Agenda reports pack PDF 1 MB - Meetings, agendas, and minutes ...

ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, 11 October 2012
Start Time 9.00 a.m.
At Town Hall, Moorgate Street, Rotherham. S60 2TH
AGENDA
1. To determine if the following matters are to be considered under the categories
suggested, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972.
2. To determine any items which the Chairman is of the opinion should be
considered as a matter of urgency.
3. Declarations of Interest (Page 1)
(A form is attached and spares will be available at the meeting)
4. Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Regulatory Board held on 20th
September, 2012 (herewith) (Pages 2 - 3)
5. Deferments/Site Visits (information attached) (Pages 4 - 5)
6. Development Proposals (report herewith) (Pages 6 - 110)
7. Report of the Director of Planning and Regeneration Service (herewith) (Pages
111 - 126)
8. Updates

Page 1
Agenda Item 3
ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD
MEMBERS’ DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Your Name (Please PRINT):-
Meeting at which declaration made:-
Item/Application in which you have
an interest:-
Date of Meeting:-
Time Meeting Started:-
Please tick ( √ ) which type of interest you have in the appropriate box below:-
1. Disclosable Pecuniary
2. Personal
Please give your reason(s) for you Declaring an Interest:-
(Please continue overleaf if necessary)
N.B. It is up to a Member to determine whether to make a Declaration. However, if you should
require any assistance, please consult the Legal Adviser or Democratic Services Officer prior to the
meeting.
Signed:- …………………………..………………………….
(When you have completed this form, please hand it to the Democratic Services Officer.)

PLANNING BOARD - 20/09/12
Page 2
Agenda Item 4
1T
PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, 20th September, 2012
Present:- Councillor Pickering (in the Chair); Councillors Astbury, Atkin, Dodson, Middleton,
Pitchley, Roddison, G. A. Russell, Sims, Smith and Whysall.
Apologies for absence:- Apologies were received from Councillors Godfrey, Kaye and
License.
T37. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no Declarations of Interest to report.
T38. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD
HELD ON 30TH AUGUST, 2012
Resolved:- That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Regulatory Board
held on 30 th
August, 2012, be approved as a correct record for signature by
the Chairman.
T39. DEFERMENTS/SITE VISITS
There were no site visits or deferments recommended.
T40. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Resolved:- (1) That, on the development proposals now considered the requisite
notices be issued and be made available on the Council’s website and that the
time limits specified in Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 apply.
In accordance with the right to speak procedure, the following person attended
the meeting and spoke about the application below:-
- Retention of building and mixed use of building and land for agricultural
and dog sporting activities, ancillary caravan and car parking areas and
improved vehicular access at land adjacent Honeysuckle Cottage,
Morthen Road, Thurcroft for M. & E. Ainsworth (RB2012/0730)
Mr. Ainsworth (Applicant)
(2) That application RB2012/0730:-
(a) be refused on the basis that the existing large building on site is
unauthorised and the retention of this building to provide facilities associated
with the dog agility and flyballing activities on the site is not considered to be
necessary or appropriate for the use of the site as a whole for outdoor
recreational use. As such, the proposal represents inappropriate development
in the Green Belt. In addition, the retention of this utilitarian and unattractive
building would materially harm the character and appearance of the
surrounding area and the openness of the Green Belt. The harm by reason of
inappropriateness, and any other harm, is not clearly outweighed by other

Page 3
2T PLANNING BOARD - 20/09/12
T41. UPDATES
considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary
to justify the development. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy ENV1
‘Green Belt’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ and Policy CR2.5
‘Proposals for New Outdoor Sport and Recreation in the Countryside’ of the
Rotherham Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained in National
Planning Policy Framework.
(b) That prosecution action be authorised in respect of the non-compliance with
the Enforcement Notice that requires the building to be demolished. Members
indicated that prosecution action should be pursued if the building was not
removed within three months.
(3) That applications RB2012/1071 and RB2012/1196 be granted for the
reasons adopted by Members at the meeting and subject to the relevant
conditions listed in the report.
The following update information was provided:-
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Members had been asked to consider any training requirements they
may have in the near future and any requests forwarded onto Democratic
Services or Planning.
Members were advised that formal consultation on the proposals to allow
extensions of 6 – 8 metres had not yet been received so these
regulations were not yet active.
Members were advised on the proposals to revise the layout of the
Planning Board agenda with effect from the next meeting, which will
hopefully make the information easier to follow.
Councillor Middleton drew attention to the steel gates at the Tesco Store
at Brecks roundabout and their replacement, which was still outstanding.
Officers confirmed outstanding matters would be followed up and letters
sent to Tesco accordingly with a report back to the Planning Board in due
course.
Councillor Roddison referred to application RB2012/0499 presented to
the Planning Board on the 28 th
June, 2012 regarding the hard surfaced
area at Brinsworth Manor Junior School and whether or not a revised
application had been submitted. The location of this hard surfaced area
appeared to be in a different position to that approved. Officers
endeavoured to investigate the matter further with a request for a
revised application if Councillor’s Roddison’s information was confirmed.

Page 4
Agenda Item 5
ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD
DEFERMENTS
• Planning applications which have been reported on the Planning Board
Agenda should not be deferred on request without justification.
• Justification for deferring a decision can arise from a number of matters:-
(a) Members may require further information which has not previously
been obtained.
(b) Members may require further discussions between the applicant and
officers over a specific issue.
(c) Members may require a visit to the site.
(d) Members may delegate to the Director of Service the detailed
wording of a reason for refusal or a planning condition.
(e) Members may wish to ensure that an applicant or objector is not
denied the opportunity to exercise the “Right to Speak”.
• Any requests for deferments from Members must be justified in Planning
terms and approved by the Board. The reason for deferring must be
clearly set out by the Proposing Member and be recorded in the minutes.
• The Director of Planning and Transportation Service or the applicant may
also request the deferment of an application, which must be justified in
planning terms and approved by the Board.

Page 5
SITE VISITS
• Requests for the Planning Board to visit a site come from a variety of sources:-
the applicant, objectors, the Parish Council, local Ward Councillors, Board
Members or sometimes from the Director of Planning and Transportation
Service.
• Site visits should only be considered necessary if the impact of the proposed
development is difficult to assess from the application plans and supporting
information provided with the officer’s written report; if the application is
particularly contentious or the application has an element that cannot be
adequately expressed in writing by the applicant or objector. Site visits can
cause delay and additional cost to a project or development and should only be
used where fully justified.
• The reasons why a site visit is called should be specified by the Board and
recorded.
• Normally the visit will be programmed by Democratic Services to precede the
next Board meeting (i.e. within two weeks) to minimise any delay.
• The visit will normally comprise of the Members of the Planning Board and
appropriate officers. Ward Members are notified of visits within their Ward.
• All applicants and representees are notified of the date and approximate time of
the visit. As far as possible Members should keep to the schedule of visits set
out by Committee Services on the Board meeting agenda.
• Normally the visit will be accessed by coach. Members and officers are
required to observe the site directly when making the visit, although the item will
be occasioned by a short presentation by officers as an introduction on the
coach before alighting. Ward Members present will be invited on the coach for
this introduction.
• On site the Chairman and Vice-Chairman will be made known to the applicant
and representees and will lead the visit allowing questions, views and
discussions. The applicant and representees are free to make points on the
nature and impact of the development proposal as well as factual matters in
relation to the site, however, the purpose of the visit is not to promote a full
debate of all the issues involved with the application. Members must conduct
the visit as a group in a manner which is open, impartial and equitable and
should endeavour to ensure that they hear all points made by the applicant and
representees.
• At the conclusion of the visit the Chairman should explain the next steps. The
applicant and representees should be informed that the decision on the
application will normally be made later that day at the Board meeting subject to
the normal procedure and that they will be welcome to attend and exercise their
“Right to Speak” as appropriate.

Page 6
Agenda Item 6
REPORT TO THE PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD TO BE HELD ON THE
11 TH OCTOBER, 2012
The following applications are submitted for your consideration. It is
recommended that decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 be
recorded as indicated.
INDEX PAGE
1
RB2011/0298
Revised restoration scheme and permanent retention of inert
recycling operations involving a powerscreen washing &
segregation plant and screening & crushing plant at Kiveton
landfill site land off Dog Kennels Lane, South Anston for
Nottingham Recycling Ltd.
2
RB2012/0005
Erection of a three storey building to form 80 bed hotel (use
class C1) and a two storey building to form public
house/restaurant (use class A3/A4) with associated access,
parking and landscaping at land off Phoenix Riverside,
Sheffield Road, Templeborough for Whitbread Plc.
3
RB2012/0823
Change of use of land to form trailer accommodation site
including storage of fairground equipment (use class sui
generis) at Land at Cramfit Road, North Anston for Mr. W.
Percival.
4
RB2012/1049
Outline application for the erection of 14 dwellinghouses
including details of access at land off Companions Close,
Wickersley for Executors of Mrs. M. Roddis.
5
RB2012/1069
Outline application for demolition of existing building and
erection of three & two storey building to form 14 No. flats
(renewal of permission RB2009/0634) at 51 Oakwood Grove,
Broom for Dr. B. Hillman.
6
RB2012/1180
Continuation of use from industrial building to swimming pool
with variation of Condition 05 (opening hours) to allow
opening from 0700 to 2200 hrs Monday to Friday and 1000 to
1600 hrs Sundays imposed by RB2010/0855 (amendment to
RB2012/0647) at Aquafyn Training Ltd 6 Low Common Road,
Dinnington for Aquafyn Training Ltd.
Page 7
Page 33
Page 56
Page 70
Page 91
Page 99

Page 7
REPORT TO THE PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD TO BE HELD ON THE
11 TH OCTOBER, 2012
The following applications are submitted for your consideration. It is
recommended that decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 be
recorded as indicated.
RB2011/0298

Page 8
Application
Number
Proposal and
Location
RB 2011/0298
Revised restoration scheme and permanent retention of inert
recycling operations involving recycling of existing tipped
material, importation and recycling of inert and non- inert waste
material, works within highway, storage of skips, a powerscreen
washing & segregation plant and screening & crushing plant,
stationing of mobile site office, installation of weighbridge and
formation of concrete water storage bath and wheel wash, at
Dog Kennel Lane, Kiveton Park Station
Recommendation Grant subject to conditions
Site Description & Location
The application site covers an area of approximately 5.7 hectares of land within a
former stone quarry currently being used for waste recycling and landfill/reinstatement.
The site is bounded by agricultural Green Belt land to the north, east and west, whilst
immediately to the south is the Kiveton Park Steel and Wire works. Access to the site off
Dog Kennel Hill is via the access adjacent to the Station Hotel public house, and
opposite the railway level crossing for Kiveton Park Station, which also serves as an
access to other commercial operations, including a brick manufacturing site.
Wales Public Footpath No 22 runs along the western site boundary.
Background
The site is within an old stone quarry and planning permission has been granted in the
past for landfill and a waste recycling centre. Planning permission was granted in 2004
to extend the period of operation for the landfill and waste recycling until April 2019,
application references RB2003/1659, and RB2003/1660 respectively. The site also has
planning permission for the storage of skips handling and recycling of inert and non inert
waste materials (RB2004/0359) which also expires in April 2019, and permission for the
installation of a Combined Heat and Power plant (RB2008/1653) which has not been
implemented, the permission expiring on the 11 th June 2013.
The application was initially for the installation of a Powerscreen plant, weighbridge, and
office building. However, it has come to the Council’s attention that the tipping and
recycling operations in the adjacent quarry are not being carried out in accordance with
the approved plans. The tipped area has exceeded that identified in the planning
permission, and the storage of skips and recycling operations are being carried out in
locations different to those identified on the approved plans. Consequently, the
applicant was requested to amend the proposals to include all the operations at the site,
which are now included in the revised proposals. The matter has been held in abeyance
pending the submission of all necessary details to identify the operations being carried
on at the site, the proposed phasing of the restoration scheme, new final site levels for
the tipping operations, and details of all plant, machinery and hardstanding in relation to
the recycling element of the operations.
A screening opinion has been carried out in relation to the current proposal, in
accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011, and it was

Page 9
concluded that the development would not be likely to have significant effects on the
environment by virtue of factors such as its size, dust, emissions, and traffic generation,
and will not have long term and irreversible impacts. Accordingly the Local Planning
Authority has adopted the opinion that the proposals are not EIA development as
defined in the 2011 Regulations.
Proposal
The application is for a revised recycling/restoration scheme and permanent retention of
inert recycling operations involving recycling of existing tipped material, importation and
recycling of inert and non-inert waste material, storage of skips, a Powerscreen washing
& segregation, screening & crushing plant, stationing of mobile site office, installation of
weighbridge, and formation of concrete water storage bath and wheel wash.
The applicants have indicated that there is potential to remove and recycle 200,000
tonnes of waste material from the landfill site per annum (this is a purely indicative
figure put forward by the applicants on the basis of the Powerscreen and other recycling
uses on site). However, the facility is designed to process 110,000 tonnes of material
per year.
The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, a Planning
Statement, ,a Method Statement, and a Surface Water Drainage and Flooding
Statement.
Design and Access Statement: (Received in relation to the original submission):
Indicates that the site comprises an existing inert waste recycling operation, including a
sophisticated screening plant, a prefabricated office, concrete platform and a
weighbridge. The office floor space is 30 sq m needed for control of the site and
weighbridge. The layout of plant has been chosen near to the site entrance so as not to
compromise other activities on the site.
The office is of standard prefabricated appearance and appropriate for this type of
location. Its appearance is determined by its function. The scale of the structures is
considered appropriate in the context of the size and nature of the operations.
Planning Statement:
Indicates that waste operations are well established at the site and the earliest
operations were the land filling of waste by Kiveton Park Steel who operated a foundry
on adjacent land. Planning permissions exist for the site, which allow tipping and
recycling of inert waste and the final contouring of the restored site.
The Powerscreen plant has been erected for the purpose of recycling inert waste from
the landfill site and some imported inert waste. The Powerscreen uses a series of
screening and washing processes to produce a range of secondary aggregates for sale
to the local building trade. The plant produces aggregates including fine and course
sand, and aggregates of 10 mm, 20 mm and 40 mm in size. The Powerscreen provides
a number of benefits including:
(i) Recycling of inert waste.
(ii) Directs waste away from disposal from landfill.

Page 10
(iii) Produces a secondary aggregate that reduces the reliance on consumption of
primary materials.
(iv) More sustainable and environmentally friendly than primary aggregate.
(v) Recycles waste from an existing landfill site and will in time provide a suitable
landform for restoration.
The Powerscreen would operate between 0700 to 1800 hrs on Monday to Friday, and
0800 to 1300 on Saturdays. The Powerscreen process comprises material taken from a
stock pile by conveyor, some 24m long and fed into the machines by hopper and
separated by a number of screening and washing operations to produce the various
aggregates and residual waste material. Aggregates leave the Powerscreen by
conveyor to stock piles 5-6m high prior to removal from site by HGVs. The Powerscreen
is 9.6m high and 69.4m long. Lighting is fitted to the washing plant at a number of
locations. Lamps are fitted to the storage tank and four are fitted to the office building.
The proposals also include a mobile office (portacabin) and installation of a
weighbridge. The office and weighbridge would provide facilities for managing the site,
and recording and monitoring vehicles.
Additional information is submitted in connection with:
Machinery and Plant
The greatest amount of machinery that is anticipated to be used at the site includes:
• The Powerscreen washing and screening plan currently operational at the
Kiveton landfill site;
• 3 loading shovels
• 4 excavators
• 4 mobile screens
• 2 mobile crushers
• 1 dump truck
• 1 towed bowser
This plant and machinery is currently operational at the Kiveton Landfill site.
Traffic Generation
It is anticipated that the operations on the site, including the Powerscreen recycling
operation, have the capacity to recycle 110,000 tonnes of material.
A number of planning permissions are in place at the site, two of which allow waste
management and recycling operations to take place without limiting the number of
vehicle movements at the site. A further permission (RB2004/0359) for the storage of
skips and recycling allows 30 HGV’s in and 30 HGV’s out each day. However, the
applicant is willing to agree to limit the number of daily vehicle movements at the site to
rationalise the previous planning permissions. On this basis the applicants have agreed
to a maximum of 70HGV trips per day (140 movements) whilst restoration works are on
going. They have also agreed to a maximum of 50 HGV trips per day (100 vehicle
movements), when restoration is complete. Of these, it is estimated that 12 two way
trips per day would be staff movements. The remainder would be waste movements.

Page 11
The Powerscreen would recycle some imported waste and material from the landfill to
achieve the comprehensive restoration of the landfill. The restoration scheme would
return the site to woodland and grassland pasture with some areas remaining in use for
the recycling operations. The restoration scheme could be achieved through the
removal of approximately 300,000 cubic metres of material. This would equate to
64,285 tonnes of material being removed from the landfill each year on average over
the next 7 years (up until the completion date of 2019). The Powerscreen can process
110,000 tonnes per year and so 60% of the capacity of the Powerscreen would be
taken up by recycling material from the landfill for export and reuse as a secondary
aggregate. In addition, key dates for the restoration of each phase of the landfill have
been provided to demonstrate that progress of the landfill restoration can be monitored.
Once the landfill has been restored, the Powerscreen would continue to operate using
110,000 tonnes of imported waste material per annum. The other recycling operations
would also need to continue to provide feedstock for the permitted Combined Heat and
Power facility. A limit of 50 HGV trips per day (100 vehicle movements), when
restoration is complete is considered to be acceptable.
In conclusion it is considered that setting an HGV limit of 70 HGV trips per day (i.e. 140
vehicle movements) up until restoration is completed would be an improvement over the
existing situation whereby HGV movements at the site are unlimited. The proposed limit
would be sufficient for the Powerscreen and other recycling operations to take place at
Kiveton landfill site and provide for a degree of flexibility. In addition, the proposals
would secure the restoration of the landfill site and improve the amenity of the site and
area. The site is located within an existing industrial area next to a concrete block
manufacturing facility and steel works, neither of which have limits for the number of
HGV movements. The Powerscreen recycles inert waste to produce secondary
aggregate and planning policy supports the increase production of use of secondary
aggregates over the use of primary aggregates which are considered to be a finite
resource.
Road safety
In a five year period 2005 to 2010, four road traffic accidents have been recorded in the
vicinty. Three were slight injuries, and one had one slight and one serous injury. None
of the accidents were related to traffic entering or leaving the application site. It is
concluded that there is no adverse road safety risk suggestive of an existing deficiency
in the layout or geometry of the highway network. The accidents recorded in the vicinity
of the site were due to bad weather or driver behaviour.
A 30 mph speed limit sign is located along Dog Kennels Lane to the west of the site
entrance. The highways authority, have suggested this sign is moved 50-60 metres
west from its existing location along the road side. The purpose of relocating the sign is
to provide drivers approaching from the west with more time to slow down before
reaching the site entrance. The highway authority has suggested laying new road
markings on Dog Kennels Lane around the site entrance, on the northern side of the
road. The proposed new road markings would include painting a red hatching on the
east bound side of the carriageway either side of the site entrance and moving the
centre line of the highway. The purpose of these works is to improve visibility for
vehicles leaving the site. It is understood that the highways authority would be satisfied
with the site access if these improvements were implemented. The applicant is
agreeable to the suggested highways improvements being implemented and would be

Page 12
willing to enter into a legal agreement to cover the cost of these works if a suitable limit
to the costs can be agreed in advance.
Dust
To ensure that dust generation at the site is kept to a minimum the operator would
employ the following additional standard mitigation measures:
• Material awaiting washing and screening to be stored in stockpiles for a limited
period only to reduce potential for material to dry out and create windblown dust.
• No overloading of conveyors.
• Use minimal drop heights when forming stockpiles from conveyors.
• Ensure that the water sprays and washing processes of the Powerscreen are
operating optimally, and that the facility is well maintained.
• Recycled aggregate is loaded into HGV by loading shovel and dust generation
is reduced by minimising the drop height of the material,
• Sheeting of loads during transport.
• Make available water browser for dust suppression along site access tracks,
and for stockpiles.
• Implement a speed limit for vehicles moving around the site.
• All HGV’s to use wheel wash before leaving the site.
In accordance with good practice, emissions of particulate matter from the plant would
be visually monitored by the operator. Such observations should be made on start up of
the plant and on at least two more occasions each day. The time, location and result of
these assessments should be recorded.
In the event that complaints relating to dust emissions are received, investigations shall
be made into the activity or operation causing the disruption and suitable mitigation
measures employed to ensure dust emissions remain at an acceptable level.
Nottinghamshire Recycling has not received any complaints relating to dust or odour
from the operations at Kiveton Landfill site. It is concluded that although the site
operations have the potential to generate dust, the site is remote from sensitive
receptors in the surrounding area. In addition the site is located in a former quarry
surrounded on several sides by mature woodland. These features shelter the site from
the prevailing wind and serves to contain any dust emissions that may be produced.
Noise
The waste recycling and landfill restoration operations at the Kiveton Landfill site will
create noise that may have the potential to cause noise impacts and as a result
consideration is given to this matter. The site is located amongst existing industrial
facilities such as Kiveton Steel and Forticrete. Both premises are of a significant size
and would produce noise during the manufacturing process, moving materials and
products around the site and during the import and export process which is carried out
by HGV. The B6059 (also known as Dog Kennels Lane and Redhill) is a busy highway
between Kiveton Park and South Anston located to the south of the site. The Kiveton
Park Train Station and railway line is located opposite the site entrance. Further
industrial development is present further south some 315 metres from the landfill at the
Kiveton Park Industrial Estate.

Page 13
The nearest noise sensitive receptors to the Powerscreen are the two residential
properties along western side of Dog Kennels Lane, located 270m to the east of the
application site. A row of residential properties are located on the eastern side of Dog
Kennels Lane approximately 320 metres east of the Powerscreen. These properties are
screened from the application site by the quarry walls that surround the site and mature
woodland along its eastern site boundary. The profile of the land located between the
Powerscreen and residential properties would serve as a barrier attenuating noise
produced by the plant and vehicles. Noise sources such as Dog Kennels Lane, and the
Kiveton Steel foundry increase the local background noise levels and it is anticipated
that any noise from the Powerscreen would blend in with the background noise already
present in the area.
The Powerscreen is located within the Kiveton Landfill site, amongst a number of
existing waste recycling operations. The existing operations utilise screens, loading
shovels and excavators with HGV and dump trucks also visiting and moving around the
site. The Powerscreen comprises of a number of washing and screening processes
along with conveyors to transport material between each stage of the recycling process
and introduces an additional source of noise to the existing recycling operations that
take place at the site. The Powerscreen is a new and modern piece of equipment fitted
with some of the most modern mitigation to reduce noise emissions. The plant would be
serviced regularly to ensure optimal running conditions and to minimise noise
emissions.
The access road to site used by HGVs delivering and exporting material leads from Dog
Kennels Lane in a northerly direction to the site office and weighbridge and is situated
270 metres from the nearest residential property. The Powerscreen has been positioned
within the site to reduce traffic distance for HGVs and to be remote from noise sensitive
receptors. In addition to the noise mitigation measures incorporated into the site design,
good site management and good working practices would also provide additional noise
mitigation.
These measures would include:
• All haul roads would be kept clean and maintained in a good state of repair, i.e.
any potholes would be filled and large bumps removed, to avoid unwanted rattle
and “body-slap” from heavy goods vehicles;
• heavy goods vehicles entering the site should have tailgates securely fastened;
all mobile plant used at the application site would have noise emission levels that
comply with the limiting levels defined in EC Directive 86/662/EEC and any
subsequent amendments;
• plant would be operated in a proper manner with respect to minimising noise
emissions, e.g. minimisation of drop heights, no unnecessary revving of engines,
plant used intermittently not left idling;
• plant would be subject to regular maintenance, i.e. all moving parts to be kept
well lubricated, all cutting edges to be kept sharpened, the integrity of silencers
and acoustic hoods to be maintained;
• all plant used in association with the Powerscreen would be fitted with effective
exhaust silencers which would be maintained in good working order to meet
manufacturers’ noise rating levels. Defective silencers would be replaced
immediately; and

Page 14
• pumps, generators and compressors would be electrically powered where
possible, be located behind existing screening mounds where possible and/or
would be fitted with acoustic covers where necessary.
Nottinghamshire Recycling has not received any complaints relating to noise from the
operations at Kiveton Landfill site and indicates that the recycling operations do not
cause noise disturbance.
In addition to the Powerscreen, Nottinghamshire Recycling Ltd also operate a number
of mobile screens to reduce haulage lengths and allow for flexibility in the rate of
processing at the site. Imported materials are stockpiled adjacent to the screens and fed
through the system by means of excavators or loading shovels. Similarly materials
sourced from on site are processed by feeding through the system with similar plant,
with the option of repositioning mobile screens or temporarily using dumpers as the onsite
material is processed and the area of excavation moves across the site.
As outlined above, there are two sources of material that are passed through the
Powerscreen, material derived from the adjacent landfill, and imported construction and
demolition waste. Inert material would be removed from the landfill by a 360 excavator
or dozer and placed directly next to the Powerscreen. Alternatively material would be
loaded into a dump truck and transported a short distance across the landfill site to the
Powerscreen. Material would be unloaded from the dump truck by tipping to form a
stockpile adjacent to the Powerscreen. Material would be taken from the stockpile and
loaded into the Powerscreen hopper by an excavator, loading shovel or excavator.
Operating in this manner allows the operator to carry out a visual check of the material
and segregate any material that is suspected to be unsuitable or contaminated.
Unsuitable material would be placed in a separate stockpile for further analysis and
treatment as necessary.
Material delivered to the site for recycling would be deposited in stockpiles directly
adjacent to the Powerscreen in the location indicated on Drawing MS/2.
Phasing and final contours
The works will progress across the site and in such a manner that they are screened by
existing landforms as much as possible, and protected from incidental winds to
minimise the potential for dust generation and dispersal and contain noise from plant
operations. Works will also be contained within discrete and manageable areas such
that site restoration can be achieved and nuisance to surrounding land will be
minimised. The Kiveton landfill currently comprises of a sloped landform within a former
quarry. The waste slope rises in a northerly direction from the quarry base. To ensure
that the integrity of the waste slope is not compromised, waste would be removed from
the landfill in layers.
Working would commence in the northern portion of the landfill where the landform is at
its highest. This would have the benefit of reducing the overall height of the most visible
parts of the landfill site. Works to remove waste from the landfill would then progress in
a southerly direction. Waste would be removed retaining safe waste slopes at all times
and so it is likely that waste would be removed from an area to approximately 3 metres
deep (to provide a suitable safe slope angle) before progressing to the next area.
Excavation works would return certain areas of the landfill at a later date to achieve the
proposed restoration levels.

Page 15
Drawing PS/6 shows the proposed final levels of Kiveton Landfill. These contours have
been modelled based on an up to date topographical survey from the site and the
removal of 370,000 tonnes of material. Drawing PS/6 also shows the proposed planting
scheme. The landform and planting scheme have been designed taking into account
the features in the surrounding area in order to blend in.
Volume of material and duration of working
It is anticipated that up to 110,000 tonnes of material could be removed from the landfill
and recycled each year as this is the maximum processing capability of the recycling
operations. To ensure that a robust and ‘worst case scenario’ has been taken into
account, the traffic statement within the planning application has been based on vehicle
trips resulting from 110,000 tonnes of recycled material being exported from the site
each year. Due to the current economic climate, the demand for recycled aggregates is
low. The planning application assumes that 370,000 tonnes of inert material would be
removed from the landfill for recycling and exporting in the period up to 2019. This
would allow the operator to achieve the restoration levels proposed in the planning
application.
Anticipated start and end dates for the works
The Powerscreen has been erected and is currently operational. Planning permission
R1995/1006P was granted in 1996 for the alteration of the landfill levels. This
permission requires that the landfill is restored in accordance with the approved plans
by 2019 (under the revision to the end date approved under planning permission
RB2003/1659). The current application includes a revised restoration scheme for the
landfill that could be achieved by 2019 by removing waste from the landfill and recycling
through the Powerscreen and exporting as secondary aggregates. The current
application includes the permanent retention of the Powerscreen.
Unsuitable Material
A small quantity of material passing through the Powerscreen may not be suitable to
form a secondary aggregate. However, this will be a small portion of the material
removed from the landfill. Material such as oversize rock and stone can be re-circulated
through a crusher within the Powerscreen to reduce the material size to ensure that it is
suitable for recycling. Material such as wood, metal and plastic that are removed from
the Powerscreen would be stockpiled separately and exported from the site for further
recycling and recovery at a separate facility. The location of the stockpile of unsuitable
material is shown on Drawing MS/2
Surface Water Drainage and Flooding Statement
Indicates that the site is not within a Flood Rsk Zone and that the plant is installed on a
concrete plinth and operates using water in an enclosed loop system, and surface water
from rainfall is collected in a sump on site.
Due to the type of waste the majority of rainfall is absorbed into the site. Any excess run
off collects at the south west corner of the site ad is directed to a storage sump via a an
open ditch/gully. The water is then used for dust suppresion within the site, and can be
re-used within the closed loop system for the Powerscreen.

Page 16
Land Restoration
On completion of the recycling operation it is intended to restore the site to a species
rich grassland and wooded landscape. The scheme would include approximately 2.7
hectares of woodland and understorey planting and 3.8 hectares of grassland.
Woodlands would be broad leafed with species including Oak, Ash and Hazel.
The restoration land form takes account of the nature of the surrounding landscapes
and includes ridgelines at the north and north eastern edges of the site. Levels would
fall generally from the north east to the south west from the outer edges of the site. The
level range would be 100 to 115m AOD falling away to 90m AOD.
Development Plan Allocation and Policy
The site is part allocated for general industry purposes and is partly within the Green
Belt. The following Policies are considered to be relevant:
Policy ENV1 Green Belt
Policy ENV2.2 Interest outside Statutorily Protected Sites
Policy ENV3.1 Development and the Environment
Policy ENV3.4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows
Policy ENV3.7 Control of Pollution
Policy T7 Public Rights of Way
Policy MIN6 Methods and Control of Working
Policy MIN7 Recycling
Other Material Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27 th 2012
and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of
the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is
sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable
development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.
The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may
continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a
limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development
Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF
states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according
to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to
the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF
and have been given due weight in the determination of this application.
Publicity
The application was advertised on site and in the local press and nearby residents
notified, both when the original submission was made, and on receipt of the additional

Page 17
information. Eight letters of objection were received in relation to the first submission,
including, two rights to speak at the Board meeting, and a representation from Wales
Parish Council.
Points raised in the objections were:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(xiv)
Noise.
Dust.
Existing excessive HGV’s
Future increase in HGV’s.
Operating hours too long.
Future smoke from Heat and Power plant.
Area and height of original tipped area has increased.
Highways not suitable for HGV’s.
Heritage site: former Kiveton Hall (now demolished).
Nearby ancient wood land and wild life area.
Excessive speed of traffic in highway.
No economic benefit to the area.
Mud in highway.
Footpath affected by water and debris.
Wales Parish Council expressed concern that the footpath was indicated in the
submitted plans in the wrong location.
A further 7 objections were received to the second consultation exercise. The points
originally raised were reiterated, as were the two right to speak requests.
Consultations
Streetpride (Highways and Transportation): Notes that in a five year period 2005 to
2010, four road traffic accidents have been recorded in the vicinty. Three were slight
injuries, and one had one slight and one serous injury. None of the accidents were
related to traffic entering or leaving the application site. It is concluded that there is no
adverse road safety risk suggestive of an existing deficiency in the layout or geometry of
the highway network. The accidents recorded in the vicinity of the site were due to bad
weather or driver behaviour.
Adds that the impact of development traffic (HGV’s) at the site access and on the local
highway network has been considered in some detail, particularly in relation to the
Appeal Inspector’s report dated 3 rd February 2010 relating to the proposed Combined
Heat and Power plant (RB2008/1653). In this respect, the applicants indicated in their
submission that the access was acceptable. However, the appeal Inspector was of the
view that any material increase in traffic at the entrance should be strongly opposed.
The applicants are therefore prepared to limit the number of vehicles per day and
implement the improvements at the site access to Dog Kennels Lane (revised road
markings and relocation of 30 mph speed limit) previously recommended by the Unit
and as illustrated in draft form on plan Ref.126/Red Hill dated April 2011.
The applicants have agreed to limit the No. of HGV trips to a maximum of 70 No. per
day i.e. 70 in/70 out, for the duration of the restoration of the landfill site. Following
restoration, the No. of HGV trips would be limited to a maximum of 50 No. i.e. 50 in/50
out. According to records, the three “live” planning permissions re. the site i.e.
RB2003/1659, RB2003/1660 and RB2004/359 could potentially result in a total of 69

Page 18
No. trips per day i.e. 69 in/69 out. Whilst these permissions end in 2019, it is considered
that the proposal to maintain this level of HGV activity for the duration of the restoration
works and to reduce this to a maximum of 50 No. trips per day thereafter, is unlikely to
have a material adverse impact in road safety terms subject to the access
improvements referred to above.
In these circumstances, it is considered that the application can be supported in
highway terms subject to the above HGV restrictions, and to appropriate conditions for
the implementation of the access improvements, surfacing of vehicular areas, and to
prevent the deposit of mud on the highway. A Section S278 Agreement between the
Council, as Highway Authority, and the developers, will be required in relation to the
works within the highway.
Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health Service):
Points out that there is potential of noise and dust disamenity to local residents on Dog
Kennels lane and Manor Road, and recommends appropriate conditions and
informatives to address the issues.
Streetpride (Landscape Unit):
No objections subject to timed phasing of the finished levels and appropriate
landscaping details and aftercare.
Streetpride (Trees and Woodland): No objections subject to no felling of trees, and
protection of trees to be retained.
Streetpride (Ecology Officer): No objections subject to appropriate conditions regarding
Ecological enhancement of the site.
Environment Agency: No objections subject to appropriate conditions and informatives.
South Yorkshire Mining Advisory Service: No specific issues or concerns.
Sheffield Area Geology Trust: Kiveton Lodge 2 RIGS site is one of a series of key sites
within the Magnesian Limestone of the Kiveton - Anston - Lindrick area. As such, it will
be desirable to retain the existing quarry faces in the south of the proposed restoration
area, and to document in detail the geological features within any quarry faces that are
to be covered as part of the final restoration plan, including the recording of any quarry
faces or exposed bedrock that may be temporarily exposed as part of the recycling of
the materials prior to restoration of the site area.
Streetpride (Footpaths Officer):
Wales Public Footpath 22 is subject to regular inspection by rights of way officers.
When last inspected in August the route was clearly defined and easy to use. A bund
and fence has been installed to protect and demark the right of way. Additional
surfacing has been installed where the path floods, these works have taken place
entirely at the landowner’s expense.
Appraisal
Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In
dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to -

Page 19
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and
(c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90.
If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be
made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004.
The main issues to consider in respect of the application are:
- The principle of the development.
- Access to the site.
- Traffic generation.
- Impact on amenity.
- Impact on Wales Public Footpath No 22.
- Impact on Interest Outside Statutorily Protected Sites.
- Issues raised by objectors.
The principle of the development
The application is for the regularisation of an existing use in a former stone quarry,
which has extant planning permission for the importation, tipping, and recycling of inert
waste material, and site restoration. The proposals also include a Powerscreen
recycling unit, skip storage and recycling operation, weighbridge, office, concrete pad
and finished site contours, all on land allocated in the main for Industrial purposes and
partly Green Belt. Details of a restoration scheme which would return the current
unsightly tipped area into an attractive landscaped area are also included.
The existing uses on the site are not in accordance with the planning permissions
insofar as operations such as the skip storage and recycling use is in a different
location, and the tipped area has encroached outside the boundary of the original
planning permissions.
In considering these proposals, considerable weight must be given to the fact the site
has extant planning permission for similar operations currently being considered.
Policies MIN6 Methods and Control of Working, and MIN7 Recycling, of the Unitary
Development Plan, along with advice in Paragraphs 142 and 144 of the NPPF strongly
advocate the principle of waste recycling and recovery of aggregates as opposed to
landfill and quarrying operations for the exploitation of virgin minerals.
Policy ENV 1 Green Belts states: “A Green Belt whose boundaries are defined on the
Proposals Map will be applied within Rotherham Borough. In the Green Belt,
development will not be permitted except in very special circumstances for purposes
other than agriculture, forestry, recreation, cemeteries and other uses appropriate to a
rural area.
Policy MIN6 Methods and Control of Working: amongst other things states:
“Surface mineral working will be required to be carried out in such a way as to minimise
its impact on the locality and to secure an appropriate form of restoration to a suitable
standard within an agreed timescale.”

Page 20
Policy MIN7 Recycling:
“The Council will encourage the recycling of aggregates, fuel recovery, and the wider
use of waste materials as substitutes for mineral products wherever this is feasible and
where it can be carried out in an environmentally acceptable manner.”
Paragraph 142 of the NPPF states: “Minerals are essential to support sustainable
economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is a sufficient
supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the
country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be
worked where they are found, it is important to make best use of them to secure their
long-term conservation.
Paragraph 144 states: “When determining planning applications, local planning
authorities should amongst other things:
● give great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction, including to the economy;
● ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting
vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate
noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties;
● provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to
high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where
necessary. Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should
only be sought in exceptional circumstances.”
With regard to the permanent recycling operations proposed, these are considered
acceptable as they relate to only a small part of the site and whilst certain elements may
fall within the Green Belt, the boundary will be reviewed such that certain parts of the
site currently allocated for Industry and Business purposes would be re-allocated for as
Green Belt.
Finally, the scheme would restore the great majority of an existing unsightly area with
landscaping and biodiversity improvements, along with the provision of a
environmentally sustainable recycling plant on land allocated for Industrial Business
purposes on the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
On the basis of the above the proposals would result in no material conflict with Policy
ENV 1 Green Belt of the Unitary Development Plan. The proposals would be in
accordance with Policies MIN6 Methods and Control of Working, MIN7 Recycling, and
ENV3.1 Development and the Environment, of the Unitary Development Plan and
advice in Paragraphs 142 and 144 of the NPPF.
It is therefore considered that the proposals are acceptable in principle.
Other material considerations are:
Access
The submitted traffic assessment indicates that the existing access has visibility in Dog
Kennels Hill to the east of 2.4m by 43 to the highway centreline and in a westerly
direction of 2.4m by 43m to the near side road channel. It is also concludes that the
access is not sub standard and is acceptable. In this respect the Transportation Unit
has indicated that the moving of the 30 mph speed limit to before the bend to the west

Page 21
of the site access and widening the red edge of carriageway hatching, either side of the
site access to discourage motorists from travelling close to the road channel, and
offsetting the road centreline would improve the access in terms of visibility and highway
safety. This can be addressed by way of suitable planning conditions and a S278
Highways Agreement.
Traffic generation
The applicants have indicated that the site has potential to recycle 200 000 tonnes of
inert waste material per annum, the Powerscreen has capacity to process up to 110 000
tones per annum. The traffic assessment indicates that the operations on the site
including the Powerscreen recycling operation would recycle 110 000 tonnes of material
resulting in be 5,500 trips per annum (52 two way trips per day). Of these 12 two way
trips per day would be staff movements. The remainder would be waste movements.
The application is for up to 70 two way trips per day, up to 2019, whilst restoration is in
progress, and incorporating traffic movements for the skip recycling operation and the
Heat and Power Plant. Subsequent to 2019 the proposed traffic movements would be
50 two way trips per day to serve the recycling operations to be permanently retained
on site (i.e. the Powerscreen, Heat and Power Plant and Skip recycling operation).
The extant planning permissions for restoration and recycling within the site, and which
are valid until 2019, place no limit on the number of vehicles which may access the site
per annum.
Impact on Amenity
Policy ENV3.7 Control of Pollution:
“The Council, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, will seek to minimise the
adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance and pollution associated with development and
transport.
Paragraph 144 states: “When determining planning applications, local planning
authorities should amongst other things: “ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and
particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at
source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise
sensitive properties.”
The site of application is an area containing existing industrial uses, including the
adjacent Kiveton Park Steel Works immediately to the south east and a large concrete
products works immediately to the south west. Additionally there is a railway line and
busy highway to the south, with Kiveton Park Industrial Estate (the old UNSCO site)
beyond. The application site itself is within a former disused and tipped quarry, which
has extant planning permissions for the reception and recycling of inert waste and recontouring
of the land. The site is therefore well screened from surrounding areas and
any emissions to air are mitigated to a great extent by the physical characteristics of the
site. Having regard for these factors and the measures put forward for the suppression
of noise and dust in the submitted method statement it is considered that there would be
no material additional adverse impact on the locality in terms of noise and dust
emissions.

Page 22
It is therefore considered that, subject to appropriate conditions, the proposed uses
would be in accordance with Policies ENV 3.7 Control of Pollution, and MIN5 Criteria in
the Assessment of all Mineral Extraction Proposals of the Unitary Development Plan,
advice in Supplementary Planning Guidance Minerals Guidance 2, Methods and
schemes of mineral working, restoration and after-care, of the Unitary development
Plan, and advice in Paragraph 144 of the NPPF.
In terms of the impact on visual amenity, Policy ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and
Hedgerows’ states: “The Council will seek to promote and enhance tree, woodland and
hedgerow coverage throughout the Borough.”
The application site is currently an unsightly disused quarry recently filled with inert
waste and the subject of extant planning permission for recycling of minerals and the
restoration of the land. The proposals include finished levels and a proposed
landscaping scheme. It is considered that subject to appropriate conditions, relating to
tree planting and biodiversity improvements, the proposals will have a positive impact
on the visual amenities and ecology of the area in accordance with Policies ENV 3.1
Development and the Environment, ENV3.4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows, of the
Unitary Development Plan and advice in Paragraph of the NPPF.
Impact on Wales Public Footpath No. 22
Policy T7 Public Rights of Way states that: “The Council will safeguard, maintain,
promote and, where appropriate, create footpaths, cycleways and bridleways as a
means of serving local communities, linking areas of Urban Greenspace and improving
access to the countryside for recreation purposes.”
Wales Public Footpath No 22 runs along the western site boundary and has been the
subject of a number of complaints in the past, relating to the blocking and flooding of the
path. In this respect the applicants have constructed a raised area of land and fencing
adjacent the footpath to alleviate any future problems. Additionally, the proposals
include measures for the collection and recycling of water within the site. In view of the
above it is considered that the impact on the footpath has been addressed.
Impact on Interest Outside Statutorily protected Site
Policy ENV2.2 Interest outside Statutorily Protected Sites:
“Proposals which would adversely affect, directly or indirectly, any key species, key
habitat, or significant geological or archaeological feature, will only be permitted where it
has been demonstrated that the overall benefits of the proposed development clearly
outweigh the need to safeguard the interest of the site or feature.”
Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states, “ The planning system should contribute to and
enhance the natural and local environment by amongst other things:
● protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation
interests and soils;
● minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where
possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in
biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more
resilient to current and future pressures;
● remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated

Page 23
and unstable land, where appropriate.
The proposals would also affect part of an area of interest outside a statutorily protected
site. The interest is a Regionally Important Geological Site comprising a rock face
exposed by the previous quarrying operation. The feature is exposed ancient limestone
strata, showing thick section of sand and reddened Limestone with lower marl beds.
The feature encompasses the restoration site and the adjacent Kiveton Park Steel site.
The quarry area within the application site has been tipped up in the past and will be
emptied and refilled as part of the recycling and restoration scheme. The feature will be
partially recovered in the reinstatement, though the area along the southern face and
around Kiveton Park Steel will remain exposed. In this respect the applicants have
indicated that refilling will serve to stabilise the quarry face.
Consequently the proposals will result in some adverse impact on the feature insofar as
it will be partially recovered by the works. However, given the benefits of the scheme,
and the remaining portion of the features, it is considered that subject to appropriate
conditions, there would be no material conflict with Policy ENV2.2 Interest outside
Statutorily Protected Sites of the Unitary Development Plan and advice in Paragraph
109 of the NPPF.
Other issues raised by objectors
It is considered that the issues raised in the objections received have been addressed in
the report and conditions.
Conclusion
The proposals constitute a sustainable form of waste recycling and mineral reclamation,
which would result in the recycling of inert tipped and imported waste, and the
restoration of an existing unsightly tipped area of land in accordance with Policies MIN6
Methods and MIN7 and ENV3.1 Development and the Environment of the Unitary
Development Plan and advice in Paragraphs 143 and 144 of the NPPF.
Additionally, having regard for the site history of extant planning permissions for similar
uses and its location within a quarry area, it is considered that the proposals would not
result in any additional material detriment to the amenities of the area by way of the
generation of noise, vibration and emissions to air, in accordance with Policy ENV3.7
The Control of Pollution of the Unitary Development Plan and advice in Paragraph 144
of the NPPF.
It is further considered that the proposals would have a positive effect on the
environment in accordance with Policies ENV 3.1 Development and the Environment of
the Unitary and advice in Paragraph 142 and 144 of the NPPF.
In addition, the proposals would have no material adverse impact on highway safety,
the existing public footpath, or on the Interest Outside Statutorily Protected Site.
In view of the above it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to
the following Conditions.
Conditions
GENERAL
01

Page 24
Within one month of the development hereby approved is commenced on site, details of
the number, size, design, materials and location of the skip storage bays shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason
No such details have been submitted.
02
Not later that the 30 th June 2015, phase 1 of the restoration identified on plan Ref No
HP/2 dated February 2012 shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan.
Reason
To ensure that the site is restored to a form suitable for the intended after use, within an
appropriate time scale, in accordance with Policy MIN6 Methods of the Unitary
Development Plan, and advice in Supplementary Planning Guidance 2: Methods and
schemes of mineral working, restoration and after-care , of the Unitary Development
Plan and Paragraph 143 of the NPPF.
03
Not later that the 31 st December 2016, phase 2 of the restoration identified on plan Ref
No HP/2 dated February 2012 shall be completed in accordance with the approved
plan.
Reason
To ensure that the site is restored to a form suitable for the intended after use, within an
appropriate time scale, in accordance with Policy MIN6 Methods of the Unitary
Development Plan, and advice in Supplementary Planning Guidance 2: Methods and
schemes of mineral working, restoration and after-care , of the Unitary Development
Plan and Paragraph 143 of the NPPF.
04
Not later that the 30 th June 2018, phase 3 of the restoration identified on plan Ref No
HP/2 dated February 2012 shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan.
Reason
To ensure that the site is restored to a form suitable for the intended after use, within an
appropriate time scale, in accordance with Policy MIN6 Methods of the Unitary
Development Plan, and advice in Supplementary Planning Guidance 2: Methods and
schemes of mineral working, restoration and after-care, of the Unitary Development
Plan and Paragraph 143 of the NPPF.
05
Not later that the 31 st December 2019, phase 4 of the restoration identified on plan Ref
No HP/2 dated February 2012 shall be completed in accordance with the approved
plan.
Reason
To ensure that the site is restored to a form suitable for the intended after use, within an
appropriate time scale, in accordance with Policy MIN6 Methods of the Unitary
Development Plan, and advice in Supplementary Planning Guidance 2: Methods and
schemes of mineral working, restoration and after-care , of the Unitary Development

Page 25
Plan and Paragraph 143 of the NPPF.
06
If the time frames for Conditions 2 to 5 above are not met, no further importation of
material will take place until the relevant restoration works required by the Condition
have been carried out.
Reason
To allow restoration to take place in accordance with Policies MIN Method and Control
of Working and ENV 3.1 Development and the Environment of the Unitary Development
Plan, and advice in paragraph 144 of the NPPF.
07
The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the
approved plan PS/2 (received on the 8 th March 2011) and the development shall only
take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the
approved plans RP/1, PS/3, PS/4, MS/1, MS/2, HP/1 HP/2, PS/6 and BURR-
NOTTS/KIV/09/3 and as described in the accompanying written statements received
21-11-2011 (Method Statement), 02-03-2011 (Planning Statement), 16-03-2011 Design
and Access Statement) and 23-05-2012 (Air Quality) except as shall be otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason
To limit the extent of the permission and ensure that the development is carried out in a
reasonable manner in the interests of local amenity and the intended after use of the
land in accordance with Policy MIN 6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
AMENITY
08
Effective steps shall be taken by the operator to prevent the deposition of mud, dust and
other materials on the adjoining public highway caused by vehicles visiting and leaving
the site. Any accidental deposition of dust, slurry, mud or any other material from the
site, on the public highway shall be removed immediately by the developer.
Reason
In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to problems of mud/dust on
the adjoining public highway in the interests of general highway safety/amenity, to give
effect to the requirement of Policy MIN 6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
09
The operator shall install and thereafter utilise as appropriate, wheel washing facilities
on the site for the duration of the operation. Prior to its installation on site, full details of
its specification and siting shall be first agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason
In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to problems of mud/dust on
the adjoining public highway in the interests of general highway safety/amenity, to give
effect to the requirement of Policy MIN 6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
10
All loaded lorries entering or leaving the site shall be securely and effectively sheeted.

Page 26
Reason
In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to problems of mud/dust on
the adjoining public highway in the interests of general highway safety/amenity, to give
effect to the requirement of Policy MIN 6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
11.
Except in case of emergency, no operations shall take place on site other than between
the hours of 0700 and 1800 Monday to Friday and between 0800 and 1300 on
Saturdays. There shall be no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. At times when
operations are not permitted work shall be limited to maintenance and servicing of plant
or other work of an essential or emergency nature. The Minerals Planning Authority
shall be notified at the earliest opportunity of the occurrence of any such emergency
and a schedule of essential work shall be provided.
Reason
In the interests of local amenity, to give effect to the requirement of Policy MIN 6 of the
adopted Unitary Development Plan.
12.
Heavy goods vehicles shall only enter or leave the site between the hours of 0700 and
1800 on weekdays and 0800 and 1300 Saturdays and no such movements shall take
place on or off the site on Sundays or Public Holidays (this excludes the movement of
private vehicles for personal transport).
Reason
In the interests of local amenity, to give effect to the requirement of Policy MIN 6 of the
adopted Unitary Development Plan.
13.
The operator shall provide and install all necessary monitoring equipment to carry out
dust incidence measurements in accordance with arrangements and at location(s) to be
agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority shall have
freedom of access to all dust monitoring records and results from the site on request.
Reason
In the interests of local amenity, to give effect to the requirement of Policy MIN 6.1 of
the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
14.
No noise generating plant shall be operated on site until full and precise details of all
plant to be used on site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The details shall include a noise assessment in accordance with
BS4142:1997 and 1/3 octave frequency analysis with appropriate corrections for
acoustic features and shall detail any mitigation measures, physical or operational to
achieve the appropriate maximum noise levels.
Reason
In the interests of the residential amenities of the area in accordance with Policy ENV
3.7 Control of Pollution of the Unitary Development Plan, and advice in Paragraph 144
of the NPPF.
15.

Page 27
All machinery and vehicles employed on the site shall be fitted with effective silencers of
a type appropriate to their specification and at all times the noise emitted by vehicles,
plant, machinery or otherwise arising from on-site activities, shall be minimised in
accordance with the guidance provided in British Standard 5228 (1984) Code of
Practice; 'Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites', and Minerals Planning
Guidance Note 11 (1993) 'The Control of Noise at Surface Mineral Workings'.
Reason
In the interests of local amenity, to give effect to the requirement of Policy MIN 6.1 of
the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
16.
The developer shall appoint an engineer or similarly qualified person to be responsible
for investigating complaints regarding operations on site immediately such complaints
are notified to him and shall inform the Local Planning Authority of such appointment
and the arrangements to be employed. A log of complaints shall be kept and made
available to the Minerals Planning Authority on request.
Reason
In the interests of local amenity, and to give effect to Policy MIN 6.1 of the adopted
Unitary Development Plan.
HIGHWAYS
17.
No works shall take place in furtherance of this permission until that part of the site
shown on the approved plan which is to be used by vehicles has been properly laid out,
surfaced, drained and sealed in a manner to be approved by the Local Planning
Authority. The land shall thereafter be retained for that purpose and suitably maintained
for the duration of the development.
Reason
In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to problems of mud/dust on
the adjoining public highway in the interests of general highway safety/amenity, to give
effect to the requirement of Policy MIN 6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
18.
Within one month of the date of this permission details and timings of the improvements
to B6059 Dog Kennels Lane, indicated in draft form on the attached plan reference
126/Red Hill, dated April 2011, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority and the improvements shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved details and timings.
Reason
In the interests of highway safety.
19.
Between the date of this decision and the 31 st December 2019 no more than 70 heavy
goods vehicle trips per day shall be generated by the uses hereby approved(140
movements per day).
Reason
In the interests of the residential amenities of the area in accordance with Policy ENV

Page 28
3.7 Control of Pollution of the Unitary Development Plan, and advice in Paragraph 144
of the NPPF.
20.
From 1 st January 2020, no more than 50 heavy goods vehicle trips per day shall be
generated by the uses hereby approved (100 movements per day).
Reason
In the interests of the residential amenities of the area in accordance with Policy ENV
3.7 Control of Pollution of the Unitary Development Plan, and advice in Paragraph 144
of the NPPF.
GROUND/WATER CONTAMINATION
21.
Suitable precautions shall be taken by the developer to prevent pollution of any
adjoining watercourses or the underlying strata arising from operations on site. Any
fixed fuel and oil supply tanks must be surrounded by bund walls of sufficient height so
as to contain at least 110% of the storage capacity of the tanks and any associated
pipework in the event of a spillage. The floors and walls of the bund must be impervious
to water and oil.
Reason
To ensure that the development does not give rise to problems of pollution to
underground strata or adjoining watercourses, to give effect to the requirement of Policy
MIN 6.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
22.
Effective measures shall be employed by the developer to ensure the surface and subsurface
drainage of the tipped/regraded areas as operations proceed and on completion
of the final landform so as to avoid any instability arising within the site, surface
ponding, or problems of flooding on adjoining land. Drainage/off-site drainage of the
final landform shall be installed in accordance with details which shall have received the
prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason
To ensure that the development does not give rise to drainage problems, to give effect
to the requirement of Policy MIN 6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
23.
Within one month of the date of this permission the developer shall submit a written
statement for the approval of the Local Planning Authority detailing the means of
identification, handling and disposal of any material which appears to be potentially
contaminated. Work on site shall thereafter only be carried out in accordance with such
approved arrangements, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason
In the interests of health and safety and of local amenity, in accordance with Policy MIN
6.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
24.
Within one month of the date of this decision, details of the drainage channel and

Page 29
surface water recycling facilities, adjacent footpath No 22, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved details shall be
implemented within one month of their approval and thereafter retained and maintained.
Reason
To ensure the footpath and site are adequately drained.
LANDSCAPING
25.
Within 3 months of the date of this decision, a detailed restoration landscaping scheme
and timings shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning
Authority, and the approved details shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved details and timings. The landscape scheme shall be prepared to a minimum
scale of 1:200 and shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings where
necessary:
-The extent of existing planting, including those trees or areas of vegetation that are
to be retained, and those that it is proposed to remove.
-The extent of any changes to existing ground levels, where these are proposed.
-Any constraints in the form of existing or proposed site services, or visibility
requirements.
-Areas of structural and ornamental planting that are to be carried out.
-The positions, design, materials and type of any boundary treatment to be erected.
-A planting plan and schedule detailing the proposed species, siting, quality and size
specification, and planting distances.
-A written specification for ground preparation and soft landscape works.
-The programme for implementation.
-Written details of the responsibility for maintenance and a schedule of operations,
including replacement planting, that will be carried out for a period of 5 years after
completion of the planting scheme.
The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved
landscape scheme within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason
To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the
interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’,
ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of
Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’.
28
Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are
removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of
requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in
September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be
rectified before 31st December of that year.
Reason
To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the
interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’,
ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of

Page 30
Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’.
29.
If on any part of the site to be so treated, satisfactory grass growth is not achieved as a
result of initial seeding, such areas shall be cultivated and re-seeded after correction of
any nutrient deficiencies and/or toxicity, during the next sowing season. Such works
shall be repeated until a grass sward is established as shall be agreed with the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason
To ensure that the land is returned to a beneficial after use on completion of operations,
in accordance with Policy MIN 6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
30.
Upon completion of restoration works in respect of the approved scheme, the land shall
be managed for a period of five full growing seasons in accordance with an aftercare
scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Forestry
Authority and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural affairs (DEFRA) as
appropriate. This aftercare scheme shall be submitted for the approval of the Local
Planning Authority within the period of one year from the commencement of restoration
works on the site.
Reason
To enable the envisaged after uses to become established, in accordance with Policy
MIN 6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
31.
No tree or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed nor shall any tree or
hedgerow be pruned other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars,
without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any pruning works
approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work). If
any tree or hedgerow is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree or
hedgerow shall be planted in the immediate area and that tree or hedgerow shall be of
such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with UDP Policies
ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2
‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and
Hedgerows’.
32.
No work or storage on the site shall commence until all the trees/shrubs to be retained
have been protected by the erection of a strong durable 2.30 metre high barrier fence in
accordance with BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and
Construction - Recommendations This shall be positioned in accordance with details to
be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The protective fencing
shall be properly maintained and shall not be removed without the written approval of
the Local Planning Authority until the development is completed. There shall be no
alterations in ground levels, fires, use of plant, storage, mixing or stockpiling of materials
within the fenced areas.

Page 31
Reason
To ensure the trees/shrubs are protected during the construction of the development in
the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough
Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the
Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’.
ECOLOGY and GEOLOGY
33.
Within two months of the date of this decision a scheme of ecological enhancement,
including timings of implementation, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority and the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
timings and details.
Reason
In the interest of the ecology of the area in accordance with advice in Paragraph 109 of
the NPPF.
34.
Within two months of the date of this decision, a scheme of geological monitoring,
recording and enhancement, including timings for implementation, shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved timing and details.
Reason
In accordance with Policy ENV2.2 Interest outside Statutorily Protected Sites of the
Unitary Development Plan and advice in Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.
Informatives
INF 25 Protected species
Wildlife Legislation
The protection afforded to protected sites and species under UK and EU legislation is
irrespective of the planning system and the applicant should therefore ensure that any
activity undertaken, regardless of the need for any planning consent, complies with the
appropriate wildlife legislation. If any protected species are found on the site then work
should halt and an appropriately qualified ecologist consulted.
The main piece of legislation relating to nature conservation in Great Britain is the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This Act is supplemented by the Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitat Regulations), the Countryside and
Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (in England and Wales) and the Natural Environment
and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (in England and Wales).
All species of bats and their roosts are protected by UK and European legislation.
Roosts are equally protected whether bats are present or not.
The Great Crested Newt is protected by UK and European legislation. The legislation
covers all life stages; eggs, tadpoles and adult newts are all equally covered.

Page 32
Otters and their holts, including hovers and couches, which are otter resting places
above ground, are protected by UK and European legislation.
Water Vole are protected against killing, injuring or taking; possession or control;
damage or destruction of its places of shelter, or disturbance while such animals are
occupying places of shelter.
All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by UK law and it is an offence, with certain
exceptions, to kill, injure or take any wild bird, to take, damage or destroy the nest of
any wild bird while it is in use or being built, and to take or destroy the egg of any wild
bird. Certain species receive increased protection making it an offence to disturb any
wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building or is at (or near) a nest with eggs
or young; or disturb the dependant young of such a bird.
Badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which
makes it illegal to kill, injure or take badgers or to interfere with a badger sett.
Interference with a sett includes blocking tunnels or damaging the sett in any way.
The information provided is a summary only; for definitive information, primary sources
should be consulted.
Environmental Health
Material awaiting washing and screening shall be stored in stockpiles for a limited
period only to reduce potential for material to dry out and create windblown dust.
(Contact Environment Agency, Trent Office, Scarrington Road, West Bridgeford,
Nottingham, NG2 5BR.)
Permits or transfer notes for the two mobile crushers shall be submitted to the
Community Protection Unit prior to being used on site.

RB2012/0005
Page 33

Page 34
Application
Number
Proposal and
Location
RB2012/0005
Erection of a three storey building to form 80 bed hotel (use
class C1) and two storey building to form public house/restaurant
(use class A3/A4) with associated access, parking and
landscaping land off Phoenix Riverside, Sheffield Road,
Templeborough.
Recommendation Refuse
Site Description & Location
The application site is 0.9 hectares in size, and is located to the north of Sheffield Road
on land forming part of a development site known as Phoenix Riverside. The north of
the site adjoins the River Don, the west adjoins the brick arched railway viaduct, with
the east of the site adjoining undeveloped land in alternative ownership. Between part
of the site and Sheffield Road, stand 3, two story office blocks that have been
developed within recent years on the frontage of Sheffield Road. The application site is
higher than Sheffield Road, approximately 1 metre higher than the footway as the site
has been raised for flood alleviation reasons. The site has previously been built up to
form a development platform and is currently overgrown.
The Trans Pennine Trail runs along the top of the bank, along the route of the river.
The land beyond the river to the north forms a wetland/wildlife area – Centenary
Riverside. The area surrounding the site is generally commercial in nature with
industrial and business uses to the south, and a car dealership to the east. Ickles Goit
passes beneath the site at the eastern end, it is a local watercourse that discharges in
to the River Don. It passes beneath the site in a large duct, forming a dog-leg within the
site.
Background
This application was presented to Planning Board on 15 th March 2012, where Members
deferred the application to allow further discussion with the applicant with regards to
alternative site provision and for discussions to be extended to Rotherham United
Football Club.
Since this time, two meetings have been held with the applicants, their agent and
Council officers from Planning and Regeneration. As a result of the meetings,
additional supporting information has been provided by the applicant’s agent in relation
to the two sites that were identified within the previous recommended reasons for
refusal. Additionally, another site that the Council consider to be sequentially preferable
has come onto the market and so the applicant’s agent was also requested to provide
an assessment in regard to this site.
Additionally the National Planning Policy Framework (The NPPF) came into effect on
March 27 th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance
(PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. The
application has been assessed against this latest Government policy.

Page 35
Planning History
RB1987/1468 Erection of vehicle sales showroom and workshop refused 07/03/1988
RB1991/1343 Outline application for the erection of motor car sales and service centre
withdrawn 2002.
RB1999/0766 Outline application for the erection of a warehouse, withdrawn 2000.
RB2005/0002 Erection of 8 two storey office units, withdrawn 2006
RB2006/0072 Outline application for the erection of 6 no two storey office units with
flood storage compensation pond on eastern part of site, granted conditionally 18/04/06
RB2006/1624 Erection of 3 no two storey office buildings, granted conditionally
23/11/2006
RB2007/0903 Amendments to RB2006/0072 regarding staircase, granted conditionally
04/07/07
RB2011/1165 Erection of a three storey building to form an 80 bed hotel and a two
storey building to form public house/restaurant with associated landscaping and car
parking ,withdrawn 2011.
It should be noted that RB2006/0072, which was for the Outline application for the
erection of 6 no. two storey office units, has been partially implemented, and so the
permission for offices remains extant on the application site. The site has been raised
to form flood defences as part of the conditions on the previous permission.
EIA Screening Opinion
A screening opinion was carried out to determine whether an Environmental Impact
Assessment should accompany the application. The proposed development falls within
the description contained in paragraphs 10 (b) of The Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and meets the criteria set out in
column 2 of the table, i.e. that the area of the development exceeds 0.5 hectares.
However, taking account of the criteria set out in Schedule 3, it is considered that the
development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue
of factors such as its nature, size or location and therefore an Environmental Impact
Assessment was not required to accompany the application.
Accordingly the Authority has adopted the opinion that the development referred to
above is not EIA development as defined in the 2011 Regulations.
Proposal
The applicant is Whitbread Plc, who are seeking full planning permission for the
erection of a three storey building to form 80 bed hotel (use class C1) with a floor area
of 2,691 sqm and a two storey building to form a Public House/Restaurant (use class
A3/A4) with a floor area of 897 sqm with associated access, car parking and
landscaping. The hotel is proposed to be developed in phases, 60 bedrooms initially,
with the potential to extend to 80 bedrooms. The proposal also includes a 242 sqm unit

Page 36
for ancillary manager’s accommodation on the first floor of the public house. The
application would be for Premier Inn, a three star/upper tier budget hotel with a free
standing Brewers Fayre restaurant. The public house is to include a children’s play
area.
The Public House/Restaurant is proposed to be situated to the east of the site, whilst
the proposed hotel is to be situated centrally on the site parallel with the River Don.
There is a small car parking area between the two buildings with the main parking area
being located to the west of the hotel.
The hotel would be three storeys in height with a flat roof with regular windows. The
building materials are proposed to be render (painted white or cream), with timber
cladding, a blue brick plinth course and a glazed entrance feature. The restaurant is
proposed to be a two storey and single storey building, with flat and monopitched roof
features. The materials are proposed to be render, timber cladding, with grey clad roof
tiles. This building is to be surrounded by a hard-surfaced outdoor seated area.
The development is intended to serve a mixed market, focusing on the business
community in the immediate vicinity of the site, both in the evening and during the work
day. It also aims to cater for tourists visiting Magna, which is approximately 1km away,
as well as more general custom.
Business Model -The applicant has provided details of their operator model. This
explains that within the last decade Whitbread has moved from being a brewer and
owner/manager of pubs, to being the largest hotelier in the UK through its Premier Inn
brand. The company no longer builds stand alone pubs/restaurants, it only builds them
alongside Premier Inn hotels, with the intention of providing meals and refreshments for
guests and for wider custom. They state that the model proposed within this application
is their proven development model which has led the way to Whitbread becoming the
UKs largest hotelier with a stock of 45,000 beds, with plans to add another 10,000 this
year. The applicant states that the model is commercially proven and cannot be
disaggregated.
The applicant outlines the four main hotel models that they provide:
• Hotel with internal bar and restaurant – mixed use schemes or stand alone city
centre locations, approximately 100 plus bedrooms; leasehold
• Hotel with reduced (small format) internal bar and restaurant – city/town centre
including edge of centre with significant local food and beverage offer, 50 -80
bedrooms, leasehold
• Hotel with ground floor branded restaurant – city/town centre location including
edge of centre where there is significant footfall/visibility and night time restaurant
economy, 60-100 bedrooms, leasehold
• Hotel with freestanding destination restaurant – edge or out of centre location –
40-80 bedrooms, predominantly freehold
This application includes the Hotel with a freestanding destination restaurant. There are
a number of branded stand alone restaurants including Brewers Fayre, Beefeater Grill,
Table Table and Taybarns. This proposal includes a Brewers Fayre with 240 covers.
The hotel model is designed around an efficient internal layout with ground floor
reception with additional rooms on two further floors. Floors are planned around a

Page 37
central corridor with rooms on both sides making use of the building’s double frontage.
The pub/restaurant operates over a single ground floor, designed around a well-tried
internal layout which assists efficient service for customers. These developments are
designed to cater for a range of travellers, including business people, leisure and family
visitors. The characteristics of the local hotel market and the balance between these
visitor groups will influence hotel location within a town. For example, those with a
significant business travel component will seek locations on main roads near primary
employment areas, which can also benefit from the use of the restaurant facilities for
business entertaining. Main road locations in or close to town centres are preferred,
providing easy access to the road network and commercial visibility for customers, plus
easy access to facilities such as restaurants and entertainment in town centres. Most
locational choices represent a balance between these criteria. They state that visibility
and accessibility are vitally important as the restaurant needs to act as a destination in
its own right. Along with the hotel it requires a minimum of 130 dedicated, secure and
managed car parking spaces, with 24 hour 7 day unrestricted access.
Premier Inn also operate a ‘Goodnight Guarantee’, whereby they refund a customers
payment if they are unable to have a good nights sleep. They state that they have
refunded millions of pounds over the years and so it is important to them that in new
hotels they do everything in their power to guarantee their customers a good night
sleep. Fundamental to this promise is the location, design, construction and amenity of
the hotel to ensure that customers are not affected by internal or external noise
disturbance or access/parking issues.
Employment - It is envisaged that the overall proposed development will create an
estimated 60 full time equivalent (FTE) jobs. Approximately 42 jobs would be created
during the construction of the proposed development. An estimated further 14-25 FTE
jobs would also be supported through supply-related and income-related categories
resulting from the development (i.e. purchases of goods and services from local
suppliers to support the business and from the expenditure generated by paid
employees of the proposed development).
The application is supported by full plans and landscape details and by the following
documents –
Design and Access Statement
This states that the proposed development responds to the site context, and would
result in a form of development which is appropriate for the site and for the developer. It
would contribute positively to the riverside environment and promote biodiversity.
Planning Statement
This states that “the proposal would provide a new hotel and associated restaurant to
serve the local business community and a wider clientele from the town. It will create
jobs and develop a site with no immediate prospects of development for the permitted
office scheme and will deliver economic growth in line with Government policy. A
supplementary Report has been undertaken to assess the proposal in relation to the
NPPF, which has been introduced since the application was last considered. This
concludes that there are no sequentially preferable sites available, and the proposal
should not be seen as competing with any businesses within the town centre. The
proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the relevant Policies.

Page 38
With the submission of the supplementary information the applicant’s agent has
requested that it be made clear to members that Whitbread will not be making another
planning application to Rotherham MBC on any other site. They state that if the
applicant is unable to develop the application site, then the £6 million investment in the
town and associated job creation opportunity will be lost.
Economic Impact Assessment/Tourism Study
This states that the hotel could host over 8,000 visitors per year, with an annual
turnover of £1.4 million for the hotel and restaurant combined, which could generate
between £0.5 million and £963,000 of additional local spend. This spend could support
between 14 and 25 full time equivalent jobs, additional to the 60 employed directly by
the hotel and restaurant. They state that the proposal would represent an investment of
£6 million into Rotherham.
Transport Assessment
This states that the site has an extant permission for B1 office development that was
granted planning permission in 2006. It states that this development would generate
less traffic than the office use, and so is acceptable in transport terms
Flood Risk Assessment
This states that the site benefits from defences provided as part of the Rotherham
Renaissance Flood Alleviation Scheme, and so is protected from the 100 year flood.
Noise Report
This notes the absence of any noise sensitive receptors in close proximity to the site.
Ecology Survey
The site does not contain any ecological interest, but that there are opportunities to
enhance the ecological value of the site within the development.
Ground Contamination Report
The detailed risk assessment, remediation strategy and validation reports were
prepared in 2006 and 2007. They conclude that the site is suitable for commercial
development.
Travel Plan
This contained details of how the site would promote sustainable travel modes.
Development Plan Allocation and Policy
01 RSS Policies
YH4 Regional Cities and Sub Regional Cities and Towns
SY1 South Yorkshire Sub Area

Page 39
ENV5 Energy
E2 Town Centre and Major Facilities
02 UDP Policies
EC3.1 – Land Identified for Industrial and Business Use
EC3.3 – Other Development within Industrial and Business Areas
EC6 Tourism and Visitor Development
ENV2 Conserving the Environment
ENV3.1 Development and the Environment
ENV3.2 Minimising the Impact of Development
ENV4.4 Contaminated Land
T6 Location and Layout of Development
Other Material Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27 th 2012
and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of
the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is
sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable
development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.
The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may
continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a
limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development
Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF
states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according
to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to
the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF
and have been given due weight in the determination of this application.
The PPS4 Practice Guidance on need, impact and the sequential approach has not
been superseded by the NPPF and remains extant.
Good Practice Guide on Planning and Tourism, May 2006 – The guidance is a material
consideration to planning decisions. It states that the preference for hotels is to be
located within town centres wherever possible. Such sites are the most sustainable in
planning terms, since they allow greater access by public transport, contribute to urban
vitality and regeneration, and allow visitors to easily access other town centre facilities
and attractions. It notes that developers of other types of budget hotel such as travel
lodges would have a preference to locate on a major traffic route outside of the centre,
and it states that edge of centre locations, will usually be the most appropriate locations
if a town centre location is not suitable, available of viable.
Parking Standards 2011.
Rotherham Retail and Leisure Study, March 2011 – This states that there may be
scope for a hotel development in Rotherham town centre, particularly as part of a mixed
use development, since there is little modern hotel accommodation at present in the
town centre. Such a hotel would bring visitors to the town centre, enlivening the

Page 40
evening economy and give a welcome boost to restaurants, bars and shops. Should
any proposals emerge these should ideally be directed towards the town centres where
spin-off benefits to nearby businesses are likely to be maximised.
Rotherham Employment Land Review 2010
Emerging Local Development Framework
Publicity
The application was advertised in the press as a major development, and site notices
were erected adjacent to the site. The occupiers of 10 nearby properties were
consulted by letter. No representations have been received.
The applicant has requested the Right to Speak at the Planning Board meeting.
Consultations
Transportation Unit - No objections subject to conditions
Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health) – They would not envisage a significant loss
of amenity by virtue of noise, air quality or land pollution impact, however conditions and
informatives are recommended.
Streetpride (Ecology) – A suitable amount of survey work has been undertaken and the
results of the survey are accepted ie. there is no evidence of protected species, priority
species or priority habitat presence on site, as a result there is no requirement for the
proposal to mitigate for any direct ecological loss, and the objective to enhance
biodiversity is very welcome.
South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue – An informative should be attached in relation to
access for the fire service.
Highways Agency – No objection subject to condition relating to Travel plan.
SYPTE – No objections, however they request that direct pedestrian walkways to the
bus stops on Sheffield Road are provided; and Real Time Information system in
installed inside the hotel.
South Yorkshire Police – No objection, informatives are requested.
Environment Agency – No objections subject to recommended conditions.
Appraisal
Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In
dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to -
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and
(c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90.

Page 41
If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be
made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004.
The main issues for consideration in this application are:-
The principle of the development
Transportation Issues
Design and Visual Amenity
Ecology, Landscape and the Environment
Contamination, Noise, Light and Flooding
The principle of development
Policy YH4 of the RSS promotes town centres as the prime focus for leisure type
developments within the region, and policy SY1 states that development should be
focused on Sheffield and sub regional towns such as Rotherham. Policy E2 aims to
strengthen the role and performance of existing city and town centres, and states that
they should be the focus for leisure uses. The application site is located outside
Rotherham Town Centre. Whilst the proposal is considered to comply with SY1, it is
considered to be contrary to Policies YH4 and E2 as the application site is outside the
defined town centre within the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Employment Land Issues
The application site is allocated for Industrial and Business Use within the Rotherham
Unitary Development Plan. UDP policy EC3.1 Land Identified for Industrial and
Business Use states that such land will remain predominantly for industrial and
Business Use. As this application seeks permission for a hotel and pub/restaurant it is
noted that the proposal is in conflict with this policy. However Policy EC3.3 states that
other developments will be acceptable on such sites subject to no adverse effect on the
character of the area or on residential amenity, adequate arrangements for the parking
and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the proposed development and
compatibility with adjacent existing and proposed land uses, where such development
can be shown to be ancillary to the primary use of the area, or would provide significant
employment and it can be shown that:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
there are no suitable alternative locations available for the proposed
development,
no land-use conflicts are likely to arise from the proposed development,
and
the proposal significantly increases the range and quality of employment
opportunities in the area.
When assessing the proposal against this policy it is considered that there would be no
adverse effect on the character of the area which is commercial in nature; no adverse
effect on residential properties as there are none within the vicinity; it is considered that
there is adequate parking and manoeuvring areas and that the proposal would be
compatible with surrounding land uses. It is considered that the proposal could be
considered ancillary to the use of the area, and it is proposed that 60 jobs would be
created. The proposal therefore complies with parts (ii) and (iii) of the policy. However,
it is considered that there are suitable alternative locations available for the proposed

Page 42
development that are more appropriate for this type of use from a planning policy
aspect, and as such the proposal is contrary to part (i) of the aforementioned policy.
These sequentially preferable sites are considered in detail in the report below in
accordance with the NPPF sequential test.
The site is identified as a development site (E27) within the Employment Land Review,
however evidence has been submitted with the planning application to show that whilst
the application is not for B1, B2 or B8 development, it would create 60 full time
equivalent jobs, 42 at the construction phase and through supply related and income
based categories a further 14 – 25 jobs. In this respect it is considered that the loss of
the employment site for the use proposed is considered acceptable.
Within the applicants submission they have included reference to the proposal
complying with policy CS9’Transforming Rotherhams Economy’ , which aims to support
economic growth in sustainable locations. The Council is preparing its Local Plan.
Consultation on the Publication Core Strategy closed on 6 th August 2012 and the
Council intends to submit the Core Strategy to Government, following which it will be
subject to Examination in Public. Whilst the proposed Policies have been subject to
consultation it is considered that they can have only very limited weight in making
planning decisions.
In respect of employment, justification for the loss of the employment site is accepted,
however the out of centre location, and the availability of other sequentially preferable
sites means that the proposal is contrary to policies EC3.1 and EC3.3 of the UDP.
Tourism
UDP Policy EC6 Tourism and Visitor Development recognises the contribution that
tourism can make to sustainable economic development and job creation, and the
policy supports applications for hotels in appropriate locations.
The Tourism Report submitted in support of the application states that the proposal
would support visitors to Meadowhall, Magna, and businesses on the AMP such as
Rolls Royce and CTI and evidence shows that 85% of visitors to Rotherham are
traveling with family, and that 48% of visitors currently stay with friends and relatives.
It goes on to look at Colliers Retail and Leisure Study and the identified need for
restaurant/pubs and hotels within Rotherham Town centre. This shows that there is the
greatest need for a restaurant/pubs within Rotherham Town Centre, with a lesser need
outside the centre in the rest of the Borough. The Colliers report states that hotel
development in the Borough is not recommended as the demand has probably been
met by current supply, however it goes on to say that there may be scope for a hotel
development in Rotherham Town Centre, particularly as part of any future mixed use
development, since there is little modern hotel accommodation there at present.
Whilst it is noted that the proposal may provide employment, and promote tourism, the
Local Planning Authority is concerned that this would be at the cost of the Town Centre,
as such uses should be located in central locations in line with Government and
local policy to support the viability and vitality of town centres. As the Colliers Retail and
Leisure Study states, any new hotel and restaurant development should be within the
Town Centre, and not in an out of centre location. Rotherham Town Centre’s economy
is fragile and suffers from an immense amount of out of centre retail and leisure

Page 43
competition in the form of Meadowhall and Parkgate. Any new hotel/restaurant
development should be located within the town centre or on the edge of the centre to
improve the vitality and viability of the existing centre and in accordance with Policy EC6
of the UDP.
The application site is not considered to be the most appropriate location for this
development and as such the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy EC6 of the
UDP.
The applicant also states in the submission that Policy CS11 ‘Tourism and the Visitor
Economy’ supports the proposal. This indicates that proposals for hotels will be
supported in appropriate locations. Paragraph 5.4.37 clarifies that uses such as hotels
which are main town centre uses will also need to satisfy other plan policies. Specifically
Policy CS12 sets out the approach to dealing with main town centre uses, reflecting the
sequential approach and impact test requirements in NPPF. Additionally, due to the
stage of the plan they can have only very limited weight in making planning decisions.
Sequential Test
With regard to national policy, Chapter 2 of the NPPF, ‘Ensuring the vitality of town
centres’ is relevant to the determination of this application and the principle of the
current proposal must therefore be assessed against the tests contained within the
NPPF
The uses proposed are classed as town centre uses in accordance with the NPPF.
Therefore a sequential test has to be applied as the proposal is for town centre uses
that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local
Plan. Such uses should be located in a town centre, then in edge of centre locations
and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered.
When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be
given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and
local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and
scale.
The NPPF states in paragraph 27 that where an application fails to satisfy the
sequential test….it should be refused.
The sequential approach is intended to achieve two policy objectives:
• The assumption underpinning the policy is that town centre sites (or failing that
well connected edge of centre sites) are likely to be the most readily accessible
location by alternative means of transport and will be centrally placed therefore
reducing the need to travel, and
• To seek to accommodate main town centre uses in locations where the benefits
of the new development will serve to reinforce the vitality and viability of the
existing centre.
Where an applicant argues that no other sequentially preferable sites are appropriate, it
will have to be demonstrated why such sites are not practical alternatives in terms of
availability, suitability and viability. Theses are explained in the extant practice guide to
PPS4 as:

Page 44
• Availability – whether sites are available now or are likely to become available for
development within a reasonable period of time (having regard to the urgency of
the need). This should be considered together with the impact of development
occurring on an out of centre location and the long term consequences for the
town centre. Thus, whether it is appropriate to assess availability over three to
five years, or a longer time period will depend upon local circumstances.
• Suitability – with due regard to the requirements to demonstrate flexibility,
whether sites are suitable to accommodate the need or demand which the
proposal is intended to meet. It is necessary to consider what contribution more
central sites are able to make, either individually or collectively, to meeting the
requirements of the proposal. More central sites should not be rejected based on
self imposed requirements or preferences of a single operator, or without
demonstrating a serious attempt to overcome any identified constraints.
• Viability – whether there is a reasonable prospect that the proposal will occur on
the site at a particular point in time. This depends on the nature of the need and
the timescales over which it is to be met. This takes into account market factors,
cost factors and delivery factors.
The PPS 4 practice guide requires developers and operators to demonstrate flexibility in
their business model when considering sites in such out of centre locations. The
purpose of this is to seek, wherever appropriate, to accommodate new main town
centre developments within the town centre.
The application included a sequential test which assessed a total of 23 sites within or on
the edge of Rotherham town centre. The information submitted with the application,
and the previously withdrawn proposal RB2011/1165, showed that 17 of these sites
were not available, viable or suitable, and the Local Planning Authority agreed with the
conclusion that these sites may be discounted. Throughout the process of this
application, and since the application was deferred by the Planning Board on March 15 th
2012, the applicant has provided further information in relation to 7 sites that the Local
Authority had identified as potentially sequentially preferable.
This information submitted by the applicant suggests that there are no sequentially
preferable sites within the town centre or on the edge of the town centre that are
available, suitable or viable for the proposed development. However, the Local
Authority does not concur with this conclusion and consider that out of these seven sites
there are two sequentially preferable sites on the edge of the Town Centre where such
a development should preferably be located.
The five sites which have been discounted by the applicant, and where there is
agreement by the Local Planning Authority are:
Westgate Chambers – Town Centre Site
The applicant notes that the existing buildings are mainly owned by the Council,
however there are some parts owned by other parties. Two of the Council owned
properties are Listed and the whole site is within the Town Centre Conservation Area.
The existing buildings are subject to multiple leaseholds, some to 2022 and so there are
severe doubts about the availability and deliverability in the short to medium term.
The buildings are shown within the Design Code to be retained, however the current
proposal would require redevelopment. The site is 0.43 ha in size which could just

Page 45
about accommodate one of the scheme components in its submitted form assuming
total site clearance, including the demolition of the listed buildings, and buildings owned
by others. In order to accommodate the full development the applicant states a tall
building would be required which would impact upon the Conservation Area.
The applicant states that the site is not available, viable or suitable for the proposed
development, and so can be discounted. The Local Planning Authority acknowledge
that there would be significant demolition costs, and that there are issues regarding
leases that could be problematic, and so accept the applicants justification for
discounting the site.
Satnam Site Westgate – Edge of Centre Site
The applicant states that the site is in various ownership, including the Council, the Post
Office and British Telecom, which raise issues regarding the cost and process of
acquiring the land which in turn affects viability.
They state that the area owned by the Council and currently used as a public car park is
just about large enough to accommodate the proposed development as designed.
However it has a very narrow access and street frontage and thus lacks commercial
visibility needed to meet the developers requirements.
The Design Code recommends that the site is developed for residential use, and
requires the provision of a riverside promenade which would be an additional cost.
The applicant discounts the site on the grounds of non-availability, suitability and
viability.
Whilst the applicant states that the Council owns part of the site this is incorrect as the
car park is privately managed. However the Local Planning Authority does
acknowledge that the site is in private ownership with existing users adjacent that would
make the assembly of the whole site problematic. It is therefore accepted that the site
can be discounted.
Former Henleys Garage Site, Wellgate – Edge of Centre site
The applicants state that the site is approximately 2.8ha, and is a cleared site owned by
the Council. The site is surrounded by mainly residential properties. The applicants
consider that the site is most suited to a residential development, as planning
permission has previously been granted for 180 apartments and it is within an area that
is primarily residential in character. The proximity of neighbouring residential properties
is raised by the applicant as an issue in close proximity to a pub/restaurant with late
night opening hours.
The applicant states that the site is in a poor location for the proposed development,
poorly related to the target Market which are business travellers. The site is away from
the M1, Magna and primary employment areas which are important factors. The
location lacks strong commercial viability. The applicant states that the proposed
development would require approximately one third of the site, with no plans for the
remainder of the site which would adversely impact on Whitbread’s development.

Page 46
The applicants conclude that the site should be dismissed as it is not considered
suitable for the proposed development, and that viability is not clear, especially in the
absence of a comprehensive solution for the whole site.
The Local Planning Authority accepts the justification given to allow the site to be
discounted.
The remaining two sites were also discounted by the applicant, however the Local
Planning Authority do not accept the justification submitted, and consider that the
following two sites are sequentially preferable to the proposed application site, these
are:
Weirside – Town Centre Site
They state that due to the size of the site a building of 7-8 storeys in height on a podium
above the flood level would be required to deliver the quantum of development
proposed within this application. It is also noted that part of the site is within the Town
Centre Conservation Area, which would impose heritage constraints on the
development. They therefore conclude that the sites physical characteristics, levels and
relationship to adjoining development would add significant additional cost to the
development which is likely to make it unviable.
The site is within Flood Zone 3a and 2, and is adjacent to the river bank. It is also
included within the Design Code for Rotherham Town Centre River Corridor. This
document indicates the provision of a building on site with a width of 10 metres.
Whitbread’s model would not fit into this footprint as they produce a building of between
14 and 15 metres in width with a central corridor and rooms either side, this being cost
effective and efficient in terms of resource usage. They also note that there would be
inter-visibility issues with existing buildings close to the site which would result in
overlooking issues. They conclude that the site is unsuitable for the development of
their business model.
The applicant notes that the site is within Council ownership, and acknowledge that the
site is available on the open market.
Whilst the site is available, with the additional information submitted the Local Authority
now agree that the site is unsuitable for the proposed development due to constraints
that include its size, location next to the river and its relationship with existing buildings
particularly the new residential building on Domine Lane, which would create intervisibility
difficulties to the detriment of the occupiers of the residential units.
Former Guest and Chrimes Listed Building – Edge of Centre site
The applicant notes that the site accommodates the new stadium for Rotherham United
Football Club which has recently been opened. They also note that the approved
development plans show much of the site being used for car parking and landscaping.
There is an unused Grade II Listed Building close to the river frontage and the building,
along with the whole of the Football Stadium site is let by the Football Club from the
Local Planning Authority.
The applicants state that the form of the Listed Building is not suitable for their hotel
model which is 14 metres wide with a central corridor with rooms either side. The

Page 47
applicant notes that they do not build free standing pubs, however the form of the
building is not suitable for the internal layout of their restaurant. They do note the
possibility of extending the building between the wings to create more space which
would require detailed design, cost feasibility and appropriate consents. In the absence
of these the cost and feasibility is unknown and unproved, but it would be reasonable to
expect that it would affect deliverability within the developers timeframe and viability.
Additionally, they note that the Listed Building is below the 100 year flood level, the
remainder of the site having been raised. They state that the only way that this could be
overcome would be to demolish the building, which would require listed building consent
and planning permission for the redevelopment. This is a major constraint for
Whitbread in terms of viability and timescale.
The Local Authority accept that the building is Listed and that the size and shape may
not be appropriate for the form of development proposed, and also accept that there are
flooding issues relating to the building. The justification for discounting the reuse of the
Listed Building is therefore accepted on grounds of suitability and viability.
There are however two sites which have been discounted by the applicant, and where
there is disagreement by the Local Planning Authority. These are:
Rotherham United Football Club Car Park Site– Edge of Centre Site
The applicant has also assessed a further area within the football stadium site site that
is currently laid for car parking. They have submitted information and two sketches,
which they consider justifies discounting the sites as a sequentially preferable site. The
reasons they have provided as to why the site is not suitable or viable for the
development are:
• Due to the presence of an easement and adjacent uses there is no room for
future expansion.
• Car parking is too remote from the hotel restaurant
• The scheme would lead to a loss of 239 car parking spaces from the football
club, which would exacerbate parking problems at the site.
• Further uses on the Stadium site in the future would also make parking issues
worse. There is a lack of overall master planning for the site.
• The restaurant would not be visible from the main road network, and would be
inaccessible.
• Delivery and service route looks compromised for Whitbreads standard 14.5m
articulated vehicle, and changes to the delivery vehicle would result in additional
costs and extra deliveries.
• Conflict with football stadium, and its activities and noise.
• Brewers Fayre is a family restaurant with the focus on food trade, visitors to the
football ground would put an operational pressure on the restaurant in terms of
drinks trade, and this would be conducive to the family atmosphere.
• Car Park attendants and door staff would have to be employed on match days
which would increase costs.
• Noise from the Stadium would compromise hotel operation, including Premier
Inns ‘Good Night Guarantee’. They state that Whitbread do operate hotels near
football stadiums and existing railway lines but none are this close, and are
mainly legacy hotels, and much expense has been incurred to retro fit sound and
vibration insulation solutions.

Page 48
• The site would be provided on a leasehold basis, however Whitbreads would
require the freehold in order to provide operational flexibility required.
• There is not sufficient footfall or visibility in the area to support the destination
family restaurant, so a dedicated car park would be required.
• Dedicated car parking would need to be provided beneath the hotel building,
which would increase costs.
Whitbread state that hotels close to stadiums are only undertaken in very special
circumstances to meet specific needs, in this instance the identified hotel requirement is
not for a facility at or adjacent to the football stadium, but one which provides excellent
transport links to the M1, Magna and the wider Rotherham Area. They state that
development of the site will not secure operational or their board approval, and that the
above issues would make this site financially and commercially unviable and unsuitable.
The Liquid Nightclub Site, Main Street – Edge of Centre Site
Availability –
When the application was before Planning Board in March this year, this site was not
available, however, at the time of writing, it is now back on the market and is considered
to be available as a sequentially preferable site to the application site as it is an edge of
centre site.
Suitability and Viability -
The applicant has now submitted additional information, and a sketch layout which they
consider constitutes justification that the site can be dismissed as a sequentially
preferable site. Below are the reasons in which they state that the site should be
discounted as it is not suitable or viable -
• The site is only 75% of the size required
• The size of the site would not allow for future expansion.
• It could not accommodate the proposed development and car parking required.
• The topography of the site is a constraint as there is a significant level change to
the rear of the site, ground sloping away.
• The positioning of the restaurant at the rear of the site means that it has no
prominence to the ring road.
• There would be a conflict with deliveries to the hotel and the car parking.
• The road and railway would generate noise, which would require enhanced
acoustic and vibration alleviation measures, there are costs associated with
these.
• The guide price of the site is in excess of the price Whitbread have agreed to
purchase the application site for.
• There is no guarantee that Whitbread would be able to secure the site.
• There are additional costs over and above the financial commitment that they are
able to make to make in respect of Rotherham. This could be approximately
£379,500 and would include the following costs-
1. demolition of the existing building
2. removing/relocating electricity substation
3. levelling the site
4. acoustic measures

Page 49
5. works to the entrance
6. diversion of culvert
7. all fees associated with a new site
8. abortive cost that have been spent on the application site
9. Costs of providing car parking beneath the hotel building.
Although Whitbread has identified Rotherham as one of the towns that they wish to
invest in, they state that the business case for proceeding is not based simply on what
may have been delivered elsewhere, but rather on town specific characteristics and the
company’s confidence that the scheme will be viable in the long term. In the case of
Rotherham, they state that a dedicated, convenient, secure 24 hour car park is an
absolute requirement. They state that the test of viability for Whitbread is not simply
whether the site can be secured and re-developed at the same cost as the application
site, but also whether Whitbread’s Board would be in a position to approve an
equivalent spend in this location.
Local Authorities Assessment
With regard to the developer/operators business model, it is not considered that the
applicant has demonstrated sufficient flexibility to enable the quantum of development
to be located on either of these edge of centre sites. It appears that the applicant has
assessed the sites for the format submitted within this application without any flexibility.
PPS4 Practice Guide, in paragraph 6.27 sates that flexibility should be demonstrated in
order to seek, wherever appropriate, to accommodate new town centre uses within the
town centre, make use of previously developed land in accessible locations, and secure
new investment and improve the range and diversity of activities in town centres.
Other Premier Inn developments can be found with differing numbers of bedrooms,
different size pubs/restaurants, and different formats. The applicant’s supplementary
report includes details of the other models that Whitbread operate throughout the
country. However they have discounted all other formats stating that the model
proposed is the only model suitable for Rotherham. Whilst the Authority appreciate that
the identified model may be the ‘best suited’ to Rotherham, they consider that the
applicant has not shown even a small degree of flexibility in the schemes delivery to
make either of the other sites suitable.
The local planning authority consider that through the evidence submitted, the applicant
has tried to show that the two identified sites are unsuitable and unviable, however no
strong argument for discounting the sites has been submitted. The agents letter states
that if planning permission is not granted “Whitbread will not be making another
planning application to Rotherham MBC on any other site”. With this in mind the
Authority considers that the two identified sites have not been considered on an
impartial basis, and that many of the issues highlighted which make the sites unsuitable
or unviable, could be addressed if there was the will to develop on these sites.
It is acknowledged that the Local Authority also has to show flexibility, as outlined in
paragraph 6.29 of the PPS4 Practice Guide, where it is acknowledged that promoting
development in town centres can be more expensive and complicated than building
elsewhere. It is clear to see that the two edge of centre sites do have more constraints
than the out of centre application site, which is a prepared development platform ready
for development to commence. However the Local Authority does not consider that the
reasons submitted warrant discounting the edge of centre sites in terms of suitability

Page 50
and viability, and is of the opinion that a development of the quantum hereby proposed
could be delivered on either of the two sites, and that they are not unsuitable or unviable
for such a development.
The football stadium site is considered to be a key regeneration site within Rotherham,
and is one of the most prominent sites within the town, affording views from Centenary
Way and Main Street, as well as the railway line. It is acknowledged that the level of the
site is lower than Main Street, however the site is still considered to be highly visible
from major transport networks. The applicant states that there is no footfall to the site to
support the restaurant, however the site is located close to the football stadium itself,
and also to large employers within the town, the Local Authority and the Police. It is
also important to note that the application site itself is much more remote than either of
the two sequentially preferred sites, and footfall at the application site is likely to be
minimal.
The football stadium site is considered an accessible and sustainable site, with good
links to the train station, the interchange, town centre car parks and is accessible for
pedestrians. Therefore, the loss of the existing car parking spaces is not considered to
be a problem from a transportation aspect due to this accessible location.
Additionally, the Authority do not concur with the operational incompatibilities cited
within the application, and considers that any synergy has just been dismissed,
although there are frequent examples of it working in practice around the country when
these type of developments operate well together. Some local examples of family
restaurants and hotels operating close to football grounds are at Chesterfield, and
Sheffield. With reference to noise from the stadium, most games are on Saturday
afternoon with infrequent evening games being finished by 21:45, with the site empty by
22:30. With regard to night time noise from functions etc at the stadium, this is an issue
that would be likely to arise from many town centre/edge of centre locations associated
with a night time economy, and so it is considered that this could be addressed via
sound insulation measures being built into the hotel. This also applies to any noise from
the railway line.
With regard to the Liquid nightclub site, many of the above comments are also
applicable, the site is in an accessible location and it is considered that any
development of this site would be highly visible being on a corner of two main roads,
close to the roundabout. The change of land levels on the site would obviously have to
be taken into consideration when designing a scheme for this site, however it could
provide opportunities for under croft parking within any design.
The applicant has made it clear within their submission that the application site is the
only site within Rotherham to have Whitbread Operational and Board support to allow
investment in the town. They state that whilst these alternative sites may or may not be
suitable for other hotel operators, they are not suitable for the proposed development for
the applicant.
The applicant does not consider that the provision of the hotel and family restaurant on
the out of centre application site would compromise the Councils overall objectives for
the town centre. However within their submission they state that their identified hotel
requirement in Rotherham is for one which provides excellent transport links to the M1,
Magna and the wider Rotherham Area. The Authority consider that whilst the

Page 51
development of the application site would bring investment into the Borough as a whole,
it would not benefit the Town Centre, being outside of it.
The Authority consider that any such hotel and restaurant should be located within or
close to the town centre to support the centres viability and vitality, and consider that
any further development outside the town centre would further damage its already
fragile nature. The health of Rotherham Town Centre has over the years been heavily
impacted by out of centre developments such as Meadowhall and Parkgate, it is
considered that to allow such an out of centre development would add to the ‘Donut’
effect, by directing further, much needed investment away from the Town Centre. This
is supported by Colliers Retail and Leisure Study which identifies the need for
restaurant/pubs and hotels within Rotherham Town Centre.
Rotherham has recently been selected by the Government as a ‘Portas Pilot’ town with
the aim to revitalise the town centre. One of the recommendations from the Portas High
Street review is to diversify the town centre offer and not merely rely on retail-led
solutions. This is vital for Rotherham, where strong retail options exist out of town (e.g.
Meadowhall and Parkate) and there’s a need to look at leisure, recreation, town centre
living, office developments, events and other footfall generators. One of the major
omissions from the town centre offer is a hotel and a lack of family restaurants.
It is therefore considered that the proposals fail the sequential test as there are two sites
on the edge of Rotherham town centre that are sequentially preferable to the application
site. The application is therefore contrary to policy Chapter 2 of the NPPF.
Transportation Issues
Policy T6 of the UDP aims to reduce the demand to travel by car, and to locate
developments on sites that are accessible by a variety of modes of transport and public
transport. The site is situated off Sheffield Road which is a major road linking
Rotherham with the M1 Junction 34. Access to the development by cars is therefore
good, and the 135 car parking proposed at the site are in line with the Councils
Maximum Car Parking Standards.
The site currently has an extant planning permission for a B1 office development with
an overall gross floor area of 4084 sq metres. The Transportation Assessment
submitted in support of the application has confirmed the following;
The morning peak hour trips for the proposed development will be 35 (2 way) and the
evening 71 (2 way). The existing extant permission which was considered to be
acceptable in transportation terms would be 104 (2 way) in the morning and 91 (2 way)
in the evening. When assessing Transportation Assessments existing uses or permitted
uses are taken into account by ‘netting off’ the existing trips against the proposed trips.
Accordingly the proposed development if implemented would result in a substantial
reduction in anticipated peak hour vehicular trips.
The site is also in close proximity to public transport routes with bus stops being close
by on Sheffield Road in either direction. The previous planning permission for the office
development required improvements to the bus stop in Sheffield Road, a contribution to
a pedestrian crossing in Sheffield Road and a contribution to the A1 bus service. These
have already been received, and accordingly, the site is acceptable when considering
public transport accessibility.

Page 52
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive welcomes new developments in
locations that have access to the existing core public transport network. They have
requested that a direct pedestrian link is provided through the site from the hotel to the
bus stops. The applicant does not wish to redesign the car park and landscape areas
to accommodate the links and notes that whilst they would slightly reduce walking
distance as the bus stop is only 200 metres away this journey would only be reduced by
a matter of seconds. This is accepted and the sites public transport links are
considered acceptable.
There are cycle lanes on Sheffield Road, and the site provides for cycle parking within
the scheme.
To the north of the application site, outside the red line boundary, there is a riverside
path at the bottom of the flood defences, which links to the nature reserve beyond the
river. There have been discussion about providing access to the pathway from the
application site to encourage/enable visitors to the development to access the nature
reserve and the Trans Pennine trail which is beyond this. The applicants have stated
that the pathway is outside their application site, and that providing linkages would
impact on the security of the site.
The Local Planning Authority note that the nature reserve can be easily accessed via an
existing access to the west of the application site where there is an entrance and a
small area to park cars. There is currently no direct access from the nature reserve
onto the Trans Pennine trail, and linking these two areas for pedestrians/cyclists would
require the provision of a bridge over the waterway. It is therefore considered that this
section of pathway is of little benefit, and does not provide a path that is useful to the
network. It is therefore considered acceptable that the development does not link
directly onto the path at this point.
It is therefore considered that the proposal would not generate any adverse
transportation impacts, indeed it would have a lesser impact on the surrounding network
that the extant permission for offices on the site. The site is considered to be accessible
by public transport and for pedestrians and cyclists. In this respect the proposal is in
compliance with Policy T6 of the UDP and policies within Chapter 4 of the NPPF.
Design and Visual Amenity
UDP Policy ENV3.1 Development and the Environment states that development will be
required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate
standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale,
density, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular
characteristics, screening
and landscaping. Chapter 7 of the NPPF aims to achieve developments that are of a
high quality and an inclusive design. It states that good design is a key aspect of
sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute
positively to making places better for people.
The application site is located in a wider commercial area, and is located directly
adjacent to a new development of B1 offices which are of a simple two storey design
constructed from brick and render. These offices are built from a modern design, and
the proposed design of the development is in character with these existing buildings

Page 53
which would sit closely with the proposed development and be viewed as a whole
development.
The hotel will afford views from Sheffield Road, and even more so from the nature
reserve to the rear and beyond this to the north. The pub is situated closer to Sheffield
Road and is likely to be the more visible of the two buildings from this frontage.
It is considered that the proposal would improve the visual appearance of this site, and
improve wider views of the locality. The proposed modern design is considered to be
acceptable, in keeping and complementary with the existing buildings adjacent to the
site, and the palette of proposed materials, to include render, timber cladding and small
areas of painted render are acceptable. It is therefore considered that the proposal is
acceptable in terms of design and visual amenity and that the proposal complies with
UDP policy ENV3.1 and guidance within Chapter 7 of the NPPF.
Ecology, Landscape and Environment
UDP policy ENV2 Conserving the Environment aims to ensure that the effects on the
wildlife, historic and geological resources of the Borough are fully taken into account.
UDP policy ENV3.2 Minimising the Impact of Development aims to minimise the impact
of development in terms of the scale, appearance, nature and location of development.
Chapter 11 of the NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and
enhance the natural and local environment.
The site is a former industrial site that has been reclaimed and formed into a
development platform, it therefore does not have any ecological interest itself. However
the site is adjacent to the river and beyond this is the nature Reserve. A Phase 1
Habitat survey and an Ecology Report have been submitted with the application which
includes measures for mitigation and enhancement of ecological interest at the
application site. These included amongst other things the provision of bat and bird
boxes within the development, the provision of climbing plants and green wall elements
within the building design and the provision of native species within the planting
scheme.
The landscaping scheme submitted has been amended after consultation with the
Authorities Landscape team, and the final plan is considered to provide an acceptable
scheme that will be visually acceptable as well as providing ecological benefits. The
scheme has been carefully designed to ensure that the elevation onto Sheffield Road
provides a strong landscape presence to enhance the design and layout of the
development.
The site is currently considered to be of low ecological value, but the sites location close
to the river and the nature reserve provide scope to ecologically enhance the site
through mitigation measures and the implementation of a substantial landscaping
scheme. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policies
ENV2 and ENV3.2 of the UDP and policies contained within chapter11 of the NPPF.
Contamination, Noise and Light and Flooding
UDP policy ENV4.4 Contaminated Land and Chapter 11 of the NPPF aim to ensure that
land to be developed is free from any previous contamination and suitable for the
proposed use. The applicant has confirmed that the application site has been

Page 54
reclaimed from an industrial land use back in 2006/2007 and made suitable for a
commercial end use. All potential sources of contamination were removed from site
and colliery shale was imported for replacement and compaction across the site as part
of flood alleviation measures. It is therefore considered that with further mitigation
measure to include the provision of a barrier for planting areas and gas protection
measures, the proposal would be acceptable and in accordance with Policy 4.4 of the
UDP chapter 11 of the NPPF.
Chapter 11 of the NPPF also contains policies in relation to development and noise,
however as this proposal is situated in an area which is commercial in nature, and there
are no residential properties within close proximity, it is not considered that there would
be any significant impacts in terms of noise generated form the proposal. It is therefore
considered that the proposal is in accordance with the NPPF. Additionally, whilst the
proposal includes a lighting scheme that would render the development visible after
dark, it is not considered that this would detrimentally impact upon the amenity of
nearby occupiers, however it would need to be controlled to ensure that there were no
adverse impacts on wildlife in the river corridor and the nature reserve to the north.
Chapter 10 of the NPPF indicates that flood risk should be taken into account at all
stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of
flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. The application
was supported by a Flood Risk Assessment, and the applicant completed the Council
Flood Risk Tool Kit. The submitted documents outline that the application site benefits
from the defences provided by the Rotherham Renaissance Flood Alleviation Scheme
and is protected from the 1 in 100 year flood. It is considered that the appropriate
completion of the Flood Risk Tool Kit, and the preparation of the Flood Risk
Assessment indicate that the development in acceptable in terms of flooding, and
therefore the proposal complies with guidance in chapter 10 of the NPPF. The
application site contains a goit which is to be diverted as part of the planning
application. The layout shows that the proposed car parking area would be provided
over the goit and its associated easement which is considered to be acceptable from a
drainage aspect.
Conclusion
The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of an 80 bed hotel (to be
built in 2 phases) and an associated pub and restaurant on a site that is outside
Rotherham Town Centre. With reference to policies contained within Chapter 2 of the
NPPF, it is considered that there are two sites that are sequentially preferable to the
application site, the Rotherham United Football Stadium car park site, on the edge of
the town centre, and the former Liquid nightclub site on the edge of the town centre.
The proposal therefore fails the Sequential Test, and as stated in paragraph 27 of the
NPPF “where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test…it should be refused”.
The general aim of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development
and to achieve sustainable economic growth. However specific policies within Chapter
2 aim to promote competitive town centre environments recognising them as the heart
of the community, requiring town centre uses to be located in the town centre, then in
edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre
sites be considered.
It is acknowledged that the proposal would provide direct and indirect employment
opportunities and would improve the visual appearance of the existing site, and these

Page 55
issues are afforded weight as material planning considerations. However, these
considerations are not considered sufficient to override the Government’s policies
contained within Chapter 2 of the NPPF, as well as regional and local policies that aim
to locate such development proposals within town centres.
Therefore as the proposal is not in accordance with policies contained within Chapter 2
of the NPPF, RSS policies HY4 and E2, and UDP policies EC3.1, EC3.3 and EC6, it is
therefore recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reason.
Reason(s) for Refusal
The proposed development would be located on an out of centre site as defined by the
NPPF. There are sequentially preferable sites on the edge of Rotherham town centre
which are suitable and available for development of the proposed hotel (C1) and public
house/restaurant use (A3/A4). The proposal therefore fails to comply with the
requirements of the sequential test set out in paragraph 24 of the NPPF, and as such is
contrary to paragraph 27 of the NPPF, and guidance in the PPS4 Practice Guidance on
need, impact and the sequential approach, Regional Spatial Strategy Policies YH4’
Regional Cities and Sub Regional Cities and Towns’, E2 ‘Town Centre and Major
Facilities’ and Rotherham Unitary Development Plan polices EC3.1 ‘Land Identified for
Industrial and Business Use’, EC3.3 ‘Other Development within Industrial and Business
Areas’ and EC6 ‘Tourism and Visitor Development’

RB2012/0823
Page 56

Page 57
Application
Number
Proposal and
Location
RB2012/0823
Change of use of land to form trailer accommodation site
including storage of fairground equipment (use class sui generis)
at Land at Cramfit Road, North Anston
Recommendation Grant subject to conditions
Site Description & Location
The site of application is located off Cramfit Road, North Anston. The site is immediately
to the south of the Magilla Dump-it site, a public recycling centre for the Borough. To the
east of the site is Cramfit Road, to the south and west there are open fields designated
as Green Belt. The site has a general industrial and commercial appearance with
perimeter fencing and gates to the entrance off Cramfit Road. The total area of the site
is approximately 2.6 hectares. Cramfit Brook runs roughly to the north of the site.
The nearest neighbouring residential properties are located further along Cramfit Road
at a distance of approximately 170 metres from the site.
Background
Relevant planning permissions relating to the site include:
RB1974/1329: Classroom at caravan site
- GRANTED 11/12/74
RB1998/0947: Change of use of land to commercial vehicle hire depot
- GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 17/11/99
Appeal: ALLOWED 15/08/00
RB1999/1565: Continuation of use of land as commercial vehicle hire depot without
compliance with condition 10 (vehicle weight restriction) imposed by R98/0947P
- REFUSED 15/03/00
RB2001/0769: Change of use to form a depot for the storage and hire of mobile event
equipment/spectator stands
- GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 17/01/02
RB2001/1610: Two storey office building
- GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 25/04/02
A screening opinion has been undertaken at the site under the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, The Town and Country Planning (environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2011. The screening opinion concluded that the proposal is
not EIA development.
Proposal

Page 58
The application is for use of the site for the storage of fairground equipment and trailers
and for the siting of mobile trailers to accommodate travelling show people. The
applicant operates a fairground business and holds fairs within the local area and
around the country.
The proposal is for the applicant to use the site for storage and maintenance of
fairground equipment and would be in use when they are not operating the travelling
fairs. The proposal also includes trailer accommodation for eight family members who
would live on the site when the fair was not travelling. The applicant has stated that
each family member is a member of the ‘Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain’ and that
only travelling show people would be allowed to occupy the site.
The applicant has submitted a supporting statement from The Showmen’s Guild of
Great Britain which outlines what they as the Showmen’s Guild do and how their
members are regulated. The supporting statement also outlines why sites such as this
one are required by members of their Guild. The statement notes that; “the provision of
winter quarters and the loss of fairgrounds are of constant concern to the Guild. When
the travelling season is over, the showman needs a permanent base where he and his
family can spend the winter months. Ideally it should be within reach of schools and
shops, and be large enough to enable him to carry out the vital maintenance work on
his equipment.” The applicant has stated that he is a Member of Showmen’s Guild and
is not a gypsy.
The site would be laid out with the eight residential trailers located evenly throughout
the site with a vehicle and equipment storage area adjacent to each home. Each mobile
home would have an area of residential amenity space to the front.
The applicant has stated that approximately 20 cars would be parked at the site and
approximately 60 plus light goods vehicles stored on the site.
The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment which states that the site is to be
used for mobile homes, with no permanent structures. The trailers will be off site for
most of the year and they would all be located within low risk Flood Zone 1, with an
emergency access to Cramfit Road also being within Flood Risk Zone 1. The applicant
has submitted a layout plan supporting the Flood Risk Assessment showing the extent
of the areas of flood risk.
Development Plan Allocation and Policy
The site is allocated as White Land in the Rotherham UDP and is an allocated
‘Traveller’s Site’. The following Policies are relevant:
Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’
Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’
Policy HG4.9 ‘Sites for Travelling People’
Other Material Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27 th 2012
and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of

Page 59
the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is
sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable
development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.
The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may
continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a
limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development
Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF
states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according
to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to
the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
The Government also issued specific advice relating to traveller sites in March 2012,
which should be read in conjunction with the National Planning Policy Framework, titled
the ‘Planning policy for traveller sites.’
The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF
and guidance set out in the policy document ‘Planning policy for traveller sites’ and have
been given due weight in the determination of this application.
Publicity
The application was advertised by site notice and by letter to neighbouring adjoining
commercial premises. A total number of 59 objections have been received from
members of the local community. One letter of representation has been received by the
Council. The Parish Council have also made comments on the application, though state
that they do not object to the proposal. The Parish Council’s comments are summarised
below:
• That the site is restricted to members of the Showman’s Guild.
• Proper consideration is given to the highway impact.
• The roads accessing the site are not suitable for this form of development.
A petition has also been received by the Council objecting to the application with 46
names.
Some of the comments received from members of the public are inflammatory and
offensive. These comments are not relevant to the determination of this application and
shall not be summarised in this report.
The comments received shall be summarised below:
• The site is not appropriate for gypsies.
• This site could lead to problems for the local community.
• Other sites should be looked at for this proposal around the Borough, including
next door to the Mayor.
• There were problems with the site previously when it was occupied by travellers.
This could cause similar problems for the local community.
• Cramfit Road is inadequate to cater for this kind of development. The road
network can not accommodate the increase in traffic and this could be dangerous
and could cause congestion.

Page 60
• The site is not suitable for residential use and is relatively isolated from local
services and public transport. The site is not suitable for children to live on.
• The development would be unsightly and an eyesore.
• The industrial nature of the surrounding area and possible contamination of the
site makes it an unsuitable place for families and children to live. Will the site be
decontaminated?
• Noise, pollution and disturbance from the site could adversely affect Bluebell
Wood Children’s Hospice.
• People and wildlife would not be comfortable from using the site and the
surrounding areas, including public footpaths.
• There is not enough information with the application with regards to the type of
units to be located there and the landscaping of the site. More information is
required regarding the number of vehicle movements to and from the site and
when these movements are likely to take place.
• Concerns have been raised that local residents and neighbouring businesses
were not consulted on the application.
• Planning conditions should be attached to any planning permission restricting the
use of the site.
• The increase in local residents would add pressure on local schools, doctors and
other community facilities, which are already overstretched.
• The proposal could lead to an increase in litter and pollution within the
surrounding area.
• What controls would be put in place ensuring that the site is only occupied by
travelling show people?
• Would there be a maximum limit for the number of residents on the sites and
their homes?
• What would be the impact on surface water drainage and how would foul waste
be disposed of from the site?
• Will there be on site repair and maintenance to the fairground equipment and
vehicles? This could cause noise and disturbance to local residents.
• The site wasn’t deemed acceptable for gypsies in the past, so why is it now?
• Will the site be made available to other travelling people when the show people
aren’t using it? The proposed use of this site would reduce its openness and
would lead to the merging of the village of North Anston with the industrial
estates to the north of the site.
• The proposed use of the site could cause flooding off the site.
• What provisions would be made to prevent other travelling people using the site?
• Is there a maximum number of residents that could use the site?
• The site is too close to neighbouring properties.
Non planning considerations:
• Allowing this would open the floodgates.
• How will the site be financed? Will it be paid for by taxpayers?
• Allowing this site for use as a traveller’s site could encourage local businesses to
leave the area.
• This will spoil the local area.
• Allowing this application would increase insurance premiums for local residents.
• The site could become overcrowded.
• By granting planning permission for this site for this use would lead to an
increase in crime within the local area.

Page 61
• There were problems with crime when the site was previously occupied by
gypsies.
• If planning permission is granted for this scheme this could make residents feel
unsafe.
• This scheme would bring down the feel and tone of the area and could reduce
house prices and it would become harder for local residents to sell their houses.
• The feelings and objections of the wider community should be taken into
consideration and not just the feelings of the applicants.
• People in the area pay a lot of money for their Council Tax this proposal isn’t fair
to them.
• Will the residents on the site pay Council tax, and how will their taxes be
collected by HMRC. Any occupiers of this site should pay tax as everyone else
does.
• If there is an increase in crime in the local area, then a local resident threatened
to sue the Council.
• How are the police and the Council going to fund policing and monitoring the site
and an increase in crime within the local area?
• RMBC should appoint an on site warden to ensure that the site is properly
maintained and administered and to control the behaviour of local residents.
• Could the existing recycling site next door not expand into the site instead or
could the site not be used for an industrial and business use.
• The site could become another Dale Farm.
The representation in support of the proposals made the following comments:
• A local resident wrote in complaining that his and his wife’s name was included
on the petition objecting to the application. The resident stated that he and his
wife did not sign the petition.
• The resident stated that he did not object to the application and said that
objectors did not realise that the applicants are fairground people and not
gypsies.
• The representation went on to state that he had business dealings with the
applicants and that he found them to be hard working and trustworthy.
The Council has received 6 Right to Speak requests, one from the applicant and five
from local residents objecting to the application.
Consultations
Streetpride (Transportation and Highways): States that from their records the site in
question has previously been used as a depot for the storage and hire of mobile event
equipment and spectator stands. This being the case, the vehicular activity associated
with the proposed use is considered unlikely to have a material adverse impact in
highway terms from this previous authorised use. As such, no objections are raised in
highways terms subject to a condition requiring that the site be suitably surfaced, sealed
and drained in an approved manner.
Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health): State that there is potential for noise nuisance
from the works on trailers and of servicing of vehicles whilst on site. Environmental
Health recommend a condition limiting the number of residential trailers on the site and

Page 62
recommend an informative relating to working practices be appended to any planning
permission granted in respect of the proposal.
Environment Agency: Have stated that they have no objections to the proposals subject
to recommended conditions which require that the caravans are located in low risk
Flood Zone 1, to prevent flood damage, and conditions relating to the prevention of
pollution from the site to Cramfit Brook.
Appraisal
Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In
dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to -
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and
(c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90.
If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be
made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004.
The main issues to be considered with this application are as follows:
• Principle of the development
• Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
• Impact on neighbouring premises and neighbouring residents
• Flood risk / environmental impact.
• Impact on highway safety
• Other issues raised by objectors
Principle of the development
The site is allocated in the Rotherham UDP as a Traveller’s site and most relevant
policy is Policy HG4.9 ‘Site for Travelling People’ which states that:
“The following criteria will be adopted by the Council to assist in determining proposals
for sites for travelling people:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
they will provide facilities and living conditions acceptable to the travelling
communities,
they will be within easy reach of community and other facilities,
their location will have regard to the Green Belt, Urban Greenspace and other
policies relating to sensitive land-uses,
(iv) they will have sufficient work and storage areas (where required), car and lorry
parking and horse grazing (where appropriate), and
(v)
the development will not have any unacceptableenvironmental consequences
such as air pollution, noise or other nuisance.”

Page 63
In addition, the Government also issued specific advice relating to traveller sites in
March 2012 which should be read in conjunction with the National Planning Policy
Framework. The ‘Planning policy for traveller sites’ document states at Policy F
paragraph 17 that: “Local planning authorities should have regard to the need that
travelling showpeople have for mixed-use yards to allow residential accommodation and
space for storage of equipment.” The policy document states at paragraph 21 that;
“applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption
in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the
National Planning Policy Framework and this planning policy for traveller sites.”
The site in question is designated as White land in the Rotherham UDP and as an
allocated Traveller’s Site. It is noted that the site is for use by travelling show people
who have specific needs and requirements for sites that they need to use when they are
not on the road. It is considered that travelling show people have a need for sites that
allow them to store the fairground equipment and vehicles and for their residential
trailers or caravans so that they have a secure site to use when not on the road.
In effect the sites are mixed-use providing a storage yard for their vehicles and
equipment and to allow them to maintain this equipment along with providing residential
accommodation. This specific requirement means that the sites will be largely
commercial in character and not typical residential style accommodation that would be
expected from a permanent gypsy traveller site. The applicant has indicated that the
residential accommodation would be trailer accommodation that would be moved on
and off the site when the show people are travelling.
The site is question is large extending to approximately 2.6 hectares and it is
considered is large enough to provide adequate storage space and sites for residential
accommodation in the form of trailers.
Though the site would not provide a typical form of residential accommodation the
layout plan shows an area of amenity space for each mobile home. It is considered that
this layout is acceptable as it is temporary accommodation and meets the specific
requirements of the applicants.
Policy HG4.9 ‘Sites for Travelling People’ states that the sites should be “within easy
reach of community and other facilities.” It is considered that the site is on the edge of
the North Anston / Dinnington Area and that there are a number of community and other
facilities within the town. Though the site is away from residential areas, it is considered
that owing to the mixed use residential and commercial nature of the site, this is
desirable as it would avoid disturbance to neighbouring residents. As such, it is
considered that the proposed site accords with Policy HG4.9 ‘Sites for Travelling
People.’
It is considered that, owing to the allocation of the site in the UDP, the location and use
of the site for travelling show people is a conforming use and that the principle of the
development is acceptable in policy terms.
Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
With regard to the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
consideration has to be made to Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ and
guidance contained in the NPPF. Policy ENV3.1 notes that “Development will be

Page 64
required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an acceptable
standard of design…” The NPPF at paragraph 56 notes that: “The Government attaches
great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of
sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute
positively to making places better for people.” Paragraph 64 adds that: “Permission
should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities
available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”
In this instance it is noted that the site in question, would be largely commercial in
nature and appearance. It is considered that the site is located within a largely industrial
area and is not within a residential area. It is also noted that the character and
appearance of the site is currently industrial and commercial in appearance.
It is considered that the appearance of the site would be similar to the previously
authorised use of the site for storage and that this use would not harm the character
and appearance of the site or the surrounding area.
As such, it is considered that the proposed use is in accordance with Policy ENV3.1 and
paragraphs 56/64 of the NPPF and would not harm the character and appearance of
the site or the surrounding area.
Impact on neighbouring premises and neighbouring residents
It is noted that there have been a very large number of objections to the application from
members of the local community raising a number of concerns with the application.
These include the detrimental impact to neighbouring residents and businesses and to
walkers, walking near the site.
It is noted that the site is located within a largely industrial area with open fields to the
west, south and partially to the east. The nearest residential properties are on Cramfit
Road on the opposite side of a railway embankment at a distance of approximately 170
metres from the site. Bluebell Wood Children’s Hospice is located approximately 370
metres from the site. The immediately adjoining site is commercial and is used as a
recycling centre.
It is considered that owing to the relatively isolated location of the site from residential
properties, the proposed use of the site for the storage and maintenance of vehicles and
equipment and the siting of residential trailers for travelling show people would not harm
the residential amenity of neighbouring residents.
It is noted that the Council’s Environmental Health Service raise no objections to the
application subject to a recommended condition restricting the number of residential
trailers on the site. It is considered reasonable to restrict the number of residential
caravans / trailers on the site so as to avoid the residential intensification of the site.
They have also requested an informative relating to restricting the hours of operation at
the site, which is considered reasonable to append to any planning permission granted
in respect of the proposal.
Flood risk / environmental impact
It is noted that representations have been received raising concerns about possible
pollution from the proposed use and flood risk from the site.

Page 65
Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution,’ states: “The Council, in consultation with other
appropriate agencies, will seek to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance
and pollution associated with development and transport. Planning permission will not
be granted for new development which…is likely to give rise, either immediately or in
the foreseeable future, to noise, light pollution, pollution of the atmosphere, soil or
surface water and ground water, or to other nuisances, where such impacts would be
beyond acceptable standards, Government Guidance, or incapable of being avoided by
incorporating preventative or mitigating measures at the time the development takes
place.”
The NPPF notes at paragraph 109 that “The planning system should contribute to and
enhance the natural and local environment by:….preventing both new and existing
development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being
adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land
instability.”
It is noted that the Environment Agency has been consulted on the application and have
raised no objections to the proposals in terms of flood risk from the use of the site. The
Environment Agency had concerns regarding the possible impact of flooding on the
caravans on the site. However, further to the receipt of an amended plan they have
stated that they do not object to the application on this basis, as the caravans would be
sited outside of the high risk Flood Zone areas of the site and would be located in the
low risk Flood Zone 1 area of the site, closer to the entrance.
The Environment Agency raised no objections about possible flood risk off site due to
the purposed use. However, they did raise concerns about possible pollutants running
off the site and possible contamination of Cramfit Brook. As such, they recommended
conditions requiring the applicants to demonstrate how this would be avoided. It is
considered reasonable to append these recommendations to any planning permission
granted in respect of the proposal.
It is noted that concerns from local residents have been expressed regarding the
treatment of foul and surface water from the site. It is noted that the applicants have
indicated that the site is on the main sewers though it is considered reasonable to
append a condition relating to the disposal of foul and surface water from the site.
Impact on highway safety
It is noted that a number of objections have been received by local residents in terms of
highway safety and Cramfit Road being substandard and dangerous. However, the
Council’s Transportation Unit note that the site in question has previously been used as
a depot for the storage and hire of mobile event equipment and spectator stands. This
being the case, the vehicular activity associated with the proposed use is considered
unlikely to be materially greater than the authorised use of the site. Therefore it is
considered that the proposal would not have a materially adverse impact in highway
terms, from this previously authorised use. As such, no objections are raised in highway
safety terms.
Other issues raised by objectors

Page 66
A large number of representations objected to the application incorrectly regarding it to
be a ‘Gypsy’ site. Some comments made were defamatory and offensive and have not
been included in this report. A number of other issues centred on the fear of crime from
the future residents of the site and how the crime levels from the residents would be
controlled by the Council and the local police. Whilst this can be a material
consideration in the determination of a planning application it is not considered relevant
in this instance as the site will be used by travelling show people and there is no reason
to suggest that any such problems would arise.
Concerns were raised that granting this application would lead to a fall in local house
prices, the tone of the area and residents being unable to sell their homes and rising
insurance premiums. Concerns were also raised about whether or not the residents of
the site pay Council and income tax. Many residents claimed that similar problems
could arise from the site that occurred when it was a gypsy site, including the occupiers
of the site polluting and littering the local area. However, it is considered that these
concerns are not material planning considerations and cannot be taken into
consideration with this application.
A local resident raised concerns about whether the taxpayer would be funding the site.
Though once again this is not a material planning consideration, it is understood that the
site would be entirely private for the use of the travelling showmen.
Residents also requested that alternative sites within the Borough be used for this
proposal and that the site could become another Dale Farm. This site is specifically
allocated as a Traveller’s Site and is considered to be acceptable in principle. There is
no reason to suggest that it will expand in the future, any such expansion would in any
event require planning permission.
Concerns were raised that the view point of local residents would not be taken into
consideration though this report clearly sets out all the objections from local residents,
which will be taken into account before any decision is made.
Other concerns raised were the number of families occupying the site and what
measures would be put in place restricting the site to showpeople only.
It was considered above that it would be reasonable to attach a condition restricting the
number of residential caravans / trailers on the site. It is also considered reasonable to
attach a condition which requires that the occupants of the mobile homes on the site are
travelling showmen and their families.
Issues were raised that the increase in local residents would add pressure on local
schools, doctors and other community facilities, which are already overstretched.
Though this is a material planning consideration, it is considered that the addition of 8
families to the local area would not overstretch local community infrastructure.
Concerns have been raised that local residents and neighbouring businesses were not
consulted on the application. Though these comments have been noted, this is due to
the fact that the site is relatively isolated. The national and local requirements for
consultation with neighbouring residents requires that residents that do not share a
common boundary with the site should be notified of the planning application. Indeed it
is noted that the nearest residential properties are located nearly 200 metres from the
edge of the site. It is noted that the site was advertised by site notice notifying passers

Page 67
by of the application. In any event, it is clear that the application is known to local
residents due to the level of interest shown and the number of letters received.
Conclusion
It is considered that this site, allocated as a ‘Travellers Site’, is appropriate for use as a
site for travelling showmen for residential and storage purposes. It is considered that
owing to the distance of the site from neighbouring residential properties the proposed
use would not harm the residential amenity of residents within the locality.
It is considered that the use of the site for the storage of fairground equipment and
mobile homes would not harm the character and appearance of the site or the
surrounding area.
The highway impact of the proposal is considered to be acceptable as the site in
question has previously been used as a depot for the storage and hire of mobile event
equipment and spectator stands. This being the case, the vehicular activity associated
with the proposed use is considered unlikely to be materially greater than the authorised
use of the site. Therefore it is considered that the proposal would not have a materially
adverse impact in highway terms, from this previously authorised use.
It is considered that the scheme would not increase flood risk to the area or contaminate
the local area, subject to recommended conditions, in accordance with Policy ENV3.7
‘Control of Pollution.’
Conditions
01
The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three
years from the date of this permission.
Reason
In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
02
The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the
approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the
submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below)
except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(Location Plan)(received 22/05/2012)
(Drawing Number 2) (received 22/05/2012)
Reason
To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.
03
Details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including
details of any off-site work, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority and the development shall not be brought into use until such approved details
are implemented.
Reason

Page 68
To ensure that the development can be properly drained in accordance with UDP
policies ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.7 ‘Control of
Pollution’.
04
The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) Revision 2 compiled by
Building Design Concept Ltd and the following mitigation measures detailed within the
FRA:
1. Caravans / mobile homes shall be located within Flood Zone 1 only.
2. Emergency access shall be provided as shown on Drawing No. 2 with Job No.
CL67, dated May 2012.
3. No permanent structures or raising of ground levels within flood zone 2 or 3.
The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and
subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within
the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason
1. To prevent the caravans being affected by flood waters and to comply with the
requirements of the NPPF and accompanying Technical Guidance.
2. To ensure safe access and egress from and to the site in the event of a flood.
3. To prevent an increase in flood risk elsewhere.
05
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as
a scheme to assess and mitigate the environmental impact of the site operations,
including during construction works, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by,
the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason
To reduce the risk of pollution to Cramfit Brook to an acceptable level.
06
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a
scheme to treat and remove suspended solids from surface water run-off during
construction works has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning
authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason
To reduce the risk of pollution to Cramfit Brook to an acceptable level.
07
Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles
shall be constructed with either;
a/ a permeable surface and associated water retention/collection drainage, or;

Page 69
b/ an impermeable surface with water collected and taken to a separately
constructed water retention/discharge system within the site.
The area shall thereafter be maintained in a working condition.
Reason
To ensure that surface water can adequately be drained and to encourage drivers to
make use of the parking spaces and to ensure that the use of the land for this purpose
will not give rise to the deposit of mud and other extraneous material on the public
highway in the interests of the adequate drainage of the site and road safety.
08
The development shall not be brought into use until the highway verge between the site
boundary fence and Common Road/Cramfit Road has been cut and the verge shall be
maintained with a maximum height restriction of 900mm measured above the nearside
road channel thereafter.
Reason
In the interest of highway safety.
09
The maximum number of mobile homes on the site shall be 8.
Reason
To avoid an intensification of the site for domestic purposes and to retain the site as a
mixed use site for trailer accommodation and storage of fairground equipment in
accordance with Policy HG4.9 ‘Sites for Travelling People’ and Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control
of Pollution.’
10
The mobile homes on the site shall only be occupied by persons and the family of
persons whose main occupation is travelling showpeople.
Reason
To retain the site as a mixed use storage and residential site for travelling showpeople
and to avoid the intensification of the site in accordance with Policy HG4.9 ‘Sites for
Travelling People’ and in the interests of highway safety.
Informative
Except in emergency no operations should take place on site other than between the
hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 09:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays only with no
working on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

RB2012/1049
Page 70

Page 71
Application
Number
Proposal and
Location
RB2012/1049
Outline application for the erection of 14 dwellinghouses
including details of access at land off Companions Close,
Wickersley
Recommendation Grant conditionally subject to S.106
Site Description & Location
The site to which the application relates forms a roughly rectangular area of
approximately 0.47 hectares set to the south of Bawtry Road and to the west of
Companions Close and presently consists of vacant currently undeveloped land which
has vegetation to the majority of its boundaries.
With the exception of the area immediately to the north of Companions Close which
forms part of the adjacent landscaped car parking area to XL Fisheries (chip shop), the
site is surrounded by residential development which includes a mix of flats (three storey)
and (two storey) dwellings to its north and east boundaries, with further two storey
residential properties and their associated gardens to the west and a mix of bungalows
and dormer dwellings to the south.
Background
There are no applications considered to be of relevance relating to the application site.
Proposal
The proposals seeks outline planning for residential development of a maximum 14
dwellings including a staggered point of access which utilises additional land currently
used as parking for XL Fisheries which would create an informal ‘square,’ accessed off
Companions Close, Wickersley.
The application has further been submitted with an indicative layout indicating details of
internal vehicular and pedestrian access with a shared surface estate road being
separated from the adjacent Companions Close development to the east by a
landscaped buffer zone (public area), with the bulk of development being set adjacent to
the western and southern boundaries.
All other matters are reserved for future approval, including details of layout,
appearance, scale and landscaping.
The application is accompanied by the following documents:
Design and Access Statement
This statement has been produced to examine the character and structure of the
development and to explain the principles and concept that have been applied to
particular aspects of the proposal. It sets out the upper limits of development in terms of
scale to be a mix of 2 storey (ranging 7.5 – 8.5 metres in height) and 2½ storey (ranging
9 - 10 metres in height); and that properties would be of a potential mix of semi and
detached units between 2, 3 and 4 bedroom size. Where garages are indicated these

Page 72
would be in the range of 2.9 metres wide by 5.5 metres deep (single garage) and 5.5
metres wide by 5.5 metres deep (double garage). No indication is given to the
anticipated height of such garages.
The statement further goes on to advise that off-street parking to the plots is largely
provided through drives and garages with each dwelling will have at least 2 dedicated
car park spaces. The statement further sets out that there is provision for 3 visitor car
parking spaces, and that the layout provides sufficient area for visitors and deliveries to
park on the access driveway.
In general sustainability terms the statement states that the site is well served by bus as
it is located on a ‘Major Public Transport Route,’ to several prominent towns in the
district, providing links to Rotherham and Sheffield in particular, their railway stations
and a number of large employment areas in the vicinity. Together with footways and
cycle links, access is therefore available to a wider network of places for employment,
shopping and recreation.
The statement further goes on to advise that although indicative, the submitted layout
ensures that the privacy and amenity of the nearest dwellings in Companions Close are
not adversely affected, and that the dwellings are provided with private and secure rear
gardens which will be planted with a view to providing amenity, privacy and general
attractiveness for the residents. Street trees selected from native species will be planted
within private frontages and in key prominent positions. This will, along with the building
form and existing boundary trees, help create an attractive street scene.
Building for Life Assessment
This assessment concludes following the principles set out in the Design and Access
Statement that the development scores 15/20.
Land Contamination Assessment
This desk top statement sets out that there are no obvious signs of contamination or
potential sources of contamination observed other than the noted fly tipping. There are
no known historic buildings to have affected the site that may contain asbestos
containing material. Furthermore the report notes that there is a negligible risk of
hazardous ground gases affecting the proposed development.
The report concludes that there are no significant aspects raised from the desk study to
suggest there will be wide spread contamination within the ground. Although unlikely,
consideration should be given to the potential for gas protective measures to properties
and limited capping systems (possibly up to 600mm) in garden and public open spaces.
Tree Survey
The submitted Tree Survey includes details of 13 individual trees, 6 Groups of trees and
2 hedges. Two Ash trees (T3 & T8) are reported as ‘B’ category trees in accordance
with BS 5837:2005 Trees in Relation Construction – Recommendations, being of
moderate quality and value with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20
years. The remaining trees and hedges are reported as category ‘C’, being of low
quality and value with an estimated life expectancy of 10 years apart from a Pear tree
(T17) that is reported in poor condition with limited future prospects. Within this ‘C’

Page 73
category this includes a Weeping Willow tree to the western boundary which is indicated
for removal.
Ecology Report
The originally submitted and subsequently revised ecology reports set out that the land
contains species of limited intrinsic botanical value, dominated by common grass
species and is a habitat which occurs frequently within the local area and throughout the
UK Semi-improved grassland is not considered to be of importance for nature
conservation. The reports identify that the proposed development will remove the semiimproved
grassland across the site, whilst the majority of trees / hedgerows on the suite
boundaries are capable of being retained.
The reports do not identify the presence of protected species but acknowledge that bats
may use the site as part of their wider foraging territory. The report further notes that the
existing trees are used by nesting birds, whilst the site has a low potential to support
reptiles / crested newts and no evidence of badgers was observed. The report sets out
that the loss of the habitat within the site owing of the potential impact of the works may
temporarily reduce foraging habitat for local populations of bats and birds; however the
residential gardens, once established, will provide foraging habitat for bats and birds
and thus will reduce this impact.
In summary the report identifies that some compensatory biodiversity gain is provided in
terms of nesting birds and recommends that bird boxes are incorporated into the
scheme, where practicable, as an ecological enhancement to the site and the
surrounding area.
Development Plan Allocation and Policy
Regional Strategy
H1 ‘Provision and Distribution of Housing.’
H2 ‘Managing and Stepping up the Supply and Delivery of Housing.’
H5 ‘Housing Mix.’
T1 ‘Personal Travel Reduction and Modal Shift.’
YH4 ‘Regional cities and sub regional towns.’
ENV5 ‘Energy.’
Local Planning Policy (UDP policy)
HG4.3 ‘Windfall Sites.’
HG5 ‘The Residential Environment.’
ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment.’
ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development.’
ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows.’
ENV4.4 ‘Contaminated Land.’
T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development.’
Other Material Considerations
Council’s Parking Standards (adopted June 2011).

Page 74
Supplementary Planning Guidance Housing Guidance 3: ‘Residential lnfill Plots.’
South Yorkshire Residential Design Guidance.
Circular 01/2006:‘Guidance on Changes to the Development Control System.’
Community Infrastructure Regulations 2011.
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27 th 2012
and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPG’s) and most of
the Planning Policy Statements (PPS’s) that existed. It states that “Development that is
sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable
development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.
The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may
continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a
limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development
Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF
states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according
to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to
the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF
and have been given due weight in the determination of this application.
Publicity
The application has been advertised by way of press notice, site notices posted in the
vicinity of the site and by way of individual letters of notification to properties
surrounding the site.
Five individual letters of representation have been received from occupiers of properties
on Bawtry Road, Companions Close and St Albans Way with a further letter received
from a group of Companions Close residents. The main objections in summary being:
• To facilitate access to the site from the roadway on Companions Close, this
currently consists of a small private development of apartments and houses with
private parking facilities situated directly fronting the proposed accessway.
Concerns are raised as to the increase in traffic flow both for works vehicles and
resulting property owners which may be detrimental to the existing residents,
many of whom are elderly.
• Various reports have been submitted relating to the protection of trees and
species prevalent in the area. We believe that this development will undoubtedly
have a detrimental effect to both which are currently enjoyed by the residents of
Companions Close.
• Concern is raised as to the disposal of surface water and foul water being aware
of the requirements at Companions Close as well as other areas to install Private
Pumping Stations to accommodate development on original undevelopable sites
many of which are flood plains.
• Concerns of the disruption created to existing residents through noise and
disturbance from construction works and ultimately the impact of the scheme in
terms of traffic generation.

Page 75
• This land is described as waste land; however until recently it was ploughed by a
local farmer and this we would say this makes it ‘Greenbelt land.’
• This land has become a haven for wildlife.
• We would like confirmation of boundaries to existing properties to be defined as
we believe hedgerows to the properties define the boundary not any fences that
have been erected.
• Existing sewers already have difficulty servicing existing properties.
• Access down Fairways to the site entrance is restrictive and is unsuitable to large
vehicles to gain access to Companions Close.
• It is believed that an existing stream is piped under this land coming from the
Tanyard and if damaged over time could cause pollution to land namely
Wickersley Gorse.
• Where would services be joined and what effect would this have on the
surrounding properties as previously mentioned local sewers.
• Would any changes be allowed if planning permission is granted allowing extra
properties to be built?
• This is a valuable Greenspace area in the heart of Wickersley and should/could
serve the Village much better as Recreational use and if lost could never be
replaced.
• The details show access being taken from what is currently a parking court
serving the properties on Companions Close. The assumption is that this is
adopted highway and we would seek clarification on this.
• Whilst it may seem acceptable to extend this cul-de sac to serve the new
development, we would ask if the authority is to condition any approval to ensure
that adequate turning facilities will be provided for large vehicles to enter and
leave the development in a forward gear.
• The end of the new cul-de-sac will not be visible when entering the site, so this is
important for safety reasons.
• Is it the intention of the developer to have the road adopted, as this is not clear in
the application?
• The Council has a policy to only allow private roads accessing a maximum of 5
dwellings. Please ensure that this practice is adhered to.
• What drainage is to be allowed for? There are currently some issues regarding
the private pumped foul drainage system serving Companions Close and these
could easily be resolved by a coordinated approach to the removal of foul
drainage from both developments. This is not too much to ask given the likely
adverse effects of the new development to the existing property owners of
Companions Close.
• Concerned that if over 2 storeys in height adjacent flats will lose light.
In addition to the above, Wickersley Parish Council offer the following comment:
• If the current designation is anything other than residential, then we object on the
basis that a change of use application may be required.
• Otherwise, we have no objections to the outline application at this stage and will
comment when reserved matters are submitted.
Consultations
Streetpride (Transportation and Highways): Originally commented that:

Page 76
1) There has been no provision for future access to the adjacent gardens to the
west of the site, this should include pedestrian facilities.
2) Some of the proposed car parking facilities would be remote (plots 6, 8, 12). This
may result in the highway being utilised instead.
3) All garages which are to be included as a car parking space should have a
minimum internal dimension of 3 metres x 6 metres. Car parking should comply
with the Council’s minimum residential car parking standards.
4) Inter visibility should be protected on the bend opposite plot 3.
5) The proposed turning head does not cater for the typical turning manoeuvres of a
modern refuse vehicle (12 metres in length). This should be amended
accordingly.
6) Visitor parking bays should form part of the highway naturally by subtle widening
and not dedicated bays.
Subsequent comments received advise all the above points can be adequately resolved
as part of the reserved matters with a layout being designed in accordance with the
Council’s Minimum Car Parking standard, to which all of these can be secured through
the imposition of the suggested condition. Based on this advice, no objections to the
proposals on highway safety grounds are therefore raised subject to the recommended
conditions.
Streetpride (Leisure & Community Services): Comment that in respect of ecology /
biodiversity matters, the principles of the mitigation measures / recommendations set
out in the submitted original and subsequently amended ecological assessment reports
are acceptable and can with the imposition of the suggested condition and informative
be developed through the subsequent reserved matters application.
Streetpride (Trees & Woodlands): Has no objections in principle to the loss of the
suggested trees to provide for such a development owing to their reduced condition,
limited future prospects and or limited amenity due to their smaller size. Those trees
scheduled for retention, although not considered to be appropriate for inclusion as part
of a Tree Preservation Order, can be retained subject to the suggested conditions.
Streetpride (Landscape Design): Comments that the proposals involve the felling of 3
existing trees, the loss of which should be adequately mitigated within the future
landscape scheme for the site. The majority of existing trees and hedges however, are
being proposed for retention and incorporation into any future landscape reserved
matters application is paramount and should be secured by the imposition of the
suggested conditions.
Neighbourhoods (Strategic Housing & Investment Services): Urban Design: Comments
that the level of detail is not available to judge parts of the Building for Life criteria, and
what can be judged must be done with the understanding that the design is still evolving
so may be subject to change. The suggested score of 15/20 is not reflective of the
submitted scheme and therefore Building for Life and the accompanying South
Yorkshire Residential Design Guide should be used as a further guiding tool to enhance
the design once reserved matters are being considered.
Neighbourhoods – Contaminated Land: Comments that no contaminated land scoping
opinion or planning conditions are necessary, given that the site appears to be free from
any historical use that would give rise to significant contamination of the land and

Page 77
therefore any risks to future users/workers at the site and to controlled waters are likely
to be low.
Children & Young People's (School Admissions, Organisation and SEN Assessment)
Services: Identify a shortfall in both primary and secondary education provision in the
Bramley and Wickersley area up until and including academic year 2015/2016 and
identify that a number of capital schemes are forthcoming to address this shortfall.
Children & Young People's Services therefore request a financial contribution to assist
with this provision.
Severn Trent Water Ltd: Raises no objections on drainage grounds subject to the
recommended condition.
South Yorkshire Fire & Rescue: Comment that access for appliances should be in
accordance with Approved Document B, Volume 1, part B5, Section 11, and that
consideration should be given to the maximum weight of 26 Tonnes for South Yorkshire
Fire Service vehicles.
Appraisal
Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In
dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to -
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and
(c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90.
If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be
made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004.
The main consideration in the determination of this application therefore relate to the
following matters:
• Principle of development.
• Requirements of affordable housing.
• Transportation issues.
• Layout considerations.
• Residential amenity issues.
• Trees / landscaping issues.
• Impact on ecology / biodiversity.
• Land contamination.
• Energy efficiency.
• Planning Obligations.
Principle of development
The site is allocated for residential purposes in the adopted Unitary Development Plan
1999 and is further identified capable of accommodating 14 units within the published
Sites and Policies DPD: Issues and Options consultation from 2011 for potential
residential development.

Page 78
By virtue of the site’s allocation and its setting within the existing urban area and in a
sustainable location, the proposed development of this windfall site for up to 14 units is
therefore considered to represent an appropriate and efficient use of land and
represents a density of 29 dwellings per hectare which is further considered to accord
with the general character and grain (i.e. medium density development comprising of
predominantly detached and semi detached dwellings set within reasonably sized plots)
of the surrounding locality. Although the scheme submitted is only indicative at this point
in time, in the event that outline permission is granted such matters relating to layout
and appearance are reserved for subsequent approval and it is considered that the
principle of up to 14 dwellings can be comfortably accommodated upon the site without
undue detriment to the locality and amenities of surrounding properties.
Taking account of the above, the use of the site for residential development would
therefore make a contribution to Rotherham’s housing supply as required by paragraphs
48, 49 and 50 of the NPPF and Regional Strategy Policy H1 ‘Provision and Distribution
of Housing’ in that it will improve and increase housing stock for all households wanting
homes, and further accords with UDP Policy HG4.3 ‘Windfall Sites.’
Transportation issues
Regional Strategy Policy T1 ‘Personal Travel Reduction and Modal Shift,’ UDP Policy
T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development,’ and the advice set out in the recently issued
NPPF (paragraphs 34 & 35), highlight the need to promote sustainable development
and accessibility, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. The site is located within easy
walking distance of the bus stops on Bawtry Road and there are further local amenities
(shops, schools, etc) also within walking distance of the proposed site. Therefore in
terms of sustainability the site is considered to be well served by other non car modes of
transport.
Objections received in relation to this proposed application raise concerns that the
increase in the number of cars using roads (and Companions Close in particular) in the
immediate area to access the site will be detrimental in highway safety terms. The
scheme has been designed with its access derived off Companions Close, although this
access arrangement has been compounded by the situation of a ‘ransom strip’ scenario
which prevents direct access off the current closed off section of highway that exists
presently. The solution reached in consultation with the Council’s Streetpride
(Highways & Transportation) Unit has led to the slightly unusual off set arrangement by
utilising land which currently forms part of the current XL Fisheries car park, however
Streetpride (Highways & Transportation) do not consider that the scale of the proposed
residential development, and the vehicle movements associated with it, would be
significant to justify a reason for refusal on highway safety grounds.
On the matter of the comments received from the Council’s Streetpride (Highways &
Transportation) Unit in respect of the proposed internal access arrangements, Members
attention is drawn to Circular 01/2006 ‘Guidance on Changes to the Development
Control System,’ which at paragraph 51 advises that Access considerations should
cover: -
“…accessibility to and within the site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the
positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the
surrounding access network.”

Page 79
Bearing the above in mind and notwithstanding the applicants stated indicative nature of
the submission, Streetpride (Highways & Transportation) have assessed that the
formation of the internal roadway, cul-de-sac and turning facility as indicated are not
designed in accordance with the requirements as set out in the South Yorkshire
Residential Design Guide and ‘Manual for Streets.’ Furthermore concerns are raised
that the proposed levels of on site car parking are further not in accordance with the
Council's adopted minimum Parking Standards (June 2011), and that no provision is
made to access the adjacent gardens to the west to provide a potentially
comprehensive development.
It is however considered that, notwithstanding the submitted details, these issues can
be adequately secured and controlled via the imposition of a suitable condition to
ensure that any subsequent reserved matters in respect of layout incorporate such
requirements. On this basis, Streetpride (Highways & Transportation) raises no
objections to the scheme on overall highway safety grounds.
Layout considerations
Although layout is a matter to be considered at the reserved matters stage, it is
considered given the submission of the indicative layout and the proximity of the rear
gardens to those properties off Bawtry Road that the issue of comprehensiveness is
explored as part of the current scheme.
Members attention is drawn to a previous appeal decision relating to application
RB2001/0147 for a site off Goose Lane in Wickersley wherein the appointed Inspector
refused a backland development to rear gardens stating in his opinion that:
“(development)…would substantially prejudice any such comprehensive development,”
and that: “In my opinion the proposal would make it difficult to include the rear gardens
to the south within an overall scheme of development, or at least reduce the overall
number of dwellings that could be accommodated.”
The Inspector further went on to state: “…the amount of potential housing land available
here is such as to justify a comprehensive approach to its development.
In concluding the Inspector noted that: “I appreciate that there are ownership constraints
which would prevent development of all of this land in the immediate future; in particular
I note that some of the owners have expressed an unwillingness to participate in any
such proposal. However, this does not preclude a comprehensive approach to
development in the future. The allocation of a significant proportion of the land in the
UDP is the first step towards a unified development, and in my view incorporating other
adjoining land in such a development would be the most efficient way of using this land
for housing. A piecemeal approach to development here would be in conflict with the
overall thrust of PPG3, which is aimed at making the best use of potential housing land.”
Since the above mentioned appeal, PPG3 has since been superseded by PPS3
‘Housing,’ which in turn has further been cancelled by the introduction of the NPPF. It is
however considered in light of the Inspector’s decision a suitably worded condition can
be imposed in order to secure access provision to the adjoining garden land to the west
through the current development site as part of any subsequent reserved matter
application relating to layout to ensure that the adjoining land could be developed at
some point in the future.

Page 80
Furthermore, although such a matter would be considered in more detail as a matter
reserved for a subsequent application, it is considered that generally the majority of the
plots indicatively shown would retain reasonable sized gardens and maintain the
Council's standards in respect of space about buildings as advised in UDP
Supplementary Planning Guidance 3: Residential lnfill Plots and the South Yorkshire
Residential Design Guide would further provide a development which would enhance
the quality of the residential environment for the occupants in accordance with Policy
HG5 ‘The Residential Environment,’ as well as the advice as set out in paragraph 57 of
the NPPF which states: “It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high
quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public
and private spaces and wider area development schemes.”
Residential amenity issues
Comments have been raised over the potential loss of privacy to existing residential
properties which border the site to the east off Companions Close and to the north off
Bawtry Road. However as the scheme as submitted is indicative with layout and scale
to be determined for subsequent approval it is not considered that the application could
be refused on this ground alone.
It is noted that the Design & Access statement refers to a mix of two and two and a half
stories dwellings and that the setting of the dwellings would be predominantly set away
at some distance away from common boundaries. It adds that reasonable levels of
amenity space for proposed residents would be provided. Accordingly on this matter it is
considered that with the imposition of a suitably worded condition this would ensure that
the development is designed having regards to the guidance as advocated by the
Council's space about buildings guidelines as set out in Supplementary Planning
Guidance Housing Guidance 3: ‘Residential lnfill Plots,’ and the advice in the South
Yorkshire Residential Design Guide along the parameters as set out in the Design and
Access Statement.
On this basis the development is considered to accord with UDP Policies HG5 ‘The
Residential Environment,’ ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment,’ Supplementary
Planning Guidance Housing 3: Residential infill plots and the guidance set out in the
NPPF, which at paragraph 64 advises that: “Permission should be refused for
development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving
the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”
Trees / landscaping issues
Owing to its past and previously undeveloped use, this open site does not contain trees
and hedgerows other than on the boundaries with adjacent occupiers which vary in age
and condition. The detailed surveys submitted with the application and the proposed
illustrative layout indicates that the indicative development will only involve the removal
of three trees including two no. Ash trees to form the proposed point of access onto
Companions Close, along with a Weeping Willow tree due to its reduced condition and
history of branch loss. The subsequent assessment by the Council’s (Trees and
Woodlands) Arboriculturist confirms that the removal of these three trees should not
result in a serious reduction of amenity to the area.
Furthermore the retention of the remaining boundary landscaping and the planting of
further trees as part of a wider detailed landscape scheme for the whole development

Page 81
and are considered to provide valuable and important amenity to the area as well as
useful screening that may be valued by the residents of adjacent properties and in
addition they are likely to provide associated wildlife benefits.
The scheme as far as it is indicated on the indicative site plan shows a good level of
proposed vegetation cover and no concerns are raised regarding the scale and layout of
the development in its current form and it is considered that a strong attractive
landscape setting for the development can be achieved by the retention of the majority
of the existing boundary hedgerows and trees, all of which should be subject to the
suggested conditions.
Overall subject to the recommended conditions in respect of the provision of future
landscaping as part of a reserved matters application and adequate tree and hedgerow
protection during demolition and construction works, it is considered that the proposal
accords with UDP Policies ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development,’ and
ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows,’ along with the advice set out in paragraph
118 of the NPPF.
Impact on ecology / biodiversity
Again owing to the previous undeveloped use, the supplied ecology reports sets out that
the land contains species of limited intrinsic botanical value, dominated by common
grass species and is a habitat which occurs frequently within the local area and
throughout the UK Semi-improved grassland is not considered to be of importance for
nature conservation.
The report identifies that the proposed development will remove the semi-improved
grassland across the site, whilst the majority of trees and hedges on site are to be
retained (with the exception of those set out in the trees / landscaping section above).
The reports do not identify the presence of protected species but acknowledge that bats
may use the site as part of their wider foraging territory. The report further notes that the
existing trees are used by nesting birds, whilst the site has a low potential to support
reptiles / crested newts and no evidence of badgers was observed. The report sets out
that the loss of the habitat within the site owing of the potential impact of the works may
temporarily reduce foraging habitat for local populations of bats and birds; however the
residential gardens, once established, will provide foraging habitat for bats and birds
and thus will reduce this impact.
Taking account of the above, the Council’s Ecologist does not raise issue to the overall
mitigation measures as set out in the accompanying surveys subject to further
consideration being given at the reserved matters stage to implement a number of
matters relating to:- existing hedgerow protection and new additional planting be
undertaken; in addition to the proposed bird boxes that bat boxes are further provided;
and a number of native locally appropriate trees be included as any proposed
landscaping scheme. All of which can be required and controlled through the imposition
of the recommended condition and informative.
In view of the above, it is considered that the proposals accord with UDP Policy ENV3.2
‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and the advice as set out in paragraphs 109
and 118 of the NPPF.

Page 82
Land contamination
The supporting report identifies that historically the land to which the application refers
has not been used for anything other than agriculture and therefore no known
contaminants are believed to exist upon the site. The Council’s Neighbourhoods Service
concur with this view and consider that the site appears to be free from any historical
use that would give rise to significant contamination of the land and therefore any risks
to future users/workers at the site and controlled waters are likely to be low. Accordingly
it is considered that the proposals accord with UDP Policy ENV4.4 ‘Contaminated Land’
and the advice set out in paragraphs 109 and 120 to the NPPF.
Energy efficiency
Regional Strategy Policy ENV5 ‘Energy’ encourages energy efficiency and requires new
developments comprising 10 or more dwellings to secure at least 10% of their energy
from decentralised sources and renewable or low carbon sources. The applicant has
indicated as part of the accompanying Design and Access Statement that: “…such
detail of house type design, construction methods, potential de-centralised energy
sources, site practices are matters to be determined at the reserved matters stage.” It is
considered that in order to achieve such a matter that an appropriately worded condition
be imposed upon any planning permission granted.
Planning Obligations
The Community Infrastructure Regulations 2011 introduced a new legal framework for
the consideration of planning obligations and Regulation 122 (2) of the CIL Regs is
particularly of relevance to this application, the statutory test for requiring such
contributions states that:
“2) A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission
for the development if the obligation is—
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
(b) directly related to the development; and
(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.”
The comments received from Children & Young People's (School Admissions,
Organisation and SEN Assessment) Services in respect of the justification for
requesting such monies are set out in detail below.
(a)
Is the obligation necessary to make the development acceptable in planning
terms?
Yes. It is considered that the obligation is the only mechanism available to ensure that a
continued education provision for the immediate schools in the Wickersley / Bramley /
Flanderwell area.
(b)
Is the request directly related to the development?
The Local Education Authority (LEA) is currently expanding Flanderwell Primary School
from an admission number of 30-45 pupils per year group (Net Capacity 210 to 315).
This will still leave a shortfall in the Wickersley Learning Community in future years.

Page 83
Wickersley Comprehensive is currently over capacity and this trend is set to continue.
This has resulted in the Head Teacher requesting additional classrooms to increase the
schools Net Capacity. In the past, due to falling Secondary numbers, no contribution
was asked for Secondary Education. As all Primary schools in this area are now
oversubscribed, these additional pupils will eventually trickle through to the Secondary
school which is already oversubscribed.
The table below shows current capacity and future projections for the whole of the
Wickersley Learning Community for both Primary and Secondary provision:
Net
NOR
2011
NOR
2012 Est Est Est Est
Sep-
12 13/14 14/15 15/16
Capacity January January
Bramley/Wickersley
Bramley Grange 280 279 285 296 300 303 306
Bramley Sunnyside
Inf/Jnr 240/320 247/323 255/328 592 602 611 616
Flanderwell 315 176 194 223 240 251 264
Listerdale 210 206 211 216 213 214 212
Wickersley
Northfield 419 421 422 421 420 420 420
St. Alban's CE 205 210 209 210 210 210 210
Total 1989 1862 1904 1958 1985 2009 2028
Wickersley
Comprehensive 1923 1946 2006 2016 1998 1989 1973
(c)
Is the request fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development?
The request for monies is not based on a Borough wide formula as it must relate in
scale and kind to the development having regards to the specifics of the immediate
locality. There are areas of the Borough which have surplus school places at both
Primary and Secondary level, where no Education Contribution would be required. In
this case the request solely relates to the Wickersley Learning Community, as every
school in this popular area is over subscribed and the net capacity of schools will need
to be increased. This year the LEA was in the unfortunate position of having to offer
pupils places at Schools in Dalton, Thrybergh and Maltby due to oversubscription of the
Wickersley Schools.
In view of the above basis for justification the contribution request is considered to meet
the tests for planning obligations set out under the Community Infrastructure
Regulations 2011 and, in particular Regulation 122 (2) of the CIL Regs.
Other matters raised
In regards to the comments received in respect of drainage matters, the site is not
located within an identified flood zone and has not been the subject of recent flooding
history. The applicant advises that the storage and controlled release of surface water
during extreme storm events can be accommodated through collection systems such as

Page 84
permeable surfacing, soakaways, rainwater harvesting etc to slow down the peak-rate
run-off, and this would serve to improve the run-off profile of the development.
Having assessed the application submission, Severn Trent Water confirms that, subject
to the recommended condition in respect of provision of both foul and surface water
drainage details being submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority as part
of the reserved matters submission, there are no anticipated flooding / drainage related
issues.
As such taking account of the above, it is therefore considered that the proposals would
accord with UDP Policy ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development,’ and the advice
as set out in paragraph of the NPPF.
Conclusion
By virtue of the site's residential allocation and setting within the existing urban area and
in a sustainable location, the proposed development of this windfall site represents an
appropriate and efficient use of land. The use of the site for housing development would
make a contribution to Rotherham’s housing supply as required by the NPPF and
Regional Strategy Policy H1 ‘Provision and Distribution of Housing’ in that it will improve
and increase housing stock for all households wanting homes, and further accords with
UDP Policy HG4.3 ‘Windfall Sites.’
Although indicative, the plan submitted with the application and the accompanying
Design and Access Statement shows that a potential development of up to 14 units with
building heights indicated as two / two and a half storeys for the proposed dwellings
would be capable of being satisfactorily accommodated upon the site without undue
detriment to the character of the locality in general.
In overall access terms, the principle of accessing the development off Companions
Close is considered appropriate and would not lead to significant intensification of traffic
upon the surrounding highway network. Furthermore taking into account the site's
sustainable location, and of the provision of other alternative modes of transport, it is not
considered that the development would be detrimental in highway safety terms. The
requirement to ensure that the internal roadway, cul-de-sac and turning facility along
with accessing the adjacent land to form a comprehensive development and the
provision of adequate off-street parking provision in accordance with the requirements
as set out in the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide, ‘Manual for Streets,’ and
the Council’s adopted Parking Standards can further be controlled via a suitable
condition.
It is not considered that the development would unduly compromise or adversely impact
upon the vitality of existing trees / hedgerows which exist on site and the scheme would
further add to local biodiversity through the mitigation measures identified through the
ecological surveys undertaken.
Additionally it is not considered that the indicative layout would present issues of
residential amenity issues through potential overbearing or over looking matters to
make the scheme unacceptable.
It is not considered that the development would lead to unacceptable levels of land
contamination given the site’s previous use, whilst it would be down to the overall
design at reserved matters stage to conclusively demonstrate that the scheme can

Page 85
secure at least 10% of its energy from decentralised sources and renewable or low
carbon sources.
Finally the agreement to the contribution of monies through the S.106 mechanism to
ensure the ongoing provision of primary and secondary education facilities at local
schools is considered appropriate in this case.
Recommendation
A. That the Borough Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the purposes of
securing the following:
• A financial contribution towards the provision of enhanced education facilities
within the Flanderwell/ Bramley / Wickersley area.
B. Consequent upon the satisfactory signing of such an agreement the Borough
Council resolves to grant outline permission for the proposed development subject
to the following recommended conditions and informatives.
Conditions
01
a. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made within three years of the
date of this permission.
b. The development hereby approved must be begun not later than whichever is the
later of the following dates:
(i) The expiration of five years from the date of this permission; OR
(ii) The expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or,
in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such
matter to be approved.
Reason
In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
02
Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called “the
reserved matters,”) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as
approved.
Reason
No details of the matters referred to having been submitted, they are reserved for the
subsequent approval of the Local Planning Authority.
03
The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage plans for the
disposal of surface water and foul sewage have been submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved details before the development is first brought into use.
Reason

Page 86
To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as
well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise
the risk of pollution in accordance with UDP policies ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of
Development’ and ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution.’
04
Notwithstanding the submitted access details and indicative layout drawing, the
application(s) for the approval of reserved matters shall include:
a) Internal roadways, turning facilities and cul-de-sac designed and constructed in
accordance with the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide and ‘Manual for
Streets;’
b) On site car parking in accordance with the Council's adopted minimum Parking
Standards (June 2011); and
c) Provision and retention of a prospectively adoptable vehicular and pedestrian
link to access potential development land to those garden areas located to the
west of the application site.
Reason
To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.
05
Before the development is commenced road sections, constructional and drainage
details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the
approved details shall be implemented before the development is completed.
Reason
No details having been submitted they are reserved for approval.
06
The application for the approval of reserved matters for appearance and scale details
under condition 2 shall be in accordance with the principles and parameters as
described in the accompanying Planning, Design and Access Statement.
Reason
To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.
07
The application for the approval of reserved matters for landscaping details under
condition 2 shall include a detailed landscape scheme prepared to a minimum scale of
1:200, and shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings where necessary:
- The extent of existing planting, including those trees or areas of vegetation that
are to be retained, and those that it is proposed to remove.
- The extent of any changes to existing ground levels, where these are proposed.
- Any constraints in the form of existing or proposed site services, or visibility
requirements.
- Areas of structural and ornamental planting that are to be carried out.
- The positions, design, materials and type of any boundary treatment to be
erected.
- A planting plan and schedule detailing the proposed species, siting, quality and
size specification, and planting distances.
- A written specification for ground preparation and soft landscape works.

Page 87
- The programme for implementation.
- Written details of the responsibility for maintenance and a schedule of
operations, including replacement planting, that will be carried out for a period of
5 years after completion of the planting scheme.
The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved
landscape scheme and in accordance with the appropriate standards and codes of
practice within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason
To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the
interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’,
ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of
Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows.’
08
Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are
removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of
requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in
September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be
rectified before 31st December of that year.
Reason
To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the
interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’,
ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of
Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows.’
09
No work or storage on the site shall commence until all the trees/shrubs to be retained
have been protected by the erection of a strong durable 2.3 metre high barrier fence in
accordance with BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and
Construction - Recommendations. This shall be positioned in accordance with details to
be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The protective fencing
shall be properly maintained and shall not be removed without the written approval of
the Local Planning Authority until the development is completed. There shall be no
alterations in ground levels, fires, use of plant, storage, mixing or stockpiling of materials
within the fenced areas.
Reason
To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the
interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’,
ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of
Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows.’
10
No tree or hedge shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed nor shall any tree or hedge
be pruned other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any pruning works approved shall be
carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work). If any tree or hedge

Page 88
is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree or hedge shall be planted in the
immediate area and that tree or hedge shall be of such size and species, and shall be
planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with UDP Policies
ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2
‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and
Hedgerows.’
11
Prior to the commencement of development a landscape management plan, including
long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules
for all landscape areas (other than privately owned domestic gardens) shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape
management plan shall be carried out as approved.
Reason
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with UDP
Policies ENV3 'Borough Landscape', ENV3.1 'Development and the Environment,'
ENV3.2 'Minimising the Impact of Development,’ and ENV3.4 'Trees, Woodlands and
Hedgerows.’
12
Prior to the commencement of development a biodiversity enhancement statement,
including a schedule for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance
with the agreed statement before the development is brought into use.
Reason
To reflect the advice of the NPPF and protect the ecological interest of the site.
13
The detailed plans to be submitted in accordance with this outline permission shall
include details of the chosen methods of achieving at least 10% of energy demand
through decentralised or renewable energy and the approved technologies shall be
installed and operational prior to the first occupation of dwellings on the site.
Reason
To ensure that at least 10% of energy demand for the building is achieved through
decentralised or renewable energy sources in line with RSS Policy ENV5.
Informatives
01
INF 11A Control of working practices during construction phase (Close to
residential)
It is recommended that the following advice is followed to prevent a nuisance/ loss of
amenity to local residential areas. Please note that the Council’s Neighbourhood
Enforcement have a legal duty to investigate any complaints about noise or dust. If a
statutory nuisance is found to exist they must serve an Abatement Notice under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990. Failure to comply with the requirements of an

Page 89
Abatement Notice may result in a fine of up to £20,000 upon conviction in Rotherham
Magistrates' Court. It is therefore recommended that you give serious consideration to
the below recommendations and to the steps that may be required to prevent a noise
nuisance from being created.
(i) Except in case of emergency, operations should not take place on site other than
between the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday and between 09:00 – 13:00 on
Saturdays. There should be no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. At times when
operations are not permitted work shall be limited to maintenance and servicing of plant
or other work of an essential or emergency nature. The Local Planning Authority should
be notified at the earliest opportunity of the occurrence of any such emergency and a
schedule of essential work shall be provided.
(ii) Heavy goods vehicles should only enter or leave the site between the hours of 08:00
– 18:00 on weekdays and 09:00 – 13:00 Saturdays and no such movements should
take place on or off the site on Sundays or Public Holidays (this excludes the movement
of private vehicles for personal transport).
(iii) Best practicable means shall be employed to minimise dust. Such measures may
include water bowsers, sprayers whether mobile or fixed, or similar equipment. At such
times when due to site conditions the prevention of dust nuisance by these means is
considered by the Local Planning Authority in consultations with the site operator to be
impracticable, then movements of soils and overburden shall be temporarily curtailed
until such times as the site/weather conditions improve such as to permit a resumption.
(iv) Effective steps should be taken by the operator to prevent the deposition of mud,
dust and other materials on the adjoining public highway caused by vehicles visiting and
leaving the site. Any accidental deposition of dust, slurry, mud or any other material
from the site, on the public highway shall be removed immediately by the developer.
02
INF 25 Protected species
Wildlife Legislation
The protection afforded to protected sites and species under UK and EU legislation is
irrespective of the planning system and the applicant should therefore ensure that any
activity undertaken, regardless of the need for any planning consent, complies with the
appropriate wildlife legislation. If any protected species are found on the site then work
should halt and an appropriately qualified ecologist consulted.
The main piece of legislation relating to nature conservation in Great Britain is the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This Act is supplemented by the Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitat Regulations), the Countryside and
Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (in England and Wales) and the Natural Environment
and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (in England and Wales).
All species of bats and their roosts are protected by UK and European legislation.
Roosts are equally protected whether bats are present or not.
The Great Crested Newt is protected by UK and European legislation. The legislation
covers all life stages; eggs, tadpoles and adult newts are all equally covered.

Page 90
Otters and their holts, including hovers and couches, which are otter resting places
above ground, are protected by UK and European legislation.
Water Vole are protected against killing, injuring or taking; possession or control;
damage or destruction of its places of shelter, or disturbance while such animals are
occupying places of shelter.
All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by UK law and it is an offence, with certain
exceptions, to kill, injure or take any wild bird, to take, damage or destroy the nest of
any wild bird while it is in use or being built, and to take or destroy the egg of any wild
bird. Certain species receive increased protection making it an offence to disturb any
wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building or is at (or near) a nest with eggs
or young; or disturb the dependant young of such a bird.
Badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which
makes it illegal to kill, injure or take badgers or to interfere with a badger sett.
Interference with a sett includes blocking tunnels or damaging the sett in any way.
The information provided is a summary only; for definitive information, primary sources
should be consulted.

RB 2012/1069
Page 91

Page 92
Application
Number
Proposal
Location
and
RB 2012/1069
Outline application for demolition of existing building and
erection of three & two storey building to form 14 No. flats
(renewal of permission RB2009/0634) at 51 Oakwood Grove,
Broom
Recommendation Refuse
Site Description & Location
The application site is an existing detached dwelling and garage in a large plot
measuring approximately 0.18 hectares, fronting Oakwood Grove in an existing
residential area. The site is relatively flat. To the north fronting the highway are dormer
bungalows whilst to the south are substantial Victorian Semi detached properties. To
the east is a complex of three storey flats fronting Moorgate Road. The site has mature
hedges at the front and around the sides, with a hedge crossing the site approximately
15m from the highway frontage. The Sycamore tree subject to TPO No. 5 2009 is
located to the rear of the site.
Background
Measures to allow applicants to submit applications to extend the time limits for
implementing planning permissions have been introduced to make it easier for
developers to keep planning permissions alive for longer during the current economic
downturn, so that they can be more quickly implemented when economic conditions
improve. It is a temporary measure though and has recently been extended by a year
and now only applies to applications granted permission before the 1 st October 2010.
Relevant applications relating to this site are:
RB2004/0868 - Outline application for the erection of 16 apartments including details of
the means of access - GRANTED CONDITIONALLY
RB2009/0634 - Outline application for demolition of existing building and erection of
three & two storey building to form 14 No. flats - GRANTED CONDITIONALLY
During consideration of the previous outline application granted in 2009, a mature
Sycamore tree was protected under TPO No. 5 2009.
Proposal
The proposal is to renew the outline application for the demolition of the house and
garage and erection of 14 flats with all matters reserved. This means that the details of
the layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping would all be considered at a
later stage, should the principle of the development be accepted.
The design and access statement submitted with the application specifically refers to 14
flats and provides no upper and lower limits to the number of units to be built so it is
clear that the proposal relates to 14 flats. It is indicated that the development would be

Page 93
in the form of a two and three storey block (4 No.1 bedrooms, 8 No.2 bedroom and 2
No.3 bedroom) centrally located on the plot approximately 10m from the highway at the
western side and approximately 17m from the boundary at the eastern side of the site.
The submitted indicative plans indicate that the building would be in three parts, with a
three storey portion in the centre and a two storey wing either side. The submitted
indicative plans further indicate 19 car parking spaces would be provided within the site
with some amenity open space.
The original application was accompanied by an Ecology statement which concluded
that there is no evidence of bats on the land and that the site has negligible potential for
any roosts within the site. It also concludes that there are no endangered or nationally
protected species on site, that the trees and other habitats provided are of limited value,
the impact of their loss being limited to the site, and that there is an abundance of
alternative habitats in the immediate vicinity. Suggested mitigation measures include
retention of hedgerows where possible, supplemental replanting and a landscaping
scheme incorporating indigenous species.
A submitted tree survey concludes that none of the trees on site are worthy of retention
or statutory protection by a Tree Preservation Order.
Since the previous permission, applications of this nature (10 or more dwellings) require
a Building for Life Assessment.
Development Plan Allocation and Policy
The site is allocated for residential purposes as defined by the UDP such that the
following policies are relevant to this proposal:
HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’
ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’
Other Material Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework:
The NPPF came into effect on March 27 th 2012 and replaced all previous Government
Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs)
that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without
delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every
plan, and every decision.
The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may
continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a
limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development
Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF
states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according
to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to
the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF
and have been given due weight in the determination of this application.

Page 94
South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide (SYRDG)
Car Parking standards – adopted June 2011
Publicity
The application was advertised by way of a site notice, letters to neighbouring
properties and through a press notice. 10 letters of objection have been received from
neighbouring residents stating:
• The close proximity of the rear car park and the resulting noise, pollution and
disturbance from people and traffic close to neighbours.
• The layout of the car parking area results in an excessive amount of
hardstanding that dominates part of the site, poor separation to private amenity
space.
• The building (two 2 storey and one three storey blocks of flats) will be much
higher than other buildings in the area thereby severely curtailing our ‘right to
light’, overlooking ours and neighbouring properties
• There is the likelihood that the visibility for drivers exiting the development would
be restricted by other nearby cars parked on the roadside.
• Local Planning Policy requires adequate private amenity space, particularly for
dwellings that would accommodate more than 2 people and from the plans
submitted we are of the opinion that the amount of amenity space available for
use by the flats’ occupants would be inadequate.
• The proposed development of two and three bedroom flats would imply family
residence, including children, however the proposed development does not
make provision for children’s equipped play facilities which would make the
proposal contrary to supplementary planning guidance in the form of Open
Space and Play Provision 2004.
• The development would create excessive additional traffic on the street.
Resulting concerns for child safety.
• The endangerment to bats as a result of disturbance to suitable roosting
locations.
• An increase in the number of flats in an area which already has a high proportion
of such dwellings. Too many flats in an area that is primarily populated by
families, flats do not promote nor are conducive for rearing families which is
what makes this area popular.
• The proposed flats are out of keeping with the overall streetscene and character
of the area.
• Result in a significant loss of garden/green space in the locality.
Two objectors and the applicant have requested the right to speak at Planning Board.
Consultations
Urban Design Officer: Notes that no Building for Life Assessment has been submitted
with the application and that all the 2 bedroom properties fail to meet the South
Yorkshire Residential Design Guide minimum sizes requirements.
Streetpride (Highways and Transportation): No objections subject to conditions.
Streetpride (Trees and Woodlands): No objections subject to conditions.

Page 95
Appraisal
Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In
dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to -
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and
(c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90.
If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be
made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004.
The main issues in the assessment of this application are:
1 Principle of the development
2 Material consideration changes since the previous approval
3 The number of units proposed and its density.
4 The effect on the trees and hedgerows on site.
5 Parking and traffic increase.
1. Principle of the development
The Government’s guidelines “Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions” provides
guidance on applications to extend time limits for implementing planning permissions. It
states that in the current circumstances Local Planning Authorities should take a
positive and constructive approach towards applications which improve the prospect of
sustainable development being taken forward quickly.
The development proposed as an application for an extension of time will by definition
have been judged to be acceptable in principle when originally granted. The
Government guidance adds that in making their decision the Local Planning Authority
“should focus their decision on the development plan policies and the material
considerations (including national policies on matters such as climate change) which
may have changed significantly since the original grant of permission.”
The site is allocated for residential purposes in the UDP and has been subject to the
previous permission for the 14 flats and is acceptable in principle. The main issue in
respect of the current renewal is whether the Council’s plan policies and other material
planning considerations have changed significantly since the original grant of
permission such that it would be reasonable to refuse to grant planning permission for
an extension of time.
2. Material consideration changes since the previous approval
As the NPPF was published after the previous decision, the application has been
reviewed in light of the latest Government policy. In addition to this, the South
Yorkshire Residential Design Guide has also been adopted as guidance by the Council.
The NPPF sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development
unsustainable. It adds that, “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and
environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning

Page 96
system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to
sustainable solutions.”
The NPPF notes at paragraph 53 that: ‘Local planning authorities should consider the
case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens,
for example where development would cause harm to the local area’. Paragraph 56
notes that “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built
environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible
from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for
people.” Paragraph 64 adds that: “Permission should be refused for development of
poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and
quality of an area and the way it functions.”
The NPPF notes at paragraph 58 that “Local and neighbourhood plans should develop
robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of development that will be
expected for the area. Such policies should be based on stated objectives for the future
of the area and an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics. Planning
policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments:
● will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short
term but over the lifetime of the development;
● establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create
attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;
● optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and
sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other
public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport
networks;
● respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local
surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate
innovation;
● create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the
fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and
● are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate
landscaping
The Council’s parking standards (approved in June 2011) note that for flats a minimum
of 1 parking space per flat plus 50% allocated for visitors should be provided.
A Building for Life Assessment is now required for all applications for 10 or more
dwellings. No such Assessment has been submitted in respect of the current
application.
3. The number of units proposed and its density.
The proposal is for 14 flats, indicatively showing a block fronting the highway with a
three storey central element. Such a scheme represents a density of approximately 77
dwellings per hectare, well above other dwellings and developments in the locality.
Whilst such a scheme was previously deemed acceptable by the Council, both Central
and Local Government guidance has been introduced placing more emphasis on design
standards and indicating that such garden development should respect the character of
locality.

Page 97
The South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide policy B1.5 states that: ‘the density of
proposed development should be an appropriate response to the character of the area,
the location of the site within the settlement, the proximity and accessibility of facilities
and services, acceptable levels of parking.’ Adjoining dwellings vary in density from 16
to 25 dwellings per hectare, well below the 77 dwelling per hectare proposed in the
application. As such the proposed density is not considered to be appropriate for this
location.
The South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide sets out new minimum room sizes and
amenity space standards. Such guidance was introduced to combat a growing number
of flatted schemes providing poor quality accommodation for their occupants. Whilst the
plans are merely indicative they offer an opportunity to assess whether the proposals
are acceptable on the site.
The proposed 2 bedroom flats fall below the Council’s minimum flat size set out in the
SYRDG (4A - Amenity and internal space standards), which requires one bedroom flats
to be a minimum of 46sqm, two bedroom flats to be a minimum of 62sqm and three
bedrooms to be 77sqm. Six of the two bedroom flats are 57sqm in size 5 sqm below the
Council’s minimum guidance. In addition the proposed private rear amenity space
would amount to some 135 sqm, significantly below the minimum 190 sqm required for
a scheme of 14 flats.
Whilst the size of the flats and amenity space could be increased at the reserved
matters stage, such changes would create other issues, such as an inevitable reduction
in parking or an increase in the size of the building in the streetscene, which would be
out of keeping with the suburban location made up of dormer bungalows and two storey
dwellinghouses contrary to the advice within the NPPF and the SYRDG. In particular, to
the north of the site on lower ground is a dormer bungalow that would be dwarfed by the
enlarged proposed three storey building and the resulting streetscene would appear
contrived and detrimental to the overall character and appearance of the area.
Guidance in the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide N2.1 states that: The
character appraisal should identify the wider landscape character area and settlement
type in which the site is located. The result should then be the identification of distinct
local sub-area that forms the immediate context of the site. The primary design source
for maintaining character should be the character area in which the site is located’.
Guidance note B1.5 goes onto state that: ‘the density of proposed development should
be an appropriate response to the character of the area, the location of the site within
the settlement, the proximity and accessibility of facilities and services, acceptable
levels of parking. Guidance B2.1 Building in their plots indicates that ‘The choice of plot
and building type (size and tenure) must be a suitable response to the character of the
area and the site as well as to housing demand and need.’ The setting of such guidance
is supported by paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Whilst there is
a requirement to provide housing, this should not come at the expense of good design
and degrade existing areas. The Council would still be supportive of a reduced scale
scheme, which cannot be requested in a renewal application.
UDP Policy HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’ goes on to state that the Council: ‘will
encourage the use of best practice in housing layout and design in order to provide
developments which enhance the quality of the residential environment.’ Policy ENV3.1
Development and the Environment states that “Development will be required to make a
positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design

Page 98
having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height,
massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening
and landscaping.” Both these policies support and complement the best practice
guidance outlined in the SYRDG.
In view of the above the Council is of the opinion from the information submitted that 14
flats would represent an unacceptable form of overdevelopment of the site.
4. The effect of the trees and hedgerows on site.
The site has a substantial number of trees and a Beech hedge which crosses the site,
the majority of which will be lost to the development. One Sycamore tree is a mature
specimen which is protected by a TPO, which is not proposed to be felled. The
remainder of the trees to be lost are in a poor condition with limited future prospects.
Whilst they form part of the low density green nature of the area and its suburban style,
it is accepted that replacement planting could reduce the impact of the development and
mitigate the loss of biodiversity. The detailed landscaping scheme would be assessed
at the reserved matters stage.
5. Parking and traffic increase
Although the Council’s car parking standards for new residential development have
changed since the date of the previous permission and the 14 No. flats proposed would
now warrant a minimum of 21 parking spaces instead of the indicated 19, this is not
considered to have a material impact in road safety terms and is considered acceptable.
Conclusion
Outline planning permission has previously been granted for the proposed development
and the current application relates to an extension of time for implementation of that
permission. In considering to renew this application, regard has to be had for any
material considerations which may have changed since the original grant of permission.
From the information originally submitted with the 2009 application, it is now considered
that the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework
and the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide, both of which have been released
since the previous grant of outline consent. It is considered that 14 flats would
represent an unacceptable form of overdevelopment of the site, with inadequate internal
accommodation and private amenity space, to the detriment of future occupiers.
Increasing the size of the building to meet the standards would reduce the level of
parking and/or landscaping areas which are already below current standards.
Reason for Refusal
1.
The Council is of the opinion from the information submitted that 14 flats would
represent an unacceptable form of overdevelopment of the site, with inadequate internal
accommodation and private amenity space, to the detriment of future occupiers. As
such the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework
and the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide.

RB 2012/1180
Page 99

Page 100
Application
Number
Proposal and
Location
RB 2012/1180
Continuation of use of swimming pool with variation of Condition
05 (opening hours) to allow opening from 0700 to 2200 hrs
Monday to Friday, 0900 and 1900 hours Saturdays, and 1000 to
1600 hrs Sundays imposed by RB2010/0855 (amendment to
RB2012/0647) at Aquafin Training Ltd., Unit 6 Low Common
Road, Dinnington.
Recommendation Grant subject to conditions
Site Description & Location
The application site is a former industrial unit located to the rear of an industrial estate.
The building is two storeys in height, and is in part glass fronted. There is a large car
park to the front and side of the building. The building is currently used as a training
pool.
Background
Members may recall a previous application on this site for the change of use from
industrial building to form swimming pool which was granted at Planning Board on 26
October 2010 (RB2010/0855). Condition 5 of this permission states:
“The use herby permitted shall only be open to customers between the hours of 0730
and 1900 Mondays to Fridays and 0900 to 1900 on Saturdays and at no time on
Sundays and Bank Holidays.”
A subsequent application for Continuation of use of swimming pool with variation of
Condition 05 (opening hours) to allow opening 0700 to 2200 hrs Monday to Friday and
1000 to 1600 hrs Sundays and Condition 06 (the premises shall be used for
training/swimming lessons only and for no other purpose (including for general leisure
uses) to allow general leisure use) (imposed by RB2010/0855) was refused. Whilst no
objection was raised in respect of the proposed alteration to the hours of opening, the
reason for refusal was as follows:
“It is considered that the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the use of the
swimming pool for general leisure purposes would satisfy the sequential test as set out
in the NPPF and that there are no other suitable sites for a swimming pool for general
leisure purposes within the Dinnington town centre and edge of centre area and the
proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the guidance set out in the NPPF.”
Proposal
The current application merely intends to vary Condition 5 of RB2010/0855 relating to
the hours of opening to allow opening from 0700 to 2200 hrs Monday to Friday,
(approved at 0730 t0 1900), 0900 to 1900 hrs Saturdays, (no change) and 1000 to 1600
hrs Sundays (no hours approved on Sundays). Once again the reasons given for
variation of the condition is to fall in line with customer demand and requests.
Development Plan Allocation and Policy

Page 101
The site is allocated as Industrial and Business in the Rotherham Unitary Development
Plan. Policies which are applicable to this proposal include:
Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’
Policy EC3.4 ‘Small Businesses’
Other Material Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27 th 2012
and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of
the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is
sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable
development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.
The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may
continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a
limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development
Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF
states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according
to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to
the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF
and have been given due weight in the determination of this application.
Publicity
The application has been publicised by site notice and by neighbour notification. No
comments or representations have been received.
One right to speak has been received from the applicant.
Consultations
Streetpride (Highways and Transportation): No highway involvement.
Environmental Health Service:
Envisages no significant loss of amenity by virtue of noise, air quality or land pollution
impact and as such would raise no further comment.
Appraisal
Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In
dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to -
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and
(c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90.
If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be
made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004.

Page 102
Policy EC3.4 ‘Small Businesses’ states “The Council will support the expansion of small
firms and the development of new enterprises including community businesses. In both
cases, subject to no adverse effect on the character of the area or on residential
amenity, adequate arrangements for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles
associated with the proposed development and compatibility with adjacent existing and
proposed land uses.”
Regarding ‘Building a strong, competitive economy’, paragraphs 18 to 22 of the NPPF
state that the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create
jobs and prosperity, and to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to
support sustainable economic growth. It adds that investment in business should not be
over-burdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations and that
planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment
use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
The site was granted permission as a swimming pool in 2010 subject to conditions, one
of which restricted the opening hours to 0730 to 1900 Monday to Friday, 0900 to 1900
on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays, for reasons of residential amenity. The
proposals are to extend the opening hours to 0700 to 2200 hrs Monday to Friday and
1000 to 1600 hrs Sundays, with Saturdays remaining the same. The use is therefore
acceptable in principle and the extension of opening hours will help secure the future
viability oif the business in accordance with the above referred to policies and advice.
The other main issue in determing this application is the impact on the residential
amenities of nearby residents.
Policy ENV3.7 Control of Pollution states “The Council, in consultation with other
appropriate agencies will seek to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance
and pollution associated with development and transport.”
In addition, paraggraph 123 of the NPPF states that planning decisioons should aim to
avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life
and should mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and
quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of
conditions.
The nearest residential properties are approximately 140 and 180m away, respectively.
Additionally there is adequate car parking provision within the curtilage the of the
building and immediate location. It is therefore considered that the proposed amended
opening hours will have no material adverse impact on the residential amenities of
nearby residents, by way of the generation of traffic and all associated nuisance and
would be in accordance with Policy ENV 3.7 Control of Pollution of the Unitary
Development Plan and advice in the NPPF.
Conclusion
Full planning permission has previously been granted for the development in 2010,
consequently there are no issues in terms of the principle. The new opening hours
would assist in securing and supporting economic growth in the area in accordance with
advice in paragraphs 18, 19 and 22 of the NPPF and Policy EC3.4 ‘Small Businesses’
of the Unitary Development Plan. Additionally, it is considered that there would be no
material adverse impact on the residential amenities of the area by way of traffic

Page 103
generation and any associated nuisance, in accordance with guidance in paragraph 123
of the NPPF and Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution.’
Conditions
01
The use herby permitted shall only be open to customers between the hours of 0700
and 2200 Mondays to Fridays, 0900 to 1900 on Saturdays and 1000 to 1600 on
Sundays and not at all on Bank Holidays.
Reason
In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and in accordance
with UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’.
02
The premises shall be used for training/swimming lessons only and for no other purpose
(including for general leisure uses).
Reason
To ensure that no adverse effect upon the amenities of the neighbourhood may arise
out of the proposed development and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1
‘Development and the Environment’.

Page 104
RB2011/0298
REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material
considerations as set out below:
Development Plan
Policy ENV1 Green Belt:
Policy ENV2.2 Interest outside Statutorily Protected Sites
Policy ENV3.1 Development and the Environment
Policy ENV3.4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows:
Policy ENV3.7 Control of Pollution
Policy T7 Public Rights of Way:
Policy MIN5 Criteria in the Assessment of all Mineral Extraction Proposals:
Policy MIN6 Methods and Control of Working:
Policy MIN7 Recycling:
Other relevant material planning considerations
Supplementary Planning Guidance:
Minerals Guidance 2: Methods and schemes of mineral working, restoration
and after-care.
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March
27 th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance
(PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed.
It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out
what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic,
social and environmental considerations.
For the following reasons:
The proposals constitute a sustainable form of waste recycling and mineral
reclamation, which would result in the recycling of inert tipped and imported
waste, and the restoration of an existing unsightly tipped area of land in
accordance with Policies MIN6 and MIN7 and ENV3.1 of the Unitary
Development Plan and advice in Paragraphs 143 and 144 of the NPPF.
Additionally, having regard for the site history of extant planning permissions
for similar uses, and its location within a quarry area, it is considered that the
proposals would not result in any additional material detriment to the
amenities of the area by way of the generation of noise, vibration and
emissions to air, in accordance with Policy ENV3.7 of the Unitary
Development Plan and advice in Paragraph 144 of the NPPF.

Page 105
It is further considered that the proposals would have a positive effect on the
environment in accordance with Policies ENV3.1 of the Unitary and advice in
Paragraph 142 and 144 of the NPPF.
It is further considered that the proposals would have no material adverse
impact on highway safety, the existing public footpath, or on the Interest
Outside Statutorily protected Site.
The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to
the decision to grant this application. More detailed information may be
obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and
associated documents.

Page 106
RB2012/0823
REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material
considerations as set out below:
Development Plan
Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’
Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’
Policy HG4.9 ‘Sites for Travelling People’
Other relevant material planning considerations
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March
27 th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance
(PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed.
It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out
what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic,
social and environmental considerations.
The Government also issued specific advice relating to traveller sites in March
2012, which should be read in conjunction with the National Planning Policy
Framework, titled the ‘Planning policy for traveller sites.’
For the following reasons:
It is considered that this site, allocated as a ‘Travellers Site’, is appropriate for
use as a site for travelling showmen for residential and storage purposes. It is
considered that owing to the distance of the site from neighbouring residential
properties the proposed use would not harm the residential amenity of
residents within the locality.
It is considered that the use of the site for the storage of fairground equipment
and mobile homes would not harm the character and appearance of the site
or the surrounding area.
The highway impact of the proposal is considered to be acceptable as the site
in question has previously been used as a depot for the storage and hire of
mobile event equipment and spectator stands. This being the case, the
vehicular activity associated with the proposed use is considered unlikely to
be materially greater than the authorised use of the site. Therefore it is
considered that the proposal would not have a materially adverse impact in
highway terms, from this previously authorised use.

Page 107
It is considered that the scheme would not increase flood risk to the area or
contaminate the local area, subject to recommended conditions, in
accordance with Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution.’
The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to
the decision to grant this application. More detailed information may be
obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and
associated documents.

Page 108
RB2012/1049
REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations
as set out below:
Development Plan
Regional Strategy
H1 ‘Provision and Distribution of Housing.’
H2 ‘Managing and Stepping up the Supply and Delivery of Housing.’
H5 ‘Housing Mix’ seeks the provision of homes for a mix of households reflecting the
needs of the area.
T1 ‘Personal Travel Reduction and Modal Shift.’
YH4 ‘Sub regional cities and towns.’
ENV5 ‘Energy’
Local Planning Policy (UDP)
HG4.3 ‘Windfall Sites.’
HG5 ‘The Residential Environment.’
ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment.’
ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development.’
ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows.’
ENV4.4 ‘Contaminated Land.’
T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development.’
Other relevant material planning considerations
Council’s Parking Standards (adopted June 2011).
Supplementary Planning Guidance Housing Guidance 3: ‘Residential lnfill Plots.’
South Yorkshire Residential Design Guidance.
Circular 01/2006:‘Guidance on Changes to the Development Control System.’
Community Infrastructure Regulations 2011.
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27 th 2012
and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of
the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed.
It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what
could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic, social and
environmental considerations.
For the following reasons:

Page 109
By virtue of the site's residential allocation and setting within the existing urban area
and in a sustainable location, the proposed development of this windfall site
represents an appropriate and efficient use of land. The use of the site for housing
development would make a contribution to Rotherham’s housing supply as required
by the NPPF and Regional Strategy Policy H1 ‘Provision and Distribution of Housing’
in that it will improve and increase housing stock for all households wanting homes,
and further accords with UDP Policy HG4.3 ‘Windfall Sites.’
Although indicative, the plan submitted with the application and the accompanying
Design and Access Statement shows that a potential development of up to 14 units
with building heights indicated as two / two and a half storeys for the proposed
dwellings would be capable of being satisfactorily accommodated upon the site
without undue detriment to the character of the locality in general.
In overall access terms, the principle of accessing the development off Companions
Close is considered appropriate and would not lead to significant intensification of
traffic upon the surrounding highway network Furthermore taking into account the
site's sustainable location, and of the provision of other alternative modes of transport
it is not considered to be detrimental in highway safety terms. The requirement to
ensure that the internal roadway, cul-de-sac and turning facility along with accessing
the adjacent land to form a comprehensive development and the provision of
adequate off-street parking provision in accordance with the requirements as set out
in the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide, ‘Manual for Streets,’ and the
Council’s adopted Parking Standards can further be controlled via a suitable
condition.
It is not considered that the development would unduly compromise or adversely
impact upon the vitality of existing trees / hedgerows which exist on site and the
scheme would further add to local biodiversity through the mitigation measures
identified through the ecological surveys undertaken.
Additionally it is not considered that the indicative layout would present issues of
residential amenity issues through potential overbearing or over looking matters to
make the scheme unacceptable.
Furthermore it is not considered that given the sites previous use that the
development would lead to unacceptable levels of land contamination, whilst it would
be down to the overall design at reserved matters stage to conclusively demonstrate
that the scheme can secure at least 10% of its energy from decentralised sources
and renewable or low carbon sources.
Finally the agreement to the contribution of monies through the S.106 mechanism to
ensure the ongoing provision of primary and secondary education facilities at local
schools is considered appropriate in this case.
The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the
decision to grant this application. More detailed information may be obtained from
the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents.

Page 110
RB2012/1180
REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material
considerations as set out below:
Development Plan
Policy ENV 3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’
Policy EC3.4 ‘Small Businesses’ states “The Council will support the
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March
27 th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance
(PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed.
It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out
what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic,
social and environmental considerations.
For the following reasons:
Full planning permission has previously been granted for the development in
2010, consequently there are no issues in terms of the principle. The new
opening hours would assist in securing and supporting economic growth in
the area in accordance with advice in paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the
NPPF and Policy EC3.4 ‘Small Businesses’ of the Unitary Development Plan.
Additionally, it is considered that there would be no material adverse impact
on the residential amenities of the area by way of traffic generation and any
associated nuisance in accordance with guidance in paragraph 123 of the
NPPF and Policy ENV 3.7 Control of Pollution.
The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to
the decision to grant this application. More detailed information may be
obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and
associated documents.

Page 111
Agenda Item 7
To the Chairman and Members of the
PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD 11 th October 2012
Report of the Director of Planning and Regeneration Service
ITEM NO.
1
Page No.
112
2
Page No.
117
3
Page No.
122
SUBJECT
Proposed Tree Preservation Order No 4 2012 – Laburnum tree
at 53 Storth Lane, Kiveton Park
File Ref: RB2012/1302
Courtesy Consultation for construction of a new bio-energy
digestion plant, to include new digester tanks, sludge storage
tanks, gas holders, flare stack and control buildings at Yorkshire
Water, Blackburn Meadows, Sewage Treatment Works, Alsing
Road, Sheffield for Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.
File Ref: RB2012/1341
Courtesy Consultation for a rail connected aggregates depot with
coated roadstone plant, ready-mixed concrete plant and
aggregate recycling facility at Unit 3, Europa Way, Sheffield for
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd.

Page 112
ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING REGULATORY
BOARD
PLANNING AND REGENERATION SERVICE
REPORT TO COMMITTEE
11 TH OCTOBER 2012
Item 1
Proposed Tree Preservation Order No 4 2012 – Laburnum tree at 53
Storth Lane, Kiveton Park
RECOMMENDATION:
That Members confirm the serving of Tree Preservation Order No. 4 (2012)
without modification with regard to the 1no Laburnum Tree the subject of this
report, situated at 53 Storth Lane, Kiveton Park, under Section 198 and 201 of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Background
The Council received a request from a local resident for a mature Laburnum
tree at the above property to be protected by a new Tree Preservation Order.
The resident is concerned that its future prospects are at risk due to ongoing
construction work at the property that has involved tree felling in the rear
garden.
The Council’s Trees and Woodland Section has inspected and tested the tree
and recommended that the tree is protected by a new Tree Preservation Order,
noting that it adds to the character of the street scene being clearly visible from
the public highway and surrounding properties and noting that the Order will act
as a holding measure until any evidence is submitted to indicate its future
prospects are not at risk of severe and inexpert pruning or premature removal.
The TPO was made on 7 August 2012 and all interested parties notified. One
letter and a petition signed by 14 local residents objecting to the TPO have
been received. The objection letter has been submitted by Mr Anderson of
Anderson Tree Care on behalf of Mr Wright, the owner of the land on which the
tree is located. Five letters of support have also been received by the Council,
including one from the Wales Parish Council, one from Ward Councillor Beck,
along with a 24 name petition.
Objections
The reasons for the objection can be summarised as follows:
• The seed pods of the Laburnum tree are highly dangerous and a deadly
threat to children.

Page 113
• The tree is unlikely to grow any further.
• The TEMPO system used to evaluate the tree by the Council is flawed.
• The tree is not in a good condition and does not have good future
prospects.
• The tree has not got 40 years more life expectancy as suggested by the
Council.
• The tree is not in a busy area and located in a residential backwater.
• The tree is not in danger of being felled. The applicant has already felled
other trees and a hedge, and has no intention of felling the tree.
• The Council’s TPO threshold is not working and wrong.
• The tree provides limited wildlife benefits.
Supporters
The reasons for the support can be summarised as follows:
• The area has lost a large amount of greenery, including mature trees
and hedging over recent years.
• The garden and trees along Storth Lane provide a green corridor for
wildlife.
• The tree provides an aesthetic feature in the streetscene.
• The applicant has already removed a large number of trees on site and it
not unreasonable to protect the one remaining tree.
• There are a large number of bats in the area that require trees for
foraging.
• If the Council were to allow its felling due to the Laburnum being
dangerous it would set a precedent for a large number of similar trees to
be felled in the area.
Response from Streetpride (Trees and Woodland Section)
The Trees and Woodland Section have considered the objections raised and
comment as follows:
The Order was made in response to concerns from a member of the public that
trees at the property had been felled as part of re-development and the future
prospects of the Laburnum appeared to be at risk. The tree was tested using
the TEMPO system, Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders, which is
a widely used and nationally accepted system adopted by the Council to show
it has a way of assessing the 'amenity value' of trees in a structured and
consistent way as advised by the Government.
The TEMPO system is a 3 part system as follows;
Part 1 - Amenity Assessment
Part 2 - Expediency Assessment
Part 3 - Decision Guide.

Page 114
In the Secretary of State's view, TPO's should be used to protect selected trees
and woodlands if their removal would have a significant impact on the local
environment and its enjoyment by the public.
Section 3.3(2) and 3.3(3) of the government’s publication Tree Preservation
Order’s A Guide to the Law and Good Practice states;
“(2) individual impact: the mere fact that a tree is publicly visible will not itself be
sufficient to warrant a TPO. The LPA should also assess the tree's particular
importance by reference to its size and form, its future potential as an amenity,
taking into account any special factors such as its rarity, value as a screen or
contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area.
(3) wider impact: the significance of the trees in their local surroundings should
also be assessed, taking into account how suitable they are to their particular
setting, as well as the presence of other trees in the vicinity.”
The term 'tree' is not defined in the Act, nor does the Act limit the application of
Tree Preservation Order’s to trees of a minimum size. The Government’s
advice does not state that a tree has to be ‘special’ to be included within an
Order.
The existing tree is approximately 6 metres in height. Laburnum trees are
characteristically small trees, potentially 7 to 10 metres in height. It is clear that
large forest type trees often provide a higher level of amenity. The TEMPO
system takes this into account with scores being weighted towards large,
prominent trees clearly visible to the public. Indeed, small trees that are visible
only with difficulty are indicated as ‘barely suitable’ in the evaluation. However,
in this instance whilst the tree is small it is clearly visible to the public from
Storth Lane. Therefore, a reasonable degree of public benefit will accrue if the
Order is confirmed. Also, because of its smaller size it is considered to be a
suitable species in relation to its setting in the small front garden area of the
property. In addition, the amenity it provides is increased and more valuable
due to the limited amount of trees in the area. Only 9 of the 79 properties on
Storth Lane contain any trees and there is only 1 Council owned highway tree
at the junction of Storth Lane with Lime Tree Avenue. For these reasons it is
considered the Laburnum tree meets the criteria for protection in amenity terms
in accordance with the advice from the Government.
Condition
Mr Anderson considers the tree is in fair condition rather than good and it
should receive a reduced score in the evaluation. However, he also states there
is nothing particularly wrong with it and it is not showing spreading or
descending growth associated with trees in the latter stages of its life.
At the time of inspection the tree was generally free of any defects, showing
good health and likely to reach normal longevity and size for species, or may
have already done so. It was not considered to contain any defects that are
likely to adversely affect its future prospects or any symptoms to indicate it is in

Page 115
serious decline. For these reasons it is considered its condition has been
correctly evaluated in accordance with the TEMPO guidance notes.
Future prospects
Mr Anderson believes there is not sufficient space between the tree and the
dwelling for the tree to be retained and increase in size for 40 years.
The tree is estimated to be approximately 30 years old based on its stem
circumference. Laburnums are generally expected to have a relatively short life
expectancy of up to 70 years. For this reason it was considered a retention
span of a minimum of 20 years and up to 40 years appropriate in this instance.
Due to its current age it also appears reasonable to consider it is approaching
its mature size if it has not already done so. Nevertheless, if it is retained and
continues to increase in size the Order will not prevent it being carefully pruned
in the future to help alleviate any difficulties of branch encroachment if required.
Indeed, no one has stated that it can be left to its own devices for 40 years as
indicated by Mr Anderson.
Poisonous seed pods
The petition from local residents for the Order not to be confirmed is due to the
seeds being highly dangerous and constitute a deadly threat to children. Mr
Anderson also states he is not sure that Laburnum with its poisonous seed
pods is a suitable species for a domestic garden, especially one where children
may play. However, he also states he did not see any seed pods at the time of
inspection and it may possibly be a cultivar bred to be sterile.
The Council is not aware of any sterile cultivars of Laburnum. The seeds of
Laburnum contain a poisonous alkaloid so they are potentially dangerous if
ingested. For this reason it would not be advisable to plant one in an infant or
junior school with unlimited access around it where the risks of harm would be
significantly increased. However, many other trees, shrubs and plants in public
spaces and private gardens are also harmful if ingested and this does not
prevent them from being planted. Some nurseries also indicate that
occurrences of laburnum poisoning are extremely rare. Enquiries have been
made to Rotherham Hospital for any statistics they have for treating such cases
over the past 5 years and these will be reported when they have been received.
Therefore, whilst there is a risk if the tree is retained this appears to be small in
the context of potential harm in everyday life. Also, educating children to the
potential dangers of ingesting tree seeds and other harmful plants / fungi is a
more sympathetic approach to the natural environment rather than felling or
removing any such plants to the detriment of local amenity and biodiversity.
Perceived threat to tree – Precautionary Order
The objector states that the perception the tree is under deliberate threat defies
logic as the tree would surely have been removed at the same time as the other
trees and the hedge at the front of the house. Also he is not sure that a

Page 116
precautionary Tree Preservation Order is at all in line with Government advice,
at least not any contained in the Tree Preservation Order guidance.
Section 3.5 of the Governments advice states: “It may be expedient to make a
TPO if the LPA believe there is a risk of the tree being cut down or pruned in
ways which would have a significant impact on the amenity of the area. It is not
necessary for the risk to be immediate. In some cases the LPA may believe
that certain trees are at risk generally from development pressures. The LPA
may have some other reason to believe that trees are at risk; changes in
property ownership and intentions to fell trees are not always known in
advance, and so the protection of selected trees by a precautionary TPO might
sometimes be considered expedient.”
The tree was perceived to be at risk of removal because all the trees in the
side/rear garden of the property had been felled as part of the current redevelopment.
Any intention by the owner to retain or fell the Laburnum tree was
not known when the Council received the request to protect it or when it was
tested. Therefore, its inclusion in an Order as a precautionary measure was
considered expedient and in accordance with the Government’s advice in
dealing with these matters. As far as the Council is aware the hedge at the front
of the property was removed after the Order was made.
Wildlife benefits
Mr Anderson states he is not aware that a Laburnum of this size provides many
wildlife benefits.
Advice from the government is that any wildlife benefits may be taken into
account when including trees in a new Order which alone would not be
sufficient to warrant a Tree Preservation Order. The main wildlife benefits in this
case will be for pollinating insects and cover for small birds. The value of the
tree for these reasons is also likely to have increased following the removal of
all the other trees on the site. Therefore, this is not considered to be a valid
reason not to confirm the Order.
Additional comments from Mr Anderson
Additional comments within the letter from Mr Anderson do not appear to be
relevant to the objection and relate more to the procedure of dealing with the
confirmation of Tree Preservation Orders. These matters are being taken up
separately with the Legal Service.
Letters of support
Apart from the objections the Council has also received 5 letters of support for
the Order from local residents, a Ward Member and Wales Parish Council. It
has also received as a petition containing 24 names requesting the Order is
confirmed. The main reasons for the Order to be confirmed is due to the
valuable and important amenity it provides to the area, associated benefits and
the limited risk it poses to health.

Page 117
Conclusion
The objections to the Order have been carefully considered and the Order has
been made in accordance with Government guidelines. At present the reasons
given not to confirm the Order do not appear to be justified. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Tree Preservation Order is confirmed without
modification.
Item 2
File Ref: RB2012/1302
Courtesy Consultation for construction of a new bio-energy digestion
plant, to include new digester tanks, sludge storage tanks, gas holders,
flare stack and control buildings at Yorkshire Water, Blackburn
Meadows, Sewage Treatment Works, Alsing Road, Sheffield for
Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.
Recommendation:
That Sheffield City Council be thanked for the opportunity to comment on this
application and be informed that the Council has no objections to the proposals
subject to Sheffield City Council attaching a condition requesting the
submission of an odour management plan. The odour management plan
should address the management of odours at each stage of the odour
exposure chain and include the following aspects (but not exclusively):
• odour sources and the location of receptors
• details of the site management responsibilities and procedures for
reporting faults, identifying maintenance needs, replenishing
consumables complaints procedure
• odour-critical plant operation and management procedures (e.g. correct
use of plant, process, materials; checks on plant performance,
maintenance and inspection)
• operative training
• details of a single point of contact responsible for dealing with, and
liaising with Local Authorities in respect of complaints from the public in
relation to odour
• maintenance and inspection of plant (both routine and emergency
response)
• spillage management procedures
• record keeping - format, responsibility for completion and location of
records
• emergency breakdown and incident response planning including
responsibilities and mechanisms for liaison with the local authority.
The following should also be attached as Informatives to any approval:

Page 118
• The applicant is advised that discussions should be held to consider how
the delivery of the recommended actions from the Sheffield Wildlife Trust
Spatial Biodiversity Action Plan for the River Don and Sheffield & South
Yorkshire Navigation document to demonstrate biodiversity
enhancement for Sheffield City Council and Rotherham Metropolitan
Borough Council in line with the recommendations of the NPPF.
• The applicant is advised that the depth of flooding in this area should not
compromise water quality.
Background
Rotherham MBC has been consulted on the above planning application
submitted to Sheffield City Council. This is a ‘courtesy’ consultation as required
due to the close proximity of Rotherham Borough to the application site which is
across the boundary in Sheffield. RMBC are invited to provide SCC with
comments on the application and the impact of the proposal on Rotherham in
terms of such planning related issues as the environment, flooding, traffic and
the vitality / viability of Rotherham town centre.
Site Description & Location
Blackburn Meadows Waste Water Treatment works is situated alongside the
River Don, on the outskirts of Sheffield. The site has been used for waste
water treatment since the 19 th Century.
The application site occupies approximately 1.4 hectares of the wider Yorkshire
Water operational site. Situated to the east side of the new development site is
the existing simplex plant and final settlement tanks; to the west is the existing
site boundary.
The application site is one of the few areas on the wider site where there is
space to construct the new building without adversely affecting the operation of
the existing plant.
Proposal
The application is seeking permission from Sheffield City Council for planning
permission for the construction of a new bio-energy digestion plant, to include:
• Two digester tanks
• Two thickener feed tanks
• Sludge thickening building and welfare facilities
• Boiler building
• CHP / Boiler emissions stack
• Stack from odour control plant
• HV and sub-station kiosks
• CHP kiosk

Page 119
The existing site roads will be used for access to the new development
although additional new roads are required around the new development for
tanker deliveries within the wider site.
The ground on which the proposed development sits will be raised so that the
new works are sited above the 1:200 year flood level.
The two thickener feed tanks are sized to accommodate the sludge production
and will be approximately 19 metres high. They will be of a concrete finish to
the walls with GRP roofs.
The two digester tanks are sized for the sludge throughput of the works and will
be approximately 24 metres high. They will be of a concrete finish to the walls
and roofs.
The sludge thickening building is single storey and will be approximately 15.6
metres by 39.6 metres with a ridge height of approximately 7.5 metres from
new ground level. The building will be constructed of a steel frame coated in an
‘Olive Green’ colour (BS 4800 12-B-27).
The boiler building is also single-storey and will be approximately 9.1 metres by
15.1 metres with a ridge height of approximately 6.2 metres from new ground
level. The building will be constructed of a steel frame coated in an ‘Olive
Green’ colour (BS 4800 12-B-27).
The CHP & boiler stack carries exhaust emissions and is 26 metres high. The
stack from the odour control plant is 20 metres high and carries treated air from
the covered process tanks. The odour control stack and CHP / Boiler stack will
both be of a steel construction and will have a galvanised finish.
The CHP Package plant will be approximately 3.3 metres by 11.1 metres with a
height of 3.7 metres. Above the flat roof building will be an ‘Exhaust Duct’ and
an ‘Intake Duct’ these will be 1.6 metres above the roof. The main building will
be steel framed in ‘Goosewing Grey’ (BS 4800 10-A-05).
The HV and substation building will both be 5 metres by 6 metres with a ridge
height of 3.3 metres and shall be steel framed coated in an ‘Olive Green’ colour
(BS 4800 12-B-27).
The majority of the development will be hidden by the E-ON development when
viewed from the M1 Motorway to the west.
The new development will result in sludge being digested instead of the current
on-site incinerator which is used to dispose of sludge. The new proposal will
greatly improve the sustainability of site as the biogas generated from this
process will be burnt in a new CHP engine. This engine will produce electricity
which will result in a significant reduction in the energy consumption of the site.
Consultations

Page 120
Streetpride (Transportation and Highways): Have indicated that the proposed
development is unlikely to have a material adverse impact on Rotherham's
highways.
Streetpride (Ecology): Have stated it is not considered that the development will
have a negative impact on ecologically important sites and features in
Rotherham. However, discussions should be held to consider how the delivery
of recommended actions from the SWT Spatial Biodiversity Action Plan for the
River Don and Sheffield & South Yorkshire Navigation document could be used
to demonstrate biodiversity enhancement for SCC and RMBC in line with the
recommendations of the NPPF.
Streetpride (Drainage): Have no objection to the proposals based on the
submitted Flood Risk Assessment.
Neighbourhoods (Air Quality): Have no objections.
Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health): Have stated Sheffield City Council
should request the submission of an Odour Management Plan.
Appraisal
The main issues with the proposal affecting Rotherham would include the
impact on traffic levels within the Borough and the impact on the general
environment of the Borough and its residents.
The nearest residential properties within the administrative boundary of
Rotherham to the proposed site are approximately 500 metres to the north and
north-west on the northern side of Meadowbank Road. These properties are at
a much higher land level than the site in question, as they are approximately 40
metres difference. Between the properties and the site there are large
industrial buildings sited on the southern side of Meadowbank Road as well as
dense tree planting close to the roundabout at the end of Meadowbank Road.
There may be some views of the site from properties within the Kimberworth
area due to land levels, however given the location of the development close to
other industrial buildings, together with the distance from residential properties,
there will be no adverse impact on the visual amenity of residents within
Rotherham’s administrative boundary.
In addition to the above and with regard to the potential impact of the
population of Rotherham, the proposed sludge incinerator will produce NOx
(oxides of nitrogen) as part of the combustion process and these emissions will
have the potential to impact on air quality in particular levels of nitrogen dioxide,
in Rotherham. However, the plant will be regulated as stated in the application
under the air emission limit values of the Waste Incineration Directive through
its Environmental Permit and as such should not have a significantly adverse
impact on Rotherham’s adjacent Air Quality Management Area.

Page 121
In respect of the proposed developments impact on Rotherham’s highways it is
considered that it is unlikely to have a material adverse impact on the
Borough’s roads.
With regard to the impact of the proposed development on Rotherham’s
environment, the site is located within a Flood Zone. However the Council are
satisfied that the proposals would not cause any major problems to
Rotherham’s environment given the site will be raised above the 1 in 200 year
flood level and the buildings are to be 150mm above external ground levels.
Notwithstanding the above, the Council should ask Sheffield City Council to
inform the applicant by way of an Informative that the depth of flooding in this
area should not compromise water quality.
Environmental Health have stated that numerous odour complaints have been
received previously from residents living to the north and north-east of the site,
near Meadow Bank Road and Kimberworth. These can be attributed on a
number of occasions to the breakdown of essential plant on site.
The applicant has provided an odour assessment which provides details of the
main areas of odour emissions and measures proposed to reduce these.
The total odour emissions from the site are predicted to decrease by
approximately 60-70% due to the proposed changes. Concentrations in excess
of 5 OU E/m3 (European odour unit per cubic metre) are likely to continue to
occur beyond the boundary of the works after the proposed works have gone
ahead. However the substantial reduction of odour emissions and resultant
exposure is predicted to significantly reduce the likelihood of giving rise to
odour complaints.
Sheffield City Council should therefore request the submission of an Odour
Management Plan, which should address the management of odours at each
stage of the odour exposure chain.
In addition to the above there are no ecological constraints in respect of this
application and it is not considered that the development will have a negative
impact on ecologically important sites and features in Rotherham.
Although, it is noted that the National Planning Policy Framework recommends
incorporating opportunities into development proposals that conserve or
enhance biodiversity. The development proposals indicate that there will be no
landscaping within the detailed scheme. The River Don and South Yorkshire
Navigation Spatial Biodiversity Action Plan (Sheffield Wildlife Trust, 2009) has
identified opportunities for biodiversity enhancement for the river and canal
corridor and it is recommended that these are considered as potential
biodiversity enhancement measures in line with the recommendations of the
NPPF as delivery will provide benefits for both the Sheffield CC and the
Rotherham MBC areas.
In light of the above the applicant should be advised that discussions are held
to consider how the delivery of recommended actions from the SWT Spatial

Page 122
Biodiversity Action Plan for the River Don and Sheffield & South Yorkshire
Navigation document could be used to demonstrate biodiversity enhancement
for SCC and RMBC in line with the recommendations of the NPPF.
Conclusion
Having regard to the above it is concluded that the impact of the development
on Rotherham will be minimal given the location of the site, land levels and
distance from properties within Rotherham. As such it is considered that
RMBC should raise no objections to the proposals subject to informing the
applicant that discussions should be held with regard to Sheffield Wildlife Trust
Spatial Biodiversity Action Plan and the depth of flooding in this area should not
compromise water quality.
Item 3
File Ref: RB2012/1341
Courtesy Consultation for a rail connected aggregates depot with coated
roadstone plant, ready-mixed concrete plant and aggregate recycling
facility at Unit 3, Europa Way, Sheffield for Aggregate Industries UK Ltd.
Recommendation:
That Sheffield City Council be thanked for the opportunity to comment on this
application and be informed that the Council has no objections to the proposals.
It is however recommended that an analysis of the likely impact of the
development on the Parkway Junction with Europa Way is undertaken to
demonstrate that the traffic movements associated with the proposed
development do not impact negatively on this busy junction and the
implementation of a Travel Plan be a requirement of any approval.
SCC should also be advised that the site falls within an Air Quality
Management Area and an assessment of transport emissions on nitrogen
dioxide annual mean should be undertaken prior to a decision being made.
The conclusions of the noise report which specify maximum night time noise
levels and additional monitoring work should also be translated into an
appropriately worded condition to protect the amenity of Rotherham residents
on Brinsworth Road.
Background
Rotherham MBC has been consulted on the above planning application
submitted to Sheffield City Council. This is a ‘courtesy’ consultation as required

Page 123
due to the close proximity of Rotherham Borough to the application site which is
across the boundary in Sheffield. RMBC must provide SCC with comments on
the application and the impact of the proposal on Rotherham in terms of such
planning related issues as the environment, flooding, traffic and the vitality /
viability of Rotherham town centre.
Site Description & Location
The site is located approximately 4km northeast of Sheffield City centre and
3km southwest of Rotherham. The site is set in an industrial context amongst
other business and industrial uses in the Lower Don Valley. The Don Valley is
dominated by large industrial buildings and large retail units. The former
Sheffield City Airport to the south east has been recently re-developed into
Europa Court Business Park.
The site is situated to the south west of the M1 motorway between junctions 33
and 34. Beyond the motorway are industrial units situated off Park House Lane
and the residential area of Brinsworth is situated to the north east, whilst
Tinsley is located to the North West.
Access to the site is via an access road off of the Europa Link Road which
leads to the Sheffield Parkway (A630).
The site itself comprises of 5.9ha and is bounded by a railway line to the north
with the M1 embankment beyond.
Proposal
The application is seeking permission from Sheffield City Council for planning
permission for an aggregate rail freight depot including an aggregate recycling
facility, coated roadstone plant, readymix concrete plant, site offices and car
parking. The development is required by Sheffield City Council to facilitate the
PFI contract for resurfacing and upgrading their highway network over the next
25 years.
To summarise the proposals include the following:
• Aggregate Rail Freight Depot – Use of the existing Tinsley Sidings for
the importation of 296,000 tonnes of aggregate per annum (80% of the
total amount) for the manufacture of coated roadstone and ready mixed
concrete. The land has been engineered and levelled in preparation for
built development, therefore there is no requirement for major
infrastructure works.
• Aggregate Storage Facility – Erection of aggregate storage bays are
provided along the sidings (to the north of the site) within an area
measuring approximately 160m in length and 20m in width.
• Coated Roadstone Plant – The plant will be located inside a steel
portal framed building with the stack just visible above the ridge line.
The building is laid out in an ‘L’ shape with dimensions of 30m in width
on the northern elevation, 21m on the eastern elevation and 23m in

Page 124
height. For the first 5 years the site will produce 3000,000 tonnes per
annum of roadstone and in years 6 to 25 will produce 50,000 tonnes per
annum plus general market volumes anticipated to be between 100,000
and 150,000 tonnes.
• Ready-mixed Concrete Plant Facility – The plant will measure
approximately 15.75m in height and will mix aggregate with cement and
water to produce concrete which is discharged to trucks.
• Aggregate Recycling Facility – This facility will reprocess, grade and
screen roadstone removed from the existing road network, create
secondary aggregate for use in roadstone mixes and as feedstock for
concrete and recycled sub bases for road and footway construction.
• Ancillary Accommodation – Erection of an office building having a
footprint of 180m2 and the formation of two weighbridges.
Consultations
Streetpride (Transportation and Highways) have reviewed the content of the
submitted Transport Statement and given the number of vehicular movements
associated with the proposed development, raise concerns about the likely
impact on the Parkway Junction with Europa Way as the TA does not provide
an adequate junction analysis. The lack of a Travel Plan is also of some
concern.
Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health – Air Quality) acknowledge that the site
falls within Rotherham MBC’s Air Quality Management Area (2011) but do not
consider that the process itself will impact negatively on nitrogen dioxide
concentrations as 80% of the aggregate material will be transported to site by
rail.
Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health – Land Contamination) raise no
objections to the proposed development.
Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health – Noise) have reviewed the content of
the Noise Report and concur with its conclusions and subject to an
appropriately worded condition requiring the development be carried out in
accordance with these conclusions do not consider that the proposal will impact
negatively on the amenity of Rotherham residents.
Appraisal
The main issues with the proposal affecting Rotherham would include the
impact on traffic levels within the Borough and the impact on the general
environment of the Borough’s residents.
In terms of impact on the Borough’s highway network, the site benefits from an
existing planning permission which provides for use of the land as a rail-freight
distribution centre and inter-modal facility with warehouses/ancillary offices.
The first phases (two warehouses) were completed and sold in 2007 and the
final phase benefits from two separate Reserved Matters approvals, each for a
single distribution centre totalling 26,291sq.m and 24,665sq.m respectively. A

Page 125
Transport Assessment was submitted in support of these applications and
subsequently assessed to be acceptable by SCC.
The Transport Statement submitted in support of this current application
concludes that as the vast majority of aggregate will be delivered to the site by
rail the site would generate less trips than the existing extant permission (506
proposed compared to 953 approved as part of the extant permission), and less
than if a similar amount of material would be imported by HGV’s, therefore
there will be no net increase in trips on the local and strategic highway network.
The Council’s Transportation and Highway’s department have assessed the
methodology and conclusions of the TS and whilst no objections are raised to
the proposed development in principle, it is recommended that an analysis of
the likely impact of the development on the Parkway Junction with Europa Way
is undertaken to demonstrate that the traffic movements associated with the
proposed development do not impact negatively on this busy junction and in the
interests of completeness.
Additionally, the submitted TS states that SCC do not require the submission of
a formal Travel Plan for a development of this type as staff numbers are low.
The Council’s Transportation and Highway’s department do not share this
opinion and are disappointed that they are not insisting on measures to reduce
single car travel given its proximity to the Air Quality Management Area and as
a consequence recommend that a Travel Plan should be a requirement of any
approval.
Having regard to the impact of the development on the Air Quality Management
Area, the application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement which
includes a technical appendix on Air Quality. This document appraises the
potential impact upon dust and air quality in accordance with the Scoping
Opinion Advice issued by SCC.
It concludes that the potential impact on air quality falls within the
Environmental Permit regulations and subject to the implementation of
mitigation measures which include dust suppression equipment being fitted
onto the crushers and screeners, the development will not result in
unacceptable levels of dust emanating from the site.
The Council’s Environmental Health department have assessed the
conclusions of the report and confirm that the process itself will not negatively
impact on nitrogen dioxide concentrations in the area and thus not have a
detrimental impact on the Air Quality Management Area. It is however noted
that an assessment of transport emissions on nitrogen dioxide annual mean
has not been carried out and it is recommended that this is undertaken prior to
a decision being made.
Turning to the impact of the development in respect of noise nuisance on
nearby residential properties in Rotherham, the applicant has submitted a noise
report which assesses the noise impact from the proposals measured from
various locations around the site. The nearest residential properties within

Page 126
Rotherham are located on Brinsworth Road which is on the opposite side of the
M1 motorway to the application site. This location was identified in the noise
report as a potential sensitive receptor and was therefore chosen as one of the
monitoring locations.
The noise report concludes that overall noise output levels from the site have
been calculated taking into consideration each significant specific noise source
and combined give an overall noise level of 105 dB L WA . The calculations
include noise levels from the movement of trains to and from the site and the
unloading of material from the wagons at night time.
The report concentrates primarily on night time noise impact as the existing
background noise levels during the day are already high due to existing
industrial operations and close proximity of the M1 motorway. The proposed
development is therefore not likely to have an impact other than during the
night when background noise levels are substantially reduced.
In this regard, the lowest measured background noise levels at night is 39dB
L A90,5mins and the calculated noise level from the proposed development for
night time is 1 to 3 dB(A) above this level, however the report does recommend
that further site noise monitoring is undertaken during the hours of 01:00 and
03:00 as these tend to be quieter than at any other times.
The Council’s Environmental Health department have assessed the
methodology and conclusions of the noise report and broadly concur with its
findings in that noise from the plant at night (23:00-07:00) will not exceed 42dB
L Aeq,5 mins, measured at any residential property located on Brinsworth Road.
Additionally, it is also agreed that further monitoring should be carried out
between the hours of 01:00 and 03:00 hours and the results submitted to
Sheffield CC at regular intervals. Subject to these safeguards being put in
place it is not considered that the proposed development will have a detrimental
impact on the amenity of Rotherham residents living close to the application
site.
Conclusion
Having regard to the above it is concluded that the impact of the development
on Rotherham is insignificant, however it is recommended that an analysis of
the likely impact of the development on the Parkway Junction with Europa Way
is undertaken and the implementation of a Travel Plan be a requirement of any
approval.
Additionally, it is recommended that an assessment of transport emissions on
nitrogen dioxide annual mean should be undertaken prior to a decision being
made and the conclusions of the noise report be translated into an
appropriately worded condition to protect the amenity of residents in
Rotherham.