File 9 Planning Statement

8/13/2019 File 9 Planning Statement

1/38

Define |Cornwall Buildings

45-51 Newhall Street |Birmingham |B3 3QR

T:0121 213 4720 W:www.wearedefine.com

l l l

l

Land off Shelford Road,Radcliffe on Trent

Planning Statement &Section 106 Heads of Terms

Prepared on behalf of

William Davis Limited

November 2013085 PS 181113 V3


2/38

Planning Statement: Land off Shelford Road, Radcliffe on Trent

2

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. THE SITE & DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 5

3. PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 7

4. THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 15

5. SITE SUITABILITY 25

6. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 32

7. PLANNING OBLIGATION HEADS OF TERMS 35

8. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 37


3/38


3

1 INTRODUCTION

This Planning Statement has been prepared in support of an outline planning application1.1.1by William Davis for residential development, a primary school and (if required) a healthcentre, together with associated infrastructure on land off Shelford Road, Radcliffe on

Trent, Nottinghamshire.

The application is submitted in response to the Governments drive to significantly boost1.1.2

the supply of new homes, and the current acute shortage in the housing land supply inRushcliffe.

Extensive consultation was undertaken at the pre-application stage, notably with1.1.3Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) and Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC), to informthe emerging scheme proposals and preparation of the application submission package.Other key stakeholders (e.g. the Primary Care Trust and Radcliffe Parish Council) and the

current residents of Radcliffe were also consulted and the key findings are set out in theConsultation Statement that also accompanies the planning application.

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion was sought from1.1.4Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC). The response (dated 23rdApril 2013) has confirmed

RBCs view with regard to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental ImpactAssessment) Regulations (2011) that the proposal does not constitute an EIA

Development. The planning application is, however, also accompanied by the followingkey documents:

Transport Assessment and Travel Plan;

Landscape and Visual Appraisal;

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Statement;

Ecological Assessment;

Arboricultural Survey;

Heritage Statement;

Agricultural Land Quality Assessment; and

Noise Assessment.

The development proposals have been evolved through an iterative masterplanning1.1.5exercise that has taken into account the requirements of these technical andenvironmental assessments and the consultation undertaken, as well as best urban and

landscape design practice. The Design and Access Statement that accompanies theapplication sets out a detailed description of the schemes development parameters, andincludes a Masterplan and illustrative vignettes that demonstrate how the scheme canprovide a high quality development that is sensitive to its context.

The purpose of this Planning Statement is to outline the national and local planning1.1.6context for the determination of the planning application and assess how the development

proposals respond to relevant policies. The principal matter to consider in this regard is

the sites designation as part of the Green Belt that surrounds Nottingham. In this respectthe Statement sets out the very special circumstances required by the National PlanningPolicy Framework (NPPF) to outweigh the presumption against inappropriate


4/38


4

development in the Green Belt. The Statement continues to establish why the proposals

represent sustainable development under the terms of the NPPF, set out the potentialHeads of Terms for the Section 106 Agreement, before finally drawing and overallconclusion in respect of the acceptability of the development proposals.


5/38


5

2 THE SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

SITE & CONTEXT DESCRIPTION2.1

The application site is located on the eastern periphery Radcliffe on Trent. Shelford Road2.1.1

delineates the sites northern boundary with existing residential development beyond(except for an individual dwelling to the south of Shelford Road that is not included within

the site). The rear gardens of existing properties along Clumber Drive lie to the west ofthe western site boundary. A stream marks the sites southern boundary, with the railway

line, sports pitches and residential development beyond. Agricultural land lies to the eastof the site.

The site area is approximately 19.63ha and largely comprises agricultural land sub-2.1.2divided into regular shaped fields that gently slope down to the stream to the south.However, the northern part of the site also contains a number of agricultural buildings and

a farmhouse that previously formed Shelford Road Farm.

THE PROPOSAL2.2

It is proposed that the former Shelford Road Farm buildings are demolished (the separate2.2.1residential property will be retained) and the site developed for residential purposes,providing up to 400 dwellings, a primary school, health centre (if required) and associatedinfrastructure, including highway and pedestrian access, open space and structural

landscaping, notably along the southern and eastern boundaries. It is proposed that 30%of the dwellings will be affordable homes.

Development parameters have been established through a masterplanning exercise, as2.2.2outlined in the Design & Access Statement. The development would comprise a mixture of

traditional house sizes and types (ranging from 1 to 5 bedrooms), including semi detachedand detached style properties. It is proposed that the dwellings will be predominately 2storey, although some single storey might be appropriate, and occasional 2.5 storey

dwellings will be used as feature buildings to aid legibility (but not along the westernboundary of the site adjacent to existing residential properties or the eastern siteboundary, which will form the countryside edge).

The pre-application consultation process highlighted that there is a shortage of primary2.2.3school places at both the infant and junior schools in Radcliffe and there is no scope toexpand provision on the existing sites. A similar capacity issue has been identified in

respect of the health centre, and again there us limited ability to expand provision on theexisting site. Consequently, the planning application includes the provide a 1.5ha

serviced site on the application site to accommodate a new one form entry primary schooland potentially a health centre as an integral part of the proposed development . It is

proposed that this is located in a highly accessible central location.

Vehicular pedestrian and cycle access to the proposed development would be via a new2.2.4

roundabout junction with Shelford Road to the north. The existing access drive to the sitewould be closed to vehicular movement, but retained for pedestrian and cyclemovements.

The housing will be arranged in perimeter blocks enclosing the private garden space2.2.5within the block, and allowing the houses to front onto the streets and public open spaces,

providing a permeable layout. Consequently new housing will back onto exposed rear

property boundaries to the west (Clumber Drive).


6/38


6

Development along the eastern site boundary will be at a lower density and informally2.2.6

arranged to create a soft settlement edge where houses face out to the countryside. Alandscape buffer will be provided along this boundary, incorporating retained hedgerowsand proposed tree planting. Green fingers will extend westwards from this buffer topermeate the development. An area of open space, including equipped childrens playand parkland, is located in the centre of the development. Public open space will also be

provided to the south of built the development. This will incorporate the drainage featuresand allotments. The existing hedgerow corridor will be retained within a central north-

south green corridor, providing a pedestrian/cycle link to Shelford Road, and convenientaccess to the central and southern open spaces.


7/38


8/38


8

Ministerial Statements and adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents3.1.7

(SPG/SPD) can also be material considerations, and relevant policies and guidance aresummarised below.

POLICY SUMMARY3.2

Given the sites location and the nature of the proposed residential development, the3.2.1following policies are considered relevant to the determination of this planning application.

Sustainable Development

Planning for Growth is a Written Ministerial Statement dated the 23rdMarch 2011 that3.2.2

remains in place following the publication of the NPPF. It states that the:

Governments clear expectation is that the answer to development andgrowth should wherever possible be yes, except where this wouldcompromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national

planning policy.

NPPF paragraph 6 states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the3.2.3

achievement of sustainable development, and that the policies set out in paragraphs 18-219 (outlined below), taken as a whole, define the Governments view of what sustainabledevelopment actually is in practice for the planning system. Furthermore, paragraphs 7& 9 identify 3 dimensions to sustainable development: an economic role, a social role and

an environmental role, and highlight that pursuing sustainable development involvesseeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic

environmental as well as in peoples quality of life.

Paragraph 14 emphasises that the NPPF is underpinned by a presumption in favour of3.2.4

sustainable development that is central to both plan-making and decision-taking. Thisreflects the intent for the planning system to positively and proactively support sustainabledevelopment and not act as an obstruction.

Paragraph 17 stresses the primary emphasis of the NPPF is that all Local Plans and3.2.5decisions on planning applications should reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable

development. In this respect the NPPF sets out a number of core planning principles, themost relevant to the proposed development are set out below:

drive sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, employment premises

and infrastructure to meet the needs of an area;

always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for allexisting and future occupants of land and buildings;

promote the vitality of urban areas and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty ofthe countryside;

support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account offlood risk, and encourage the reuse of existing resources and encourage the use ofrenewable resources;

contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution,allocating land of lesser environmental value for development, where consistent with

other policies;


9/38


9

actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport,walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can bemade sustainable; and

deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.

RCS Policy A confirms that the RBC will take a positive approach to proposals for3.2.6sustainable development that reflects the NPPF.

NSRLP Policy GP1: Delivering Sustainable Development sets out sustainable3.2.7principles for new development to promote economic growth, social wellbeing andenvironmental protection and enhancement.

Development Strategy & Housing

NPPF paragraph 47 highlights the importance of significantly boosting the supply of3.2.8housing, requiring local planning authorities to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full,

objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing. It also requires them toidentify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years worth ofhousing against their housing requirements, with an additional buffer of either 5% or 20%depending upon the authoritys ability to delivery housing development historically.

Paragraph 49 confirms that applications for residential development should be3.2.9considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, andthat relevant policies to the supply of housing cannot be considered up-to-date if a 5 year

land supply cannot be demonstrated.

RCS Policy 2 (as proposed to be modified) seeks to facilitate the delivery of 9,4003.2.10

dwellings in the period 2011 to 2026. It establishes a strategy of urban concentration and

provides a settlement hierarchy for sustainable development, identifying Radcliffe on Trentas a Key Settlement appropriate for significant future growth in the second tier (only belowthe main built up area of Nottingham). A minimum of 400 homes are to be provided in or

adjoining the settlement.

RBLP Policy H1 only allocates sites to meet housing needs in the period to 2001. The3.2.11NSRLP does not include any site allocations to meet housing needs, but Policy HOU4 -confirms that new dwellings are not permitted outside settlements unless they are neededfor agricultural or other activities appropriate to the countryside. These policies do not

recognise the clear need to provide significant additional housing in the Borough andrequirement to facilitate that through the allocation of (predominantly greenfield) sites.

They are therefore, clearly inconsistent with the policies of the NPPF, and must be

considered out of date in this regard.

NPPF paragraph 50 refers to the delivery of a wide choice of high quality homes,3.2.12widening opportunities for home ownership and the creation of sustainable, inclusive and

mixed communities.

Similarly RCS Policy 7 seeks to ensure that residential development maintains, provides3.2.13

and contributes to a mix of housing tenures, types and sized in order to create mixed andbalanced communities, to reflect the needs and demands of the population and to includeup to 30% of the total dwellings as affordable housing. NSRLP Policy HOU7 also seeksthe provision of up to 30% of the total dwellings as affordable housing on sites of 0.5ha or15 dwellings or more.


10/38


10

Green Belt

NPPF Paragraphs 79 & 80highlight the importance of the Green Belt the aim of which is3.2.14to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It sets out 5 purposes:

to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict andother urban land.

Paragraphs 87 & 88state that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the3.2.15

Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. They onlyexist where the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness (policy

harm) and any other harm (actual harm) is clearly outweighed by other considerations.Paragraphs 89 & 90confirm that new buildings in the Green Belt constitute inappropriate

development, with limited exceptions none of which apply to the proposed developmenton the application site.

RBLP Policy ENV15 defines the existing Green Belt boundaries in the Borough. As3.2.16stated above, the site forms part of the designated Green Belt, but the settlement ofRadcliffe on Trent is inset within it. The policy has no other provisions.

RCS Policy 3 states that the principle of the Nottingham Derby Green Belt will be3.2.17

retained, but acknowledged that alterations will be required to facilitate futuredevelopment to meet the needs identified in Policy 2. It continues to state that where areview of Green Belt boundaries is required, RBC will have regard to the statutory

purposes of the Green Belt, establishing a permanent boundary to allow development inline with the settlement hierarchy, the appropriateness of defining safeguarded land tomeet long term development needs, and retaining or creating defensible boundaries.

Relevant NSRLP policies includePolicy EN14 that confirms that planning permission will3.2.18

only be granted for appropriate development within the Green Belt, and Policy EN19which states that development in the Green Belt that is in accordance with other policies

must demonstrate that there will be no significant adverse impact upon the open nature ofthe Green Belt, or upon important buildings, landscape features or views, that an

appropriate landscape scheme is proposed, and that ancillary lighting is designed tominimise impact beyond the necessary area.

Accessibility

NPPF paragraph 32 requires planning decisions to take account of whether the3.2.19

opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up (depending on thenature and location of the site), safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved, andimprovements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit thesignificant impacts of the development. Paragraph 34seeks to direct developments thatgenerate significant movement to locations where the need to travel will be minimised

and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.

RCS Policy 13 proposes to manage the need to travel (particularly by car) by locating3.2.20

development of an appropriate scale in accordance with the spatial strategy outlined in


11/38


11

Policy 2, prioritising sites already accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. Any

accessibility deficiencies will need to be fully addressed.

Policy 14 proposes that any additional requirements for infrastructure generated from3.2.21new development are prioritised in accordance with the spatial strategy outlined in RCSPolicy 2 and requires new developments to provide a package of measures to encourage

journeys by non-private car modes and to ensure that residual car trips to notunacceptably compromise the operation of the wider transport system.

The NSRLPalso includes a number of relevant policies in this respect:3.2.22

Policy MOV2 - seeks to ensure that provision for access by public transport can be

accommodated in new development as appropriate.

Policy MOV6 - requires major developments to make provision for facilities forcyclists and pedestrians and, if appropriate, horse riders at the appropriate stages ofthe development.

Policy MOV7 - requires provision of appropriate footpaths and cycleways linking

residential areas, shopping, community facilities and surrounding areas orimprovement of existing links.

Design

NPPF Paragraphs 56-66specifically emphasise the importance of the design of the built3.2.23

environments, noting good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, isindivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making place better or

people. Notably it also proposes that policies and decisions should aim to ensure thatdevelopments:

function well and add to the overall quality of the area;

establish a strong sense of place;

optimise the potential of the site;

respond to local character and history;

create safe and accessible environments; and

are visually attractive.

NPPF Paragraph 69 - 75 highlight that the planning system has an important role in3.2.24facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. It states that

planning decisions should aim to achieve places which promote opportunities for meetingsbetween members of the community, provide a safe environment, contain clear and

legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active andcontinual use of public areas. It also refers to access to high quality open spaces and

opportunities for sports and recreation, and to the protection and enhancement of publicrights of way.

RCS Policy 9 seeks to ensure that all new development contributes positively to the3.2.25public realm and sense of place, creates an attractive and safe environment, reinforces

valued local characteristics, are adaptable to meet evolving demands, and reflect theneed to reduce the dominance of motor vehicles. Developments of 10 or more homes areexpected to perform highly when assessed against best practice guidance and standards.


12/38


12

The policy also seeks to ensure the landscape character is conserved or enhanced by

new development outside of settlements, assessing proposals by reference to the GreatNottingham Landscape Character Assessment.

Relevant NSRLP policies includesPolicy GP2 which requires new development to meet3.2.26specific design criteria to ensure that it does not have a significant adverse effect on local

and residential amenity, Policy EN1 that requires proposals for new development to takeinto account the needs of disabled people and those with restricted mobility, and PolicyCOM5 that requires new residential development to include suitable levels of play and

amenity space within the site or in close proximity of the area and to ensure themaintenance of such.

Rushcliffe Residential Design Guide SPD (2009) provides detailed guidance on all3.2.27design related matters to be considered for residential developments.

Environmental Sustainability & Protection

Energy

NPPF Paragraph 96 states that local planning authorities should expect proposed3.2.28developments to comply with adopted Local Plan policies that set out local requirementsfor a decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated that this would not befeasible or viable. There are no adopted Local Plan policies to comply with in this respect.It also requires that development proposals take account of landform, layout, building

orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption.

RCS Policy 1 requires all development to deliver high levels of sustainability in respect of3.2.29

building design and adaptability, carbon dioxide emissions, energy generation and floodrisk, where this is technically feasible and subject to viability.

Flood Risk

NPPF Paragraphs 100& 103 require that development is directed away from areas of3.2.30

the highest flood risk and seeks to ensure that development does not increase flood riskelsewhere.

RCS Policy 1 supports development that avoids areas of current and future flood risk and3.2.31which does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, applying a sequential approach tosite selection, and requires all new development to incorporate measures to reducesurface water run-off and the implementation of Sustainable Drainage Systems.

Landscape

NPPF Paragraph 109sets out the measures through which the planning process should3.2.32conserve and enhance the natural environment, whilst meeting development needs, by

protecting valued landscapes, recognising ecosystems benefits, minimising impacts andmaximising gains in biodiversity, preventing pollution and remediating land where

possible.

RCS Policy 15 confirms that a strategic approach will be taken to the delivery, protection3.2.33

and enhancement of green infrastructure, seeking to limit adverse impacts from newdevelopment through alternative scheme designs, in advance of considering mitigationoptions on or off site. It also seeks to protect, conserve and enhance landscape character,

and protect parks and open spaces from development, except where these are underused or undervalued.


13/38


13

NSRLP Policy EN13 requires a suitable landscaping mitigation scheme to be submitted3.2.34

for development likely to have a significant impact on the existing landscape.

Agricultural Land

NPPF paragraph 112states that the economic and other benefits of the best and most3.2.35

versatile agricultural land should be taken into account, but where development isnecessary the use of areas of poorer quality land should be sought in preference to a

higher quality land.

Ecology

NPPF paragraph 118 states that when determining planning applications local planning3.2.36authorities should apply a number of key principles that include refusing developmentwhere significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for, orwhere the development would result in the loss of irreplaceable habitats. It also

encourages the incorporation of biodiversity in and around development.

RCS Policy 16 seeks to increase biodiversity in Rushcliffe by protecting, enhancing,3.2.37expanding and preventing fragmentation of existing green infrastructure. It requires newdevelopment to provide or enhance biodiversity features and their management whereappropriate.

NSRLP Policy EN11 requires all developments likely to have an adverse impact on3.2.38features of nature conservation interest to demonstrate that the need for development

outweighs the need to safeguard the nature conservation value of the site and, where lossor damage is unavoidable, provide appropriate mitigation measures as part of a

landscape scheme. Policy EN12 requires all developments that would affect recognisedsites of ecological significance or habitats of species of importance to be accompanied by

appropriate surveys and to include appropriate measures to mitigate any impact.

Pollution

NPPF paragraphs 120 & 121 require that planning decisions ensure that new3.2.39

development is appropriate for its location in terms of risks from pollution and landinstability. Paragraphs 122-125 also refer to the consideration of noise, air and lightpollution impacts arising from developments.

NSRLP Policy EN22 states that new housing development will not be permitted close to3.2.40

an existing source of potential pollution unless the impact can be mitigated.

Cultural Heritage

NPPF Paragraph 128-131states that applicants should describe the significance of any3.2.41heritage assets affected by the proposed development, including ay contribution made bytheir setting, and when determining planning applications, account should be taken of thedesirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, the positivecontribution their conservation can make to sustainable communities, and the desirabilityof new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

RCS Policy 10 supports proposals that protect the historic environment and heritage3.2.42

assets and their settings.

Planning Obligations

NPPF Paragraphs 203-206 set out the circumstances where it would be appropriate to3.2.43use planning conditions or a planning obligation.


14/38


14

RCS Policy 17 requires new development to be supported by the required infrastructure3.2.44

at the appropriate stage and states that contributions will be sought from developmentproposals which give rise to the need for new infrastructure. Furthermore, Policy 18requires development to meet the reasonable cost of associated new infrastructure andcontribute to the delivery of necessary infrastructure to manage the cumulative impacts ofdevelopments. Prior to the implementation of a Community Infrastructure levy, appropriate

planning conditions and obligations will be sought to secure all new infrastructure.

Similarly,NSRLP Policy COM2 requires new residential development to make provision3.2.45

for community facilities to serve the scale of development proposed, either by enhancingexisting provision or providing new facilities and provided at the appropriate stage ofdevelopment.

SUMMARY3.3

As stated above, paragraph 14 of the NPPF emphasises the presumption in favour of3.3.1sustainable development. It continues to state that when determining planning

applications and appeals where relevant policies of the Development Plan are out-of-date(as is the case here), permission should be granted unless:

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted

(including, for example, SSSI, Green Belt, Local Green Space, AONB, National Park,designated heritage assets, and locations at risk of flooding).

In respect of the second bullet point, the appeal site is located within the designated3.3.2Green Belt. It is therefore, first necessary to consider the principle of development in light

of the Green Belt policies set out in the NPPF. This is addressed in Section 4 below.

The Statement then continues to consider the proposals in light of the other relevant3.3.3

policies highlighted above (Section 5) to conclude that the proposals for the applicationsite do constitute sustainable development.


15/38


15

4 THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

GREEN BELT4.1

As stated above, the site forms part of the designated Nottingham Green Belt that extends4.1.1

over much of Rushcliffe Borough close to the city of Nottingham. The long establishedGreen Belt boundaries are defined by Policy ENV15 the RBLP, and whilst the settlement

of Radcliffe on Trent is inset within the Green Belt, the boundaries are tightly drawn andthere is therefore, no provision for meeting the identified housing needs within the

settlement. This is recognised by the RCS and a review of Green Belt boundaries in theBorough is to be undertaken (Policy 3) to allow the allocation of housing sites toaccommodate future development needs in the Key Settlements identified in Policy 2(including Radcliffe). This, however, is not due to take place until 2014 at the earliest andthe allocations and amendment to the Green Belt boundaries will not be confirmed until

the Allocations Development Plan Document is adopted. RBC currently expects that to bein 2015 but given the delay the RCS is experiencing that timescale is clearly ambitious. In

the meantime the application development proposals constitute inappropriatedevelopment and the NPPF requires the demonstration of very special circumstanceswhere the policy harm and actual harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The policy harm is inevitable as the proposed built development is, by definition,4.1.2

inappropriate development and will result in the site no longer being kept permanentlyopen, i.e. it impacts on the sites openness. However, the actual harm to the Green Beltarising from the built development, which in this context relates to the five purposes of theGreen Belt as set out in the NPPF, varies from site to site and development to

development.

An assessment of the degree of actual harm that would arise from the proposed4.1.3

development has been undertaken and the conclusions are set out below. Thisassessment has taken account of RBCs Green Belt review methodology as set out in theGreen Belt Review (Draft for Consultation (GBR- June 2013). It also draws on the

findings of the Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) that also accompanies the planningapplication.

Urban Sprawl

The Nottingham Green Belt was originally conceived to contain the outward growth of4.1.4

Nottingham. In that respect the Green Belt around Radcliffe, and its specific purpose, isconsidered incidental to the main purposes of the Green Belt in that it does not restrict the

growth of Nottingham itself.

The site instead contributes to the overall extent of the Green Belt and contains the4.1.5

expansion of Radcliffes urban area. However, the RCS acknowledges the need for newdevelopment on greenfield sites around Radcliffe to meet established housing needs in

the area. A direct consequence of the need for greenfield development around Radcliffe isthe inevitable growth of the urban form, and an inevitable impact on the purpose of theGreen Belt in this regard.

However, in respect of this site and proposed development specifically, the current urban4.1.6form of Radcliffe already contains the site on three of its four sides, and the development

would extend no further east than the existing built form of Radcliffe on Trent. In thatrespect the development would appear as consolidation of the urban form rather than

sprawl. Furthermore, the development can be directly linked to the settlement centrealong Shelford Road, and the proposals will enhance residents accessibility to thecountryside, in an area where there is currently limited access, as a result of the wide


16/38


16

landscape corridor along the eastern boundary of the site that would be dedicated as

public open space with recreation routes running through it. This corridor will also help tocontain the further growth of the urban form of Radcliffe in the future and will form aclearer and more defensible boundary to the Green Belt than currently exists once theboundaries are reviewed to take account of the proposed development. Therefore, theimpact of the proposed development on the purpose of the Green Belt can be considered

to be very limited in this regard.

Impact: Low

Coalescence

The nearest settlements to Radcliffe are Nottingham (min of 800m) to the west and north4.1.7west, Stoke Bardolph (1km) to the north, Shelford (1.75km) to the north east, UpperSaxondale (500m) and Bingham (2.5km) to the east and Cotgrave (3km) to the south.

The proposed development of the site would not extend the urban form of Radcliffe any4.1.8further north, wast or south. The development would extend the current urban form of

Radcliffe eastwards by approximately 350m. However, given the current urban form withbuilt development to both the north and south of the site, the distances between Radcliffeand the settlements highlighted above would not be narrowed. There is, therefore, nothreat to coalescence.

Furthermore, the visual appraisal in the LVA has highlighted the limited visibility of the site4.1.9

in the surrounding area, particularly from publically accessible viewpoints including keymovement routes, and the limited intervisibility between the settlements, that arises from

the topography and intervening vegetation. This significantly reduces the visual impact ofdevelopment, and is further addressed by the proposed public open space and structurallandscaping in the eastern and southern parts of the site. Indeed, it is only on the

northern fringes of Upper Saxondale that the site is visible and there is already significantdevelopment in Radcliffe on Trent to the south of the A52 that is closer and more visiblethan the proposed development.

Therefore, there is no threat of the settlements merging together as a result of the4.1.10proposed development, and it can also be concluded that there is no actual or perceived

coalescence (including in distant views and as perceived when travelling betweensettlements or from within settlements).

Impact: None

Countryside Encroachment

Whilst the development of the site will inevitably result in some countryside encroachment,4.1.11in so far as it would be the development of a greenfield site on the edge of the settlement,this is an inevitable result of the development of any greenfield site around Radcliffe onTrent, or indeed elsewhere in the Borough.

In this case, however, the site is not subject to any other landscape quality designation4.1.12

and the LVA has highlighted how the established landscape structure within andsurrounding the site, notably the topography and retained hedgerows and trees, and the

nature of the existing urban form, with existing built development enclosing the site onthree sides, combined with the proposed public open space and structural landscaping,

would contain the proposed development, generally limit the perception of the

encroachment when viewed from the surrounding area, and strengthen the landscapecharacter of the area. Therefore, the impact of the proposed development on the purposeof the Green Belt can be considered to be relatively limited in this regard.


17/38


17

Impact: Low

Setting and Character of Historic Towns

Radcliffe is not specifically identified as a historic town and does not contain a4.1.13Conservation Area. As a settlement Radcliffe grew significantly in the 1960s and 1970s,and that growth is evident in the established residential areas around the site and thehistoric settlement centre. It can, therefore, be concluded that the purpose of the GreenBelt will not be harmed in this respect.

Impact: None

Urban Regeneration

The RCS sets out the requirement for new development to take place on greenfield sites4.1.14

around Rushcliffe in addition to the development of appropriate and available previouslydeveloped sites to meet established housing needs in the area. Indeed, it specifically

proposes the development of a minimum of 400 dwellings in Radcliffe. Moreover, it isapparent from a review of the 2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

(SHLAA) that the opportunities for the development of previously developed land inRadcliffe on Trent are extremely limited. Therefore, the impact of the proposeddevelopment on the purpose of the Green Belt can be considered to be extremely limitedin this regard.

Impact: Negligible

Summary

The Green Belt around Radcliffe on Trent is incidental to the main purposes of the4.1.15

Nottingham Green Belt in terms of restricting the expansion of Nottingham itself, and theproposed development would constitute a relatively small-scale intrusion on a much widerGreen Belt corridor and would not undermine the purposes of the wider Green Belt.

The development of the site will inevitably result in the growth of Radcliffes urban form4.1.16and an encroachment on the surrounding countryside, but that would be the case for anygreenfield development around the settlement. The location and aspect of the site

combined with the existing urban and landscape structure (notably with developmentalready containing the site on three sides) mean that it does not form a sensitive part of

the Green Belt. There is no risk of physical coalescence with other settlements and invisual terms is extremely well contained by a combination of the urban form, topography

and existing vegetation. The proposed landscape scheme will also provide an enhanced

settlement edge that will form a clearer and more defensible long term Green Beltboundary. Moreover, Radcliffe on Trent is not identified as an historic settlement andcontains very limited opportunities for the development of previously developed land.Therefore, impact of the proposed development in terms of coalescence, urban sprawl,countryside encroachment, impact on historic towns and in relation to urban regenerationranges between none and low.

VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES4.2

Set against the policy and actual harm to the Green Belt are the following material factors:4.2.1

Housing Need & Delivery

Policy 2 of the RCS proposes to facilitate the provision of 9,600 new homes in the4.2.2

Borough over the period 2011 to 2026 (640 dwellings per annum (dpa)). A minimum of


18/38


18

400 dwellings are to be provided in Radcliffe on Trent. However, the RCS Examination

Inspector raised concerns in relation to the apparent difference between the requirementset out in the RCS and the 15,000 dwellings required by the (now revoked) East MidlandsRegional Plan (2009) in the period 2006-2026 (750dpa), and the lack of agreement withthe other local authorities in the Housing Market Area in relation to the appropriate level ofprovision (in relation to the duty to co-operate). After initial exploratory meetings, the

Examination was suspended (in February 2013) to allow RBC to continue discussion withthe neighbouring authorities, reexamine in the level of housing proposed, revisit the

allocation of sustainable urban extension, extend the plan period and undertake a broadreview of the Green Belt.

This work has been on-going and it is understood that Proposed Main Modifications to the4.2.3Submitted RCS will be published for consultation in December. It is expected that these

will include an extension of the plan period to 2028 and an increased in the housingrequirement to 13,150 dwellings (774 dpa). The minimum 400 dwelling requirement forRadcliffe on Trent is expect to remain unchanged. The forward programme for the RCSthen anticipates the Examination resuming in March, receipt of the Inspectors Report in

May/June and adoption mid 2014.

It is clear, therefore, that there is a pressing need to provide new housing in the Borough,4.2.4and Radcliffe specifically, to meet identified future housing needs and address the backlog

that has built up through a lack of delivery in recent years. The Annual Monitoring Report2012 (AMR) highlights that completions in the Borough totaled 1,876 dwellings in the

period 2006-2012, an average of 313 dpa which is well below either of the RCSrequirements or the original EMRP requirement.

Moreover, it is apparent that there is currently an acute shortage in the housing land4.2.5supply in the Borough, and Radcliffe specifically, to meet the identified housing needs.

The 2012 AMR highlights that (based on current commitments and the SHLAA) there is

only sufficient land supply in the Borough to provide 1,820 new dwellings in the next 5years, and in Radcliffe on Trent specifically the land supply will only provide 5 dwellings.

RBCs last set out their 5 year housing land supply position (as at April 2012) in the 20124.2.6

AMR, published in December 2012. The 5 year land supply calculation conceded thatthere has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing in the Borough and,therefore, a 20% buffer should be included in accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF.However, the calculation did use a residual approach (where the early backlog is spreadover the entire remaining plan period). Nevertheless, the AMR still concludes that there isonly 1.6 years of supply in the Borough. If the Sedgefield approach is used (where thebacklog is address within the first 5 years of the remaining period) then the supply

reduces to only 1.2 years. The land supply position would improve marginally if the

submitted RCS housing requirement figure is used (to 1.9 years using RBCs approach or1.5 years using the Sedgefield approach), but worsens again using the anticipated MainModification requirement (to 1.6 years using RBCs approach or 1.1 years using the

Sedgefield approach).

The housing land supply in the Borough, therefore, falls very significantly short of the 54.2.7

year supply required, and there is no up-to-date development plan in place that will rectifythis position. This is clearly contrary to policy set out in NPPF and only serves toexacerbate the already acute issues of housing opportunity, choice and affordability, andalso hinder improvements in social well-being, economic growth and the prosperity of thearea as a whole.

This position is a direct consequence of the historic planning policy position as set out in4.2.8Section 3 and the subsequent persistent shortfall in the delivery of housing in the

Borough. Whilst the adoption of the RCS in the middle of next year will be a significant


19/38


19

step towards remedying this position, that heavily relies on the delivery of the strategic

sites around the Nottingham urban area. It is widely acknowledged that these sites willhave long lead in times, and therefore, it will be quite some time until those extremelylarge sites start to provide housing to meet the identified needs in the Borough.

Furthermore, beyond the urban area, the Site Allocations Development Plan Document4.2.9

will allocate sites in the Key Settlements including Radcliffe on Trent. However,preparation of that will not begin in earnest until the RCS is adopted, and its preparationwill inevitably take time. RBC predict that it will be adopted in 2015, but that appears very

optimistic. Nevertheless, it is only on its adoption that the allocations required to meet thehousing need identified for the Borough will be in place.

Notwithstanding that, it is clear that there is a demonstrable need to release land to meet4.2.10housing development requirements and, given the slow progress in the preparation of the

RCS, there is no other means of remedying the substantial undersupply in the Boroughother than through the approval of planning applications for residential development onappropriate sites in sustainable locations in the Green Belt. Whilst there are somesettlements in the Borough that are not located within the Green Belt, only Bingham andEast Leake are identified as key settlements in the RCS, and there is a limit to how muchadditional growth they, or other settlements can, reasonable accommodate, especially ifthe development strategy within the emerging RCS is not to be prejudiced.

In the case of the application proposals the whole site, including land required for access,4.2.11is in the control of the applicants, who are a reputable and locally based national house

builder without funding or capacity constraints, who have been active in the county formany years, and who are ready to develop the site as soon as possible. The site is

therefore available now for immediate development. The proposed development of up to400 new dwellings could, therefore, make an extremely valuable contribution towards

remedying the shortfall in housing land provision in the Borough in the short term, with

around 180 dwellings anticipated for completion within the first 5 years. That weighssignificantly in favour of the proposed development.

Affordable Housing

Affordable housing needs are significant in the Borough. The Nottingham Core Housing4.2.12Market Assessment Update 2009 Rushcliffe modelled an affordable housing

requirement of 362 dwellings per annum in Rushcliffe. It found that there was a specificneed for new affordable homes in Radcliffe, identifying that in 2009 56% of new localhouseholds were unable to afford to purchase a home, and 13% were unable to afford torent. The more recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Update 2012concluded that there is a need for 463 new affordable homes per annum to meet

emerging need and to clear the backlog that has built up in the Borough.

The application site could provide up to 120 affordable homes (30% of the maximum 4004.2.13

dwellings) to contribute to meeting these local needs. The provision of affordable housingis a key aspiration of the Government (as set out in the NPPF and The Housing Strategyfor England) as well as RBC (as highlighted in the planning policies set out above, andthis contribution should be given significant weight in the determination of this application.

A Sustainable Location For Development

It is also important to note that the proposed development on the application site would4.2.14

also entirely accord with the extant and emerging housing objectives and the spatial vision

for the area in the emerging RCS. Furthermore, the evidence base that underpins theRCS also highlights the sustainability of the settlement and its suitability for growth.


20/38


20

RBCs Profile of Radcliffe on Trent refers to the substantial growth that the settlement4.2.15

underwent in the 1950s and 1960s, and that the settlement now acts as a service centrefor some surrounding settlements providing schooling, local shops, health facilities and

recreational activities. The settlement profile highlights that Radcliffe contains a widevariety of local facilities, including a vibrant settlement centre with an array of local shops,including supermarkets, eateries and public houses. Radcliffe-on-Trent Primary School,

Radcliffe Infant and Nursery School, South Nottinghamshire Academy and Radcliffe-on-Trent Health Centre are situated to the south of the settlement centre. All of these

facilities are easily accessible from the site via Shelford Road that provides a directconnection to the settlement centre.

Moreover, Radcliffe-on-Trent train station providing connections on the Nottingham -4.2.16Skegness line is also located in the centre of the settlement and can be easily accessed

via Shelford Road. A number of bus stops are situated within close proximity of the siteproviding convenient access to local public transport services. The Radcliffe Line offersdirect and convenient bus services with combined frequency of 3 buses per hour to/fromNottingham during the main working day.

On this basis Radcliffe on Trent, and indeed the application site, is clearly a sustainable4.2.17location for future development. The Greater Nottingham Accessibility Study indicatedthat Radcliffe ranks 4th in Rushcliffe in terms of overall accessibility (a key factor in the

NPPF). Moreover, the Housing Background Paper notes that Radcliffe on Trent is asclose to the centre of Nottingham as some of the suburbs of the city itself.

The Tribal Study Greater Nottingham Sustainable Locations for Growth (2010) an4.2.18independent piece of work undertaken on behalf of RBC and the other Greater

Nottingham Authorities concluded, that Radcliffe has:

Overall medium to high suitability for growth. Evidence of high levels of

infrastructure capacity. Good current transport accessibility, but would notsustain future growth. No overwhelming environmental constraints althoughmajor flood constraints to the west. Potential economic development benefitsof growth.

In respect of the scale of growth the study concluded:4.2.19

Radcliffe has the potential to accommodate a higher level of growthcompared with other settlements in the Greater Nottingham sub region.

The Tribal Study states that Radcliffe has a population of over 7,800 people, but RBCs4.2.20Profile highlights that there is a significant proportion of older people in the settlement

(significantly greater than the Borough or national average). Consequently there is also asmaller proportion of younger people and people of working age. This is a cause for

concern:

An elderly and aging population can have serious impacts n the local

economy and the services and facilities it provides!. Declining numbers ofpeople under the age of 16 could also impact on local schools and their future

viability.

Due to the increasing average life expectancy and people living in smaller

households, it is unlikely that the limited supply of sites with planningpermission in Radcliffe n Trent would maintain the existing population level of

the settlement. A declining population would likely compound the problemsidentified above.


21/38


21

Indeed, the Profile also highlights that only 256 new dwellings were completed within the4.2.21

parish in the last 10 years and only 17 of those were affordable dwellings. Furthermore,that there were limited commitments for additional development (25 dwellings at that time-it is now even less), and that there are limited opportunities for further development withinthe existing built up area. Consequently, RBC has identified Radcliffe as a KeySettlement in Policy 2 of the RCS and is proposed to accommodate a minimum of 400

new homes.

Clearly, therefore, Radcliffe on Trent is an important population and service centre in the4.2.22

Borough, and it has been recognised as an entirely appropriate and sustainable focus forgrowth. Moreover, the application site is well integrated with the urban form and ShelfordRoad provides a direct connection to the settlement centre. The residents on theapplication site would, therefore, benefit from good access to local and higher order

services in Radcliffe via a range of sustainable transport modes. The development of theapplication site would therefore accord with the development location strategy of both theRCS and the emerging the housing objectives and the spatial vision for the area providingessential new housing to sustain the settlements population, which will in turn help to

support the existing services and facilities, notably the secondary school where adeclining school roll has been highlighted.

Inevitable Need to Release Land from Green Belt

Most of the main settlements in Rushcliffe, including Radcliffe, are tightly surrounded by4.2.23the Green Belt, and it is recognised that Green Belt boundaries will need to be revised tofacilitate the release of sites for development to meet the identified housing requirements.Indeed, it is apparent from the RCS that the vast majority of development in the Boroughwill take place on land which is currently Green Belt. This is particularly the case inRadcliffe on Trent where a minimum requirement of 400 dwellings has been identified,

and the opportunities for development within the existing urban form (as evidenced by the

2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) is extremely limited.

Alternatives

Indeed, even if land currently within the Green Belt is taken into account the options for4.2.24providing the 400 dwellings are extremely limited. The Housing Background Paper states(para 6.90):

The floodplain acts as a major constraint to growth to the west, particularlydue to historic flooding and poor drainage in this area. The A52 creates adefensible boundary to the south. The south and southeast havetopographical constrains, and the development of this area would be highly

visible. Any proposals for growth would need to be in proportion with theexisting size and settlement, and must avoid coalescence with Saxondale.

Moreover, the key conclusions of the 2012 SHLAA in respect of Radcliffe on Trent are as4.2.25

follows:

There are only 5 small sites considered deliverable within 5 years, and they can onlydeliver 5 dwellings

There are 2 sites considered developable in the 6 to 10 year period. However, Site

191 would only deliver 4 new dwellings.

The SHLAA assumes that Site 185 to the north of the A52 at the western extent ofRadcliffe would be able to deliver 98 dwellings in years 8 and 9. However, that siteformed part of a planning application was refused largely because of flood risk


22/38


22

concerns. Even if those issues could be addressed, and that us unlikely given that

the SHLAA indicates that it requires third party actions, it is likely that the capacity ofthe site would be somewhat less than assumed. The SHLAA also highlights issuesrelating to the potential impact on the A52, a trunk road with acknowledged capacityissues.

The SHLAA identifies 5 sites that maybe suitable subject to a change of policy (in thiscase Green Belt).

They include the application site (Site 547) and the adjacent fields enclosed by the

application site to the west (Site 186). The SHLAA conclusion in respect of theapplication site highlights that the site is within the Green Belt (as are all of the large

sites apart from Site 185), but is otherwise relatively unconstrained (reference ismade to congestion on Shelford Road at peak times).

Site 183 lies between the A52 and the railway line to the south east of the applicationsite. The much larger Site 184 lies to east of both the application site and Site 183,

straddling the railway line. The SHLAA assumes that Site 183 has capacity for 56dwellings and Site 184 has capacity for 1000 dwellings. However, both sites would

need to be accessed from the A52 and the SHLAA highlights the difficulties thatwould present given the capacity constraints along that route and the Highway

Agency have indicated that a new access from the A52 is unlikely to be acceptable(although there may be some potential to use an existing access). It is also apparent

that development of the larger part of Site 184 to the north of the railway line would bedisconnected from the urban form of Radcliffe on Trent, and the Housing Background

Paper refers to it as being isolated.

Site 187 lies to the south of the A52 and the SHLAA site report highlights site

constrains are likely to severely limit capacity (12 dwellings is assumed). The site

would need to be accessed for the A52 and that again presents a significant siteconstraint.

Site 188 Nottingham Road was the subject of a recent planning application for 300dwelling that was refused in January 2013. The reasons for refusal were wide-ranging and made reference to its location in the Green Belt, the traffic impact, floodissues, a lack of information in relation to ecology, landscape, archaeology and noise,

and that it had not been demonstrated that the scheme would provide an acceptablelevel of affordable housing or provision of developer contributions or facilities to

support the development. It is understood that flood risk issues were also why theplanning application was for substantially less than the 500 dwellings the SHLAAassumed the site might be able to accommodate.

It is, therefore, apparent from the above analysis of the SHLAAs conclusions that there4.2.26are constraints on all of other sites in Radcliffe. The application site also has the added

advantage for being able to accommodate the minimum 400 dwellings required in thesettlement, together with the new primary school, health centre (see below) and public

open space on a single site.

Community Provision

RBCs Profile of Radcliffe on Trent highlighted some of the key concerns of local4.2.27residents, which includes the capacity of both the health centre and primary schools. This

matter was also raised in the pre-application consultation. Consequently the applicantshave engaged with the Education Authority (NCC) and the NHS Rushcliffe Clinical

Commissioning Group and GPs Practice.


23/38


23

In terms of school provision there is a shortage of primary school places at both the infant4.2.28

and junior schools in Radcliffe and that is project to remain the case until at least 2017.Moreover, there is no scope to expand provision on the existing sites.

Space constraint issues have also been identified in respect of the health centre, and4.2.29again there is limited ability to expand provision on the existing site. It is understood that

there are also problems with the physical condition of the existing building. These mattersdirectly affect service provision and the ability of the Practice to expand clinical serviceprovision to meet the needs of the community. It is understood that the GP Practice have

been considering their options for the provision of a new health centre for a number ofyears and that process is still on-going.

Consequently, the proposed development will facilitate the provision of a new primary4.2.30school and health centre to meet the needs of the developments residents and address

existing capacity issues within the settlement. The application scheme proposals includethe provision of a 1.1ha serviced site to accommodate a new one form entry primaryschool. The Education Authority have confirmed that the application site is their preferredlocation for the provision of a new primary school in Radcliffe, as the existing schools areall located in the southern part of the settlement. The new school will be able to serve theresidents of the proposed development and a substantial part of the settlement without theneed to travel through the settlement centre. The scheme proposals also include the

provision of a 0.4ha serviced site to accommodate a new health centre should no otherappropriate alternative option be identified in the GP Practices search.

The consultation with the service providers highlighted the potential benefits of a co-4.2.31located education and health site as an integral part of the proposed development to

provide enhanced integrated services. Therefore a single 1.5ha site has been allocatedfor the development of these community uses. It is proposed that this is located in an

accessible location within the scheme on the primary route which can accommodate bus

services, and very close to the pedestrian cycle link from Shelford Road, which provides adirect connection to the settlement centre and is already well served by public transport.

Conclusion

The NPPF is clear that for very special circumstances to exist the harm by way of4.2.32inappropriateness and other harm must be clearly outweighed by other factors. The

Green Belt policy harm is unavoidable, but as set out above, the other actual harm inrelation to the impact on the purposes of the Green Belt as a result of the loss ofopenness, is in this case relatively limited. The harm to the Green Belt should be givensignificant weight in the determination of the planning application, but set against it are thefollowing material factors:

There is a pressing need for new housing in the Borough, and consequently theemerging RCS establishes a significant housing requirement that is likely to increasefurther as a result of the recent discussions with the neighbouring authorities and

Examination Inspector.

There is an acute housing land supply shortage in the Borough and Radcliffespecifically. The proposed development of up to 400 new dwellings on the application

site would make a valuable contribution towards remedying the shortfall.

There is a significant need for affordable housing, both across the Borough and inRadcliffe specifically. The development proposals will provide up to 120 new

affordable homes to contribute to meeting that need.


24/38


24

It is widely recognised that substantial Green Belt releases will be required to meetthe housing needs of the Borough, indeed the RCS implies that most new housing willhave to be delivered on sites that are currently located in the Green Belt, including at

Radcliffe on Trent.

Radcliffe a key settlement in the Borough and has been identified as a sustainablesettlement where growth can be accommodated and the emerging RCS proposes a

minimum of 400 dwellings should be delivered in the settlement. Therefore, thedevelopment proposals would entirely accord with the emerging developmentstrategy and housing objectives contained within the RCS.

All of the other potential development sites in Radcliffe are constrained, and theapplication site has the distinct advantage of being able to accommodate the 400dwellings required, together with the primary school, health centre and public openspace on a single site.

The proposed development will also facilitate the provision of a new primary school

and health centre to meet the needs of the developments residents and addressexisting capacity issues within the settlement. It will also support other importantcommunity services and facilities in the settlement, such as the secondary school.

Individually these matters are very significant taken together and they clearly outweigh the4.2.33harm by way of inappropriateness and the limited other harm that would result from the

development. It is concluded therefore, that the very special circumstances required bythe NPPF in order to approve inappropriate development in the Green Belt exists in thisinstance and that the proposals accord with Green Belt policy.


25/38


25

5 SITE AND SCHEME SUITABILITY

SITE ASSESSMENTS5.1

A number of environmental and technical assessments were undertaken To inform the5.1.1

preparation of the development proposals. The findings are summarised below.

Transport & Accessibility

The scope of the Transport Assessment (TA) that accompanies the planning application5.1.2was agreed in consultation with NCC and the Highways Agency. The TA confirms that

the site is suitably located for residential development, being within walking distance ofthe settlement centre, the train station and a number of schools. Residents on the sitewould also have good access to bus stops where there are hourly and half-hourly daytimeservices to Nottingham from Shelford Road and Clumber Drive.

The proposed vehicular access from Shelford Road is a new 3-arm roundabout junction.5.1.3NCC identified a single roundabout as their preferred form of access at an early stage inthe pre-application consultation process as it would act as a gateway feature to the

settlement and help to slow traffic speeds. NCC also set out the design standards that theroundabout junction must meet, which together with a subsequent safety audit of thescheme, directly resulted in the size and position of the final roundabout design. The TAconcludes that the roundabout will operate with sufficient spare capacity once the

proposed development is complete.

The TA also assesses the likely impact of the development of the site on the highway5.1.4

network (taking account of background growth and committed schemes), and a number ofspecific off-site junctions. The TA proposes a number of improvements to appropriately

enhance future capacity and traffic management, as well as create a safer environmentfor pedestrians and cyclists and improve bus patronage including:

Improvements to the bus stops on Shelford Road and a financial contribution towardslocal bus service enhancements;

The provision of a travel pack (including bus passes) to new residents;

Provision of pedestrian and cycle routes through the site with connections to the

existing footway network and provision of cycle parking in the new dwelling plots;

Provision of a traffic calming scheme along Shelford Road with new and improved

pedestrian crossings;

Conversion of the existing Shelford Road / Main Road mini-roundabout junction totraffic signal control, including provision of controlled pedestrian crossings on all

approaches;

Capacity improvements at the A52 / Nottingham Road sign junction;

Capacity improvements at the A52 / Stragglethorpe Road signal junction;

Section 106 contributions towards a traffic management / traffic calming scheme in

Newton.

The proposals therefore take account of all modes of transport and will enhance5.1.5

pedestrian and cycle access and access to local bus services, whilst also improving traffic


26/38


26

management in the area. The proposed development is, therefore, considered to be

acceptable in access and highways terms, subject to the delivery of the identifiedsustainable travel measures and highway improvements.

Landscape and Visual Amenity

The landscape character and visual amenity of the area has been examined in the5.1.6Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) that also accompanies the planning application.The site is not subject to any landscape policy designation, but does lie within Policy ZoneSN05 in the South Nottinghamshire Farmlands Character Area as defined by the Greater

Nottingham Landscape Character Assessment (GNLCA 2009), and the site andsurrounding area contains some elements that have been identified as generalcharacteristics of this area. The GNLCA concludes that the landscape character area hasa landscape condition of Moderate and landscape strength of Moderate. The overall

landscape strategy is to Enhance. The LVA concludes that the sites sensitivity to thechange proposed on the site is low in landscape character terms. This reflects the

proximity and influence of the adjacent settlement edge, the ability of the existing

landscape structure to absorb potential development, the lack of any significant landscapefeatures of importance on the site and the ability to retain those features that do exist.

In terms of visual amenity, views of the site from the surrounding area are generally5.1.7

limited by the urban form and topography. Existing residential properties effectivelycontain views of the site from the west and north west to the immediate surrounds of thesite. To the north Malkin Hill limits views of the site from the countryside to approximately1km from the centre of the site. Site visibility extends further east along the valleybetween Malkin Hill to the north and Dewberry Hill and Upper Saxondale to the south, butthere is a flat perspective and the intervening vegetation filters views to the site. From thesouth the site is visible from open areas located between the railways line and Grantham

Road (A52). The site is also visible from the north facing slopes of Dewberry Hill and

Upper Saxondale south of the Grantham Road (A52). However, there are no views ofparticular value that should be retained or protected, and the views of the site from thesurrounding area tend to incorporate urban elements within Radcliffe itself, and in some

cases elsewhere in the surrounding area.

The LVA concludes that the treatment (density, orientation, height and materials) of the5.1.8

development edge will be important, and provides an opportunity to further soften thesettlement edge of Radcliffe. Consequently, existing hedgerows and trees on the site willbe retained wherever possible and supplemented with new planting, most notably alongthe western fringes of the site.

The LVA recommends a mitigation strategy that has directly shaped the development5.1.9

proposals to ensure that the proposed development responds to the existing landscapecharacter context and visual amenity. The proposed development is, therefore,

considered acceptable in landscape and visual amenity terms.

Trees & Hedgerows

An Arboricultural Assessment prepared for the site examined a total of 49 trees (many are5.1.10located off site, but close to the sites boundaries). There are no category A trees that are

considered to be of high quality and value, and in a condition that allows them to make asubstantial contribution to the local environment. The trees on the southern boundary,

and most of those around the buildings within the site, are category B trees of moderatequality and value, able to make a significant contribution to the local environment. The

other trees notably along the western boundary are category C trees of low quality andvalue and in adequate condition. There are only 2 trees on the northern boundary both of

which are Category B trees.


27/38


27

The survey also highlighted that the hedges are predominantly hawthorn, with some5.1.11

elderberry, ivy and brambles also present. The hedge on the southern site boundarycontains some mature trees, mainly ash, and hawthorn. They have all received routinemachine maintenance in recent years. The ecological survey that also accompanies theplanning application describes all of the hedgerows as species poor, and none areconsidered to qualify as important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

No tree removal will be required to facilitate the development, but some hedgerow5.1.12removal will be required, notably along the northern boundary to facilitate access to the

site, and two small sections of the internal north-south running hedgerow for the internalroad to cross the central green link between development parcels. However, theproposed landscaping scheme will provide a significant number of additional trees in andaround the site, notably along the eastern boundary of the site where there are currently

none, and the hedgerow along the northern boundary will be replaced with a newhedgerow around the roundabout. The proposed landscaping scheme will, therefore,more than compensate for the loss.

Ecology

The Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report that accompanies the planning application5.1.13submission sets out the findings of a desk study, extended Phase 1 habitat survey

involving a walkover of the site, and an investigation of buildings and trees for theirpotential to support bats.

The desk study confirms that there are no statutory designated sites of nature5.1.14conservation value within or immediately adjacent to the site. Nor are there any non-statutory designations of conservation value within or immediately adjacent to the site.

The habitat survey confirms the potential ecological constraints within the site, being that5.1.15

the it incorporates structures and trees which have the potential to support bats, featureslikely to be used by nesting birds including barn owls, some terrestrial habitat suitable forgreat crested newts. The site also supports Habitats of Principle Importance or LocalBiodiversity Action Plan Habitats, notably semi-improved neutral grassland andhedgerows, and Species of Principal Importance of Local Biodiversity Action Plan

Species, notably potentially roosting bats within the house (Building B3).

The survey also confirms that there is no evidence of badgers and the site does not5.1.16

contain suitable habitat for dormice, reptiles, or other protected species including otters,water voles and white-clawed crayfish. No invasive plants were recorded on the siteduring the survey.

Given the findings, the report recommends a number of additional surveys should5.1.17demolition or vegetation removal be proposed. These include two emergence surveys for

bats to be carried out prior to demolition of the house (Building B3), with one duskemergence and pre dawn re-entry bat survey of the remaining buildings. The further bat

surveys have been undertaken and accompany the planning application. The surveysindicate that there is some use of 3 of the 9 buildings on site by bats, but not the house. Italso recommends surveys to establish if buildings are being used by barn owls to roostand/or nest. Should vegetation or building be removed / demolished, these should be

thoroughly checked for active bird nests. The report also recommends biodiversityenhancements are considered as part of the development, incorporating bat and bird

boxes on any new buildings and wildlife friendly planting into the soft landscaping designs.

With the implementation of the recommended surveys and potential biodiversity5.1.18enhancements, the development proposals accord with nature conservation related


28/38


28

planning policies. The proposed development is, therefore, considered to be acceptable

in ecological terms.

Agricultural Land Quality

A agricultural land quality assessment has been undertaken and the findings are set out in5.1.19the Soil Resources, Agricultural Use and Quality of Land report that accompanies theapplication. This confirms that the site comprises 12ha of grade 2 land and 5.9ha ofsubsidiary sub-grade 3a land, which are dominant on the slopes to the east and west ofthe village. Grade 2 land comprises land where there is more than 40cm or medium to

light loam and sub-grade 3a land is where clay is closer to the surface or where the topsoilis a heavy loam. The principal agricultural limitation in both instances is (to varyingdegrees) seasonal wetness and ponding over slowly permeable subsoils.

Development of the site will, therefore, result in the loss of best and most versatile5.1.20

agricultural land. However, it is important to note that this pattern of land is typical of theagricultural land around Radcliffe on Trent. Therefore the development of any otherwise

appropriate greenfield site around the settlement may well also result in the loss of somebest and most versatile land. The site is, therefore, not exceptional in that respect andgiven the specific need for residential development in Radcliffe on Trent, the developmentproposals are considered to be acceptable in this regard.

Cultural Heritage

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment has been prepared to support the planning5.1.21

application. This assessment confirms that there are no designated heritage assets withinthe study site and no potential impacts on any designated heritage assets in the widervicinity of the study site have been identified. Recorded archaeological informationindicates that there is likely to be low potential for significant archaeological remains of

prehistoric and Roman date and a negligible potential for settlement evidence of Saxon ormedieval date. The site does contain upstanding earthworks of post-medieval ridge andfurrow that are considered of limited archaeological interest. Surviving 19 th century

building of Shelford Road Farm are considered to be of some local significance.

Subsequent surveys and intrusive investigations of the site include a Geophysical Survey5.1.22and Archaeological Trial Trenching and have revealed evidence for a Late Iron Age / EarlyRomano-British settlement within the west of the site and medieval / post-medieval ridge

and furrow present throughout the site. The settlement activity is contained in two largeenclosures, with smaller internal divisions, ditches and pits. The majority of featuresidentified in the trenches correspond with geophysical anomalies and evaluation suggeststhat significant archaeological activity is confined to the west of the site, as indicated

within the Geophysical Survey. The archive from the fieldwork will be deposited with anappropriate museum in due course under the relevant accession number.

As such an appropriate level of evaluation has been carried out to demonstrate and5.1.23

record the significance of any heritage assets within the local area and any archaeologicalactivity within the site specifically, and confirms that the development will not result in any

significant impact on any cultural heritage features.

Flood Risk

A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been undertaken to support the planning application.5.1.24It highlights that the sites lies within Flood Zone 1 (1:1000 year probability flood event)

and is not at risk of fluvial flooding, being some 11m higher above AOD than the RiverTrent at its lowest point and over 29m higher above AOD at its highest. An unnamed

watercourse passes east to west along the southern edge of the site and modelling results


29/38


29

indicate that only the south west of the site is likely to be subject to flooding in the 1:100

year plus climate change flood emanating from the stream. As such, the FRArecommends that the finished floor levels are set at least 600mm above the 1:100 yearplus climate change flood levels at the adjacent modelled watercourse sections.

The FRA includes a drainage strategy that ensures the development will not increase5.1.25

flood risk downstream or elsewhere in the surrounding area. Specifically it will limit thedrainage discharge to a rate that is less than the existing greenfield runoff prior todischarging into the stream. It will, therefore, result in a betterment to the existing fluvial

flooding conditions adjacent to the site and downstream for the life of the development.The drainage strategy includes the provision of attenuation ponds as part of a sustainableurban drainage system (SUDS).

Initial feedback from Severn Trent Water (STW) confirms that sufficient foul water capacity5.1.26

may exist within the existing network and waste water treatment works. However, the foulwater drainage proposals will be confirmed following the conclusion of detaileddiscussions with STW.

The proposed development is, therefore, considered to be acceptable in terms of both5.1.27flood risk and drainage.

Pollution

A Noise and Vibration Assessment has been undertaken that describes the existing noise5.1.28

environment in and around the site and assesses the implications for the proposeddevelopment. It states that internal noise levels are generally met across the site during

the daytime and night-time and the proposed glazing and ventilation strategy for the sitewill achieve the relevant ventilation and ambient noise requirements. The strategyincludes enhanced glazing to dwellings within approximately 60m of Shelford Road to the

north and 100m of the railway to the south.

Vibration levels were also assessed and it was concluded that there is unlikely to be any5.1.29building damage associated with vibration from the existing use of the adjacent railwayline and that there is a low risk of adverse comment.

The proposed development is, therefore, considered to be acceptable in these respects.5.1.30

DESIGN AND LAYOUT5.2

The Design and Access Statement (DAS) that accompanies the outline planning5.2.1

application provides a detailed account of the application proposals. The ambition as set

out in the DAS is to deliver a high quality development as advocated by the NPPF and thedesign policies and SPD guidance set out in Section 3 above.

There has been a sensitive approach to the design of the development proposals, which5.2.2has taken into account the environmental and technical assessments that have beenundertaken, as well as RBCs advice and the conclusions of the pre-applicationconsultation exercise. The form and character of the proposed development has been

carefully considered in line with established best design practice to realise a high qualityhousing development that makes efficient and effective use of the site, responds to the

sites setting, reflects the local character, and is well integrated into its surroundings.

The proposals are for a maximum of 400 residential units at a development density of5.2.3

approximately 30 dwellings per hectare making efficient and effective use of the site. Theprecise mix of dwellings will be determined at the reserved matters stage. However, it is

proposed that the development will deliver a range of house types from smaller properties


30/38


30

suitable for couples and young families through to larger bed family properties. The

development will also include 30% of the dwellings as affordable homes to meet localneeds in accordance with the policies set out in Section 3 above.

The appearance of the housing is also a reserved matter, but the DAS highlights how their5.2.4design will take its cues from the surrounding context. The dwellings will be

predominantly 2 storeys and detached (potentially with some single storey and occasional2.5 storey to be used as feature buildings). The dwellings will be arranged in perimeterblocks providing a permeable layout and passive surveillance of the public realm whilst

also securing the private amenity space.

The proposed scheme layout and design incorporates the following features:5.2.5

Provision of 5.12ha of public open space including a childrens play space and

allotments, with significant improvements in terms of biodiversity, sustainabledrainage systems, recreational facilities and strategic landscaping.

The existing hedgerow structure around and within the site will be retained andreinforced wherever possible to provide structure for the development and help

integrate it into the landscape. The hedgerow along Shelford Road that will be lost tofacility the provision of the site access will be replaced.

Limited building heights and positioning of proposed dwellings along the westernedge to provide appropriate distances between buildings, extended garden lengths(10.5m), and a landscape buffer (5m) and reduce the impact on the adjacent existing

houses.

Development on the eastern part of the site will be provided at a relatively lowdensity, with the blocks arranged to face out to the countryside in an informal

arrangement. This will present a more visually sympathetic settlement edge, which inplaces will help to soften the existing abrupt transition between the urban area andcountryside.

A landscape buffer (minimum 10m in depth) along the eastern boundary,

incorporating retained hedgerows and significant tree planting in small pockets. Theplanting will strengthen the landscape character and filter and screen views into thedevelopment and towards Radcliffe.

Green fingers will extend west from this buffer to permeate the development, creatingwoodland blocks and green streets that step up the slope hill. This will help integratethe development into its surroundings by filtering views and breaking up the roofline.

SUMMARY5.3

The application site is relatively unconstrained. A number of environmental and technical5.3.1assessments have been undertaken to inform the design of the developm

File 9 Planning Statement

Documents

Transcript of File 9 Planning Statement