 |
|
|
| |
|
| 1. ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER
(part 2 of 2) |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| III. |
THE GREEN BELT |
| 1.58 |
This section of the Environment Chapter includes policies for the protection of the Green Belt. The most important attribute of a Green Belt is its openness. It can shape patterns of development, help protect the countryside and can assist in moving towards more sustainable development patterns. Government Guidance on Green Belts is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (January 1995) "Green Belts". |
| 1.59 |
Green Belts are a key element of Government planning policy to prevent coalescence of the major urban areas and neighbouring towns and to protect the countryside from urban sprawl, thereby assisting in the regeneration of the urban areas and the formation of more sustainable land-use patterns. The most important attribute of a Green Belt is its openness although Government Guidance, contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (January 1995) "Green Belts", also promotes their use to fulfil objectives such as providing opportunities for access to the countryside, outdoor sports and attractive landscapes close to the urban areas and to retain land in appropriate use, to secure nature conservation interest and improve damaged or derelict land around the urban fringe. |
| 1.60 |
The entire rural area of Gedling Borough is affected by the Nottinghamshire Green Belt. In approving the Nottinghamshire Replacement Structure Plan in September 1991, the Secretary of State asked District Councils to review Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plan. The adopted Nottinghamshire Structure Plan Review (1996) contains a specific policy for revisions to the Green Belt (1/5), and provides locational and quantifiable evidence to assist District Councils in this important work. The majority of the rural area of the Borough will remain protected as Green Belt. Changes to the Green Belt boundary shown on the 1990 Gedling Borough Local Plan are specifically addressed in the housing, environment and employment chapters of this Plan. |
| 1.61 |
The villages of Bestwood, Burton Joyce, Calverton, Newstead and Ravenshead are of sufficient size and built-up nature to accept limited, small scale development and are therefore excluded from the Green Belt. These villages have clear boundaries defining the physical limits of each settlement. Inside the village boundaries Green Belt policies would not apply. However other policies controlling new development elsewhere in this Plan will apply. For example, Bestwood and Calverton also contain Conservation Areas which further control the nature and extent of development and policies on this issue are explained in the Historic Environment Section of this chapter. Village boundaries are defined on the proposals map and have been drawn around the built-up areas and the sites allocated for small scale development. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY ENV26 CONTROL OVER DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN BELT |
| Objectives |
| Environment |
2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
| Sustainability |
1, 2, 3, 4 |
 |
|
|
|
Within the Green Belt, as defined on the Proposals Map, planning permission will be granted for appropriate development, including:- |
| a. |
that which is required for the purposes of agriculture or forestry; |
| b. |
the provision of outdoor sport and recreation facilities and the erection of essential new buildings in association with them; |
| c. |
for cemeteries; |
| d. |
changes of use of agricultural and other buildings to employment and tourism uses which help to diversify the rural economy. |
| |
In all cases appropriate development must be located and designed so as not to harm the openness of the Green Belt or the purpose of including land within it. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1.62 |
In order to protect the openness of the Green Belt there is a presumption against inappropriate development which is harmful to the Green Belt, unless there are very special circumstances, for example development which is in the National Interest. The construction of new buildings is inappropriate unless it is for the purposes of agriculture, or forestry. Other appropriate development includes that which is essential for the provision of facilities for outdoor sports or recreation. This should be genuinely required for a use which preserves the openness and be designed to minimise the impact. Whilst not necessarily rural in nature, cemeteries, being large, open land uses and often landscaped, are not likely to be harmful to the character of the Green Belt and are also considered to be an appropriate use. Park and ride development may be appropriate in the Green Belt provided that a thorough assessment of potential sites has been carried out, which establishes that a Green Belt location is the most sustainable option and the proposal is contained within the Local Transport Plan (in accordance with the advice of PPG13 Annex E). Further examples of appropriate development in the Green Belt are covered in Policies ENV27 (Re-use of Buildings in the Green Belt), ENV28 (Extensions to Dwellings in the Green Belt), ENV29 (Replacement Dwellings in the Green Belt) and ENV30 (Development within Defined Infill Boundaries of Green Belt Wash Villages). |
| 1.63 |
Development other than that described in the policies in 'The Green Belt' section of this chapter is inappropriate, according to Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (January 1995) 'Green Belts'. However, some minor development, such as small extensions and porches to existing buildings and curtilage walls may be unlikely to adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt or conflict with the purposes of including land within it. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.64 |
The re-use of existing buildings may be acceptable, particularly where associated with the previously described appropriate uses, since it can help to diversify the rural economy. A re-use must be balanced with the overall effect upon the openness of the Green Belt. A new use which would necessitate other development or activities that would have an adverse affect upon the openness would not be appropriate. However the re-use of existing buildings may be a way of restoring and retaining historic buildings and those buildings whose loss would be detrimental to the rural setting (provided that extensions and major alterations to the building and its surrounds are not necessary). Should an appropriate use or a use likely to assist with diversification of the economy not be found it may be appropriate to consider residential re-use proposals. This will only be an option if the buildings do not require substantial re-construction and are capable of re-use without major extensions or alterations to the surrounding land which would be likely to adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt. Permitted development rights will be removed to ensure careful control is maintained over such buildings in the Green Belt. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY ENV28
EXTENSIONS TO DWELLINGS OR LIMITED RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE BUILDINGS IN THE GREEN BELT |
| Objectives |
| Environment |
7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
| Sustainability |
1, 2, 3, 4 |
| Housing |
6 |
|
|
|
|
Within the Green Belt, planning permission for limited extension, or alteration of existing dwellings will be granted, provided that |
| a. |
it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling, and |
| b. |
it does not result in a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1.65 |
Within the Green Belt limited extensions are appropriate where they would not be disproportionate to the size of the original dwelling. In comparative terms a figure of 50% of the floorspace of the original dwelling (as originally constructed or as existing on 1st July 1948) is a maximum size for extensions, beyond which it would be considered inappropriate since such an enlargement, or cumulative enlargements, of such scale are likely to have a detrimental impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. A further concern is that cumulative increases in residential accommodation over time would lead to increased activity and traffic movements outside urban areas which would be contrary to the general aim to promote sustainable development patterns. |
| 1.66 |
In calculating the size of the original dwelling, any garage will be included as part of the original dwelling provided it existed on 1st July 1948 or was built at the same time as the dwelling. In both cases the garage must be within 5 metres of the original dwelling. Curtilage buildings can result in a serious impact on the openness of the Green Belt by reason of their footprint, height, scale, position and bulk. Permission will not be granted for such buildings unless they are of limited scale, well designed and in an unobtrusive location. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY ENV29 REPLACEMENT DWELLINGS IN THE GREEN BELT |
| Objectives |
| Environment |
7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
| Sustainability |
1, 2, 3, 4 |
| Housing |
6 |
|
|
|
|
Within the Green Belt planning permission for the replacement of existing dwellings that have not been substantially extended will only be granted where the new dwelling is not materially larger than the existing dwelling. |
Where a dwelling has been substantially extended, a replacement dwelling will only be granted where the new dwelling has the same or reduced floorspace than the existing dwelling it is to replace. |
In all cases, permission will only be granted where the height, bulk, scale and positioning does not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt or the purpose of including land within it. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1.67 |
Replacement dwellings may also be considered appropriate where the proposed dwelling would not be materially larger than the size of the existing dwelling. A floorspace of 15% greater than that of the existing is to be used as being the maximum beyond which a detrimental impact upon the openness is likely to result for dwellings that have been substantially extended. In dealing with planning applications, account will be taken of whether a proposed replacement dwelling would result in a dwelling with over 50% additional floor area compared with the original dwelling on site (as originally constructed or as existing on 1st July 1948). An enlarged replacement dwelling above this level would therefore be inappropriate. In addition, replacement dwellings that by their height, scale, bulk or positioning would prejudice the openness of the Green Belt will not be permitted. Permitted development rights will be removed to ensure careful control is maintained over new development in the Green Belt. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.68 |
The Green Belt washes over the villages of Lambley, Linby, Papplewick, and Woodborough. In terms of creating a sustainable development pattern it is considered that these villages should not have proposals for development in this Replacement Local Plan. However, whilst new building is inappropriate in the Green Belt where settlements are 'washed over', infilling can be accommodated within the defined infill boundary of the village. These 'infill' boundaries identify the area within which there is opportunity for such development without detrimental impact upon the openness of the Green Belt and are therefore tightly drawn around the villages where small gaps appropriate for infill may be found. Infill development is the development of a small gap in the existing built-up frontage, it will only consist of one or two dwellings, and not all cases will be appropriate. It is also important to consider the general appearance of the village and streetscene and how open spaces and gaps in the frontage add to that appearance. Extensions and alterations to existing buildings, change of use and replacement dwellings within the infill boundaries are also unlikely to harm the openness of the Green Belt and therefore may also be considered appropriate provided they do not adversely affect the character of the associated building or the appearance of the village. The appearance of the village may be adversely affected by out-of-scale extensions and replacement buildings or the use of inappropriate materials, architectural styles or design. |
| |
|
| |
Green Belt Wash Villages without Infill Boundaries |
| 1.69 |
The Green Belt also washes over Stoke Bardolph and areas of existing ribbon development such as at Spring Lane, Lambley and Mansfield Road, Papplewick where infill development and less control over extensions would have a detrimental impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. Here the only appropriate development other than that described in Policy ENV26 are limited extensions or alterations to existing dwellings (Policy ENV28), replacement dwellings (Policy ENV29) or the re-use of redundant buildings (Policy ENV27). |
|
|
| |
| POLICY ENV31 SAFEGUARDED LAND |
| Objectives |
| Environment |
1, 2, 7, 10, 14 |
| Sustainability |
1, 2, 3, 4 |
| Housing |
3 |
| Transport |
3 |
| Employment |
3 |
|
|
|
|
The land (shown on the Proposals Map) not included within the Green Belt that is:- |
| a. |
outside the existing urban areas,
|
| b. |
not in the settlements inset in the Green Belt, and |
| c. |
is not included in any allocation for development in this Local Plan |
| |
shall be safeguarded from inappropriate development until a future Local Development Document is adopted that proposes it for development. |
| |
The appropriateness for development will be established by considering proposals as if they were in the Green Belt and applying policies ENV26, ENV27, ENV28, ENV29 and ENV30. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1.70 |
National guidance contained in PPG2 states that the essential characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence and their protection must therefore be maintained as far as can be seen ahead. PPG2 therefore advises that, in reviewing Green Belt boundaries, amendments should endure beyond the Local Plan period. This guidance is reflected in the NSPR, which clarifies that this approach enables local planning authorities to exclude land from the Green Belt in order to follow a firm defensible boundary or to specify areas for longer term development needs. |
| 1.71 |
Effectively, this means that until 2011 or a further replacement or alteration of the Gedling Borough Replacement Local Plan, the safeguarded land identified on the Proposals Map is treated as Green Belt and planning permission will not be granted for development which would prejudice its later comprehensive development. At the end of the Plan period, the safeguarded land will revert to Green Belt, unless it is essential to meet longer term needs. |
| 1.72 |
The areas of safeguarded land identified are primarily sites that were allocated in previous drafts of the Local Plan, but which have not been carried forward for a variety of reasons:- |
| |
|
| |
Top Wighay Farm, Hucknall |
Land at Top Wighay Farm is allocated for both employment and residential uses. The remainder of the larger site that was designated 'white land' and for employment uses in the First Deposit Draft Local Plan is now identified as safeguarded land. This site differs from the other areas of safeguarded land, in that in the event of a demonstrable shortage of housing land being caused by slow delivery by amongst others the major housing sites of Gedling Colliery / Chase Farm, Stockings Farm or at Teal Close, the Safeguarded Land at Top Wighay Farm should be regarded as the first area of search for compensatory housing land. |
Teal Close, Netherfield
|
Land 'outside' of the A612 Southern Link Road was allocated for employment use in the Revised Deposit Draft of the Local Plan. In order to provide a range and choice of sites, a smaller area is now allocated for employment use and the remainder is identified as safeguarded land. |
Land north of Papplewick Lane, Hucknall |
Included as an allocation in the First Deposit Draft of the Local Plan but not carried forward as other sequentially preferable sites met the Structure Plan requirement. |
Mapperley Golf Course |
The present use of the site is protected under Policy R4 unless and until an alternative golf course can be provided elsewhere. |
The Spinney, Bestwood |
These three sites were included as allocations in earlier drafts of the Replacement Local Plan but were not carried forward on the grounds that sequentially preferable sites fulfilled the Structure Plan requirement for limited development in that village. |
Mill Field Close, Burton Joyce |
Hollinwood Lane, Calverton |
Cornwater Fields, Longdale Lane, Ravenshead |
Given the housing allocation to the north of this site, this is considered the next best site for development in Ravenshead. The field boundary of this site is an appropriate Green Belt boundary. |
Land north of Arnold Lane |
The realignment of the Green Belt boundary results in these sites being removed from the Green Belt and identified as 'safeguarded land'. However, it is not envisaged that these sites will be released for development in a future review of the Replacement Local Plan. As such, the 'safeguarded land' designation is being used as a planning 'tool' in these locations, to protect land that is not in the green belt from development. |
Glebe Farm |
Corner of Spring Lane/ Lambley Lane |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.73 |
Complementary to the need to protect the openness of the Green Belt is the need to maintain the visual quality of the ridgelines which surround much of the urban area in Gedling. These ridgelines provide a sense of place which is fundamental to the local character of this part of Greater Nottingham. They provide local reference points and allow the countryside to pervade into the urban area thereby providing a visual as well as functional link between the town and country. Thus they provide a sense of containment in most parts and accentuate the close proximity of the countryside to the urban area. The 1996 Nottinghamshire Structure Plan Review (Policy 1/5 and Explanatory Memorandum), whilst protecting the major ridgelines, "to the north and east of the urban area" from release from the Green Belt, also accepts that, "they should be protected from any development which would damage their visual quality." It also suggests the identification of other ridgelines and prominent areas for special protection. |
| 1.74 |
The Primary and Secondary Ridgelines, defined on the proposals map identify those areas of visual prominence which surround and contain urban areas. Aspect, comparative levels and visual quality have all been considered in order to determine those areas which warrant additional protection. The Primary Ridgelines are those of the highest altitude surrounding the urban area to the north and are of open character, either in agricultural use, the Bestwood Country Park or other open land uses. The Secondary Ridgelines are those of a lower altitude which run from the Primary Ridges and are also of open character. These are of equal importance bearing in mind the comparative levels, particularly where the plateau and ridges which form the higher ground to the south-east of the Borough create containment around Gedling village. Within these defined areas planning permission will not be granted for development which would detrimentally affect the open character and visual quality. Views out from the urban area towards these ridgelines can also be affected by development in the urban fringe and proposals must take account of any possible effects upon the visual quality and protect views of the ridgelines. There may be opportunities to enhance the landscape value of the ridgelines through woodland planting. The Greenwood Community Forest (Policy ENV43) promotes such proposals and they may be implemented to reinforce the containment aspect around proposed development adjacent to the urban fringe. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| IV. |
THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT |
| 1.75 |
Policies within the Natural Environment Section are focused on the preservation and enhancement of the Borough's landscape and the protection of habitats. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.76 |
The best and most versatile agricultural land is defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a in the Agricultural Land Classification. Government Guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 7, (August 2004) clarifies policy on the protection of the best and most versatile agricultural land. |
| 1.77 |
Where development of agricultural land is unavoidable, areas of poorer quality land should be used in preference to that of a higher quality, except where other sustainability considerations suggest otherwise. These might include, for example, its importance for biodiversity; the quality and character of the landscape; its amenity value or heritage interest; accessibility to infrastructure, workforce and markets; and the protection of natural resources, including soil quality. Where soil or agricultural quality is a consideration, the advice of DEFRA, English Nature, the Countryside Agency, the Environment Agency or English Heritage will be sought, as appropriate. |
| 1.78 |
Lower grade agricultural is less significant in terms of the national agricultural interest and little weight in agricultural terms will be given to the loss of this land. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.79 |
Whilst the protection and enhancement of sites remains an important aim of the Plan, Government guidance makes it clear that local authorities are expected to take a broader view with regard to nature conservation, stating that Local Plans should also be concerned with other land of conservation value and the possible provision of new habitats. Accordingly, the Borough Council is seeking to ensure that development takes full account of the intrinsic and potential value of specified habitats and features to the benefit of the overall biodiversity of the District. This approach seeks to ensure that the Borough's critical natural capital is not eroded and wherever possible it is enhanced to ensure that the biodiversity of the Borough is available for future generations. The list of specified habitats and landscape features shown in Appendix 3 is drawn from the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan. This approach accords with Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 (October 1994) "Nature Conservation", the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and Article 10 of the European (Habitats and Species) directive (92/43/EC). |
| 1.80 |
Where sites with nature conservation interest might be affected by a proposed development, permission may be granted subjected to conditions and/or legal agreements in order to minimise disturbance to sites or to create appropriate alternative habitats. It should be noted that such habitats occur in all localities, including urban, brownfield and geological sites. In all cases the advice of English Nature, the Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre or Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust will be sought; protected species surveys should be completed for all nature conservation sites before determination so the facts are available publicly. The Borough Council will adopt the following order of preference when considering development proposals affecting potential nature conservation sites:- |
| |
- Avoidance (avoid damage altogether);
- Mitigation (minimising negative impacts);
- Compensation (replacing habitats).
|
| |
Should alternative habitats be considered, it is preferable to establish them in the locality to minimise any disturbance necessary. Any mitigation measures or replacement habitats will require the preparation of programmes for their long term management. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.81 |
A Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is a legal designation applied to areas of national importance for nature conservation interest by English Nature. They are notified to local planning authorities to allow consideration to be given to their conservation in the planning process. There is currently one SSSI in the Borough at Quarry Banks, Linby which is shown on the proposals map. There is a very strong presumption against development or disturbance affecting SSSIs. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.82 |
Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) can be designated by the Council under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and are of local nature conservation interest. Development which would result in the destruction of a LNR will be resisted. There are currently two LNRs in the Borough at Gedling House Woods, Gedling and Linby Trail, Linby, which are shown on the proposals map. |
| 1.83 |
Information on Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), is held at the Nottingham Biological and Geological Records Office, and the sites are shown on the Proposals Map. SINCs comprise sites of both nature conservation and geological significance - sites of geological significance are also known separately as Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGS). |
| 1.84 |
The Council will consult English Nature (in respect of LNRs) and the Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre (in respect of SINCs) on any applications for development which may affect these sites and will take into account any comments expressed. These forms of protection do not however preclude all development. Some forms of development may not detrimentally affect the species or habitats and can be designed to incorporate the sites without harmful effect. Conversely development that may be proposed some considerable distance from the sites may have a devastating affect, for example affects upon the water table. |
| 1.85 |
The Borough Council will seek to designate further Local Nature Reserves where appropriate and this policy will apply to such areas once designated. Proposed LNR’s are identified on the Proposals Map. The SINCs shown on the Proposals Map were correct at the time of the publication of the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan (May 2002). The Borough Council should be consulted to verify future changes, resulting from future updates and surveys by the Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.86 |
The County Council has undertaken a Countryside Appraisal to provide a strategic overview of the landscape of Nottinghamshire. One part of this has been the identification of Mature Landscape Areas (MLAs) first completed in 1992 and reviewed in 1997 (listed in Appendix 4). MLAs are a local countryside designation, which seeks to identify and protect those parts of Nottinghamshire’s landscape which have been least affected by adverse change. MLA designation is based on a formal assessment of the qualities of the countryside in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 7 (August 2004), "Sustainable Development in Rural Areas", fulfilling the objectives of the enhancement of local distinctiveness and the intrinsic qualities of the countryside. MLAs commonly contain one or more of the following features:- |
| |
- mature deciduous woodland;
- intact field patterns;
- permanent grassland/ heathland/ parkland, and
- mature river and stream courses.
|
| |
MLAs have been designated in Nottinghamshire because they represent good examples of valuable and vulnerable landscapes which have remained relatively unchanged over time. The method does not seek to identify the most attractive landscapes, but most MLAs are typical of Nottinghamshire’s distinctive landscape types and they do have important visual qualities. Final selection of MLAs, therefore, involves a judgement concerning an areas historical, ecological and physical features, and the continuity of its landscape character and setting within the local context. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.87 |
Some wildlife species such as badgers and bats are safeguarded under various legislation and regulations, in particular:- |
| |
- The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
- Acts specifically relating to threatened species, e.g. Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
|
| |
The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 require the Borough Council to have regard to the conservation of European Protected Species. Where proposals are likely to affect any protected species, English Nature will be consulted on these planning applications. The presence of a protected species will be a material consideration in the determination of a planning application and specialist advice will be taken to ensure that their habitats are considered fully. It will be necessary to ensure that all possible precautions are taken to prevent any offence under the relevant Acts. The Council will produce a supplementary planning document in the form of a Local Development Document (LDD) to provide greater clarity and certainty on the provision of adequate compensatory measures, including the purchase of land, habitat creation and its long term maintenance and will work closely with English Nature and non-governmental conservation bodies such as the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust in the preparation of this guidance. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY ENV39
LANDSCAPE FEATURES OF IMPORTANCE FOR NATURE CONSERVATION |
| Objectives |
| Environment |
1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 |
| Sustainability |
1 |
| Recreation |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Development which may adversely affect, directly or indirectly, landscape features listed in Appendix 2 which are of major importance for wild flora and fauna will only be permitted if it can be shown that the reasons for the development outweigh the need to retain the features and that mitigating measures can be provided for, which would reinstate the nature conservation value of the features. Appropriate management of these features will be encouraged through the imposition of conditions and by entering into management agreements with landowners and developers where appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1.88 |
Under Regulation 37 of the Conservation (Habitats) Regulations 1994, there is a requirement for all development plans to comply with Article 10 of the EC Habitats Directive, policies should encourage the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild flora and fauna. Many of these are smaller landscape features such as woods/ coppices, ponds, river and old railway corridors that are vital for many Biodiversity Action Plan species and habitats and, as such, there is a need to address the positive management of these sites. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.89 |
New development must not lead to increases in the level of pollution or a risk of pollution occurring. Levels of water pollution adversely affect ecological, recreation, tourism and abstraction potential of the rivers in the Borough. |
|
|
| |
| POLICY ENV41 FLOODING |
| Objectives |
| Environment |
1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 |
| Sustainability |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Development will not be permitted if: |
| a. |
it would increase the risk of flooding:- |
| |
(i) |
by reducing the capacity of, or increasing flows within, a flood plain; or |
| |
(ii) |
through the discharge of additional surface water; or |
| |
(iii) |
by harming flood defences; |
| |
unless measures can be carried out as part of the development to minimise the risk of flooding |
| b. |
it would be at risk itself from flooding; and |
| c. |
adequate provision is not made for access to watercourses for maintenance. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1.90 |
Development in the floodplain may be at risk from flooding or may increase the risk of flooding locally and elsewhere by the removal of floodwater storage capacity, by impeding the flow of flood water, or by affecting flood defences. Areas potentially at risk of flooding (as identified by the Environment Agency - 2005) are shown on the Proposals Map. It is important to recognise that these areas are indicative only to be used for consultation purposes, and not as the sole basis for decision making. However, applications for development raising issues of unacceptable flood risk will be resisted in accordance with the above policy which accords with Government advice in PPG 25 "Development and Flood Risk" July 2001 and Policy 11/1 of the 1996 Nottinghamshire Structure Plan Review. In some cases flood compensatory measures may be agreed, but generally development will be required to be located outside flood plains. Compensatory measures should be inspected regularly and a proper maintenance regime is agreed, and conditions may be attached to a planning permission in order to achieve this. The flood plain includes washland areas. The flood plain is defined as land adjacent to a watercourse over which floodwater would flow but for the presence of any flood defences. Washlands are an area of the flood plain where water is stored at times of flood. |
| 1.91 |
Behind flood defences the possibility of flooding from defence failure or over-topping cannot be ignored. In considering the issue of flood risk floor levels should be set at least 600mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level, or if this cannot be achieved consideration should be given to the use of suitable construction techniques to minimise flood impact. |
| 1.92 |
New development particularly on greenfield sites usually results in an increase in the amount of impermeable land. This can alter the surface water regime as rates and volumes of surface water reaching a watercourse generally increase. Surface water is generally directed via a sewage system to a watercourse. Such arrangements can increase watercourse flows leading to increased risk of flooding. Wherever possible surface water should occur as close to the source as possible. Consideration should be given to the use of softer engineering structures such as swales, retention ponds, filtration basins and porous surfaces as alternatives to conventional drainage systems where appropriate. Soft alleviation measures can add areas of nature conservation interest and prove effective in delaying the discharge of water to natural watercourses. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) are effective in reducing the impact of surface water drainage and are significant in the process of delivering sustainable development. Developers are encouraged to consult with the Environment Agency regarding water conservation measures which can be included within new development, in order to conserve existing water supplies and sustain the water based environment. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.93 |
Groundwater is a vital source of public and private water supply for the local community, industry and agriculture, as well as for sustaining the base flows of rivers. However, it is vulnerable to contamination from pollutants by direct discharges into groundwater and indirect discharges into or onto land. Aquifer remediation is difficult, prolonged and expensive and therefore the prevention of pollution is important. The Environment Agency uses Groundwater Vulnerability Maps to protect and manage aquifers, and to assess specific land use practices, proposed developments and land use changes over aquifers where these could have an impact on groundwater quality. The above policy refers to those areas identified by the Environment Agency and as shown on the appropriate plans held by the Environment Agency. The Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer affects parts of Gedling Borough and a map showing the extent of the Aquifer is attached as Appendix 6. Any proposal on land protected by this policy will be referred to the Environment Agency before any formal decision is made by the Borough Council. |
| |
|
| |
TREES, WOODLANDS AND HEDGEROWS |
| 1.94 |
The Borough Council has an important role to play in the protection of trees, woodlands and hedgerows. It has a duty under section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure that provision is made for the preservation or planting of trees in granting planning permission for development. This includes the power to make Tree Preservation Orders on trees where they are considered to have special visual qualities and are threatened by development. The Borough Council will continue this practice where trees of special importance are concerned. Trees in Conservation Areas are afforded some protection in that the Borough Council is entitled to six weeks notice before felling or works to trees are carried out. In some cases this will enable suitable arboricultural advice to be given, and occasionally preservation orders may be made to protect trees. In most cases new development can be accommodated on sites with preserved trees by careful siting and design. The Borough Council has prepared Interim Planning Guidance to clarify how it will deal with trees on development sites and what information will be expected to accompany a planning application to enable its determination. Important hedgerows in the countryside are protected through the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, by controlling their removal through a system of notification. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.95 |
The first Community Forests were launched in 1989 to create, over a thirty year period, large areas of multi-purpose woodland, heath and open land on the fringe of urban areas. In November 1991 the Greenwood Community Forest was established for a 40,000 hectare area north of Nottingham by a partnership of the six relevant district councils, including Gedling, Nottinghamshire County Council, the Countryside Agency and the Forestry Commission. The Greenwood includes the whole of the rural area of Gedling Borough and aims to use new and existing woods, copses, hedges and individual trees to provide a framework for economic, social and environmental improvements. The full objectives and strategies for implementation of the Greenwood are contained within the Forest Plan. Whilst this is a non-statutory land management document it will complement the Gedling Borough Local Plan Review and will be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. |
| 1.96 |
To meet the objectives of the Greenwood the Borough Council will seek to negotiate for tree and woodland planting when considering new development schemes where it is necessary for the development to go ahead. The nature and extent of planting which is appropriate will vary with the type and scale of development proposed and the characteristics of the surrounding landscape. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.97 |
Deep mining of coal from Gedling Colliery ceased in November 1991. In October 1997 planning permission was granted for the recovery of coal from colliery waste and the restoration of former colliery spoil heaps and lagoons at the former Gedling Colliery and at Stoke Bardolph. As part of the granting of planning permission it was agreed under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and in contract, to transfer land ownership of the Gedling Tip to Gedling Borough Council once restoration was complete. Coal recovery subsequently proved to be uneconomical and the agreed Country Park was not achievable within the agreement. |
| 1.98 |
Greenwood Community Forest has a thirty-year vision to restore and regenerate the landscape of Nottinghamshire. It is directed by the Strategic Plan for Greenwood (2000). Gedling Colliery Pit Tip is highlighted within the Strategic Plan as a gateway site where there are significant opportunities for the creation of a substantial park on the urban fringe. It is important in the context of the development site at Gedling Colliery and opportunities for links between the recreational land and the new development will be pursued through a development brief or Local Development Document. |
| 1.99 |
The Park will be a stepping-stone to the wider countryside and public rights of way network. The Park will combine existing and newly planted woodlands with grassland, marshland and open water areas. It will be managed for the benefit of both wildlife and communities providing an area for extensive recreational activity. |
| 1.100 |
The Greenwood Community Forest Partnership, Gedling Borough Council the existing owner UK Coal and other stakeholders are working together to identify the appropriate facilities required within the Park and the mechanism for the long term management of the site. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.101 |
The 1990 English Nature "Nottinghamshire Inventory of Ancient Woodland" identified sites within Gedling Borough which are shown on the proposals map. The sites are an important ecological resource and have been classified as Ancient Woodland by historical evidence and species diversity. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.102 |
Amenity Woodland refers to copses and woodlands that are features in the landscape and are often also important for wildlife and recreation. In addition Gedling Borough has many areas of commercial woodland managed mainly by the Forestry Commission which enhance the recreational and tourist potential of the area. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.103 |
In certain circumstances protected trees can be removed. The removal of a tree may be justified in the interests of good arboricultural practice or, in exceptional circumstances, to facilitate development of greater benefit to the community than derived from the amenity value of the tree. Where trees are preserved as part of a woodland, area or group, it may also be possible for an individual specimen to be removed without a seriously detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the locality. More detail on the matters relevant to Tree Preservation Orders is contained in the Guidance Notes published by the Borough Council. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| 1.104 |
On 1st June 1997 the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 came into force to protect "important" hedgerows. Where a local authority has received a request for their removal the decision as to whether a hedgerow is "important" is of a technical nature dependent upon evidence as to the age of the hedgerow, its length and archaeological, historical, wildlife and landscape value criteria. The strong presumption is that important hedgerows will be protected and wherever possible incorporated into open space and landscaping proposals for new development. Where removal cannot be justified the Borough Council will inform the applicant that removal is prohibited and will issue a Hedgerow Retention Notice. |
| |
|
| |
<< Go to Environment Chapter (part 1) |
| |
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
| top |