Planning Committee - 2nd July 2013 - Newark and Sherwood ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Please Note: All policies listed below and any supplementary documents/guidance referred to can be viewed on the Council’s website. The Development Plan East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009) Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional Strategies and their associated targets which came into effect in July 2010. Since that time a High Court judgement has held that the powers the Government relied upon to achieve this could not be used to revoke all Regional Strategies in their entirety and therefore they have been reestablished as part of the Development Plan. The Government still intend to revoke Regional Strategies through the Localism Bill, which has begun its passage through parliament. The Government had stated that this intention to revoke Regional Strategies was a material consideration. The Court of Appeal has concluded that at the moment, the Government’s intention to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies may only be worthy of weight as a material consideration in very few cases. This application is not such a case. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the statutory development plan (and the relevant policies for this application are set out below). • Policy 3 Distribution of New Development • Policy Northern SRS 1 Sub Regional Development Priorities • Policy 27 Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) • Spatial Policy 1 Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2 Spatial Distribution of Growth • Spatial Policy 7 Sustainable Transport • Core Policy 8 Retail Hierarchy • Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design • Core Policy 14 Historic Environment • Newark Area Policy 1 Newark Urban Area Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999) • Saved Policy C1 Development in Conservation Areas Other material planning considerations National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was released by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on the 27th March 2012, with the aim of streamlining the planning system. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states that, "This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up to date Local Plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise." 44
Consultations Newark Town Council support the proposals Nottinghamshire County Council Highways advise that although there is an existing dropped kerb, the proposed access is in close proximity to both the traffic signalled junction at Queens Road/Northgate and the mini-island at Lovers Lane/Kings Road (leading to Morrisons supermarket). There are no turning facilities within the loading/unloading area, which would, therefore, result in a vehicle having to manoeuvre in Queens Road, preventing the free flow of traffic, and increasing the likelihood of danger to users of the highway. Whilst it is understand that this application site has been used as a furniture showroom in the past, it is considered that the use of this access would be detrimental to highway safety. Therefore, it is recommended that this application be refused as the proposed development fails to provide adequate servicing arrangements resulting in an increase in the likelihood of danger to other users of the highway due to vehicles having to manoeuvre into the Queens Road. Comments of the Director - Growth The proposals are for the change of use of an existing building in Newark Town centre and I am of the view that, given the location, the proposals sit acceptably with the sustainable development agenda of both the National Planning Policy Framework and the regional level plan. I also refer to the assertions in the same vein of the adopted settlement hierarchy as outlined by the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy. Explicitly, the proposals find support in Core Policy 8. I am therefore satisfied that the principle of the use is acceptable subject to a site specific assessment of the impacts. In this case, the impact of the proposals can be measured in terms of visual and residential amenity and highway safety. In respect of visual amenity and with regards also the conservation area, I am of the view that the lack of physical development will mean that the proposals will have limited impact. I therefore conclude that the proposals will ensure that the character of the conservation area is preserved in the interests of the tests of saved Policy C1 of the Local Plan and that the design of the proposals is of sufficient quality in its context and is therefore in accordance with the stance asserted by both the NPPF and Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy. I also see no conflict with the strategic aims of Core Strategy Core Policy 14. As a gymnasium, it is recognised that the servicing requirements would differ from the use of the unit as retail. I also note that Lincs and Notts Air Ambulance seek to sell large bulky items of furniture from the unit, as per its historical use. Having consulted with Nottinghamshire County Council, engineers are of the view that the available servicing for the use of the unit as retail and in particular the deposit, sale and collection of large bulky furniture items is inadequate. NCC highways state that, although there is an existing dropped kerb, the proposed access is in close proximity to both the traffic signalled junction at Queens Road/Northgate and the miniisland at Lovers Lane/Kings Road (leading to Morrisons supermarket). There are no turning facilities within the loading/unloading area, which would, therefore, result in a vehicle having to manoeuvre in Queens Road, preventing the free flow of traffic, and increasing the likelihood of danger to users of the highway. Whilst it is understand that this application site has been used as a furniture showroom in the past, it is considered that the use of this access would be detrimental 45
Page 1 and 2: 22 October 2012 Telephone: (016
Page 3: discussion of these items. NIL
Page 6 and 7: application on the grounds that the
Page 8 and 9: change to the design would impact o
Page 10 and 11: eceived within three months. The Bu
Page 12 and 13: Appraisal as significant unlisted b
Page 14 and 15: The Proposal The application is a r
Page 16 and 17: • Electric (push button) gates ei
Page 18 and 19: Consultations Farnsfield Parish Cou
Page 20 and 21: Street where the buildings are clos
Page 22 and 23: overshadowing. I am aware of the ex
Page 24 and 25: incorporates a tree survey, propose
Page 26 and 27: RECOMMENDATION Approve, subject to
Page 28 and 29: hard surfacing materials; minor art
Page 30 and 31: Notes to applicant 01 As part of th
Page 32: • Policy 26 (Protecting and Enhan
Page 36 and 37: The building is rectangular in shap
Page 38 and 39: low standard or where it fails to u
Page 40 and 41: 06 The approved landscaping shall b
Page 43: PLANNING COMMITTEE 30 th October 20
Page 47: Colin Walker Director - Growth 47
Page 50 and 51: The Proposal Planning permission is
Page 52 and 53: o Strategic location o Greenfield o
Page 54 and 55: The approach to the Sequential Test
Page 56: For further information, please con
Page 60 and 61: statutory development plan and it r
Page 62 and 63: Turning to need, Spatial Policy 3 f
Page 65 and 66: PLANNING COMMITTEE - 30 OCTOBER 201
Page 67 and 68: statutory development plan and it r
Page 69 and 70: away from the commercial uses first
Page 71 and 72: Conclusion For the reasons I set ou
Page 73 and 74: Means of enclosure (including heigh
Page 75 and 76: REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE
Page 81 and 82: • Spatial Policy 1 - Settlement H
Page 83 and 84: that a footprint of the size indica
Page 89 and 90: Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy D
Page 91 and 92: • Removal of trees will deprive r
Page 93 and 94: Details of the access, appearance,
Page 97 and 98:
PLANNING COMMITTEE- 30 October 2012
Page 99 and 100:
Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (ado
Page 101 and 102:
impact on the future of the school
Page 103 and 104:
The Local Planning Authority has no
Page 105 and 106:
105
Page 107 and 108:
Appendix 1 Kevin Rontree 8 MOOR ROA
Page 109 and 110:
Appendix 2 109
Page 111 and 112:
Appendix 2 111
Page 113 and 114:
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 30 OCTOBER 201
Page 115 and 116:
Occupiers of 4 neighbouring propert
Page 117 and 118:
on will exacerbate the flood risk t
Page 119 and 120:
albeit sharing part of the access w
Page 121 and 122:
121
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Cllr N Armstrong has referred this
Page 127 and 128:
Reason: To comply with the requirem
Page 129 and 130:
129
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Appeal reference Application number
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Appeal Decision Site visit made on
Page 139 and 140:
Appeal Decision APP/B3030/A/12/2176
Page 141 and 142:
Appeal Decision APP/B3030/A/12/2176
show all

Planning Committee - 2nd July 2013 - Newark and Sherwood ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?