Case Officer: Sarah Kay File No: CHE/15/00818/FUL Tel. No: (01246) 345786 Plot No: 2/2660 Ctte Date: 22nd February 2016

ITEM 1

ERECTION OF 2 NO. THREE BEDROOM BUNGALOWS INCLUDING

DOUBLE GARAGE ON GARDEN TO THE REAR OF 68 DUNSTON ROAD, CHESTERFIELD, DERBYSHIRE FOR A ROCK CONSTRUCTION.

Local Plan: Unallocated Ward: Dunston 1.0 CONSULTATIONS

DCC Highways Comments received on 07/01/2016 and 03/02/2016 – see report

Environmental Services Comments received 09/02/2016 – no

objections subject to construction hours condition

Design Services Comments received 12/01/2016 –

see report Yorkshire Water Services Comments received 23/12/2015 –

see report Coal Authority Comments received 31/12/2015 and

25/01/2016 – see report

Ward Members No comments received Neighbours/Site Notice 3 no. representations received

2.0 THE SITE 2.1 The site the subject of the application is a parcel of land

comprising approximately 1.338ha in area, which lies to the rear of No 68 and No 70 Dunston Road. Access into the application site leads from Dunston Road along a shared driveway with No 68, with a gated private access track running along the south eastern boundary of the site from Dunston Road to Edmund Street. The

site is surrounded by residential properties and appears to have previously been utilised as garden associated in part with No 68 and in part by a separate land holder.

3.0 RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

3.1 No’s 68 and 70 Dunston Road

CHE/0485/0262 – outline application for one dwelling at 70 Dunston Rd – Approved 19.07.1985. CHE/0486/0223 – reserved matters for one dwelling at 70 Dunston Road – Approved 25.06.1986.

CHE/0592/0281 – erection of one dwelling at 68 Dunston Road – Refused 14.07.1992. CHE/1092/0621 – outline application for one dwelling at 68 Dunston Road – Approved 25.02.1993. CHE/0795/0347 – reserved matters for one dwelling at 68 Dunston Road – Approved 08.09.1995. CHE/09/00286/FUL - Proposed conversion and extension of a substantial garage building, into a 2 bedroom habitable accommodation. Refused 06.07.2009. CHE/09/00490/FUL - Proposed extension and conversion of existing garage into habitable accommodation. Re-submission of CHE/09/00286/FUL. Refused 06.10.2009.

3.2 Land to the rear of No 68 Dunston Road

CHE/04/00435/OUT - Outline application for one detached dwelling at land behind 68 – 70 Dunston Road. Refused 20.07.2004 and dismissed on appeal 05.05.2005. CHE/12/00350/FUL – Proposed detached dormer bungalow. Refused 02.08.2012. CHE/13/00225/FUL - Proposed detached bungalow (resubmission of CHE/12/00350/FUL). Approved 25.06.2013 – therefore extant until June 2016.

4.0 THE PROPOSAL 4.1 This is an application submitted in full for the erection of 2 no.

detached three bedroom bungalows on land which lies between the rear of No’s 68 and 70 Dunston Road and No’s 1, 3 and 5 Edmund Street in Dunston.

4.2 Illustrated on drawing no. 15102-MAD-DR-A-000-0020 Rev 03 the

2 no. bungalows will be handed in design with 1 no. bungalow positioned behind the built footprint of No 70 Dunston Road and 1 no. bungalow behind the built footprint of No’s 3 and 5 Edmund Street. Access serving the development is formed as one driveway with a splayed gated feature taken from the shared

access track, which runs from Dunston Road through to Edmund Street. The shared driveway then splits into two sides where 2 no. parking spaces and a double garage serving each plot is formed around a block paved turning space for each dwelling.

4.3 Each bungalow (which are identical in design but handed on each

plot) are 15.8m in total length x 10.4m wide and are contemporary in design with two mono-pitched roofs which adjoin along a central staggered and stepped ridgeline. The plans shows contrasting rendered and brickwork finishes to each handed design. The internal layout shows the provision of an entrance hallway, two double bedrooms (master en-suite), a single bedroom, family bathroom, lounge and open plan kitchen / dining area.

4.4 The proposed site layout plan illustrates that the site can be served

from the existing access track which leads from either Dunston Road or Edmund Street (over which the site has access rights). Each double garage will measure 6.3m x 6.3m x 2.3m to the eaves and 3.5m overall.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Planning Policy 5.1.1 The site is situated within the built settlement of Dunston ward in

an area predominantly residential in nature. 5.1.2 Having regard to the nature of the application proposals policies

CS1 (Spatial Strategy), CS2 (Location of Development), CS3 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development), CS4 (Infrastructure Delivery), CS6 (Sustainable Design), CS7 (Management of the Water Cycle), CS8 (Environmental Quality), CS9 (Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity), CS10 (Flexibility in delivery of Housing) and CS18 (Design) of the Core Strategy and the wider National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) apply. In addition the Councils Supplementary Planning Document on Housing Layout and Design ‘Successful Places’ is also a material consideration.

5.2 Principle of Development 5.2.1 The site the subject of the application is unallocated and is situated

within the built settlement of Dunston ward surrounded by residential properties to three sides and school playing fields to the other.

5.2.2 Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Core Strategy set the Councils overall

spatial strategy and the principles for the location of new development stating that all new development and growth should be located in areas which are within walking and cycling distances of centres. Albeit that the site the subject of the application appears to have previously formed garden curtilage to an existing property and small separate landholding used to grow vegetables, neither use would be regarded as being of high environmental value or best/most versatile agricultural land which would be protected from development by Policy CS2. In regard to the sites spatial setting, the site is within walking / cycling distance of the Whittington Moor District Centre (Policy CS1) and is therefore considered in principle to be an appropriate infill development site for new development.

5.3 Design and Appearance Considerations 5.3.1 Historically the application site identified formed a wider area of

allocated playing fields which were formerly adopted, but thereafter de-allocated as result of their subdivision, re-development and the adoption of more up to date local plan policies. The site the subject of the application forms two parcels of land which remain as a result of the development of the two no. dwellings along Dunston Road known as No 68 and No 70.

5.3.2 An overview of the surrounding streetscene and built form context

shows that there are varying house types, styles and ages within the immediate surrounding area. Development proposals have been put forward for a number of years which have been refused and approved alongside the transition of national and local planning policy during that time.

5.3.3 Although an extant permission exists for part of the site, the fact

this latest application includes development of the entire parcel of land between No’s 68 and 70 Dunston Road and No’s 1, 3 and 5 Edmund Street is welcomed. The scheme offers an opportunity to

deliver a more comprehensive scheme of development which can take its own identity rather than trying to respond and integrate with either Dunston Road or Edmund Street accordingly.

5.3.4 The latest proposals follow the principles of siting and scale which

are established by the extant 2013 permission for one bungalow and replicate these onto the site adjacent. Albeit that the scheme proposed is a contemporary design in comparison to the previous approval there are no justifiable planning reasons to dismiss a contemporary designed scheme on this site.

5.3.5 The scheme is considered to be of an appropriate siting, scale and

design which appropriately responds to site parameter constraints by adopting a mono-pitched design to protect neighbouring amenity and the chosen materials and finish are contrasting yet entirely appropriate in the locality. Overall the proposed development is considered to be appropriately sited, scaled and designed to respond to the provisions of policies CS2 and CS18 of the Core Strategy and the wider SPD.

5.4 Neighbouring Impact / Amenity 5.4.1 The application site is adjoined by No 70 Dunston Road to the

north; No 68 Dunston Road to the north east; No’s 42 – 48 St Johns Road to the east / south east; No’s 1, 3 and 5 Edmund Street to the south and south west; and the Edmund Street Junior School playing field beyond the north western boundary.

5.4.2 No 70 Dunston Road is the detached bungalow whose rear

elevation (and garden curtilage either side of their rear elevation) immediately adjoins the northern boundary of the application site. The layout of this neighbouring dwelling is unusual in so far as the bungalow is sited immediately abutting its rear boundary, resulting in its own areas of amenity space being concentrated to either side and front elevation of the bungalow. An inspection of this property confirmed that there are habitable room windows sited in the front and either side elevation of the bungalow, with only non-habitable rooms being concentrated along the rear elevation.

In a similar manner to the extant 2013 permission these latest

development proposals illustrate that the bungalow proposed in the north half of the application site is to be single storey and its footprint positioned almost immediately behind No 70.

There are no habitable room windows sited in the rear elevation of

No 70 and given the fact both properties are single storey in nature any facing windows between the two properties will be obscured by dividing boundary treatments. Accordingly it is not considered that the revised scheme poses the introduction of any adverse overlooking or overbearing impacts upon No 70.

Having regard to the siting and scale of the development

proposed, the dwelling will be orientated to the south west of No 70 and any resultant overshadowing cast by the development will occur from midday onwards but will be concentrated on the rear elevation of No 70. Given the relative layout of No 70 and its siting relationship to the common boundary with the application site, it is not considered that the resultant impact upon No 70 will be sufficiently harmful on balance to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

5.4.3 No 68 Dunston Road is the detached dormer bungalow whose

rear elevation adjoins the northern boundary of the application site. In comparison with the extant 2013 permission the latest proposals

follow the approved single storey bungalow scale and see the development proposed in the same location towards the north western side of the development plot away from the rear elevation of No 68. The proposals show a separation distance of 12.3m between the corner of No 68 and closest corner of the proposed bungalow offering an acceptable relationship between the existing and proposed dwellings, subject to provision of an appropriate boundary treatment along its north edge shared with No 68.

Having regard to the relative orientation and separation of the proposed bungalows to No 68 the development does not raise any adverse overbearing or overshadowing impacts upon No 68. However it is noted that the proposed detached garage will lie immediately behind the rear elevation of No 68. Notwithstanding this given the scale and design of the garage it is not felt that the garage will adversely impact upon the amenity of No 68.

It is noted that the scheme the subject of this latest proposal does

not offer the improvement to the access arrangements from Dunston Road over No 68, like the extant 2013 permission does. This is because the applicant no longer controls the land at No 68

(it is not blue lined on the application submission). It is therefore likely that this site will take access from Edmund Street rather than across land at No 68 to Dunston Road (albeit the site will retain its own access rights over this land).

5.4.4 No’s 42 – 48 St Johns Road are the combination of terraced /

semi-detached / detached neighbouring properties whose rear elevation windows all face the south eastern / south western boundaries of the application site. Their rear gardens all adjoin the ‘common back lane’ running from Edmund Street through to Dunston Road, which is sited between them and the application site.

At their closest point the proposals are separated by a distance of at least 25m between their frontage elevation and the access track behind No 42 – 48. As a general rule of thumb minimum separation distances between a development proposal and existing properties are sought to ensure an adequate level of privacy and outlook is maintained. These distances are prescribed as either a minimum of 12.0m between a window and a blank gable; or a minimum of 21.0m between immediately facing windows (as set out in the adopt SPD).

Given that the separation distance between the proposals and the neighbours along St Johns Road is far in excess of 21.0m it is not considered that the proposals introduce any adverse overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impacts upon these neighbours.

5.4.5 No’s 1, 3 and 5 Edmund Street are three detached dwellings

whose rear elevation windows face the south western boundary of the application site. Unlike the relationship with No 70 Dunston Road however these neighbouring properties have habitable room windows located in their rear elevation which will face the side elevation of the nearest proposed bungalow. There is to be a separation distance of 8.0m (at its closet point) between the development and No’s 1, 3 and 5.

It is noted that there are to be 3 no. window openings proposed in

the side elevation of the nearest bungalow which will serve the en-suite, bathroom and bedroom. The window to the bedroom however is a secondary window opening. All of these windows can be required to be obscurely glazed and fixed or only bottom opening, such that they will not impose any opportunity to overlook

the neighbouring properties. Furthermore by siting an appropriate boundary treatment along this common boundary any perception of overlooking will also be eliminated.

The northern orientation of the development will mean that the

bungalow do not overshadow No’s 1, 3 and 5, however there is potential for the development to impose an degree of overbearing to rear gardens of No 1, 3 and 5 due to the fact the relative buildings will only be separated by 8.0m. Notwithstanding this, having regard to the proposed design of the development (with a mono-pitched roof sloping away from these neighbours) and the fact that the site is set at a slightly lower level to these neighbours properties it is not considered that permission could be refused on these grounds alone.

5.4.6 Finally the proposed development is orientated such that their rear

gardens and rear elevations will face the Edmund Street Junior School playing field. Notwithstanding this given the fact the development is single storey in nature any dividing common boundary treatments serving the proposed development will offer a suitable screen between these windows and the adjoining playing field.

5.4.7 In the context of the provisions of Policies CS2 and CS18 of the

Core Strategy and the material planning considerations in relation to neighbour impact, it is concluded the proposals will not impact upon the privacy and/or outlook of the adjoining and/or adjacent neighbours and are acceptable in terms of these policies.

5.5 Highways Issues 5.5.1 Comments have been received from the Local Highways

Authority (LHA) as follows:

It is noted that part of the site has been subject of a previous application to which the Highway Authority raised no objection subject to the inclusion of certain conditions and notes. Planning permission was granted for a single bungalow with access being taken from Dunston Road.

The information provided indicates that access will be taken from Dunston Road although an alternative access from Edmund Street is also indicated. There is, however, no link shown to the publically

maintainable highway via either route and you may wish to satisfy yourselves that vehicular and pedestrian access would be available and could be granted to prospective occupiers. A site visit also revealed that there did not appear currently to be a route through from Dunston Road to Edmund Street, this being blocked at the Dunston Road end. It is considered the applicant should clarify they would have the right to remove such blockage.

Whilst visibility onto Dunston Road and Edmund Street are considered to be acceptable, the width of the access is somewhat restricted. Generally to serve two to five properties the access should be 4.2m and this should be increased by 0.5m for each side where the access is bounded by a hedge, fence wall or line of trees or similar. From the information available it would not appear that the applicant has any means to widen the access.

The properties will be located some distance from either Dunston Road or Edmund Street and no provision is made for smaller service vehicles / delivery vehicles e.g supermarket delivery. The applicant should give further thought to this and consult with the refuse / recycling collection authority as to suitable arrangements and incporate this into the deisgn as appropriate. If a bin store is to be provided it should belocated clear of the highway and of sufficient dimension.

Each propety would require the provision of two off street parking spcaes clear of any shared / turning. Garages should have internal dimensions of 6.0m x 6.0m for a double garage with a minimum door width of 4.2m

Further information is required for the Highway Authority to comment fully on the proposal and I would be obliged if the application could be eld in abeyance or alternatively the applicatn would be willing to withdraw the application.’

5.5.2 Having regard to the comments received from the LHA above,

there is absolutely to reason or justification for them to request the application be held in abeyance or withdrawn. It is quite clear from the application drawings submitted and available for them to view /comment that the proposals are to be served by 2 no. parking spaces clear of the separate site turning; and furthermore the garages proposed measure 6.0m x 6.0m internally such that they meet the requirements the LHA seek.

5.5.3 In respect of the issue of bin storage the occupants of each

property are unlikely to want their bins stored anywhere other than within their own curtilage (for ease of use) and therefore it will be the future occupants responsibility to present their bins for collection at either the Edmund Street or Dunston Road end of the access road on their allocated collection day. A bin collection vehicle will not attempt to use the access track to make refuse / recycling collections.

5.5.4 It is accepted that the access track is restricted in width, such that

it may not meet the standards of the Highway Authority however the access track is not a well-used through route that experiences high levels of pedestrian / vehicular traffic. There are currently 4 no. garages served off the access track of which 2 are located on the application site. It is not considered that the use of this track, at its current width, presents a threat to the safety of other users. The LHA clearly comment that visibility to either the Dunston Road or Edmund Street ends of the track are acceptable.

5.5.5 Having regard to the access rights over the access track, this was

reviewed by the case officer whilst dealing with previous applications on this site. Access from Dunston Road to Edmund Street over this track is available to the application site however the access is currently blocked by gates at the Dunston Road. The rights do however exist and therefore it remains a private / civil matter for the applicant to resolve. Clearly the site can still be accessed from Edmund Street and therefore the LPA are satisfied the development can be served by access to the highway accordingly.

5.5.6 Overall the proposed development is considered to be

appropriately sited and designed to illustrate that dedicated access, turning and parking can be provided to serve the development proposals in accordance with the provisions of policies CS2 and CS18 of the Core Strategy. A clear emerging splay from the development site is provided to ensure that vehicles leaving the site can wait at the edge of the site adjoining the access track in order to see any other vehicles entering the access from Dunston Road or Edmund Street. It is considered that this arrangement presents an appropriate measure to avoid conflict and create any highway safety implications.

5.6 Flood Risk / Drainage 5.6.1 In respect of matters of drainage and potential flood risk (having

regard to policy CS7), it is noted that the application site lies within flood risk zone 1 and therefore is unlikely to be at risk from flooding. In respect of drainage, the application details that the development is to be connected to mains foul and surface water is to be handled by means of soakaway / existing mains.

5.6.2 The Councils Design Services team have commented on the

application raising no objections however details of the proposed site drainage strategy will need to be submitted for approval in accordance with the Council ‘Minimum Standards for Drainage’. An appropriate condition can be imposed to this effect, if permission is granted.

5.7 Land Condition / Contamination 5.7.1 The site the subject of the application is currently garden /

undeveloped and therefore land condition and contamination need to be considered having regard to policy CS8 of the Core Strategy.

5.7.2 The Council’s Environmental Health team have reviewed the

proposals and commented that they have no objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of the standard construction work hours condition.

5.7.3 In respect of potential Coal Mining Risk, the site the subject of the

application lies within the Coal Authority’s defined ‘referral area’ where they require planning application proposals to be supported by a Coal Mining Risk Assessment (CMRA).

5.7.4 As a result of a preliminary objection from the Coal Authority (CA)

given the absence of a CMRA a subsequent report was acquired by the applicant and submitted for consideration. The CA responded further as follows:

The Coal Authority concurs with the recommendations of the Coal

Mining Risk Assessment Report; that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and that intrusive site investigation works should be undertaken prior to development in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site.

The Coal Authority recommends that the LPA impose a Planning Condition should planning permission be granted for the proposed development requiring these site investigation works prior to commencement of development.

In the event that the site investigations confirm the need for remedial works to treat the areas of shallow mine workings to ensure the safety and stability of the proposed development, this should also be conditioned to ensure that any remedial works identified by the site investigation are undertaken prior to commencement of the development.

A condition should therefore require prior to the commencement of

development: * The submission of a scheme of intrusive site investigations for

approval; * The undertaking of that scheme of intrusive site investigations; * The submission of a report of findings arising from the intrusive

site investigations; * The submission of a scheme of remedial works for approval; and * Implementation of those remedial works.

The Coal Authority therefore withdraws its objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of a condition or conditions to secure the above.

5.7.5 Having regard to the final comments from the CA detailed above

appropriate conditions can be imposed to this effect, if permission is granted, to ensure compliance with policy CS8 of the Core Strategy and the wider NPPF in respect of land condition.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 The application has been publicised by neighbour notification

letters sent to nine neighbouring properties on 23/12/2015. Following this, four letters were re-sent on 05/01/2016 to No’s 42, 44, 46 and 48 St Johns Road as these had initially been sent to an incorrect address.

6.2 As a result of the publicity details above 3 no. letters of

representation have been received as follows:

96 Sanforth Street I am very concerned about the access to this plot of land.

The entrance is suggested from the driveway of No 68 Dunston Road, which is a very busy road very close to the junction with St Johns Road. An alternative access in the DAS is shown from Edmund Street but this is no better and is so close to the School and other road junctions. There appears to be no option to widen this point of access to improve it. Each bungalow has a double garage and 2 parking spaces so potentially 8 vehicles, which will have a serious impact on traffic and pedestrians in the area. See section 5.5 above. 70 Dunston Road We wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections that we have to the development on open space to the rear of No 68. As an immediate neighbour we are of the view the development will have a serious impact upon our standard of living. The orientation of the site is incorrect, it is not north – south; it north east - south west therefore this changes the overshadowing impact upon neighbouring properties. The site is not an infill on a brownfield site; it was a vegetable garden until recently and is not overgrown – it has been vandalised. This is a greenfield site and wildlife oasis. The development will create an environment where excess water will run off onto 68 and 70 Dunston Road. The application proposes use of soakaways and mains sewers however the nearest mains sewer is on St Johns Road. We believe the development is in direct contravention of Policy CS9 as the proposed development will alter the fabric of the area and amount to serious cramming on what is a low density area. The design of the properties are out of keeping, there is no white render in the area, and the price of the properties will be well out the range of local wages. The access to the site is via a small back lane off a main trunk road, the resulting 8 additional vehicles which might use this will add to traffic and create noise and air pollution to residents around the site. The design and layout of the NE bungalow is different to what was agreed under app. CHE/13/00225/FUL. The bungalow is closer to No 70, there is garage behind No 68. We would be grateful if the Council could take our objections into consideration when deciding the application and would welcome

the opportunity to meet with a representative of the planning department at our home to illustrate our objections first hand. See sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 above. The case officer met with the objector whilst dealing with a previous planning application on this site (in 2012 and 2013) and was shown around their property and garden. It was not therefore necessary for the case officer to visit again as they were able to recall their previous visit and review the photographs they took around the curtilage / garden of No 70 at that time. A Local Resident (no address - possibly 5 Edmund Street) I would like to complain about the lack of time and information concerning this application. I would specifically like to know about boundaries and what if any fences are to be erected. My personal concern being the boundary between the development and No 5 Edmund Street. Hope you can enlighten us soon as the date for any appeal is close. See section 5.3 and 5.4 above. An email response was sent to the enquirer above (11/01/2016) advising that boundary treatments were not detailed on the application submission, as these details were usually dealt with by planning condition, if permission was to be granted. The enquirer was advised that usually a 2m high boundary fence would be sought along any common boundaries to protect neighbouring amenity. The enquirer was also invited to make any further representations by return email direct to the case officer and was also advised that there would be no issue with comments being received in the next 2 weeks (although the deadline has passed). No further comments have been received.

7.0 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 7.1 Under the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2nd

October 2000, an authority must be in a position to show:

Its action is in accordance with clearly established law

The objective is sufficiently important to justify the action taken

The decisions taken are objective and not irrational or arbitrary

The methods used are no more than are necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective

The interference impairs as little as possible the right or freedom

7.2 It is considered that the recommendation is objective and in

accordance with clearly established law. 7.3 The recommended conditions are considered to be no more than

necessary to control details of the development in the interests of amenity and public safety and which interfere as little as possible with the rights of the applicant.

7.4 Whilst, in the opinion of the objector, the development affects their

amenities, it is not considered that this is harmful in planning terms, such that any additional control to satisfy those concerns would go beyond that necessary to accomplish satisfactory planning control.

8.0 STATEMENT OF POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE WORKING WITH

APPLICANT 8.1 The following is a statement on how the Local Planning Authority

(LPA) has adhered to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 in respect of decision making in line with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

8.2 Given that the proposed development does not conflict with the

NPPF or with ‘up-to-date’ Development Plan policies, it is considered to be ‘sustainable development’ and there is a presumption on the LPA to seek to approve the application. The LPA has used conditions to deal with outstanding issues with the development and has been sufficiently proactive and positive in proportion to the nature and scale of the development applied for.

8.3 The applicant / agent and any objector will be provided with copy

of this report informing them of the application considerations and recommendation / conclusion.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposals are considered to be appropriately designed such

that they are considered in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents or highway safety. As such, the proposal accords with the requirements of policies CS2, CS10, CS18 and CS20 of the Core Strategy and the wider National Planning Policy Framework.

9.2 Furthermore subject to the imposition of appropriate planning

conditions the proposals are considered to demonstrate wider compliance with policies CS7, CS8, CS9 and CS10 of the Core Strategy and the wider NPPF in respect of drainage, flood risk, land condition and contamination.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION 10.1 It is therefore recommended that the application GRANTED

subject to the following:

Conditions

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason - The condition is imposed in accordance with

section 51 of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004. 02. All external dimensions and elevational treatments shall be

as shown on the approved plans 15102-MAD-DR-A-021-1000 Rev 01 and 1001 Rev 01, 15102-MAD-DR-A-020-1000 Rev 04 15102-MAD-DR-A-020-1001 Rev 01 15102-MAD-DR-A-000-0020 Rev 03 with the exception of any approved non material amendment.

Reason - In order to clarify the extent of the planning permission in the light of guidance set out in "Greater Flexibility for planning permissions" by CLG November 2009.

03. No development shall take place until details of the proposed

means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off-site works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site.

Reason - To ensure that the development can be properly drained and In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.

04. There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the

development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works and no buildings shall be occupied or brought into use prior to completion of the approved foul drainage works.

Reason - To ensure that no foul or surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for their disposal.

05. Development shall not commence until intrusive site

investigations have been carried out by the developer to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site and approval for commencement of development given in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and conclusions shall include any remedial works and mitigation measures required/proposed for the stability of the site. Only those details which receive the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out on site.

Reason - To fully establish the presence and / or otherwise

of any coal mining legacy affecting the application site.

06. No development shall take place until space is provided within the site curtilage, for site accommodation, storage of plant and materials, parking and manoeuvring of site operative's and visitor's vehicles together with the loading/unloading and manoeuvring of goods vehicles. The space shall be constructed and laid out to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear, in surface materials suitable for use in inclement weather and maintained free from impediment throughout the duration of construction works.

Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

07. The premises, the subject of the application, shall not be

occupied until the new access has been formed in accordance with the approved plans. The area in advance of the splayed gated access into the site shall be maintained in perpetuity clear of all obstructions greater than 1m in height (600mm in the case of vegetation) relative to the adjoining nearside carriageway channel level.

Reason - In the interests of highway safety. 08. Before construction works commence or ordering of external

materials takes place, precise specifications or samples of the walling and roofing materials to be used shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration. Only those materials approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be used as part of the development.

Reason - The condition is imposed in order to ensure that

the proposed materials of construction are appropriate for use on the particular development and in the particular locality.

09. Work shall only be carried out on site between 8:00am and

6:00pm Monday to Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm on a Saturday and no work on a Sunday or Public Holiday. The term "work" will also apply to the operation of plant, machinery and equipment.

Reason - In the interests of residential amenities.

10. Within 2 months of commencement of development full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; fences, walls or other means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and hard surfacing materials. Only those details which receive written approval shall be implemented on site, prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.

Reason - The condition is imposed in order to enhance the

appearance of the development and in the interests of the area as a whole.

11. The premises, the subject of the application, shall not be

occupied until space has been provided within the application site in accordance with the approved application drawings for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles, laid out, surfaced and maintained throughout the life of the development free from any impediment to its designated use.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety.

12. Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted) Development Order 1995 (as amended) there shall be no extensions, outbuildings or garages constructed (other than garden sheds or greenhouses of a volume less than 10 cubic metre) or additional windows erected or installed at or in the dwelling hereby approved without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason - In the interests of the amenities of occupants of adjoining dwellings.

Notes

01. If work is carried out other than in complete accordance with the approved plans, the whole development may be rendered unauthorised, as it will not have the benefit of the original planning permission. Any proposed amendments to that which is approved will require the submission of a further application.

02. This approval contains condition/s which make requirements

prior to development commencing. Failure to comply with such conditions will render the development unauthorised in its entirety, liable to enforcement action and will require the submission of a further application for planning permission in full.

03. Pursuant to Sections 149 and 151 of the Highways Act 1980,

the applicant must take all necessary steps to ensure that mud or other extraneous material is not carried out of the site and deposited on the public highway. Should such deposits occur, it is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all reasonable steps (eg; street sweeping) are taken to maintain the roads in the vicinity of the site to a satisfactory level of cleanliness.

04. Construction works are likely to require Traffic Management

and advice regarding procedures should be sought from Dave Bailey, Traffic Management, 01629 538686. All road closure and temporary traffic signal applications will have to be submitted via the County Councils web-site; relevant forms are available via the following link - http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/transport_roads/roads_traffic/roadworks/default.asp

05. Attention is drawn to the attached notes on the Council's

'Minimum Standards for Drainage'.