Two affordable homes at Land at Sherwood Road and Hardy Lane, Tideswell

What was proposed

The application sought to remove three garages and build two affordable semi-detached three-bedroom homes with four parking spaces.

“Full Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the garage block followed by the erection of two semi-detached 3 bedroomed 4 persons affordable houses.”

“The roadside boundary wall to Sherwood Road would be removed and the ground behind infilled to raise it up and create a level area for 4 parallel parking spaces. The raised ground would be supported by a new retaining wall with steps down to the houses. Private amenity space would comprise rear gardens covering the eastern part of the site with timber panelled fencing dividing the gardens.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is an open, wooded green plot in Tideswell Conservation Area with six protected mature trees, garages and access from Hardy Lane.

“The site is a rectangular area of open green space within Tideswell village next to Sherwood Road and within the Conservation Area. It contains six mature trees covered by Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and a small block of dilapidated flat roofed garages.”

“The site is surrounded by residential dwellings with a detached house; Stanley Croft whose large garden abuts the northern site boundary. To the west across Sherwood Road terraced cottages line the street frontage. Across Hardy Lane to the south sits Hardy House, a Grade II Listed Building which also takes access off Hardy Lane opposite the site entrance. To the east, the lower end of the site backs onto the rear garden of a lower dwelling.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeals

Earlier housing and vehicle-store applications were refused, and appeals against the 2020 and 2021 housing refusals were dismissed.

“1977-1994 - Refusals of four outline applications for the erection of one and two dwellings, one appeal dismissed…”

“2021 – In the Appeals dismissed against both the 2020 and 2021 refusals, the Inspector commenting that; “both developments would have an adverse effect on the health and longevity of these protected trees.” and ”the disturbance of protected species and the loss of tree cover would have an adverse effect on local biodiversity.” and “both developments would result in an erosion of the distinctive character of the locality and would detract from the setting of the House.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers accepted affordable housing in principle but recommended refusal because the design, parking, tree loss and supporting information caused unacceptable harm.

“Whilst the principle of affordable housing on a site within the confines of the village is acceptable, the proposed layout of the housing and particularly the proposed parking area coupled with the proposed tree removal and likely long-term pressure on those remaining would result in substantial harm to the street scene, the significance to the Conservation Area and local biodiversity.”

“This harm is not outweighed by the public benefit in providing two more affordable dwellings and the application is recommended for refusal.”

Officer report

Comments from residents

Eleven objectors mainly raised concerns about tree loss, biodiversity, the listed building, Conservation Area, highways, drainage, design and bats.

“The Impact upon trees and biodiversity • The trees a very prominent feature of the highest amenity value in this locality, None should be removed. • This stand of mixed mature trees form a break on Sherwood Road. • The destruction of trees would greatly impact on the local environment. • The remaining ones will have their root systems damaged or compromised by excavations.”

“Biodiversity net gain • Question what meaningful mitigation measures could achieve a true net gain. • Planting of twelve saplings elsewhere would take hundreds of years to a similar level of biodiversity and is not comparable. • The proposed tree planting would not be protected trees, nor worth protecting for many years. • The local area will be at a biodiversity loss and question where bats, birds and the entire micro ecosystem wait until the new trees are ready.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke under the public participation scheme, and some members had visited the site before the meeting.

What members discussed

Members discussed alternative housing land, the importance of retaining mature trees, affordable housing need and whether the site could be developed without harming trees.

“Members discussed the following points: • A site had been identified by the Local Housing Authority to provide 20 houses over two phases, which would provide for the needs of the local community. • The trees on site were discussed and Members felt the preservation of these trees was important. Replacing these with saplings would be too much of a loss. • Members acknowledged the need for affordable housing but felt the proposed site was not the place for this development.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to refuse the application in accordance with the officer recommendation was moved, seconded, voted on and carried.

“A motion to refuse the application in accordance with the officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee refused the application because of tree and biodiversity harm, design, heritage, highways, nutrient, archaeological and information concerns.

“Inadequate information to demonstrate that off-site nutrient credits are available or have been secured to demonstrate nutrient neutrality.”

“Harm to the archaeological interest within the site in the absence of pre determination archaeological investigation works, alongside the harm which in itself (e.g. trenching) would likely cause harm to the root protection areas of the protected trees.”

Minutes