Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Design Evidence
PINS REFERENCE: (ref. APP/F1040/W/15/3119206)
LPA REFERENCE: 9/2014/1140
22ND December 2015 | CLE | BIR.4453
APPEAL BY PROPERTY BOND LTD.
LAND AT TICKNALL ROAD, HARTSHORNE,
DERBYSHIRE
DESIGN EVIDENCE
Proof of Evidence of
CHARLOTTE LEWIS (B.A (Hons) Dip Arch PG Dip Arch RIBA)
Pegasus Group
5 The Priory | London Road | Canwell | Sutton Coldfield | B75 5SH
T 0121 308 9570 | F 0121 323 2215 | W www.pegasuspg.co.uk
Birmingham | Bracknell | Bristol | Cambridge | Cirencester | East Midlands | Leeds | London | Manchester
Planning | Environmental | Retail | Urban Design | Renewables | Landscape Design | Graphic Design | Consultation |
Sustainability
© Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Limited 2011. The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part
without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group Limited.
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
CONTENTS
1.0
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
2.0
STRUCTURE AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
3.0
THE DESIGN PROCESS IN RELATION TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION
4.0
THE APPEAL MASTERPLAN
5.0
THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE SITE
6.0
PLANNING POLICIES RELATED TO DESIGN
7.0
ANALYSIS OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATED TO DESIGN
8.0
ANALYSIS OF THE DESIGN ATTRIBUTES OF THE APPEAL SCHEME
9.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
Appendix 1:
OPUN feedback letter
Appendix 2:
Email dated 6th February 2015
Appendix 3:
Outline Masterplan Pegasus Drawing Ref: BIR.4453_28C
Appendix 4:
Appeal Masterplan Pegasus Drawing Ref: BIR.4453_38A
2
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Design Evidence
1.0
1.1.
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
My name is Charlotte Lewis. I am a director of Design and Masterplanning at Pegasus
Group. I have over fifteen years of experience of designing the built environment.
1.2.
I hold an Upper Second Class Bachelor of Arts Degree in Architecture with Honours and
Post Graduate Diplomas in Architecture and Professional Studies in Architecture. I have
been registered with the Architects Registration Board since 2000. I am a Chartered
Architect and have been a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects since 2003.
1.3.
Pegasus Group are an approved Urban Design Group Recognised Practitioner and
provide design consultancy services for a variety of developments including residential,
commercial, leisure and retail projects throughout the United Kingdom.
1.4.
In my role at Pegasus I provide design advice to land promoters and developers – I
engage with other professionals as part of the design process.
I take a lead role in the
process of masterplanning, coordinating and interpreting all relevant considerations to
produce layouts for residential and mixed use developments according with the design
objectives of National and Local Planning Policies.
I have extensive experience in
designing residential layouts to accompany outline and detailed planning applications.
As part of that process I have engaged with and obtained the support and approval of
my designs from Design Review Panels and other design consultees.
1.5.
I have been involved with the Main Street, Hartshorne site (the site) from the outset of
the project, which commenced in February 2014.
1.6.
I present evidence in relation to matters of design at this Inquiry on behalf of Property
Bond Ltd. I am familiar with the evidence of Ms. Stones in relation to planning policy,
by Ms. Vallender in relation to heritage and by Mr. Atkin to landscape and visual matters.
I take reference from their conclusions in determining the context of the site and the
relevant urban design response.
1.7.
The evidence which I submit is true and has been prepared in accordance with the
guidance of my professional institution. I confirm that the opinions expressed are my
true and professional opinions.
3
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
2.0
STRUCTURE AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
2.1
My evidence is structured into the following sections, including this introduction (Section
1);
· At Section 2, I set out the structure and scope of my evidence;
· At Section 3, I provide a resume of the design process involved in producing the
masterplan and Design and Access Statement submitted in support of the application
for outline application for the residential development (Class C3), public open space,
green infrastructure, school car park and associated works at land off Main Street
and Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, application reference 9/2014/1140. The application
was refused by South Derbyshire District Council on 14th April 2015;
· At Section 4, I explain minor amendments to the masterplan which are part of
the appeal proposal;
· At Section 5, I provide an analysis of the role and function of the site in townscape
terms;
· At Section 6, I reference the relevant national and local design policies and
guidance;
· At Section 7, I analyse the Reason for Refusal and seek to identify any implicit
design criticisms therein;
· At Section 8, I present evidence to demonstrate that the design and layout meets
with the relevant policy requirements; and
· At Section 9, I provide my summary and conclusions and explain that in respect
of design matters, the appeal proposals are entirely compliant and indeed that the
proposed design compliments and responds to the context and the design
assessment of the appeal proposal should weigh positively in the planning balance.
4
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
3.0
THE DESIGN PROCESS IN RELATION TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION
3.1
The supporting Design and Access Statement (DAS) (CD2.4) explains that a staged
design process was undertaken in collaboration with South Derbyshire District Council
(SDDC). Consultation with OPUN Design Review Panel was also sought at the early stage
of design.
3.2
The design and development of the masterplan was informed at the early stage of design
by an analysis of site and contextual constraints and opportunities. This included
reference to the role of the site in terms of its context between northern and southern
areas of Hartshorne and also in terms of retaining an open area in relation to particular
views.
3.3
The initial design response was to continue the existing linear building line northwards
into the site, along Main Street and onto Ticknall Road, thereby extending the cascading
roofscape below St Peter’s Church. This approach extended and mirrored existing
building lines.
3.4
Following receipt of feedback from OPUN, (see Appendix 1) two alternative development
option plans were presented to the Council’s Planning Officer and Design Excellence
Officer who considered Option 2a to be a more appropriate design strategy. This option
included a landscaped Community Green and a new building line offset from the
southern site boundary to maintain views of St. Peter’s Church from Repton Road and
Main Street. At this time Officers highlighted views of Manor Farmhouse were also
important. This is explained on pages 55 and 65 of the DAS.
3.5
Option 2a was subsequently refined through further consultation with the Council. The
proposals were presented to the local community, Hartshorne Parish Council and The
National Forest Company in September and October 2014 and feedback received from
these sessions led to further refinements prior to the submission of the application. This
is explained on Pages 56, 57 and 71 of the DAS.
3.6
During the determination period, the Council sought consultation with Mel Morris
Conservation in response to the supporting Heritage Report. The consultation letter
(CD2.26), includes a section on ‘Design and Settlement Pattern Consideration’ which
states;
‘It is desirable that any new development, therefore, does not take the focus away from
the historic core of the development. This could be the case with a larger area of
5
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
housing, with a form not dissimilar to the nucleated focus on the ridge. It would be
appropriate to scale back the development, so that it reflects more of the character of
the ribbon pattern of development seen along Repton Road and Woodville Road’.
3.7
At no point until this time did the Council express concerns regarding the design of the
proposed masterplan until as evident in the Committee Report and the reason for
refusal.
3.8
In an email to the applicant dated 6th February 2015, the Council Officer stated the
masterplan had covered comments from the pre-application meeting, stating; ‘As it is
outline and follows the OPUN advice too I have little concern in principle’. I include this
email in Appendix 2 of my evidence.
3.9
No consultation feedback was received from the Council’s Design Excellence Officer
during the determination of the application.
3.10
The Committee Report states the Design Excellence Officer assessed the scheme against
Building for Life however at no point did the Council share this assessment with the
applicant prior to the determination of the application.
3.11
The indicative masterplan proposes a residential development with all matters reserved
except for access. A full description of the scheme is included in the DAS and evidence
of Ms. Stones.
Summary of the proposals
3.12
In summary, the outline proposals comprise:
·
A residential development comprising 68no. dwellings of varying sizes and
tenures;
·
A hierarchy of streets accessed via Ticknall Road;
·
A footpath network linking to the existing public footpath, existing streets and local
amenities;
·
A car park for use by the local community;
·
A Community Green retaining green space and views towards St. Peter’s Church
and Manor Farmhouse;
·
Street patterns which mirror existing patterns, focusing views towards Manor
Farmhouse;
·
A range of public open spaces which exceed minimum requirements; and
·
National Forest green infrastructure which also exceeds minimum requirements.
6
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
3.13
I include the outline masterplan in Appendix 3 of my evidence. Section 5 of the
supporting DAS provides a series of parameter plans which communicate key design
principles of the design.
7
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
4.0
THE APPEAL MASTERPLAN
4.1
The Indicative Masterplan for the appeal differs slightly to that of the outline application.
The change relates to the removal of a small development zone to the south of the
public footpath and the masterplan is shown overlain on an existing aerial view of the
context. I include this plan in Appendix 4 of my evidence.
4.2
The removal of the development zone will have a positive influence on the retained view
of St Peter’s Church and Manor Farmhouse from the on-site public footpath and the
juncture of Repton Road and Main Street. It will achieve a greater distinction between
land uses and allow the southern edge of the development to be read as an extension
of the linear Repton Road building line.
4.3
The removal of the proposed development zone results in the loss of 4 dwellings and
lowers the net average density to 29 DPH. The proposed area of public open space
therefore increases to 1.58 hectares, which in conjunction with National Forest green
infrastructure, equates to 54% of the site area.
8
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
5.0
THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE SITE
5.1
I draw reference from the evidence of Mr. Atkin and Ms. Vallender. I agree with their
general assessment of the circumstances of the site which I would summarise as
follows:
5.2
The site is currently a privately owned area of working agricultural land and is located
on the eastern edge of the overall village. Primary routes into the village converge to
the west of the site at the junction between Ticknall Road, Repton Road and Main Street.
The site has not been subject to development and so by consequence and by default, it
assumes a role adjacent to the settlement and countryside. Local plan mapping does
not identify the site as being located within a safeguarded area and Hartshorne does
not fall within a Conservation Area.
5.3
The site is no more important than any of the former or existing fields which sat/ sit on
the edges of the settlement and does not form part of a designed view.
5.4
In townscape terms, there is a visual difference between the upper and lower lying parts
of the village; the upper part having evolved in an incremental way and the lower lying
part having been developed more comprehensibly in a shorter time period. The
settlement pattern of Hartshorne was once dispersed along linear routes and comprised
several ‘centres’ (See evidence of Ms. Vallender) which occupied both lower and higher
landform.
5.5
Hartshorne experienced growth onwards from 1930, which has continued to recent
years. This growth aligned routes and connections through the village and led to the
infilling and coalescence of spaces between the historic centres.
This process was
unplanned and occurred as and when land became available. Today, the overall pattern
of the village is linear with some outer areas of dispersal and the degree of enclosure is
further emphasised by the experience of travelling through the village.
5.6
I refer to Proof Plan JV03 (Historic Development of Hartshorne up to 2015), Volume II
of Ms Vallender’s evidence. Pear Tree Close and Adams Close to the northwest and St.
Peter’s Close to the south represent Hartshorne’s most recent residential additions.
These developments comprise dual sided streets and, in plan form, and have created
areas of depth within the overall linear settlement pattern. However frontage building
patterns tie in with existing building patterns and are linear when read as part of an
overall streetscene.
9
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
5.7
The growth of contemporary development has changed the historic settlement pattern
of Hartshorne however, its historic form remains legible.
5.8
I conclude that there is nothing purposeful in terms of townscape character which has
led to this site not having being developed. Hartshorne is a settlement comprising an
interweaving of design characteristics none of which demand segregation or separation.
The infilling of this site is to my mind entirely commensurate with the historic pattern
of development of the settlement.
5.9
The site is a logical site for development. It is a transitional area between the
countryside and the settlement edge and is influenced by existing built form located
along Main Street, Ticknall Road, Repton Road and Church Street. Geographically, and
on the basis of its physical disposition, the site is located on the eastern edge of the
overall village, at a point broadly central to the overall north-south alignment of the
settlement.
5.10
The linear pattern of the village extends across higher and lower lying landform. The
pattern has evolved ‘as and when’ over time and is not a specifically designed or
intended split pattern. The site is of no greater value in defining the character of the
settlement than any other existing field on the fringes of the village.
5.11
In townscape terms, the role which the site makes from a design perspective in my view
is in fact that which it offers in providing views towards St Peter’s Church, Manor
Farmhouse from Repton Road and Main Street and the wider landscape ridgeline and in
doing so, contributes to the character of contemporary development in the northern
area of Hartshorne. At a highly localised level, the site also provides potential to
experience views of both the northern and southern areas of the village from the onsite public footpath.
5.12
Residential growth within Hartshorne has supported several of its historic centres where
local communities are located. The Indicative Masterplan proposes new housing and a
Community Green which would continue this trend at a point of the village which would
reinforce existing services such as the public house and the local primary school.
10
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
6.0
PLANNING POLICIES RELATED TO DESIGN
National Planning Policy
6.1
The National Planning Policy Framework establishes the emphasis to be placed on good
design. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states:
“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.”
6.2
Paragraph 58 of Section 7 of the NPPF states that decisions should aim to ensure that
developments:
1.
Function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short
term but over the lifetime of the development;
2.
Establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create
attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;
3.
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;
4.
Respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local
surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate
innovation;
5.
Create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear
of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion; and
6.
Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate
landscaping.
11
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
Local Policy
South Derbyshire Local Plan (Adopted 1998)
6.3
The current Development Plan comprises the saved policies of the South Derbyshire Local
Plan (Adopted 1998). Relating to design, saved policies of relevance are:
6.4
Policy H11 (Layout and Design) states that proposals for new housing developments will
be permitted subject to them providing a reasonable environment for the public at large;
reasonable amenities in terms of light, air and privacy for both existing and new
dwellings; safe functional and convenient layouts; private amenity space and space for
landscaping and adequate public open space.
6.5
Policy EV8 (Open Spaces in villages and settlements) states that open spaces, gaps and
landscape features which make a valuable contribution to the character of the
environmental quality of individual villages and settlements will be safeguarded from
development.
6.6
Policy R4 (Provision of Outdoor playing Space in New Housing Provision) sets out
requirements for open space.
6.7
Policy EV10 (The National Forest) sets out developments in the National Forest will need
to be accompanied by tree planting.
6.8
Policy C1 (New community facilities) states that proposals for new and improved
community facilities will be permitted provided that they do not cause disturbance to
local amenity by virtue of noise or traffic generation, adequate provision is made for
pedestrian and vehicular access, parking, servicing, screening and landscaping and they
are of an appropriate scale and design and are well integrated into the surroundings.
Emerging South Derbyshire Local Plan
Pre-Submission Local Plan Part 1 (March 2014)
6.9
Since the appeal was lodged, SDDC have published a schedule of proposed minor and
main modifications to the pre-submission local plan part 1 (November 2015). I therefore
refer to the relevant parts of BNE1 in this context.
12
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
6.10
Policy BNE1 (Design Excellence) Part A (i) sets out that all new development will be
expected to be ‘well designed, embrace the principles of sustainable development,
encourage healthy lifestyles and enhance quality of life’ by adhering to design principles
in respect of:
6.11
a)
Community safety;
b)
Street design, movement and legibility;
c)
Diversity and community cohesion;
d)
Ease of Use;
e)
Local Character and Pride;
f)
National Forest;
g)
Visual Attractiveness;
h)
Neighbouring uses and amenity
i)
Cross Boundary Collaboration;
j)
Healthy Lifestyles; and
k)
Resource Use.
The DAS provides details as to how the proposal meets the objectives of these principles
however as the Planning Officer has recently narrowed the scope of Policy BNE1 to
subsections ‘e’ and ‘g’, I therefore focus on these.
6.12
Subsection ‘e’ (Local character and pride) states:
‘New development should create places with a locally inspired character that respond to
their context and have regard to valued landscape, townscape and heritage
characteristics’.
6.13
Subsection ‘g’ (Visual attractiveness) states:
‘New development should be visually attractive, appropriate, respect important
landscape, townscape and historic views and vistas, contribute to achieving continuity
and enclosure within the streetscene and possess a high standard of architectural and
landscaping quality’.
13
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
6.14
Policy INF7 relates to Green infrastructure, requiring development to conserve, enhance
and wherever possible extend green infrastructure in the District by securing
development that maximises these opportunities in relation to increased provision of,
and access to green infrastructure.
6.15
Policy INF8 sets out the requirements for National Forest planting.
6.16
Policy INF9 relates to open space, sport and recreation and sets out that high quality
green space and recreation facilities will be required. This includes woodland creation
and publicly accessible natural green space to meet the needs of new residential
development and, where possible, to meet the needs of the existing population.
Supplementary Planning Guidance
6.17
South Derbyshire District Council’s Housing Design and Layout SPG (2004) (CD1.7) sets
out that the most successful new developments will be those where there has been a
dialogue between the Council and the Designers prior to the submission of a formal
application, an approach the Council encourages. It goes on to state that the overriding
aims of the Council are to:
a)
‘Achieve a pleasant environment in which to live that respects the character of the
area in which it is situated;
b)
Safe, functional, convenient and appropriate layouts;
c)
Reasonable levels of amenity for occupants of existing and new dwellings;
d)
Reasonable levels of amenity around dwellings including the provision of areas of
public open space and landscaping; and
e)
6.18
And to promote energy efficient designs’.
The guidance provides details in respect of detailed design and reserved matters,
however states that an outline application should demonstrate that standards can be
met through the provision of an Indicative plan. As such, the SPG carries some weight.
6.19
Better Design for South Derbyshire (2010) (CD7.1) recommends a phased approach to
design, strongly encouraging applicants to engage in pre-application discussions before
and during the design process. It sets out that the design process should provide an
assessment of the site and its surroundings, consult with relevant professionals and the
wider community, provide a development vision and consider development options as
part of that process.
14
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
6.20
Provision of Outdoor Playing Space in New Developments (1999) (CD1.6) provides
details to calculate the area of playing space which should be provided in new residential
developments.
6.21
The National Forest Strategy (2004-14) (CD7.2) promotes planting guidelines relating
to all forms of development in the National Forest. The guidelines require 20% of the
site to provide new forest green infrastructure.
15
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
7.0
ANALYSIS OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATED TO DESIGN
7.1
The Officers Report (CD2.28) includes a number of comments under the subsection
headed ‘Design and Layout’, ‘Amenity Impacts’ and ‘Landscape townscape and visual
impacts’ under ‘Planning Assessment’. With regards to design approach, the Report
highlights the Indicative Masterplan was formulated following involvement of a Regional
Design Panel OPUN and that “Most of the points raised by the panel have been embraced
in one form or another” (Paragraph 2, Page 129)
7.2
Notwithstanding the consultations with the Council, OPUN and key stakeholders at the
pre-application stage, the Committee Report points out the main issue of the design and
states:
“However the main issue which still persists is the ‘function’ of the development. It
carries a nucleated character which reflects the evolution of Upper Hartshorne yet is
clearly detached from it, providing confusion as to both the archaeology of the
settlement but also just what the holistic design is trying to achieve. The above
discussion regarding townscape and landscape impacts highlights this as a crucial
element to the success of any development, as does the feedback from OPUN. When
looking at the townscape and landscape impacts, it appears that a much smaller scale
extension to the northern edge of Upper Hartshorne, off Main Street, or a ribbon form
along Ticknall Road would be the extent of what might respect the intrinsic quality and
value of this site and the wider design of the settlement. In short the design failing is a
result of the quantum and depth proposed” (Paragraph 2, Page 129);
‘Views to existing listed buildings are either blocked, restricted, urbanised or changed
in nature, however, and this suggests the design has not exploited existing buildings,
landscape and topography whilst limiting the ability of the scheme to respond to its
context’ (Paragraph 3 Page 129); and
Overall, there is considered to be a substantial harm to the very character of the village
as a whole as a result of this proposal, with it failing to safeguard and protect the historic
features which make it special in its own right’. (Paragraph 2, page 125).
7.3
The Report however includes a number of positive comments received on matters relating
to design and layout in the Report stating:
16
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
…’The landscape strategy appears to be well executed, along with a street and route
hierarchy; and the concept of design and appearance of individual buildings is similarly
justified’; (Paragraph 2, Page 129) and
‘…the design of the site provides no fundamental concerns as to achieving appropriate
parking provision and providing secure design and natural surveillance. Concerns over
central parking courtyards can be addressed at reserved matters stage. The Design
Excellence Officer has assessed the scheme against Building for Life noting it picks up
points for legibility, connections, trees in the public realm and a generally wellstructured building layout’. (Paragraph 3, Page 129)
7.4
In respect of amenity, the Report considers the proposals give due regard to the impact
on amenity, stating:
‘…The layout of the site as far as is practicable ensures public areas are adjacent to
outward facing aspects. Existing dwellings would benefit from a good separation to
proposed dwellings with no part of the layout giving cause for concern under the SPG,
and detail under any reserved matters application can ensure compliance with it.
(Paragraph 4, Page 128).
7.5
In respect of the National Forest, the National Forest Company notes that:
‘the northern boundary of the site is formed by mature woodland and the proposed
woodland belt and outward facing properties on this is welcomed. It is considered this
would minimise the impact of development on the mature woodland and ensure it
contributes to the character of the development’; and
‘The set back from Ticknall Road with retained hedgerow and further tree planting is also
welcome’. Paragraph 5, Page 129.
7.6
Notwithstanding the positive inputs into the masterplanning process by the Case Officer
and Design Excellence Officer, the Council’s recommendation was that of refusal.
7.7
The refusal notice (CD2.29) dated 15th April 2014 details a single reason for refusal:
17
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
‘The very character of Hartshorne is invested in a split pattern of development
with the site constituting an open and green space at its heart. The site is
physically and visually accessed from a number of aspects and provides for views
out from the village up towards surrounding higher ground, as well as contributing
towards the setting of listed buildings - namely Manor Farmhouse and St Peter's
Church. This space has existed over centuries of evolution of the settlement and is
a highly valued landscape. The development would result in moderate and major
adverse landscape and visual impacts with further harm to the setting of the listed
buildings, diminishing their prominence and primacy as landmark buildings, as
well as fundamentally altering the very landscape character of the village.
Furthermore, aside from the nucleus of development associated with the historic
core, the pattern of built development in Hartshorne is linear and dispersed,
persisting to the current day without major change to this prevailing character.
The proposal would erode this character as well as 'confuse' the archaeology of
the settlement - especially over time with the proposal competing against the
otherwise unique pattern of the historic nucleus. When considering the three
dimensions of sustainable development and the mutual balance required, it is
considered the proposal is unbalanced by way of the environmental dimension
suffering disproportionately. In this light it is considered that the benefits of
providing both market and affordable housing towards the 5-year supply, as well
as any ancillary community gains, are clearly and demonstrably outweighed by the
adverse impacts on the proposal. The proposal is therefore considered to be
contrary to saved policies EV1 and EV8 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan 1998
and policy BNE1 of the emerging Local Plan Part 1, and conflicts with paragraphs 6
to 8, 17, 34, 77 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework’.
7.8
Since the appeal was lodged, Fisher German has received advice from the Planning
Officer that emerging policy BNE1 had not been intended to be included as a sole reason
for refusal, and reference should also have been made to policies BNE2, BNE3 and BNE4.
The Officer has advised that these policies will be referred to in evidence and has agreed
to limit the scope of BNE1 to Part A i) (Design principles), sub-points ‘e’ (Local Character
and Pride) and ‘g’ (Visual attractiveness).
18
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
8.0
ANALYSIS OF THE DESIGN ATTRIBUTES OF THE APPEAL SCHEME
Pattern
8.1
The historic character has been identified as dispersed and that the settlement pattern
is now subsumed by 20th century development which has an overall linear form, with
some outer areas of dispersal.
8.2
On plan, the depth of the proposed development is not disproportionate to other areas
of contemporary development within the village and will maintain an overall linear
pattern.
8.3
The proposed development will be a logical addition to the village and in townscape
terms, the Community Green will maintain a high quality green space with views of St
Peter’s Church and Manor Farmhouse.
8.4
The southern edge of the proposed development will be linear and consistent, visually
extending the Repton Road building line across the site in a south eastwards direction.
This will guide views to the church and the farmhouse, which occupy an elevated
position.
8.5
The western edge of the proposed development is designed to logically mirror the
existing Ticknall Road building line and will experience some fluidity as it extends
northwards. This will assist assimilation with the context and positively address the
transition from the village to the countryside.
8.6
The northern edge of the proposed development will be slightly dispersed and softer,
creating a contrasting character to complement new woodland and address the wider
landscape context. This pattern is consistent with existing patterns within the village.
8.7
The arrangement of streets within the development will be structured, comprising dual
sided streets with outward facing frontages which will align the course of the route which
serves them. A central street will underpin a hierarchy of new streets and will lead
directly towards the Community Green. New streets will be orientated towards new
public open space and achieve views of their surroundings. The development will be
easy to navigate.
19
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
8.8
The design is specific to the site and its context. I consider the proposal will accord with
policy H11, emerging policy BNE1 Part A i) (e) & (g) and NPPF points 1, 2, 4 & 6 of
Paragraph 58.
Topography and views
8.9
In townscape terms, the site is not critical to the character of Hartshorne, however it is
by default a familiar open area which provides an unintended view of the church and
the farmhouse from Repton Road and Main Street.
8.10
The proposed Community Green will retain an open area which will encompass the
existing public footpath from which there is a highly localised point where the northern
and southern areas of Hartshorne can be experienced at the same time.
8.11
Local Plan mapping does not identify the site as being located within an area
safeguarded by this policy, therefore limited weight is given to saved policy EV8 (Open
Spaces in Villages and Settlements). See evidence of Ms. Stones.
8.12
The development will be set back from Main Street and will retain views of St Peter’s
Church and Manor Farmhouse. This is an element of the scheme which is welcomed by
The National Forest Company to retain a green frontage to the development (CD2.30).
The ability to experience views of these buildings from within the site and from Repton
Road and Main Street will remain and post development, the historic built form of the
village will remain legible.
8.13
The development will occupy lower lying landform of the village. The southern
development edge will be linear to frame the Community Green and will focus views
towards the farmhouse and church, with the existing contemporary roofscape cascading
below.
8.14
The Community Green and development offset to the south will retain characteristic
views of the landscape ridge above the new roofscape seen from Main Street. This has
been carefully considered in conjunction with the height parameters of the development
(See DAS (CD2.4)).
8.15
I consider the proposal will be visually attractive and will positively respond to its
context. The design has been informed by a collaborative and consultative approach to
design, is specific to the site and is inspired by the townscape of the village. The proposal
will accord with policy H11, emerging policy BNE1 Part A i) (e) & (g) and NPPF Points 1,
2, 4 & 6 of Paragraph 58.
20
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
Density
8.16
The DAS provides an analysis of the density of the existing built form within the vicinity
of the site, summarising it to be between 10 and 33 dwellings per net hectare (Pages
25-28). It is important to treat this analysis with care as density is a crude measure of
character with a large house capable of having the same built form as an apartment,
but at a significantly different density. Similarly, the open space to the rear of built form
is not always contributing to the character of the public realm; large rear gardens
perform a limited role in character as they are often hidden from view by built form.
8.17
The development proposal will achieve an average net density of 29 dwellings per
hectare, which accords with Government guidance on optimising the potential of the
site to accommodate development. The masterplan seeks to make efficient use of land
and is reflective of the scale and massing found in the context.
8.18
The masterplan allows for the provision of a range of household sizes in order to create
a balanced residential community and offer new housing choice. The proposed density
allows for the provision of 30% affordable housing in line with saved policy H9
(Affordable Housing).
8.19
The masterplan proposes a range of densities which will assist the development in
assimilating with and responding to its context. For example, higher density patterns of
housing are used within the core and along the southern edge of the development to
achieve definition and focus views, whereas lower density patterns are used on
northern, eastern and western sides of the development to create some softer edges.
The provision of a range of densities and patterns will engender distinctiveness and
character.
8.20
The proposal will accord with policy H11, emerging policy BNE1 Part A i) (g) and NPPF
Points 1, 2 & 3 of Paragraph 58.
Building heights
8.21
The design seeks to address any concerns in relation to massing by providing a
parameter plan for proposed building heights. This plan proposes a majority of 2 storeys
and makes allowance for the occasional use of 2.5 storey massing. These heights
consistent with the existing village and taller mass is proposed to be concentrated within
the core of the development.
21
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
8.22
Use of similar footprint sizes, heights and consistent gaps between buildings is a good
way of emphasising linearity in the building line and this is reflected along the southern
edge of the proposed development which aligns the Community Green.
8.23
The design will accord with saved policy H11, emerging policy BNE1 Part A i) (e) & (g)
and NPPF Points 1, 2 & 6 of Paragraph 58.
Amenity
8.24
The proposed development will logically mirror the existing Ticknall Road building line
and achieve enclosure within the streetscene. New buildings will be well offset to retain
the existing hedgerow and positively address the residential amenity of existing houses.
The south eastern edge of the development will be significantly distanced from the side
and rear of existing houses on Main Street. In both instances the separation distance
between new and existing buildings will be well in excess of 21 metres and this will
surpass guidance as set out by the Housing Design and Layout SPG.
8.25
The masterplan proposes a development which based upon block structure principles,
comprising outward facing frontages which align streets. This approach represents best
practice and will protect private garden spaces and create safe, functional streets and
open spaces.
8.26
The proposal will accord with saved policy H11, emerging policy BNE1 Part A i) (e) and
NPPF Point 5 of Paragraph 58.
Open space and supporting local facilities
8.27
The development will offer a permeable network of footways to open up public access
across the site to new streets and extensive public open space. The network will join
the public footpath and extend to existing streets, improving the existing footway
provision.
8.28
The character of a settlement is also related to its functionality and community life. The
Community Green will be a distinctive and legible place and will unite residential
communities. Comprising recreation space and children’s play, this high quality public
space will enhance the character of the village.
8.29
Other areas of green infrastructure will comprise new woodland and hedgerow planting
and tree lined streets and SuDS. The total amount of public open space amounts to 1.58
hectares, which surpasses minimum requirements by 1.1 hectares.
22
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
8.30
The proposal will include new community car parking facilities and a pedestrian crossing
facility on Main Street to address connections between the two. These features will
support existing facilities in the village.
8.31
The development will accord with policies R4 & C1, emerging policies INF7 and INF9 and
NPPF Points 1, 3 & 6 Paragraph 58.
National Forest
8.32
The development proposes National Forest green infrastructure and woodland planting
which is placed to bolster existing vegetation and address the transition from the village
to the countryside. The total area of National Forest green infrastructure amounts to
1.13 hectares, which surpasses minimum requirements.
8.33
The design will accord with policy EV10 (The National Forest), emerging policy INF8 and
NPPF Points 1, 3 & 6 Paragraph 58.
23
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
9.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
9.1
I have shown that analysis was undertaken at the early stages of design in order to
achieve an understanding of the site and its context. This represents best practice and
has underpinned the proposals.
9.2
I have explained that the design proposals were progressed collaboratively with Officers
of the Council in a progressive manner which also involved the local community and
OPUN as part of the pre application process. Again, this represents best practice and
fulfils the requirements of supplementary guidance.
9.3
I have explained that the settlement pattern was once dispersed, comprising a number
of centres. These areas have been progressively subsumed by development, which in
some places has created depth. The village has experienced change and as such, the
overall pattern of the village is linear with some outer areas of dispersal.
9.4
I have explained that the site is a privately owned area of active agricultural land which
is located on the eastern edge of the overall village, broadly central on its length. By
default, the site is a fortuitous open area on the edge of the village and in townscape
terms, is no more important than any of the former/ existing fields which sat/ sit on
edges of the settlement and does not form part of a designed view. My reference to the
negotiation of the application demonstrates that the professional officers of the
Authority did not raise an issue in relation to the site having a fundamental role in
defining the character of Hartshorne.
The evidence of Mr. Atkin and Ms. Vallender
similarly indicates that the site does not have a pivotal role necessitating its protection
from development so as to maintain desirable characteristics in relation to landscape
character and heritage respectively. I concur with those conclusions.
9.5
The site has a transitional location being situated on the edge of the village and between
urban form and the countryside. The site is a logical place to accommodate
contemporary growth, and can do so in a complimentary and respectful manner.
9.6
The proposals have been crafted to take account of and respect the landscape and
townscape characteristics of Hartshorne and will accord with the principles of high
quality design and best practice to create a townscape that is rich, varied and
sympathetic to its environment. The proposal will move the area towards a more
sustainable future, through an increase in housing choice and extensive green
infrastructure.
24
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
9.7
I have explained that the proposals will positively integrate with existing linear streets
patterns and the depth of the development will maintain an overall linear settlement
pattern.
9.8
I have explained that the proposals will retain an area of high quality public open space
on the eastern edge of the overall village and the southern edge of the development will
be set back from Main Street to maintain views of St Peter’s Church and Manor
Farmhouse. In my mind, the development will draw focus to historic aspects of the
settlement and achieve legibility.
9.9
The development will provide extensive new green infrastructure which will retain
existing landscape features and surpass minimum requirements for public open space
and National Forest green infrastructure. The proposal presents a real opportunity to
make a substantial and positive contribution to policy requirements.
9.10
From a design perspective, a balance should be drawn between different design
principles and it is important to recognise that individual aspects of a design approach,
such as pattern cannot and should not be viewed in isolation. I am content that proper
consideration has been given to the design approach and that the design is appropriate
to the context of the site and the functionality of the village.
9.11
In my view, the proposal is entirely consistent with the aims and objectives of National
and Local Planning policies relating to design. Indeed the design quality of the scheme
is demonstrated to be of a high standard accommodating as it does all the relevant
design and contextual prompts. It is a bespoke scheme which will produce a high quality
living environment for future residents and to that extent, the design analysis should
weigh very positively in favour of the grant of planning permission for development of
the site.
25
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
APPENDIX 1
OPUN FEEDBACK LETTER
26
OPUN, Phoenix House, Melton Mowbray
Email: [email protected] / Information: www.opun.org.uk /
24th June 2014
Our Ref: DR2014-011
Kay Davies
Fisher German
St Helens Court
North Street
Ashby de la Zouch
Leicestershire
LE65 1HS
Dear Kay,
Re: OPUN Design Review Panel (89) – Friday 6th June 2014
Design Review of Land of Main Street - Hartshorne (Our Ref: DR2014-011).
We write following the design review of the proposed Land of Main Street scheme in Hartshorne and would like to
take this opportunity to thank the team for utilising the OPUN Design Review Service. We hope that the team
found the process to be a constructive one, which will be of benefit in taking the project forward.
The OPUN Design Review Panel reviewing the scheme consisted of Heather Emery (Panel Chair), Toby Orsborn,
Fiona Heron, Andy Thomas and Dharmista Patel (Panel Manager) and followed the ten principles of Design
Review.
Site Context
The site is located within the village of Hartshorne in Derbyshire. The site is bounded to the north by mature
woodland, a steam and Ticknall Lane beyond which includes some residential properties, to the east by fields and
open landscape, to the south by an area of open landscape, St Peters Church and farmhouse which are both
listed Grade II and residential properties forming the original village which is known as Upper Hartshorne, to the
west by Main Street and includes a number of community facilities e.g. primary school, bus stop, pub and
residential properties predominantly 1950’s which is known as Lower Hartshorne.
The site itself is open landscape with no specific landscape features; there is a public footpath that runs from west
to east through the site linking Main Road with the original village. The topography of the site rises from the west
to the northwest and southern part of the site. The site is visible from a number of viewpoints both long and short.
Proposal
The scheme is at the initial design development stage and proposes to develop the site for housing approximately
70 units (house numbers and housing mix yet to be determined). Access is provided from Main Street and
Ticknall Lane forming a primary road loop arrangement through the site, with secondary routes radiating from the
to create a number of development blocks some of these along key view points. Green infrastructure is provided
predominantly to the eastern part of the site adjacent to existing landscape and includes woodland planting and
Suds. An area of car parking for the primary school is located on Main Road positioned between the existing
properties on Upper Hartshorne and the proposed development. Outside of the development as pedestrian
crossing is adjacent Hartshorne primary school.
Policy background
The site is not allocated in the existing or the emerging Local Plan.
1
The Panel’s Comments
The Panel make the following comments and recommendations for your consideration:
Design Concept and Justification
The opportunity to create a development with a strong identity and vision is considered to be crucial to the
success of the project. As currently proposed the Panel felt that the scheme is confused and lacks a compelling
vision and clear narrative i.e. the proposed ribbon development referencing Lower Hartshorne and the circulation
route referencing Upper Hartshorne. The team were strongly encouraged to address the following to 'crystallise'
the vision to ensure a distinctive development that is truly responsive to its context e.g. What is the Design
Concept? Why this site? What is the character of the development? Will the scheme provide a unifying element
between Upper and Lower Hartshorne? Or will it be an extension to Upper or Lower Hartshorne?
The Panel drew attention to the fact that the site is not identified in the existing or emerging local plan and it is
therefore essential to provide a strong justification for the development of this sensitive, greenfield site.
Site Analysis and Concept Plan
The Panel suggested that a more comprehensive and rigorous site analysis should be undertaken to ensure the
design team can evidence a detailed understanding of the site and the areas of the village that the development
will be connected too. The supporting information should include further identification of constraints and
opportunities this includes: identification and explanation of views to and from the site (both long and short views)
and the impact that the development will have on these views i.e. views to St Peters Church (which is the main
landmark to the development) and the adjoining roofscape, views into the development from the countryside;
identification of key pedestrian routes and desire lines i.e. route to community facilities including the primary
school, bus stop etc. As well as the above a character study of the different areas of the village should be
undertaken including scale, building height, building line, identity, street pattern, landscape, building quality etc.
The above information will provide an in-depth understanding of place and be integral to informing and developing
the overall design, character and layout of the site i.e. if it is considered that the site has a stronger connection
with the countryside than the development needs to reference and demonstrate a countryside language.
The Panel encouraged that the above work to be captured in a ‘Concept Plan’, which will further assist in
demonstrating an understanding of site context and design approach.
Landscape Strategy
The Panel commented on the attractive setting of the proposed development site and the existing woodland that
bounds the site to the northern and eastern boundaries.
The Panel welcomed the provision of sustainable urban drainage system (SUD’s) into the development as part of
the landscape infrastructure although felt that as proposed the scheme was missing an opportunity to fully
integrate and engage the development with the existing and proposed landscape. The team were encouraged to
strengthen the landscape strategy and suggestions include: providing greater connectivity between the built form
and the landscape; clarifying the function and character of each of the open spaces i.e. who will use the space?;
ensuring that the open spaces are well connected i.e. to the existing village along pedestrian desire lines /
existing routes and to create a clear, strong hierarchy of routes and spaces within the site, defined by views and
vistas; locating the open spaces at key nodal / focal points which will provide greater strength, prominence and
desirability; and for the opportunity to be taken to introduce recreational / play areas that are not provided / in
demand in Hartshorne.
The Panel also considered it fundamental that the visual impact of the development is properly considered (as
previously stated) and encouraged a site specific solution to be developed with sensitivity to views/vistas utilising
a well-considered landscape strategy to ensure an appropriate setting for the development.
Upper Hartshorne Characteristics
The Panel highlighted that the main characteristics of Hartshorne include the layering of roofscapes punctuated
by landscape / trees and the low level natural, tactile layering at the street edge and encouraged for the design
team to consider how these characteristics can be brought into the development. The Panel suggested the team
to explore the provision of building to the street edge within the view of Upper Hartshorne (Church) which would
need to be of a strong quality, sensitive scale and carefully chosen materials particularly roof tiles / slates that
could enhance the view. With regard to the listed farmhouse it was not considered an issue to build towards the
building due to the topography of the site at this point, whilst ensuring a gap to maintain views to the ridge
beyond.
2
Gateways and Access
The Panel considered that the proposed access points and primary route through the development was driving
the layout of the development and further consideration (following the detailed site analysis) should be given to
the most suitable location of the access points i.e. linked to school etc; the character of the road and the form of
the road i.e. potentially a more linear route.
Focal Point
The Panel considered the area around the existing community facilities i.e. primary school, pub, bus stop as a
pivotal / focal point and that the provision of strong connections and promoting additional activity would benefit
both Upper and Lower Hartshorne.
Site Density
The Panel considered that it was too early to specify site density and were concerned that it would be difficult to
achieve these figures if the site respects and maintains long views / vista’s to the countryside, views of the
existing roofscape etc.
Summary
The Panel thanked the team for an informative site visit and the opportunity to comment on the scheme at the
initial design development stage.
In summing up, the key issues that need to be addressed include crystallising the ‘vision’ for the site to create a
distinctive development that responds positively to its site context; justification for the development of the site,
provision of a robust site analysis including identification and mapping of key views, pedestrian desire lines and
local facilities; provision of a robust Landscape Strategy including the provision of a hierarchy of spaces, clear
function of individual spaces and strong connections to the existing village; exploring the potential to develop
within the view of the listed Church in Upper Hartshorne.
Other issues including further consideration of the access points, treatment and form of the primary route and the
proposed density of the development.
We trust that the feedback provided within this letter will prove to be of benefit to you in seeking a successful
resolution and outcome for this scheme and provide an opportunity for further discussions with the determining
authorities. We would be happy to provide further design advice on the project including detailed design elements
and, where possible, we will seek to ensure that the composition of the Panel remains the same throughout any
ongoing review process.
Yours sincerely,
Dharmista Patel
Head of OPUN Design Support Services
On behalf of the OPUN Design Review Panel
3
OPUN Design Review adheres to Design Council CABE's ten principles for design
review as follows:
1. Independent: It is conducted by people who are separate from the scheme promoter and decision-maker, and it
protects against conflicts of interest.
2. Accountable: It records and explains its advice and is transparent about potential conflicts of interest.
3. Expert: It is conducted by suitably trained people who are experienced in design and know how to criticise
constructively. Review is usually most respected where it is carried out by professional peers of the project
designers, as their standing and expertise will be acknowledged.
4. Advisory: It does not make decisions. It acts as a source of impartial advice for decision-makers.
5. Accessible: Its findings are clearly expressed in terms that decision-makers can understand and use.
6. Proportionate: It is used on projects whose significance warrants the public investment of providing design
review at national, regional and local level, as appropriate. Other methods of appraising design quality should be
used for less significant projects.
7. Timely: It takes place as early as possible in the life of a design because this saves the most time and costs
less to make changes. If a planning application has already been made, it happens within the timeframe for
considering it. And it is repeated when a further opinion is required.
8. Objective: It appraises schemes in the round according to reasoned, objective criteria rather than the stylistic
tastes of individual panel members.
9. Focussed on outcomes for people: It asks how this building or place can better meet the needs of the people
using it, and of the public at large who are affected by it.
10. Focussed on improving quality: It constructively seeks to improve the quality of architecture, urban design,
landscape, highway design and town planning.
4
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
APPENDIX 2
EMAIL DATED 6TH FEBRUARY 2015
27
Charlotte Lewis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Charlotte Lewis
25 November 2015 10:43
Charlotte Lewis
FW: LVIA
Importance:
High
Kind regards,
Charlotte Lewis
Director RIBA
Pegasus Group
Planning | Environmental | Retail | Urban Design | Energy | Landscape Design | Graphic Design | Consultation | Sustainability
5 The Priory | Old London Road | Canwell | Sutton Coldfield | B75 5SH
T 0121 308 9570 | DDI 0121 796 5176 | M 07884 655480 | E [email protected]
Birmingham | Bracknell | Bristol | Cambridge | Cirencester | East Midlands | Leeds | London | Manchester
Twitter | Linked-in | www.pegasuspg.co.uk
Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.
This email and any associated files, is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient you should not use the
contents nor disclose them to any other person. If you have received this message in error please notify us immediately. Please consider the
environment before printing this email and any attachments.
From: Nash Chris [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 06 February 2015 14:30
To: Kay Davies <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: LVIA
It is simply an LVIA but I believe the guidance is that when looking at receptors there needs to be regard to
the type of receptor (e.g. a listed hall open to the public has a greater status in terms of impact since more
people would be affected).
In terms of the current masterplan, it’s something I still need to wave under Richard’s nose but I think we
covered most of it in pre-app. As it’s outline and follows the OPUN advice too, I have little concern in
principle.
Regards
Chris Nash MRTPI
Area Planning Officer
1
Community and Planning Services
South Derbyshire District Council
Civic Offices, Civic Way, Swadlincote, Derbyshire, DE11 0AH
e: [email protected]
t: (01283) 595926
f: (01283) 595850
Visit the Council’s website at www.south-derbys.gov.uk
Follow the Council on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sddc
Find the Council’s Sport and Health, Environmental Health, Housing and Safer South Derbyshire Partnership teams on
Facebook.
Any advice is given at officer level only and does not prejudice any formal decision the Council makes in the future.
From: Kay Davies [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 06 February 2015 14:17
To: Nash Chris
Subject: LVIA
Importance: High
Hi Chris,
I’m just getting the Masterplan updated for you and was speaking to Charlotte Lewis about the LVIA you have
commissioned. It would be helpful to us if we could understand the brief given to the consultants TEP as we
want to gear up the relevant members of the team from our side. Am I right in thinking the review is simply an
LVIA or does it also include heritage aspects?
In addition, are there any current comments on the LVIA or Masterplan from you, Richard Shaw or other
consultants that we need to address at all?
Many thanks
Kay
Kay Davies MRTPI
For and on behalf of Fisher German LLP
01530 567476
07733 124551
Download Outlook vCard
St Helens Court - North Street
- Ashby de la Zouch - Leicestershire - LE65 1HS
This e-mail message is confidential and for the use of the addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other than the addressee it must be
deleted. Internet e-mails are not secure and Fisher German does not accept responsibility for changes made to the message. Fisher German LLP is a
limited liability partnership. A list of members' names is available for inspection at the Market Harborough office. Registered Number: OC317554.
SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary.
**********************************************************************
Please consider the effect on the environment before printing this email.
2
Content: The views expressed in this email are personal and may not necessarily reflect
those of South Derbyshire District Council, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Confidentiality: This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the above named only
and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based
on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this e-mail and
highlight the error.
Senders and recipients of e-mail should be aware that under the Data Protection Act 1998
and Freedom of Information Act 2000, the contents may have to be disclosed. South
Derbyshire District Council reserves the right to monitor both sent and received emails.
You can find out more about South Derbyshire District Council by visiting www.southderbys.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
3
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
APPENDIX 3
OUTLINE MASTERPLAN
PEGASUS DRAWING BIR.4453_28C
28
© Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Copyright Licence number 100042093. Promap Licence number 100020449. Standard OS licence rights , one year from purchase.
Drawings prepared for planning application purposes and can be scaled (drawings are not to be used for construction or sales documents).
Please refer to (client) for development design risk assessment documents. Pegasus Urban Design is part of Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. Any queries to be reported to Pegasus for clarification.
0
25
50
100
67
The Old
Mill Wheel
D
17
29
(PH)
11
6
9
2
MILL
POO
TICK
NAL
L
ROA
11
L CL
OSE
13
3
2
1
16
15
16
7
12
ON
3
PT
8
RO
1
RE
12
AD
8
2
9
6
10
9
The Rodney Inn
Equipped
children's
play
(PH)
4
61
'HARTSHORNE
COMMUNITY
GREEN'
55
57
5
Silo
14
1
VIEW
T
MAN OWAR
DS
OR F
ARM
3
SCHOOL &
COMMUNITY
GREEN CAR
PARKING
Manor Farm
Hartshorne
C of E
Primary School
34
Daisy
13
11
29
27
Foxes
Den
4
9
Woodhill
ST
RE
E
T
7
The
Paddocks
CH
UR
CH
1
18
16
St Peter's
Church
Manor View
14
14.
15.
16.
1
11.
12.
13.
SE
LO
SC
ER
ET
P
ST
20
9.
10.
30a
8.
4
30
6.
7.
ET
RE
ST
5.
IN
4.
Westlands
Proposed access off Main Street to new parking area (30
spaces);
Proposed principal access off Ticknall Road;
Multi functional green space as Community Green
safeguarding views towards St. Peter's Church. Existing
hedgerows proposed to be retained;
Local Equipped Area of Play. Overlooked by housing
frontages offset min. 20 metres;
Active frontage/ building line to frame community green.
Also defines separate views to St Peters church and
Manor Farm;
Active frontage to overlook children's play and PRoW;
Focal point to address inward views into the
development;
Narrower street with outward views to public open
space;
Swale and ecological corridor with new planting.
Public Open Space and National Forest Green
Infrastructure as a soft development edge to wider
landscape context;
Storm water attenuation pond;
Continuation of existing National Forest woodland;
Existing Ticknall Road building line mirrored and offset
from existing hedgerow;
New zebra pedestrian crossing;
Interlinked buildings to enclose central street; and
New contrasting surfaces on Main Street and Ticknall
Road.
MA
2.
3.
Cherry Leys
40
KEY PRINCIPLES:
1.
Nook
16
6
LEGEND
Site location
12.38 acres/
5.01 hectares
Storm
water
attenuation
pond/ features
Residential
development
Public Open
Space
(includes SuDS)
Public
Rights
of Way
Green
links
REVISION A: 27.10.2014
Landscape omitted from vicinity of roundabout to KD email comments.
REVISION B: 06.02.2015
Proposed roundabout omitted to KD email comments
REVISION C: 20.03.2015
Option A hard standing added to bus stop as per PTB drawing.
New woodland
planting
LAND OFF TICKNALL ROAD, HARTSHORNE
PROPOSED INDICATIVE MASTERPLAN
This plan is for indicative purposes only and subject to detailed design.
| T 0121 308 9570 | F 0121 323 2215 | www.pegasuspg.co.uk | Team: CJL | Date: 24.10.2014 | Scale: Approximately 1:2000 @A3 | drwg: BIR.4453_28C I Client: PROPERTY BOND LTD I
Property Bond Ltd
Land at Ticknall Road, Hartshorne, Derbyshire
Proof of Evidence: Design
APPENDIX 4
APPEAL MASTERPLAN
PEGASUS DRAWING BIR.4453_38A
29
© Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Copyright Licence number 100042093. Promap Licence number 100020449. Standard OS licence rights , one year from purchase.
Drawings prepared for planning application purposes and can be scaled (drawings are not to be used for construction or sales documents).
Please refer to (Property Bond) for development design risk assessment documents. Pegasus Urban Design is part of Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. Any queries to be reported to Pegasus for clarification.
0
25
50
100
67
17
29
The Old
Mill Wheel
(PH)
12
11
11
6
MILL
POO
TICK
NAL
L
9
ROA
D
2
L CL
OSE
13
2
3
1
16
15
16
7
PT
ON
8
RO
AD
1
RE
3
12
8
2
10
9
6
9
5
The Rodney Inn
(PH)
57
61
4
55
'HARTSHORNE
COMMUNITY
GREEN'
3
Silo
14
Manor Farm
1
34
Daisy
Nook
16
Westlands
8.
13
11
29
27
9
ST
RE
E
T
7
1
St Peter's
Church
Manor View
14
14.
15.
16.
CH
UR
CH
16
11.
12.
13.
The
Paddocks
18
9.
10.
Woodhill
20
6.
7.
Foxes
Den
4
5.
SE
LO
SC
ER
ET
P
ST
1
4.
30
ET
RE
ST
2.
3.
Proposed access off Main Street to new parking area (30
spaces);
Proposed principal access off Ticknall Road;
Multi functional green space as a Community Green.
Existing hedgerows proposed to be retained;
Local Equipped Area of Play. Overlooked by housing
frontages offset min. 20 metres;
View retained towards St. Peters Church and Manor
Farmhouse;
Active frontage to overlook children's play and PRoW;
Focal point to address inward views into the
development;
Narrower street with outward views to public open
space;
Swale and ecological corridor with new planting.
Public Open Space and National Forest Green
Infrastructure as a soft development edge to wider
landscape context;
Storm water attenuation pond;
Continuation of existing National Forest woodland;
Existing Ticknall Road building line mirrored and offset
from existing hedgerow;
New zebra pedestrian crossing;
Interlinked buildings to enclose central street; and
New contrasting surfaces on Main Street and Ticknall
Road.
4
30a
IN
MA
KEY PRINCIPLES:
1.
Cherry Leys
40
Hartshorne
C of E
Primary School
SCHOOL &
COMMUNITY
GREEN CAR
PARKING
6
Revision A: 15.05.2015
Masterplan presentation updated to KD email comments.
LEGEND
Site location
12.38 acres/
5.01 hectares
Storm
water
attenuation
pond/ features
Residential
development
Public Open
Space
(includes SuDS)
Public
Rights
of Way
Green
links
New woodland
planting
LAND OFF TICKNALL ROAD, HARTSHORNE
PROPOSED INDICATIVE MASTERPLAN
This plan is for indicative purposes only and subject to detailed design.
| T 0121 308 9570 | F 0121 323 2215 | www.pegasuspg.co.uk | Team: CJL | Date: 15.05.2015 | Scale: Approximately 1:2000 @A3 | drwg: BIR.4453_38A I Client: PROPERTY BOND LTD I