2010 and seeks to expand upon the “saved‟ open space policies within the Local Plan. The SPD confirms that new residential development will be required to contribute towards the provision of open space and include the provision of new planting in accordance with the National Forest planting guidelines.

21 of 38


4.53 Where a proposed development is of sufficient size, the expectation is that open space will be provided on-site. This is particularly important with amenity open space.

4.54 The quantity of new open space to be provided as part of development

proposals will be depended upon the scheme’s location and the need for open space within that area. The development falls within the Burton Area and the emerging local open space requirement is set at 1.73 ha per 1,000 populations.

4.55 Development proposals deliver 6.60ha of open space ( increase f rom

5.66ha of open space previously) including the following on and off site:

• Equipped children’s play, • Parks and gardens, • Semi/natural green space, • Amenity green space.

Housing Choice SPD (2010)

4.56 The Council’s Housing Choice SPD was adopted in December 2010 and sets out the requirements for new housing development and their need to meet the housing requirements of the Borough.

4.57 The aims of this SPD are to:

• Deliver pathways of choice to meet the needs and aspirations of all

residents.

• Ensure the development of mixed communities which means that areas contain a mix of housing types, sizes and tenured to accommodate households of different ages, compositions and incomes.

• Clarify application of the Council’s current planning on housing

choices.

• Provide clear, consistent and comprehensive advice for developers at pre-application and submission stage to enable them to take account of the need for affordable housing within the Borough and to negotiate the appropriate provision.

• Encourage delivery of aspirational housing.

• Provide suitable, high quality affordable housing in the right location.

• Assist in the implementation of the Council’s Housing Strategy and the

East Staffordshire Sustainable Community Strategy.

• Meet national and local planning policy requirements.

22 of 38


4.58 The Housing Choice SPD also sets out the requirements for the provision of affordable housing in accordance with Policy H12 of the East Staffordshire Local Plan which requires development proposals of more than 25 dwellings to provide an element of affordable housing up to a maximum provision of 30%.

4.59 Having reviewed the SPD, the site is considered to fall within the „urban

extension site‟ category which applies to “larger Greenfield sites adjacent to the development boundaries of Burton and Uttoxeter”. Sites falling within this category will be required to make an affordable housing contribution of 15%.

4.60 The SPD also sets out the required mix of affordable housing where in Burton

the affordable housing needed is stated to be the following mix of social rented housing:

• 2 bedroom accessible home 10% • 2 bedroom house 60% • 3 bedroom house 10% • 4 bedroom house 15% • 5+ bedroom house 5%

100% 4.61 The SPD confirms that the Council intends to address part of the housing

need in the Borough by such measures as:

• Improving existing housing • Bringing empty housing back into use • Purchasing existing homes; and • The building of new affordable housing. • Specialist care housing

4.62 To help implement the above, the SPD confirms that the Council will seek to

secure funding from developers and as such is prepared to accept a commuted sum in lieu of more than 15% on-site affordable housing.

Parking Standards SPD

4.63 In 2004 the Council adopted its Parking Standards Supplementary Guidance (SPD) which outlines the proposed parking standards for residential development.

4.64 The SPD confirms that developments should not over provide parking on site

in order to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport. The SPD also confirms that a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan will be required to support the application.

23 of 38


Greenfield Land Release for New Communities

4.65 East Staffordshire is a designated Growth Point. The RSS panel recommended 13,000 new homes between 2006 and 2026.ESBC recognized that there may be a requirement a requirement for the release of Greenfield sites prior to the adoption of the Local Plan. This paper sets out the criteria the Council proposed to use to guide the early release of such sites. It is envisaged a capacity limit of about 50 dwellings for sites that will be released in this manner, it also placed requirements for such releases that they were necessary in terms of five year land supply, make suitable provision of affordable housing, must not otherwise prejudice the delivery of the Local Plan and must also meet other development control criteria such as adequacy of access, suitable mix of housing, provision of social infrastructure, be sensitive to the landscape and nature conservation and be of a suitable layout and design

.

24 of 38


5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Main Issues

5.1 The balancing exercise to be carried out in accordance with the NPPF paragraph 8 is as follows:

Housing development within the countryside:

A. What National Policies and Development Plan Policies are relevant?

B. Does the development conform or conflict with relevant Policies, or cause any other harm?

i) Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area ii) Impact on the residential amenity of the Surrounding

Properties

C. If harm is identified what weight should be given to the material considerations in favour of the application?

i) Five year supply of deliverable housing and the presumption in

favour of sustainable development.

D. Conclusion on the balance.

E. Any other Matters

i) Prematurity 5.2 This Planning Statement addresses these issues:

A. What National Policies and Development Plan Policies are relevant?

5.3 The published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is very relevant.

The most relevant sections are sections 6 (paragraph 47 and 55) which deals with the delivery of new homes (this section replacing PPS3); and section 11 which deals with the conserving and enhancing of the natural environment (elements of this section replacing PPS7).

5.4 With regards to the adopted Local Plan in terms of the principle of

development Saved Policy NE1 outlines the restrictions for new housing developments outside of residential development boundaries, in open countryside which is where the application site is located even though it is directly adjacent to the settlement boundary for Burton.

5.5 With regards to the considerations of the effect on the character and appearance of the area the most relevant policy is NPPF paragraphs 6, 7 8, 9, 11, 12 14, and 17 and East Staffordshire Design Guide sections 1 and 2.

5.6 With regards to considering the residential amenity of the surrounding

residential properties and that of the occupiers of the development itself the relevant Saved Local Plan Policy is Policy BE1 and The East Staffordshire Design Guide, particularly paragraphs 1.3.64, 1.3.66. 1.3.69 and section 2.

25 of 38


B. Does the development conform or conflict with relevant Policies, or

cause any other harm? 5.7 It is firstly important to emphasize that the application site is not located within

the National Forest. 5.8 With the publication of the NPPF, the countryside is no longer protected for its

own sake as it was by PPS7. At paragraph 17 of the NPPF the twelve core planning policies are set out, including that planning should recognize the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Now rather than the blanket protection afforded by PPS7 the revised wording in the NPPF requires the decision make to make a subjective judgment in relation to the quality of the countryside, and this change means that the hurdle to be overcome is reduced from that in PPS7 were it still in place.

5.9 In normal circumstances significant weight would be afforded to the departure

from policy that this development represents. The proposed development does not accord with policies NE1 of the Local Plan and H11 of the County Structure Plan. As this is development located outside of the settlement boundary for Burton, it is therefore located in the open countryside. The proposal does not form a type of development listed in these policies. However, this approach is at odds with the NPPF, which allows for development in the countryside, in the presumption in favour of sustainable development, particularly where the Development Plan is not up-to-date, and/or inadequate to meet an identified need.

5.10 It is First City Limited’s position that significant weight cannot be afforded to

this departure if Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is engaged. 5.11 The test in Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is reached via Paragraph 49.

Paragraph 49 states that if a Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing, which Stafford Borough cannot, then the relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to- date. This engages Paragraph 14 on the basis that relevant development plan policies are now out-of-date. This includes policy NE1 and H11 and therefore limited weight can be given to the departure of a policy that by virtue of the NPPF is out-of-date.

5.12 Having considered the principle of development it is necessary to consider

any other potential harm;

i) Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area. ii) Impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding properties.

(i) Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 5.13 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF confirms the Government’s commitment to good

design. Saved Policy BE1 is the main design policy in the adopted East Staffordshire Borough Local Plan. This policy bears direct relevance to the development of the site and advises that proposals must demonstrate that they are providing high quality design which corresponds to or enhances the surroundings.

26 of 38


5.14 It is important to emphasize that this is an Outline application. The Schematic

Development Framework Plan and Scale and Massing parameters information submitted is illustrative. However from this and the Design and Access Statement it is possible to confirm principles for the development. Whilst the application site is not within any area of defined character, the proposed development as illustrated exhibits a sense of local distinctiveness and the layout provides opportunities to achieve distinctive relationships between buildings and memorable street scenes.

5.15 Visually the site is well contained, by perimeter vegetation which retains a

good screening affect. This is to be retained and as part of the proposed open space provision for the development, and will be enhanced. Consequently the views of the site from public vantage points are for the most part short distance ones from its boundaries, with more distinct private views from the residential dwellings situated on the Tutbury Road Rolleston Road and Harehedge Lane frontages, although the majority of the latter are over relatively long distances and through existing garden vegetation.

5.16 The East Staffordshire Design Guide states that new residential development

must be well designed and well related to its context with the design being informed by the architectural styles of the surrounding area. Paragraph 1.7.1 advises “Understanding the context of the development site is critical to the creation of good design”. This paragraph continues to highlight that the key design issues will be scale and how it relates to the surrounding terrain, buildings a nearby streets. The Design Guide also states that the detailing and finishing of residential development is paramount to the effectiveness of the proposal and should again be informed by the styles of the surrounding area.

5.17 The East Staffordshire Design Guide elaborates upon the requirements of the

previous Local Plan Policies BE1 and H6. The Schematic Development Framework Plan and Phasing Plans submitted with the application show how the site can accommodate the mix of uses proposed. In particular we highlight the following:

a) The residential layout has been designed with focus on the streets

and spaces between dwellings rather than individual buildings themselves;

b) The location of buildings in relation to streets should create interesting streetscapes including consciously arranged views and vistas within and out of the development;

c) Long sweeping roads have been avoided with a preference for traffic calming inherent in the design of the development;

d) Although not directly applicable at this stage there would be no difficulty in the use of a variety of house types as it is likely that a number of developers will ultimately be involved;

e) The indicative layout shown provides ample evidence that large numbers of detached properties can be avoided;

f) Parking will be positioned at the side of dwellings in spaces or garages and frontage parking will be avoided.

27 of 38


5.18 An illustrative Schematic Development Framework Plan is provided with

the application which shows the provision of up 500 dwellings plus the other building uses, strategic landscaping, and open space. A significant landscaped buffer is shown on the northern site boundary and the major open spaces in the centre of the development and at the south eastern corner, overall amounting to 6.60ha. The scheme depicted is mainly two storey height with 2 storey maisonettes in 2 separate blocks, overlooking the open space. Key frontages are defined and Green Links through the development. The development is shown in 3 main development phases, a 4th zone to accommodate the specialist car uses and finally the local centre and public house with a frontage to Tutbury Road leading off the site access. Although the concept layout has not particularly been designed to accommodate public transport, the internal road pattern depicted has been designed to keep traffic speeds low. The application includes off site highway alterations that will deliver wider benefits together with of off-street parking spaces to cater for school drop off and collections to De Ferers Academy and Outwoods Primary schools.

5.19 In terms of the context of this development the applicant’s Design and Access

Statement considers the physical growth of Burton upon Trent in this location. It is argued that this site is the most logical extension area in which to expand the most recent development on the northern periphery of Burton upon Trent. In terms of surrounding development this locality contains predominantly two storey houses that are either semi- detached or detached at relatively low density. The other main themes of buildings include red brick construction and plan tiles, chimney stacks and generally rectangular plots with parking within the curtilage of dwellings or in garages.

5.20 The applicant considers that the residential development completely

surrounding the site does not have a distinctive character. Therefore the illustrative Schematic Framework plan submitted with the application shows a generally low density development with twin access points. Access roads to residential areas permeate from the access points leading to a circulatory road pattern round the site. Although this proposal is therefore unique it has truly been designed with the recreational facilities that are included within scheme.

5.21 Due to the size of the site a number of design objectives have been

formulated to ensure a cohesive development which is outlined in the Design & Access Statement these design objectives were formulated by the applicant in response to an assessment of the site, the surrounding area, design policies and emerging policies. This series of objectives is summarised below;

• Creative development which feels like a place with a distinctive character within the development in terms of appearance, scale and layout;

• Creates a community with as its focus the new primary school with linked community green infrastructure and a comprehensive mix of uses;

• Deliver ecological enhancements through recreational space protection of existing habitats and substantial opportunities for biodiversity;

• Develop a street pattern which is pedestrian cycle and vehicle friendly and sensitively integrates car parking;

28 of 38


• Ensure natural surveyance and permeability of the site to the wider community with the community facilities as the centre piece of the new proposal;

• Deliver level three of the code of Sustainable Homes by limiting CO2 emissions and improving the energy efficiency of the buildings.

5.22 From this series of objectives the site has been effectively zoned. The ethos

for the overall design has been led by the location of the new primary school and the linked green infrastructure not least on the northern boundary of the site where there is a substantial green buffer between the development and the open countryside. The entrances from Tutbury Road and Rolleston Road will have tree planting. A new collector road runs from each access.

5.23 At the western side of the development situated off the collector road is a site

for a local centre of up to 500sqm with ancillary parking (up to 2 retail units), flanked by a site identified for specialist care housing (18 units with ancillary accommodation). At the south eastern corner of the site a new park is located which could contain an equipped play area; new allotments could be provided on the outer northern margins of the site. Tutbury Road and Rolleston Road have a landscaped edge which retains existing hedges and supplements these with significant new tree planting.

5.24 It is considered that the high quality nature of the scheme has been assured

through the careful positioning of the dwellings, school building and large areas of open space which work to the site’s strengths. The designation of the open space in the south eastern corner of the site ensures that the impact of site from local views will be softened and the provision of a large amount of green space and soft landscaping will provide attractive edges to the development and the substantial (50-85 metres wide) green buffer on the northern boundary the design of the new primary school on the western edge of the site is very contemporary incorporating green infrastructure.

5.25 The scale parameters for the development have been set to ensure the scale

and layout is in keeping with surrounding area and that the appearance and landscaping is of a high quality. The parameters set within the application do not seek to define the external appearance of individual buildings which is reserved for future consideration. Based on the illustrative information submitted with the application and subject to compliance with a range of appropriate planning conditions, it is considered that the proposal will result in a predominantly two storey development, increasing to three storeys in the zone behind the school which responds positively to the context of the area surrounding the site and in itself exhibits a high quality of design in accordance with local plan saved policy BE1 and East Staffordshire Design Guide and the NPPF.

(ii) Impact on the Residential Amenity of the Surrounding Properties

5.26 The proposed development has been carefully designed in order to respect

the residential amenity, privacy and outlook currently enjoyed by the neighbouring residential properties that surround the application site. First City Limited led the recent public consultation event held at the Outwoods Primary School A number of the residents together with the Parish Council attended this event and expressed very strong views about the residential master plan that was presented for public comment. As a result of this reaction the

29 of 38


applicant has made amendments to the layout in order to increase boundary planting and to ensure that the application scheme would not present any adverse overlooking or over shadowing of the neighbours due to the orientation and distances to all of the neighbouring properties.

5.27 The site is a logical housing site that will round off the development on the

edge of Burton. The key relationships to consider in terms of impact on the existing adjoining residential properties are the two isolated firstly on the Harehedge Lane frontage and secondly on Tutbury Road,; “Holmcroft‟ situated on the western boundary of the site will have new dwellings to the rear and side and separation distances and landscaping will be required to ensure privacy and avoid loss of amenity; the dwelling fronting Harehedge Lane will have park land to the rear and sides and the boundaries of this property are well screened from the site by existing established vegetation. It will be important to ensure that privacy is maintained through reserved matters.

5.28 The architects for the scheme (Geoff Perry Associates) have undertaken an

assessment of the key relationship between the proposed development and the surrounding properties to the site. We can confirm that separation distances are more than met throughout the development, whether the proposed development faces onto surrounding two storey properties or proposed two storey properties. The three storey apartments are shown on the Schematic plan concentrated in the centre of the site behind the primary school car park and overlooking a substantial area of public open space that is a one of the key features of the master plan.

5.29 Overall the residential development of the site is designed in such a way as

all of these existing relationships with the surrounding properties are respected and acceptable levels of residential amenity maintained in excess of policy compliant levels.

Conclusion on Harm

5.30 The proposed development has been carefully designed to ensure that the quality of the character of the area is safeguarded. It is entirely consistent with national and local planning policy in these respects. With regards to the impact of the proposed development on the residential amenity of the surrounding properties, the development has been designed so these existing properties are respected and acceptable levels are maintained in excess of policy compliant levels.

5.31 In light of the above there is no additional weight to be attributed by reason of the other harms of impact on character and appearance and impact on residential amenity. In addition, if it is agreed that the provisions of Paragraph 49 in the NPPF catch the relevant Local Plan Policies as they are all relevant policies for the supply of housing, and East Staffordshire Borough does not have a five- year supply of housing sites, making these relevant policies out- of-date and therefore limited weight can only be afforded to their departure from policy. However, if these policies are not considered to be caught by Paragraph 49 of the NPPF then again only some limited weight should be afforded to the departure from policy that this development represents in relation to it being located outside of the settlement boundary, within the open countryside.

30 of 38


C. Material considerations In favour of the application

Five year Supply of Deliverable Housing and the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development.

5.32 East Staffordshire Council has accepted (publication of Note of five year housing land statement July 2013) that it only has a 5.35 year supply of deliverable housing. This is inconsistent with the conclusion drawn from First City Limited‟s own calculations of the Local Planning Authorities five year supply position.

5.33 Using the Council’s data provided within their July 2013 Position Statement

and discounting the supply of sites with planning permission and sites suggested by the Council as being deliverable, based on our own specific site assessment, the Council cannot demonstrate a five years supply. We calculate as a 20% Authority, and based on deliverable planning permissions and other deliverable sites, the Council has a 1.75 year supply of housing land, or based on deliverable planning permissions and new permissions granted, it has a 1.51 year supply.

5.34 The Council accepted at the Inquiry in August 2013

(APP/B3410/A/13/2197299) that its July 2013 calculations of its housing land supply that counts sites consented on 8th July, 2013 is not correct in accordance with the Framework and that its June 2013 calculations have carried out this exercise correctly. On this basis the Council stated that it cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply in accordance with the Framework.

5.35 The calculations are based on the housing requirements of the WMRSS

preferred Options, WMRSS Panel Report and 2006 Household Projections. In the absence of any Development Plan Document guidance, therefore the only tested housing requirement figure which has been subject to examination and reporting, and one which up until 2011 was accepted by the Planning Authority as the appropriate housing figure, is that supported by the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase II and which was contained in the Panel Report. This remains the most up-to-date, examined housing figure for the Borough.

5.36 The headline points of our calculation of East Staffordshire‟s five year housing land supply is as follows:

• The Sedgefield Approach needs to be applied to deal with current

backlog in the next five years, as advocated by recent appeal decisions. (APP/H1840/A/12/2171339 – Honeybourne, August 2011 and APP/G2435/A/13/219131 - Ashby-de-la-Zouch, May 2013) and Outwoods Road November 2013 (APPB3410/A/13/2197299).

• A significant non-implementation allowance needs to be applied to

the Council’s outstanding planning permissions. Such an approach has also been endorsed by recent appeal decisions and is in accordance with the “Housing Land Availability” DOE Planning and Research Programme Paper – Roger Tym & Partners 1995.

31 of 38


• East Staffordshire is a 20% Authority, In relation to the comments provided in the Housing Land Statement 2013. The record confirms that out of the last five years (2006/7-2010/11) in only one of those years has the annual housing target of 613 dwellings been exceeded. In every other year there has been a very significant shortfall i.e. persistent under delivery.

5.37 From the above headline points and without undertaking a detailed

calculation of the East Staffordshire five year housing land supply position, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is unequivocal that the Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable housing.

5.38 Due to the absence of five year supply of deliverable housing Paragraph 14 of

the NPPF needs to be applied to any planning application for housing that is before the Local Planning Authority. This being as follows:

Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that: “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites”.

5.39 The failure of a Local Planning Authority to provide an up-to-date five year

supply of deliverable housing then takes the decision taker to paragraph 14 of the NPPF which is applied where the Development Plan is absent, silent or polices are out-of-date i.e. the same a not-up-to-date.

5.40 Paragraph 14 in these instances goes on to state that planning permission

should be granted unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted – as outlined in Footnote 9 – none of these apply to the application site.

5.41 The test therefore is whether the advantages are “significantly and demonstrably” outweighed by the benefits. This can be tested by reference to the three dimensions (economic, social and environmental) of sustainable development (Paragraph 7 of the NPPF).

5.42 Economic Role - British GDP advanced 0.5 percent in the last three months

of 2014, below market expectations, and compared with a 0.7 percent expansion the previous period partly due to the euro zone problems. There needs to be an assumption that the UK economy will eventually be in a far better position. It is expected that within four to five years’ time the UK will be experiencing reasonable economic growth. Locally, house building will contribute to this economic growth, with the Home Builders Federation (HBF) Report “West Midlands Housing Crisis” (October 2011) emphasizing this.

5.43 House building is vital to t he local and national economy, bringing local

employment and local economic growth. The Government’s incentive for Local Authorities, the new homes bonus, will ensure economic investment for each house built. Below are some key facts using the HBF statistics on the impact of house building.

32 of 38


• Every home built means the creation of 1.5 full time direct jobs.

• The HBF estimates that at least twice the employment is created in

the supply chain – circa 1,500 extra jobs. 5.44 The Secretary of State reiterates the importance of house building to the

economy in his recent decision in the Camparo Limited and Wellbeck Strategic Land Appeals at Bishops Cleeve, Gloucestershire. (PINS Refs APP/G1630/A/11/2146206 and APP/G1630/A/11/214635). Paragraph 23 of this decision states that “the Secretary of State attaches significant weight to the need to support economic growth through the planning system. He notes that between them both schemes offer some opportunities for employment and he also considers that the provision of housing is itself a contributor to economic growth”.

5.45 Clearly the application scheme would deliver economic benefits.

5.46 Social Role – the planning application responds to the growing realization

that Burton needs significant new development in terms of housing mix, tenure and supporting services. The mix of accommodation in the application scheme contains houses for large and small families and which would be appropriate for younger people. The affordable houses would provide homes for local people to further the aim of maintaining a balanced community by retaining young families in the area.

5.47 It is considered that a modest increase in population would reinforce the local

shops, public house and community facilities. 5.48 The Secretary of State again in the Bishops Cleeve Appeal states at

Paragraph 23 of the decision that “he considers that the proposals will fulfill a social role by delivering a mix of high quality housing to meet to current and future needs, with a range of tenures”.

5.49 The application scheme certainly does this. 5.50 Environmental Role – the NPPFs approach to the countryside, which this

site is located within albeit in an adjacent location to the settlement boundary for Burton needs to be considered within this planning application. The NPPF, in one of its Core Planning Principles at Paragraph 17, states that planning should recognize the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Now rather than the blanket protection afforded by PPS7 that revised wording in the NPPF requires a decision-taker to make a subjective judgment in relation to the quality of the countryside and this change means that the hurdle to overcome is reduced from that in PPS7.

5.51 The application site is in a very sustainable location adjacent to Burton,

which is the largest settlement in the Borough that has a good level of local services and facilities and the availability of public transport to allow journey’s to work, retailing, leisure and recreation facilities. It must also that the site is only 12 minutes average drive time distant from the town centre and all of the services and facilities a settlement of this size provides for.

33 of 38


5.52 Landscaping proposals for the development will enhance biodiversity through

the incorporation of locally native species wherever possible. All retained habitat features will be buffered from the proposed development.

5.53 The application of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF to the application scheme,

clearly demonstrates that planning permission should be granted without delay, as this is genuinely a sustainable form of development.

D. Conclusion on the Balance

5.54 It is acknowledged that the proposed development is a departure from the

Development Plan in the form of Local Plan Policy NE1 as it does not support development that is located outside the settlement boundary for Burton and is therefore located in the open countryside. However this approach is clearly at odds with the NPPF (bringing into play paragraph 215 of the NPPF), which allows for development in the countryside, via the presumption in favour of sustainable development, particularly where the Development Plan is not up- to-date, and/or in adequate to meet an identified need.

5.55 However East Staffordshire does not have a five year supply of deliverable

housing. They are also in a position whereby the Development Plan is not adequate to meet either the backlog or forward projections of need for housing. With regards to the policy for housing development this by virtue of Paragraph 49 in the NPPF clearly falls into the category of “absent, silent or out-of-date” and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development (Paragraph 14 of the NPPF) makes it clear that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. This places a high hurdle against refusal and there can be no doubt that this hurdle is overcome by this Planning Application and therefore planning permission should be granted.

Other Matters

Prematurity

5.56 The issue of prematurity has been raised in respect of the few large scale housing developments nationally, and the Council may be concerned that it could be considered premature to approve this application ahead of the Core Strategy. Indeed it may seek solace in a few well publicised appeal decisions that have recently been issued by the Secretary of State which have to a greater or lesser extent, relied heavily upon the premise of „prematurity‟. Of course Case Law will continue to evolve and no doubt there will be potentially contradictory decisions that will be influenced by the strength or weakness of individual proposals.

5.57 In determining whether the application is premature the Council is obliged to

consider and apply the Secretary of State’s policy. This is set out at paragraph 18 of the Planning System: General Principles, the relevant part of which states:

” Where a DPD is at the consultation stage, with no early prospect of submission for examination, then refusal on prematurity grounds would

34 of 38


seldom be justified because the delay which this would impose in determining the future use of the land in question”. This is a long-standing mantra that has formed the basis of decision-making for many years.

5.58 This application should be determined on its own considerable merits and

whilst other appeal decisions may be of interest, it would be very dangerous for the Council to seek to apply reasoning appertaining to one or more specific appeal decisions, where the circumstances in those cases were significantly different to those in this case.

5.59 In this case against the scale of Greenfield release required at Burton the

application scheme for up to 500 homes, with the new primary school at its heart, is entirely within the growth strategy envisaged by the emerging Local Plan for the needs of Burton.

5.60 So in this instance, instead of potentially prejudicing the Local Plan, the

proposed development will be helping to implement it and this is just one of several important distinctions that can be made from the quoted appeals.

5.61 Other important distinctions include, inter alia:

• The scale of development (up to 500 homes) compared to the significant

scale of the Greenfield release required (between 4,000-6,000 homes) and the SOS appeal decisions taken in relation to larger (1,085 and 4,000 homes)

• The fact that the site is identified in the SHLAA as a deliverable site for 760 new homes and is a “prime example” of an appropriate NPPF site. These advantages could not be attributed to the quoted appeal cases.

• The application site has no environmental or technical deficiencies and the proposed development can be „grafted‟ onto the existing built-up area that surrounds it on three sides without incursion into open countryside.

35 of 38

• The site is not categorised as “best and most versatile‟ agricultural land, but instead it is underlain by clay and is only suitable for grazing.

• The location is sustainable and accords with all relevant existing and emerging planning policy and guidance including the NPPF.

• The development is committed to a start and completion within a shorter timescale than the emerging Local Plan Housing Trajectory envisages making a meaningful contribution to the Council‟s housing land supply, through the delivery of new homes and significant community benefits and facilities as well as new employment.

5.62 There should be no concerns therefore that granting consent for

this application will create any precedent that could encourage other less appropriate or more significant and therefore potentially prejudicial proposals. It is suggested that this situation is unique with Burton upon Trent because:

• The site is of an appropriate scale and is mixed use and is

therefore in accordance with the emerging Core Strategy. • The site has been assessed as part of the latest SHLAA and is

confirmed to be deliverable for a significantly larger number of homes that is included in the current application scheme.

• It is owned by Staffordshire County Council who is both committed to its immediate delivery including the provision of the community benefits.

5.63 In terms of the issues raised by the local residents and as

recorded in the application statement of community consultation, the majority are covered above or in the reports that accompany the application. However in response to the concerns raised over the capacity and location of existing schools, the Education Authority has stated that this proposal is one of a number of primary schools that are required in Burton upon Trent. It is the County Councils intention to construct schools both within the centre of Burton upon Trent and on the periphery in the coming years.

5.64 In terms of the demand or need for other facilities, the addition of

500 houses to this locality would not trigger the requirement for any new facilities other than as proposed under the terms of the application.

5.65 Another theme picked out by the Rolleston on Dove

Neigbourhood Development Group is that there is a part of the application site that falls with the Parish boundary and the Neighbourhood Plan makes no provision for housing in this location. First City‟s position that this scheme will meet the need of Burton town not Rolleston, neither is the site within the strategic gap. There are no more sustainable brownfield or indeed Greenfield sites within Burton to provide this number of dwellings together with the new primary school as part of a comprehensive urban extension. It is considered therefore that the application will not lead to coalescence of Burton and Rolleston on Dove.

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

6.1 The NPPF is clearly material. The relevant Development Plan Policies are the “Saved” Local Plan Policies. The RSS and Staffordshire Structure Plan have now been revoked.

6.2 In respect of housing development it has been noted that the

Development Plan is particularly out of date as it relates to housing policy within the RSS being based upon out dated household projections. The Structure Plan was only supposed to run until 2011 and the Local Plan was prepared under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and is even more out of date as it was intended to meet housing needs to 2001.

6.3 With the publication of the NPPF, the countryside is no longer

protected for its own sake, as it was by PPS7. With this change the hurdle to be overcome is reduced from that of PPS7 were it still in place.

6.4 In normal circumstances significant weight would be afforded to

departure from policy that this development represents. The proposed development does not accord with the housing supply policies in the now out of date Development Plan. However the breach is technical only as this approach is clearly at odds with the NPPF which allows for development in the countryside, in the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

6.5 Significant weight cannot be afforded to a departure if Paragraph

49 of the NPPF is engaged, because relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. Therefore little weight can be given to the departure of a policy that by virtue of the NPPF is out-of-date.

6.6 It is also necessary to consider any other potential harm:

• Impact on the character and appearance of the area.

• Impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding property.

6.7 Due to the limited views of the site and design of the proposed

development, it is concluded that no additional weight should be attributed by reason of these other harms of impact on the character and appearance and impact on residential amenity. However building on presently open farmland would cause visual harm and some limited weight should be afforded to the departure from local policy that this development represents in relation to it being located on the outside of the settlement boundary, within the open countryside. However, if our analysis is accepted these local policies are caught by Paragraph 49 of the NPPF in that the relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date, then little weight can be attributed to them as a departure from local policy.

6.8 There is one other material consideration in favour of this development:

Five year supply of deliverable housing and the presumption in favour of sustainable development – due to the absence of a five year supply of deliverable housing Paragraph 14 of the NPPF needs to be applied to this planning application for housing.

6.9 Conclusion on Balance – The Framework anticipates decision-

makers granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. It is in this context that those adverse impacts, or harm, are identified as main issues, which are in turn then considered against any identified benefits of the scheme, with the whole considered in a balancing exercise to reach a conclusion.

6.10 The required balancing exercise as set out in the preceeding

sections has shown that neither the harms identified, nor any other material considerations are sufficient cumulatively, even if the local resident comments were taken at their highest, to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in favour of permitting the proposed development. The benefits can be secured by conditions and a Section 106 Agreement and with those provisions and for the reasons give above it can only be concluded that planning permission should be granted.

APPENDICES

Staffordshire

Borough Council

Philip Somerfield B.A. Dip T.P., D.M.S. M.R.T.P.I Head of Regulatory Services

Date : 12 November 2013 Direct Line: 01283 508644

Direct Fax: 01283 508388 Reply To: Michael Brown E-mail: michael.brown@eaststaffsbc .gov.uk Our Ref: P/2013/01247 Your Ref: GBF/3370 (please quote this reference on all correspondence with us)

Graham B Fergus First City Limited 19 Waterloo Road Wolverhampton West Midlands WV1 4DY

Dear Sir

Re: Screening Opinion, Land at Glenville Farm,

Tutbury Road, Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire, DE13 OAW

I refer to your requ.est for a Screening Opinion relating to the above site, which was received on 22nd October 2013.

I confirm that the Local Planning Authority has considered the information submitted, and in accordance with Regulation (5) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has concluded that the development does not constitute EIA development and as such a formal Environmental Statement will not be required in this instance.

Jim Malkin Interim Principal Planner Planning Delivery

P.O. Box 8045, Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire, DE14 9JG www.eaststaffsbc .gov .uk

Helping Conservation - Printed on recycled paper

Page 1of 1

KEY

The Site

Primary Education Secondary Education Recreation Facilities

Health Facilities Sports Centre Shops (inc. Convenience Store)

Bus Stop

Day Nursery

Post Office

Public House

Facilities Plan F/C3

Documents

OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR MIXED USE … · 1.16 The exhibition boards and questionnaire were also uploaded onto First City’s web site. 1.17 The public consultation event