Docstoc

_APPROVAL_

Document Sample
_APPROVAL_ Powered By Docstoc
					     PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010
APPLIC REF NO 2009/532/NT                                     DATE RECEIVED              21/08/2009

CASE OFFICER            Michael Avery                         DATE OF EXPIRY             20/11/2009

APPLICANT               EURO CARE SL - MR J. ALEXANDER

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         WARREN FARM NEW MILL LANE FOREST TOWN NG19 0HQ

                         OUTLINE APPLICATION WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED
                         FOR 52 FAMILY HOUSES, 53 SENIOR LIVING BUNGALOWS,
                         100 SENIOR APARTMENTS, 40 SINGLE BED HIGHER
                         DEPENDENCY UNITS, SUPPORT FACILITIES AND SHARED
                         COMMUNAL FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PERMISSION


      DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND APPLICATION SITE

     This application is reported to Planning Committee as it is a major
     development, a Departure from the Development Plan and has received more
     than three letters of objection.

     The application proposes 245 residential units including 52 No. family houses,
     53 No. senior living bungalows, l00 No. senior living apartments and 40 No.
     single bed higher dependency units. Support facilities and shared communal
     facilities are also proposed as part of the development and include a residents
     lounge, health and fitness suite, library coffee lounge, shop, pharmacy and
     orangery. The density of the proposed development would be approximately
     34.5 dwellings per hectare and building heights would be between one and
     three storey’s. The application has been made in outline form with all matters,
     except access, reserved for future consideration.

     The site lies outside of the urban boundary and is located north of New Mill
     Lane adjacent to the junction of Clipstone Road East / West and Clipstone
     Drive. Residential development in Forest Town lies to the south and east of
     the site. Land to the north and west is also arable farmland and land to the
     northeast is a deciduous woodland.

     The land slopes from New Mill Lane down towards the northern boundary.
     There are a number of existing footpaths and bridleways in the open farmland
     around the site and also in the woodland to the east.

     The site would be accessed via a new road junction from New Mill Lane
     located approximately 150 metres from the Clipstone Road junction. A
     secondary access is also proposed to provide access for emergency vehicles
     only and this access would be closer to the existing junction.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010
A transport assessment, geotechnical assessment and an ecology
assessment have been provided with the application. The applicant has
provided the following summarised information in their Design & Access
Statement:

         High quality contemporary residential development is proposed
          incorporating traditional materials including facing brickwork, timber
          and slated or tiled roof
         The master plan produced takes advantage of solar orientation;
         The buildings will be designed to be efficient in terms of insulation,
          room depth and width ratios to reduce the dependence on artificial
          light;
         Buildings will be designed to reduce the consumption of water and
          waste;
         The buildings will be designed to be repaired or enhanced or
          adapted in the future;
         The development would create up to 70 new jobs;
         A transport assessment and a geotechnical assessment have been
          submitted with the application.

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

There is no relevant site history.

OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED

Throughout this report observations received in respect of each application
are presented in summary form. The full letters and consultation responses
received, including details of any non-material planning observations, are
available for inspection both prior to and at the meeting.

Anyone wishing to make further comments in relation to the application must
ensure these are received by the Council by 12 noon on the last working day
before the date of the Committee.

Nottinghamshire County Council (Rights of Way Officer)

There are currently no recorded Rights of Way that would be affected by the
development nor are there any claims to record Rights of Way.


Nottinghamshire County Council (Archaeology)

It is possible that the site contains important archaeological remains. An
archaeological field evaluation is therefore necessary. Objection is raised in
the absence of such an evaluation.


Nottinghamshire County Council (Landscape and Reclamation Team)
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010
Object to the application on the basis that the site is within the Sherwood
Special Landscape Area in close proximity to the SINC, the proposal is
contrary to national, regional and local policy, and the proposal would have an
adverse impact on the landscape character.

Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways)

Object to the proposal. The design of the access is considered to be
unacceptable for a development of the scale proposed. The Transport
Statement has not addressed the traffic generation and effects the proposed
development will have on the surrounding road network in sufficient detail.

Nottinghamshire County Council (Nature Conservation)

No objection

Environmental Heath Manager

No objection.

Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Objection. The proposal is unsuitable at this location due to the resulting
direct and indirect adverse impacts on protected landscapes. The proposal is
likely to increase visitors to the nature reserve and additional work would be
required to mitigate for this, which would put further pressure on the limited
resources of the trust. A financial contribution to aid the management of the
site is therefore considered to be appropriate.

Natural England

The Council should consider whether or not the proposal is in accordance
with local and national policies as the site is not a current allocation. No
objection to the methodology and coverage of the ecological assessment.

Nottinghamshire County Council (Policy)

Objection. The proposal is contrary to national guidance and should be
considered as part of the LDF process.

Central Networks

No objection

Members of the Public

Objections have been received from the occupiers of the following properties:
11 Willow Avenue (Forest Town Community Committee) , West & Partners
(60 Weston Street, London) 304, 306, Tudor Oaks, The Chestnuts, The
Nook, Standotland, Hill Croft, Sonata, Richmond House, Cedar Falls,
Raintree and Forest View New Mill Lane, 3, 11, 15, Willow Lodge, Cherry
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010

Trees and Tanglewood Woodview Gardens, Hill View, Juanisa, Wychwood,
Birchwood House and Santosa Clipstone Drive and 1 Clipstone Road East.
These objections are summarised below:

        The Transport Statement is misleading and incomplete;
        The proposal would increase traffic within the vicinity of the site and
         the surrounding highway network, especially during peak times;
        The proposal would create additional dangers for vehicular and
         pedestrian traffic at an already dangerous junction where Clipstone
         Road East / West, Clipstone Drive and New Mill Lane meet. The
         emergency access is too close to this junction;
        The proposed access would be dangerous;
        Danger to pedestrians, and in particular school children would be
         increased on Old Mill Lane and the surrounding area;
        There have been recent fatalities associated with traffic on New Mill
         Lane and the development will increase fatalities;
        The highway impact of other developments in the area and outside
         of the District should also be considered;
        The site is not identified for development in the extant development
         plan;
        There appears to be no indication of the contribution that the
         development will make to the wider infrastructure needs of the area
         and Mansfield which may justify the nature and scale of the
         development proposed;
        The proposal will lead to the loss of green land and grade A
         agricultural land and the loss of agricultural land to build dwellings is
         not sustainable;
        There is no need to build additional houses in Forest Town;
        There are currently not enough places for school children in the
         area without more houses being built;
        New Mill Lane should be made quieter, not busier;
        There are more appropriate sites within the district;
        The category of dependency of the occupants of the proposed units
         is not specified;
        The site is very isolated and not well served by the general
         amenities of Forest Town and the community;
        The elderly would become a target for existing nuisance crimes and
         garden /shed crimes in the District;
        Loss of light and privacy;
        Noise & disturbance caused by the development during and post
         construction;
        Loss of view will impact upon property re-sale values;
        There is an established presence of bats in the area and other
         wildlife;
        The Ecological Assessment is misleading;
        There are drainage issues in the area;
        The historic environment is irreplaceable and economic growth
         should respect the historic environment;
   
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010
         The proposal would be at variance with Local Plan Policy NE1,
          NE2 , NE4, NE5, NE7, NE8, NE11, BE1 and H3 and PPG7: Rural
          Enterprise and Development;
         Traffic will have an impact on the Sherwood Special Landscape
          Area;
         The proposal will result in over-population of the area;
         The existing sewer on New Mill Lane often becomes blocked, if the
          development is connected to this sewer the problem will be
          exacerbated;
         Warren Farm acts as a buffer between Clipstone Forest and the
          edge of the Mansfield conurbation;
         The proposal represents an inappropriate and unjustified form of
          development within the Green Belt and there are no plans to
          change the designation;
         Approval of the development would set a precedent for
          development of Greenfield sites in the immediate locality;
         Construction works could result in subsidence and flooding to
          neighbouring properties;
         Climate change;
         The land is currently unspoilt.

POLICY & GUIDANCE

National Planning Policies

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, sets out the Government’s
objectives for the planning system and makes it clear that sustainable
development is the core principle underpinning planning.

PPS3: Housing (amended June 2010) sets out guidance for the delivery of
housing based upon the principles of Plan, Monitor and Manage. Local
Planning Authorities are encouraged to demonstrate sufficient deliverable
sites for a period of five years.

Regional Planning Policy

The East Midlands Regional Plan (2009) is a material planning consideration
and makes provision for a total of 10,600 houses to be built within the District
of Mansfield between 2006 and 2026.

Saved Local Plan Policies (28/09/07)

NE1 – states that planning permission will be granted for developments
outside the urban boundary, only where they will fall into one or more of a set
of categories, none of which apply to large scale residential developments.

NE6 – states that planning permission will not be granted for developments
within the Sherwood Forest Heritage Area, which would detract from the
landscape quality or adversely affect the ecology of the area.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010
NE7 – states that planning permission will not be granted for developments
within the Sherwood Forest Special Landscape Area, except for proposals
that would conserve or enhance the landscape area or small scale proposals
to develop recreation and tourism.

H3 – states planning permission will only be granted for the development of
permanent housing outside of the urban boundary, except for agricultural or
forestry workers to live at their place of work, subject to various criteria being
met.

M16 – states that planning permission will be granted for development
providing that various criteria relating to highway safety, car parking and
access to public transport are met.

ISSUES

The key issues in relation to this application relate to the following matters:

   1. The principle of additional housing outside of the defined urban
      boundary;
   2. Impact on the landscape character;
   3. Impact on biodiversity;
   4. Highways;
   5. Other Matters.

1. The principle of additional housing outside of the defined urban boundary

The key policy considerations are PPS3: Housing, Saved Local Plan Policy
NE1 (28/09/07) and H3 and the East Midlands Regional Plan. Whilst there
has been considerable uncertainty in respect of the status of Regional Spatial
Strategies over recent months, the situation has now been clarified in the High
Court challenge by Carla Homes. The ruling in this case was that it was
unlawful for the government to revoke RSS’s with immediate effect.
Notwithstanding this issue, it should be noted that the Council did adopt the
housing figures contained in the RSS on an interim period following the
temporary demise of the RSS. The Council’s Sustainable Housing Land
Availability Assessment (SHLAA) work which will inform the development of
the Local Development Framework (LDF) is also a material planning
consideration.

Saved Policy NE1 (28/09/07) states that planning permission will only be
granted for developments outside of the urban boundary, as defined on the
proposals map, only where they would fall into one or more of a set of
categories, none of which apply to large scale residential developments. The
proposal is also contrary to Saved Policy H3 (28/09/07) which states that
planning permission will not be granted for permanent housing outside of the
urban boundary, except where it is essential for agricultural or forestry
workers to live at their place of work for the proper functioning of an
established farm or forestry business.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010
The site, which is currently used for arable farming, is unallocated in the
Mansfield District Local Plan and is classified as a ‘Greenfield’ site within
PPS3. PPS3 sets out guidance for the delivery of housing based upon the
principle of Plan, Monitor and Manage. Local planning Authorities are
encouraged to demonstrate sufficient deliverable sites for 5 years.

The East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS) makes provision for a total of 10,600
houses to be built within the District of Mansfield between 2006 and 2026.
Taking account of completions and exiting provision, there is a need for a
further 6,344 for the remaining period up to 2026. The Council’s 2010 Housing
Monitoring Report shows that in order to meet the Regional Spatial Strategy
requirement land needs to be made available to allow for 589 units per year
for the next five years giving a total of 2,947 dwellings. As at 1st April 2010,
the land supply stood at 4,306 dwellings, giving a total of 7.3 years.

On the basis of these figures, it is considered that the Council has a housing
land supply which exceeds 5 years and there is no need to release further
land for housing purposes at this time, unless there are exceptional
circumstances.

The SHLAA assessment undertaken for the site concludes the site would only
be suitable for residential development, subject to boundary and policy
revisions and accessibility issues being resolved, and that without other land
being included as part of a thorough urban boundary review in this location,
the development of this site would result in incongruous development.

Nottinghamshire County Council has raised a strategic policy objection to the
proposal on the basis that that there is no comparative study across the area
to determine that this is more suitable than other potential locations for
housing. The County Council’s view is that without undertaking the studies,
evidence and consultation that forms part of the LDF preparation, no strategic
planning justification is as yet in pace for development of the site.

No evidence has been provided with the application that would indicate that
the proposed housing development would be acceptable on this particular site
situated outside of the urban boundary. Whilst the application makes specific
reference to senior living and provides for a forty bed higher dependency unit,
there is no evidence within the application, from either Nottinghamshire
County Council as a social care provider, or the Primary Care Trust, that such
a facility is either needed or justifiable and whether it would be supported by
these statutory providers of services.

Reference is made in the design and access statement to a high quality
contemporary residential development constructed from a range of materials,
which takes into account solar orientation, the need to reduce the
dependence on artificial light, reduce the consumption of water, be adaptable
and incorporate energy saving measures. The Design and Access statement
submitted is very descriptive and does not explain specific design principles
which have informed the scheme so far, neither does it set out key principles
to be followed at the reserved matters stage. It is considered that the Design
and Access Statement could be enhanced with further design work and the
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010
setting of robust design principles. However it is not accepted that good
quality design would outweigh the significant policy issues, outlined above, in
relation to housing supply and the unsustainable location of the site.

The principle of additional residential development outside of the defined
urban boundary is considered to be contrary to national, regional and local
planning policy and there are no material planning considerations which
indicate that residential development should be allowed.

2. The impact on the character of the landscape

The site is a large gently undulating arable field on the edge of the urban
boundary. From the edge of the site there are open, long distance views
across the Maun Valley to the west and north. Housing on the eastern edge of
Mansfield Woodhouse is visible and there are views over arable land to
plantations and wooded skylines to the north east. Views to the east are
contained by woodland and views to the south are contained by housing.

The site is allocated in the Local Plan as a Special Landscape Area and
Saved Policy NE7 (28/09/07) states that planning permission will not be
granted for developments within the Sherwood Forest Special Landscape
Area, unless the proposals would conserve or enhance the landscape of the
area, or if the proposals would maintain / develop its function as a recreation
and tourism area.

The proposed development would clearly be contrary to this site specific Local
Plan Policy and objections have been received from Nottinghamshire Wildlife
Trust, Nottinghamshire County Council (Landscape Team) and members of
the public. Natural England has requested that the Council carefully consider
whether the site meets planning policy, and whether other more suitable
locations exist within the District that enable better conformity with policy.

As outlined above in issue one, no evidence has been provided which would
indicate that housing should be approved on the site at variance with this
Policy NE7. Whilst additional landscaping could be undertaken as part of the
proposal, it is considered that such landscaping would not mitigate the impact
which the development would have on the character and appearance of this
designated landscape.

3. Impact on biodiversity

Members of the public have objected to the proposal on the basis of the
impact which it will have on wildlife, including bats, badgers and skylarks.

Natural England supports the methodology and coverage of the ecological
assessment of the site, including the recommendation to undertake further
badger survey work to inform future reserved matters applications. Whilst
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust are of the opinion that such survey work should
be undertaken before a decision is made, given that Natural England has no
objection to the ecological assessment and recommendations, it is not
considered that the application could be refused on ecological grounds as this
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010
matter could be controlled by way of appropriate planning conditions, should
the Council be minded to grant planning permission.

4. Highways

The development would be accessed from New Mill Lane and it is proposed
to construct two new access points; a main access route and an emergency
access. A Transport Statement has been submitted with the application to
support these access arrangements.

Members of the public have raised concern in respect of the access
arrangements, additional traffic and the safety of motorists and pedestrians
should the proposed development be approved.

New Mill Lane is a classified road and the proposed access arrangements,
including the details contained in the Transport Statement have been
assessed by Nottinghamshire County Council as the Highways Authority.
Having given consideration to the proposal and the concerns raised by
members of the public an objection has been raised. The Highways Authority
is of the view that the design of the junction is unacceptable to serve the level
of development proposed. Furthermore, the Highways Authority considers
that the Transport Statement has not addressed the traffic generation and
effects the proposed development will have on the surrounding road network
in sufficient detail.

On the basis of this technical advice from the Highways Authority, it is
considered that the proposal would be contrary to Saved Policy M16 of the
Mansfield District Local Plan 1998.

5. Other matters

Objections have been raised by members of the pubic in relation to drainage
at the site. However, no objection has been raised by Severn Trent Water. On
this basis, it is considered that details of an engineering solution to any
drainage issues could be satisfactorily controlled by way of a planning
condition.

Objections have been received on the basis of lighting at the site, however
this is a detailed design issue and a reason for refusal on the basis of lighting
could not be substantiated.

Objections have been received on the grounds of noise and disturbance
during construction and once occupied due to increased vehicular movements
and the proximity of the development to existing properties. Having looked
into this concern, it is considered that this issue could not be substantiated
given the proximity of the site to existing classified roads. Furthermore, the
Council’s Environmental Heath Manager has raised no objection to the
proposal.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010
Concern has been raised that the proposal would lead to a loss of agricultural
land required for food production and this is unsustainable. Saved Local Plan
Policy NE2 only affords protection to the best and most versatile agricultural
land. There is no evidence to suggest that this land falls within this category
and such a reason for refusal could not be substantiated.

Finally, objections have been received on the basis of subsidence to existing
residential properties, however this is not a material planning consideration
and could not form a reason for refusal.


CONCLUSION

The proposal would be a Departure from the Development Plan and would
result in residential development located outside of the urban boundary in the
Sherwood Landscape Area. No special circumstances or evidence has been
provided to demonstrate that there is a need to develop this Greenfield site
contrary to the Development Plan. Furthermore, the proposed access
arrangements are considered to be unacceptable and have not been
sufficiently justified in the Transport Statement. It is therefore recommended
that planning permission is refused.


Reasons for refusal


(1) Reason: Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing requires Local Planning
Authorities to maintain a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and
where appropriate give priority to previously developed land for housing
developments. The proposal is considered to be contrary to PPS3 as the
Council has a deliverable 7.3 year housing supply and no evidence has been
provided to demonstrate an overriding need to develop this Greenfield site,
located outside the urban boundary within the Sherwood Forest Special
Landscape Area.

(2) Reason: No evidence has been provided in support of the need for senior
living accommodation and high dependency units at variance with Saved
Policies NE1, NE7 and H3 (28/09/07) of the Mansfield District Local Plan
1998. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided by the applicant that
alternative sites within the urban boundary have been considered.

(3) Reason: The proposal would be contrary to Saved Policy NE1 (28/09/07)
of the Mansfield District Local Plan (1998) which states:

NE1 PLANNING     PERMISSION  WILL    BE GRANTED    FOR
DEVELOPMENTS OUTSIDE THE URBAN BOUNDARY, AS DEFINED ON
THE PROPOSALS MAP, ONLY WHERE THEY WOULD FALL INTO ONE
OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES:-

1)  DEVELOPMENT WHICH CAN ONLY BE UNDERTAKEN IN A RURAL
LOCATION;
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010
2)   OUTDOOR RECREATION AND TOURISM RELATED USES WHOSE
NATURE AND SCALE ARE IN KEEPING WITH THE RURAL CHARACTER
OF THE AREA;

3)    CEMETERIES;

4)    ESSENTIAL ROADSIDE SERVICES;

5)  DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH FARM DIVERSIFICATION
SCHEMES WHERE IT CAN BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IT WOULD
BENEFIT THE RURAL ECONOMY;

6)   PROPOSALS FOR THE RE-USE OR CHANGE OF USE OF
BUILDINGS, PARTICULARLY FOR EMPLOYMENT, TOURISM OR
RECREATIONAL USES, PROVIDED THEY ARE OF PERMANENT
CONSTRUCTION, WOULD NOT REQUIRE MAJOR REBUILDING, AND
THEIR FORM, BULK AND GENERAL DESIGN ARE IN KEEPING WITH
THEIR SURROUNDINGS;

7)  SMALL-SCALE EXTENSIONS OF EXISTING                        EDUCATIONAL,
COMMERCIAL, OR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS;

8)    REDEVELOPMENT OF ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL                             AND
INSTITUTIONAL SITES (INCLUDING EDUCATIONAL PREMISES).

ALL PROPOSALS MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY WOULD NOT
PREJUDICE TOWN OR VILLAGE VITALITY AND WOULD NOT CAUSE
HARM TO THE RURAL ENVIRONMENT. DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD BE
DESIGNED    TO  RELATE    SYMPATHETICALLY   TO    THEIR
SURROUNDINGS.

The proposal is contrary to the above policy as it would not fall within any of
the above categories and would be detrimental to the Sherwood Forest
Special Landscape Area.

(4) Reason: The proposal would be contrary to Saved Policy NE7 (28/09/07)
of the Mansfield District Local Plan (1998) which states:

NE7 PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT BE GRANTED FOR
DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE SHERWOOD FOREST SPECIAL
LANDSCAPE AREA, AS DEFINED ON THE PROPOSALS MAP, EXCEPT
FOR PROPOSALS WHICH WOULD FALL INTO ONE OR MORE OF THE
FOLLOWING CATEGORIES:-

1)   IT WOULD CONSERVE OR ENHANCE THE LANDSCAPE AND
ECOLOGY OF THE AREA;

2)   IT WOULD MAINTAIN AND/OR DEVELOP ITS FUNCTION AS A
RECREATION AND TOURISM AREA, SUBJECT TO ANY DEVELOPMENT
BEING OF A SCALE AND DESIGN IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER
OF THE AREA.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010
The proposal is contrary to the above policy as it would not fall within either of
the above categories and would be detrimental to the special landscape area.

(5) Reason: The proposal would be contrary to Saved Policy H3 (28/09/07) of
the Mansfield District Local Plan (1998) which states:

H3    PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT BE GRANTED FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF PERMANENT HOUSING OUTSIDE THE URBAN
BOUNDARY, AS DEFINED ON THE PROPOSALS MAP, EXCEPT WHERE
IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR AGRICULTURAL OR FORESTRY WORKERS TO
LIVE AT THEIR PLACE OF WORK FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF
AN ESTABLISHED FARM OR FORESTRY BUSINESS.

IT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE BUSINESS IS ECONOMICALLY
VIABLE, THERE IS A CLEAR PROSPECT OF IT REMAINING SO AND THE
NEED COULD NOT BE FULFILLED BY ANY EXISTING ACCOMMODATION
EITHER ON THE UNIT OR IN THE AREA.

ANY SUCH DEVELOPMENT WOULD ALSO NEED TO MEET ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA:-

1)   NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER AND /
OR APPEARANCE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA;

2)   NOT LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN RESIDENTIAL AMENITY FOR
ADJACENT OCCUPIERS DUE TO SUCH FACTORS AS LOSS OF LIGHT /
SUNLIGHT, OVERLOOKING, NOISE, ETC.;

3)    RETAIN IMPORTANT SITE CHARACTERISTICS / FEATURES
WHICH WOULD INTEGATE THE BUILDING WITH ITS RURAL SETTING;

4)    INCLUDE APPROPRIATE CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES IN
ITS DESIGN.

The proposal would not provide residential accommodation for agricultural or
forestry workers to live at their place of work for the proper functioning of an
established farm or forestry business and would therefore be contrary to all of
the criteria.

(6) Reason: The proposal would be contrary to Saved Policy M16 (28/09/07)
of the Mansfield District Local Plan (1998) which states:

M16 PLANNING    PERMISSION  WILL  BE   GRANTED    FOR
DEVELOPMENTS PROVIDED THAT THEY WOULD MEET ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA:-

     1)   HAVE REGARD TO THE NEEDS AND SAFETY OF ALL
MODES OF TRAVEL, INCLUDING PUBLIC TRANSPORT, WALKING,
CYCLING AND HORSE RIDING;

    2)   NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL                          EFFECT       ON     THE
SURROUNDING HIGHWAY NETWORK;
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010
3)  INCORPORATE PROVISION FOR                  SAFE     VEHICLE     ACCESS,
EGRESS AND INTERNAL MOVEMENTS;

4)   PROVIDE THE OPERATIONAL MINIMUM LEVEL OF CAR PARKING
NECESSARY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR WHERE
RELEVANT MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS MEASURES TO ASSIST
OTHER MODES OF TRAVEL;

5)  WHERE NECESSARY, INCLUDE SAFE SERVICING, PREFERABLY
SEGREGATED FROM PEDESTRIAN FLOWS;

The proposal is contrary to criteria 1, 2 and 3 to the above policy given that
the design of the junction is unacceptable to serve the level of development
proposed and the Transport Statement has not satisfactorily addressed the
traffic generation and effects the proposed development will have on the
surrounding road network in sufficient detail.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 20/12/2010

				
DOCUMENT INFO