JJ1 S14/3078 Target Decision Date:13th February 2015 Committee Date:7th February 2017
Applicant Kier Homes Ltd Agent Mrs Julie Robinson Robinson Robert Doughty Consultancy Ltd 32 High Street Helpringham Sleaford Proposal Residential development comprising 29 houses and associated parking spaces and garages together with access road and turning areas, open space and landscaping, foul water pumping station, surface water balancing pond and open space Location Land Off The South Side Of Kettering Road Stamford Application Type Full Planning Permission (Major) Parish(es) Stamford Town Council
Reason for Referral to Application requires a S.106 legal agreement Committee Recommendation That the application is:- Approved conditionally
Key Issues
Planning Policy Highway Safety Residential Amenity Impact on Heritage Assets Drainage Impact on wildlife Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area Density
Technical Documents Submitted with the Application
Application Form Arb impact assessment method statement and tree protection plan BS Tree Survey Schedule Design and access statement Drainage Strategy Flood risk assessment Heritage Statement Phase 1 Habitat Survey Planning Policy History Statement Planning statement Pre-planning assessment report Reptile survey Site investigation Statement of community involvement Transport statement Landscape and Visual Appraisal
Enquires about this report to: Justin Johnson Planning Operations Lead 6392 [email protected]
2 3 1.0 Description of site and application
1.1 The Proposal
1.1.1 This is a full application, as amended, for a residential development comprising of 29 dwellings and associated parking spaces and garages together with access and turning facilities, open space and landscaping. The development also includes a foul water pumping station, and surface water balancing pond.
1.1.2 The proposal provides for 18 x 4 bedroom properties, 10 x 3 bedroom properties and 1 x 2 bedroom property. The properties range in height between 2 storey and 2.5 storeys. The buildings are to be constructed from a mix of sawn bedstone, reconstituted stone and render with reconstituted stone quoins. The dwellings have a 'Georgian' character which is inspired by other properties located within Stamford.
1.1.3 The development includes 56 car parking spaces, 25 allocated garages and 2 allocated car ports. This provides an average of 2.86 spaces per dwelling.
1.1.4 The proposed development retains the mature trees and hedgerows along the site frontage and boundaries. Extensive new tree and shrub planting is also proposed in and around the site including a large landscaped area along the sites southern boundary, in order to help assimilate the development with its edge of town setting.
2.0 The Application Site and its Surroundings
2.1 The application site is approximately 2 hectares in size and is located on the edge of Stamford, in an area where there is a strong contrast between the tightly-knit urban character of the town and the rural landscape surrounding it. Stamford Conservation Area extends across the historic core of the town, with the area known as St Martin's located adjacent to the application site. The key characteristics of this part of the Conservation Area are drawn from its medieval street pattern; the high concentration of listed buildings; the building materials (stone); and the use of features such as chimneys, dormer windows and boundary walls.
2.2 Opposite the site on the northern side of Kettering Road is the former Stamford football ground, which is in the process of currently being redeveloped for housing. A row of grade II listed almshouses, known as Fryer's Callis are located to the north east of the site. The rear gardens of the properties on Pinfold Lane form the sites eastern boundary. Beyond these lie the properties located on the B1081 many of which are grade II and grade II*listed buildings. Further along the B1081 is the western entrance to Burghley House a grade II* listed historic park and garden. Burghley Lodges which form the principal entrance to the historic park and garden are grade II listed in their own right. To the south of the application site is the adjacent settlement of Wothorpe, which is in the neighbouring local authority area. The entire village of Wothorpe has been designated as a Special Character Area by Peterborough City Council. To the west of the application site there are sports facilities that belong to the Stamford Endowed School. There is a pedestrian crossing that enables pupils to cross Kettering Road just to the west of the application site.
2.3 The application site comprises two grass fields located on the southern side of Kettering Road. The land gently falls from south to north across the site. The two fields are interspersed with trees and a hedgerow. Two footpaths cross the application site (PRoW STAM 14 and 15) both starting from the north-eastern corner of the site travelling in a southerly and south westerly direction. The public footpath (PRoW STAM 15) is part of the Hereward Way long distance footpath.
2.4 The application site is located adjacent to the administrative boundary with Peterborough City Council. 4 3.0 Relevant History
3.1 The site has been allocated for residential development under Policy STM1a of The Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document adopted on 17 April 2014.
Reference Proposal Decision Date S13/2510 Screening Opinion for residential EIA Not 01/10/2013 development and associated Required infrastructure S13/3322 Residential development comprising 48 Refused 30/05/2014 houses and associated parking spaces and garages together with access road and turning areas, open space and landscaping, foul water pumping station, surface water balancing pond and open space
The applicants appealed the decision and Appeal 04/06/2015 this was subsequently dismissed Dismissed
4.0 Policy Considerations
4.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 1 - Building a strong, competitive economy Section 4 - Promoting sustainable transport Section 6 - Wide choice of high quality homes Section 7 - Requiring good design Section 8 - Promoting healthy communities Section 10 - Meeting the challenge of climate change Section 11 - Enhancing the natural environment Section 12 - Enhancing the historic environment
4.2 South Kesteven District Council Core Strategy Policy SP3 - Sustainable Integrated Transport Policy SP1 - Spatial Strategy Policy EN1 - Protection and Enhancement Policy EN2 - Reduce the Risk of Flooding Policy EN4 - Sustainable Construction and Design Policy H1 - Residential Development Policy H3 - Affordable Housing
4.3 Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document Policy SAP10 - Open space provision Policy SD1 - Sustainable development Policy STM1 - Housing allocations in Stamford
5.0 SKDC Corporate Priorities
5.1 Keep SK clean, green and healthy
5.2 Grow the economy
5.3 Support good housing for all
5 5.4 Promote leisure, arts and culture
6.0 Representations Received
Peterborough City Council Peterborough City Council have consistently raised no objections to this revised application. Their latest comments received on 11 January 2017 are copied in full below:
Peterborough City Council makes the following built heritage comments in relation to this planning application. These are made following a site visit and consideration of the planning appeal decision and previous proposals.
The application site is located to the south of Kettering Road and a small part is within the Peterborough District. This part is to remain as grassland. The proposal may impact on a number of designated and non-designated heritage assets in the Peterborough District. The site is formed of two fields with boundary hedge and trees and has a rural character. Development of the site will change this character and be apparent in views towards Stamford from London Road, First Drift and towards Wothorpe from Kettering Road and two public rights of way.
Background A planning application for the development of 48 dwellings and associated works including open space and landscaping was refused by South Kesteven District Council on 30 May 2014 (ref S13/3322/MJRF). The applicant appealed the decision and submitted a further planning application for the construction of 39 dwellings and associated works (ref S14/3078). The Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal on 4 June 2015. The current proposals are a revision of the application (ref: S14/3078) and for a development of 29 dwellings and associated works.
Heritage Considerations The original proposals (S13/3322/MJRF) were identified by the Planning Inspector as causing harm to the setting of a listed Burghley (Bottle) Lodges that form the West Gate to Burghley House, the Registered Park and Garden of Burghley House, the listed former Priory College, (The Elms) Wothorpe and the Wothorpe Special Character Area.
The following comments have taken account of Historic England Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 The Setting of Heritage Assets (2015). This guidance sets out a five stage approach to follow in assessing the impact of proposals that would affect the setting and significance of heritage assets.
The Bottle Lodges and West Gate entrance to Burghley House have a number of heritage values and this is reflected in the statutory designation. The significance of the listed building is derived from its age, plan form, scale, traditional materials and function. The Inspector identified that the rural setting of the lodges and gateway also contributed to that 6 significance and the status of Burghley as a country house.
The site is visible to the north-west from the Bottle Lodges and West Gate. With reference to the current Masterplan the development is set back a distance from the southern boundary of the site. The revised layout, lower density and design of buildings is more 'mannered' of the Stamford building form, detail and materials. Buildings to the southern part of the site are 2 storey in height.
The lower density and proposed tree and other planting in the public open space of the southern part of the site will considerably soften the built form in views from the south and south west (London Road and First Drift). The visual impact will mostly be one of buildings viewed beyond groups of trees where roofs, ridges and chimneys are evident. It is considered that while the development would result in a degree of change to the wider rural setting of the Bottle Lodges and West Gate, as identified by the Planning Inspector, that change would not result in harm to their significance and the wider setting of the Burghley estate and its registered parkland.
To the south west of the development site is the grade II listed The Elms (Former Priory College) at Wothorpe. When built in the mid 19th c the building had a strong rural setting. The building has an open landscaped curtilage and aspect to the south. Approaching along the drive from First Drift the house is viewed in this open landscaped context. The setting of the building has changed by the construction of additional buildings in the curtilage and conversions to residential use as well as neighbouring development in Wothorpe. However, the open landscape and approach from the south continue to form the key setting of the listed building. The Planning Inspector formed a view that the rural setting of Wothorpe made an important contribution to the significance of the listed building.
Given the distance to the development site, intervening hedge and treed field boundaries, the revised layout, lower density and design of buildings much reducing the visual impact of buildings in views from the south and south west it is considered that while the development would result in a degree of change to the wider rural setting of The Elms that change would not result in harm to its heritage significance.
The site lies to the north east of Wothorpe and the Wothorpe Special Character Area (adopted Peterborough Development Plan Document 2012 - Policy SA19 Site Allocations DPD). Although the majority of the properties in Wothorpe date from the latter half of the 20th Century the settlement has a distinct character strongly influenced by its history, settlement pattern and landscape. Wothorpe has a mature Arcadian quality characterised by predominantly low-density development of large houses set in generous landscaped gardens giving a semi-woodland setting. This provides a strong rural aspect that blends into the surrounding rural landscape. Views towards and out from Wothorpe across the surrounding fields 7 add to this character. The Planning Inspector also noted that the countryside setting of Wothorpe makes an important contribution to its special character.
There will be a change from the wider rural setting of the Wothorpe Special Character Area in views to and from Wothorpe, particularly from the eastern part of First Drift, by development of the site. Again the density, layout and landscaped open space to the southern boundary will soften views of the development particularly from the south and south east. The development is now slightly further distanced from Wothorpe. The strong landscape buffer and retained planting will result in buildings not being prominent in these views. The current proposal will have a low impact on the countryside setting of Wothorpe and to its special character. As a non-designated Heritage Asset this impact needs to be considered under paragraph 135 of the NPPF and weight against the public benefits of the scheme.
Conclusion Peterborough City Council is of the opinion that the proposals will not cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets in the Peterborough District arising from impact on their setting and would be in accordance with adopted local planning policy and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Some harm would arise to the rural setting of the Wothorpe Special Character area affecting its significance, though this is considered to be low. This impact needs to be considered under paragraph 135 of the NPPF and weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.
SKDC Affordable Housing The Partnership and Project Officer has raised no objections Officer to the proposed development and confirmed that it has been agreed that in order to assist with the viability of the development that 4 x affordable housing units will be provided on site (the requirement is 10 in number) and provide 9 x affordable housing units off site on Elsea Park, Bourne. Therefore a total of 13 affordable housing units to be provided.
It is proposed that Plots 1-4 are offered as shared ownership (three bedroom houses). The remaining 9 units to be provided on Elsea Park, Bourne consisting of 2 x 2 bed houses, 4 x 3 bed houses, 2 x 2 bed houses for rent and 1 x 3 bed houses for shared ownership.
Anglian Water Services The surface water strategy / flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application is acceptable. Anglian Water has raised no objections to the proposal subject to a conditions relating to surface water drainage.
Historic England Historic England had originally objected to the scheme and raised concerns about the amount of development proposed. They have since withdrawn their objections and their latest comments dated 29 November 2016 are outlined below:
8 Historic England Advice As previously advised, the site of the proposed scheme lies within the setting of a number of designated heritage assets including Stamford Conservation Area, Burghley House registered park and garden (grade II*), Burghley House (listed grade I), the west gateway to Burghley park and garden (listed grade II) and other prominent highly designated heritage assets within Stamford. The significance of these designated heritage assets, including the significance they derive from their setting, was described in our letter of 5 December 2014.
The amended proposed plan is for 29 houses and associated infrastructure, including open space and landscaping. Whilst there remains an impact due to the loss open field space, we consider that drawing back the housing towards Kettering Road as now proposed would appreciably reduce the impact on the setting and significance of Stamford Conservation Area, Burghley House registered park and garden and Burghley House. The proposed development would have more of the character of development on a back lane in Stamford. The proposed layout allows an open space to be included across the whole of the southern boundary of the development site which would be in effect a small field. Together with the proposed landscaping and boundary treatment, this open area would have much of the character of the existing rural setting of the designated heritage assets affected and of key approaches to them.
As previously advised, any undesignated archaeological remains within the proposed site which are directly associated with previous settlement and the conservation area would make a positive contribution of evidential and historical value to the setting and significance of the conservation area through historical association. We refer you to your expert archaeological advisor in this respect.
Our advice reflects legislation, policy and guidance as set out in our letter of 5 December 2014 and provided in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (especially paragraphs 8, 17, 131, 132, 134 and 138), the NPPF Planning Practice Guidance and in good practice advice notes produced by Historic England on behalf of the Historic Environment Forum including Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment and The Setting of Heritage Assets. In accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF your authority would need to weigh the public benefits of the proposed scheme against the reduced impact as describe above.
Lincolnshire Fieldpaths Have consistently raised no objections to the scheme but Association make the following comments:
1. Stamford Public Footpath Nos. 14 and 15 will both require formally diverting to enable the proposed development to take place.
2. During any works allowed by this proposal, users of the Public Right of Way should not be inconvenienced or 9 exposed to hazards by any such works.
3. The sections of the proposed footpath which run to the south of Kettering Road should be constructed to a width of 1.8m and tarmacked. The proposed section of FP 15 which runs through the area of green space and the proposed section of FP 14 which runs from the development to the existing drain should both be constructed to a width of 1.8m and stoned with appropriate material.
Heritage Lincolnshire 11th December 2011
No archaeological intervention is required.
Education & Cultural Advise that no education contribution is sought from the Services proposal as there is currently enough capacity available at local schools for the children that this development would create.
Lincolnshire Fire & Rescue The Fire Authority had originally objected to the scheme as it Services required fire hydrants to be installed within this development at the developer's expense.
However, following re-consultation they have advised that a fire hydrant is to be installed in Kettering Road as part of the development on the old Stamford football ground site, as such there is no longer a requirement for additional hydrants.
Environmental Protection No objections to the proposed development. Services
Environment Agency No objections but has advised that the lead local flood authority should be consulted on this application.
Crime Prevention Design No objections, but has provided guidance in relation to the Advisor location of public footpaths.
Stamford Civic Society The Stamford Civic Society finds it profoundly disturbing that after so many people and organisations objected so strongly and succinctly to the previous application, resulting in the District Council Development Committee voting against it by 13 votes to 1 and a subsequent appeal refused by the Planning Inspectorate, Kier have come back yet again. The Society cannot see how the objections in the Planning Inspector's report have been addressed in the new application, particularly as her concerns with regard to the scheme's effect on the Conservation Area formed the majority of the report. The Inspector, in her Appeal Decision dated 4 June 2015 says (at para 4) that the main issue was "the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to whether or not it would preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings and the registered park and garden, and preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation area.
The Inspector says (at para 11) that the site, "due to its location and physical and visual relationship with the land and buildings around it, is a key gateway site, which currently 10 makes a strong positive contribution to the setting of the town and the setting of nearby heritage assets, including the Conservation Area."
The Society endorses the Inspector's view; the proposal is out of keeping with the character of the area, and has a detrimental effect on the views and character of the Conservation Area.
All the previous issues remain; reducing the number of houses slightly and increasing the number of trees does not address these major issues, and in particular the simple fact that no building should be allowed on this land.
The southern boundary of Stamford was defined in the early 10th century by the building of the Edwardian burh by the Saxon king, Edward the Elder, and has remained virtually intact ever since. Because of this, the entry to the town via St Martin's is untouched, beautiful and has been long recognised as nationally important. Successful battles to save it were fought between the 1970s and 1990s. The proposed site is almost immediately adjacent to St Martin's and also forms an important southern boundary to the town.
Kettering Road (and its extension in 1796 to join High Street St Martin's) is a natural south-western town boundary and until now the road has provided a natural terminus for building development. There is little building to the south and much of it occurs in the adjacent Pinfold Lane, High Street St Martin's and Burghley Lane. This is historically valid as these formed the southern part of king Edward's Saxon burh. The element of Wothorpe further along the Kettering Road is quite separate and does not impinge on the integrity of the area. By breaking across the Kettering Road with modern building this ancient line will be crossed and will cause a dreadful precedent. The town has allowed much development to the north and north-west and it has been tacitly accepted this was compensation for not allowing building along the sensitive and historically important southern edge. The Society feels it essential that this natural southern boundary be maintained, and is amazed that no Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out. We disagree fundamentally with the Screening Opinion by the SKDC Development Management Service Manager that 'the impacts of the development will be limited to Stamford and the immediate surrounding area and . . . is only of local importance. The site is not located within an area considered to be particularly environmentally sensitive.' This shows a total lack of understanding of the historical situation in a national context.
Society members have visited and photographed the site and find that, contrary to the developer's statements, the development will have a large visual impact on the southern aspect of the town. As soon as one enters First Drift off the London Road, Stamford Baron, the site is visible with the town rising majestically behind it. To say, as the Landscape and Visual Appraisal (6.1.) in the original application, (that is, a report prepared by a company employed by the developer 11 to support the application) that 'the visual assessment of the site establishes that the visual envelope is largely limited to the immediate near distance due to the adjoining settlement and surrounding vegetation' is misleading. The importance of this view together with its proximity to the treasured southern entry to the town makes the preservation of the status quo even more important.
Add to this the concerns being addressed in detail to you by other people and organisations, namely : o Traffic impact - Kettering Road/High Street St. Martins is already fully loaded, and there are about 50 new houses to come on the old football ground to exacerbate the situation o Infrastructure - almost all services are a distance away, north of the river, especially local authority schooling o Transport - no local bus services in the area o Environment - this area is crossed by paths which both connect the south of Stamford to Wothorpe and are nationally accepted long distance paths, all well used by walkers. o Drainage - the whole area retains a lot of water after heavy rain and this regularly overflows into the road and neighbouring properties and concreting this area will make that significantly worse.
It is worth noting (para 27 of the Inspector's report) that she did not address these concerns in her report, as the issues of the Conservation Area on their own were sufficient for her to refuse the appeal.
Even if all these points are dismissed, there is still the one of the quality of the proposed development. No attempt has been made to respond to the particular quality of the local built environment - what is proposed is a modern, low-quality estate that could be in any town. Stamford is special, and has to be kept so.
The Society understands there is a national need for new housing. However, there is significant new building coming to the north west of the town, and the Society understands that is sufficient to satisfy the arbitrary numbers imposed on the area. That in itself will strain the town centre infrastructure, without the extra housing proposed here.
The Society asks therefore the planning committee reject this application and save an important part of the historic Stamford townscape for future generations.
The Civic Society provided additional comments on the 21 November 2016:
Stamford Civic Society has already responded to this application a number of times. The revised plans for fewer houses on no way satisfy our objections; the site is unsuitable for any building.
Our objections, as presented the last time we responded to 12 this application therefore still stand and we ask that they are presented on the Development Control Committee at the appropriate time.
Highways England The proposed development is not expected to have a material impact on the closest strategic route, the A1. The Highways Agency has no objections to the proposal.
LCC Highways & SuDS The Highway Authority has raised no objections to the Support proposed development subject to conditions relating to the construction of the estate roads, footpaths and the provision of surface water drainage details.
Welland & Deeping Internal No comments to make on this application. Drainage Board
NHS England NHS England raise no objections and confirmed that they will not be requesting funding for the application.
Natural England Raises no objections to the proposed development. Advises that their Standing Advice should be applied as a material consideration.
Stamford Town Council Stamford Town Council acknowledges the amendments within the submitted application and as on previous occasions strongly objects to it. It is considered that the proposal still fails to address the issues previously identified by SKDC and the planning inspector. The application fails to preserve and enhance the character and setting of Stamford, the location of the development site is adjacent to the Conservation Area and compromises the nearby heritage assets. There remains a serious concern over increased traffic generated by the potential development and vehicle movements from the site especially in light of the new residential build on the opposite side of Kettering Road at the former football ground. The proposed design and materials being suggested do not reflect the architecture and period of the vicinity, and enhance entrance the aspect as you approach Stamford. It is essential that the existing walks crossing the site are retained as they form part of the Four Counties Walk scheme which is already well used by walkers.
We strongly recommend that this application is referred to the Development Control Committee and a site visit conducted.
Wothorpe Parish Council Wothorpe Parish Council have continually objected to this application and their latest comments are reproduced below:
Wothorpe Parish Council wishes to record our opposition to this proposed development.
Our principle reasons for opposing this development are detailed below:
1 The best view of Stamford is from First Drift in Wothorpe. This proposal will destroy this outstanding view of Stamford, its listed buildings and Conservation Area. 2 There is currently a congestion problem with 13 traffic on the A43 at the junction with St Martin's High Street. This problem will be significantly exacerbated when the current development on the other side of the road is complete. The addition of more houses, as proposed in this application, will simply make worse an already intolerable situation. 3 There is currently a problem of water-logging and flooding on the A43. The remedial efforts contained in the plan illustrate the reality of this problem and support the view that this site is entirely unsuitable for development. 4 The plan will mean losing or diverting the existing historic footpaths that are regularly used by both visitors to Stamford as well as residents. 5 Stamford has already built or is planning to build more houses than are required in the South Kesteven's housing strategy. There is therefore no requirement to build more homes.
Barnack Parish Council Barnack Parish Council:
Have continuously objected to the proposed development. Their latest comments are outline below:
30 November 2016:
In 2015, Barnack Parish Council opposed the appeal by Kier Homes Ltd against the refusal of planning permission by South Kesteven District Council for 48 houses on land off the south side of Kettering Road, Stamford (APP/E2530/A/14/2229265). Barnack Parish Council now wishes to make representation against the revised application (s14/3078) on the same piece of land.
1. Negative impact on the historical and rural character of the landscape The proposed development site is situated in a very sensitive location, close to Burghley Park and the Bottle Lodges. English Heritage stated, in relation to the previous application:
In English Heritage's view the proposed scheme would be very harmful to the setting and significance of Stamford Conservation Area, Burghley House registered park and garden and Burghley House itself through the introduction of a substantial new development into an area which forms an important part of the historical rural setting of these designated heritage assets and of key approaches to them. Barnack Parish Council feels that this statement is also applicable to the current proposed development which, although smaller than the first, would never-the-less amount to a substantial block of housing.
Policy EN1 of South Kesteven's adopted Core Strategy states "Development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration." In the opinion of Barnack Parish Council, the proposed housing 14 development falls short of this aim and would be inappropriate close to the still unspoilt approach to Stamford made famous by Turner's watercolour of the town.
2. Traffic congestion The junctions of the A43 (Kettering Road) and the B1443 (Barnack Road) with the B1081 (leading north into the centre of Stamford and south to the A1) are already heavily congested. This problem will soon be exacerbated by traffic from the new housing development on Stamford Football Club ground, north of the Kettering Road, and from new housing and a developing industrial estate on the Barnack Road.
The additional traffic generated by a development south of the Kettering Road would make congestion at these junctions even worse and would lead to cars using First Drift in Wothorpe. This is an unadopted road, designated as a bridleway, connecting the Kettering Road with the B1081. It is totally unsuitable as an alternative route to Stamford or to the A1. Barnack Parish Council feels that the existing road system is inadequate to accommodate the extra traffic generated by the proposed Kier Homes development.
3. Lack of need for the development
The South Kesteven Core Strategy calls for 560 houses to be built in Stamford between 2013 and 2026.
Numerous housing developments are currently under way, including those between Tinwell Road (A6121) and Empingham Road (A606); off Casterton Road (B1081); on Uffington Road (A16); on the old Football Club ground north of Kettering Road (A43); and on Barnack Road (B1443). Stamford's housing target will therefore be exceeded and Barnack Parish Council feels that the construction of 29 more houses on the sensitive site to the south of Kettering Road is unnecessary.
The Garden Trust Final comments awaited.
7.0 Representations as a Result of Publicity
7.1 This application has been advertised in accordance with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement and a petition containing 1135 signatures objecting to the application and 397 letters of representation have been received. The points raised can be summarised as follows:
No need for additional housing Highway safety concerns flood risk and drainage concerns - the site suffers from getting waterlogged little has changed since the last scheme was refused traffic flow and pedestrian safety overlooking/loss of privacy over development of the site impact on the character and appearance of the area loss of open space
15 adverse impact on heritage assets including conservation area, listed buildings and historic park and garden loss of historic/iconic view across Stamford adverse impact on Wothorpe Area of Special Character adverse impact on Stamford Town image there are better brownfield sites available this part of Stamford is already overdeveloped newts have been spotted in the area lack of off-street parking in the area poor design of the dwellings impact on wildlife nearest primary school is over subscribed loss/impact on well used public footpaths pollution detrimental impact on the approach to Stamford Concerns about proposed Green Travel Plan concerns that First Drift will be used as a rat run impact on infrastructure such as doctors, schools, dental practices etc lack of consultation by applicants contrary to planning policy Loss of green areas Stamford has already built more homes than called for by 2026 in the Core Strategy virtually all facilities are located to the north of Stamford. If this development is approved where will all the necessary new facilities be built? concerns about accuracy of traffic assessment No decision should be issued until the planning inspector has determined the appeal for application S13/3322 consideration should be given to the cumulative impact this development will have with residential development taking place on adjacent football ground site there has been no provisions to upgrade First Drift this development would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the grade II listed Elms and The Priory Impact on existing trees and mature hedgerows there is an up and coming legal case relating to an area of land involved Highway safety implications for children at the adjacent school the traffic statement advises that the 202 bus stop is 280m away in High Street St Martins. the 202 does not run along High St St Martins. The developer refers to the adjacent sports facilities as being available to new residents of the proposed development. this is not the case as these facilities are privately owned by the school and are not open to the public. The proposal to install traffic lights at the junction of Kettering Road and High Street would cause further problems with congestion Stamford requires affordable homes Similar applications have already been refused there should be no piecemeal developments, they should be in line with and encompassed by StamfordFirst plans. the footpaths on the site should be diverted in a straight line across the site the proposal is contrary to policy EN1 of the Core Strategy and national policy contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the wildlife survey is nearly four years old and should be updated The council has the 'power to decline an application for planning permission which is similar to an application that, within the last two years, has been dismissed by the Secretary of State on appeal' under Section 70 A of the Town and Country Planning Act. This should be used in the case of this application. Take note of local views - Local people have made it very clear that the development of this site is inappropriate and unwelcome. 16 increased noise pollution from queuing traffic although changes have been made these are hardly material and do not address the fundamental flaws with the proposal a decision should be postponed until the development of the old football site is completed and we can assess the impacts of that development. the benefits of the development would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified to the significance of the designated heritage assets, or the Wothorpe Special Character Area and the surrounding landscape there is no southbound access to the A1 from Kettering Road. Southbound access is only available from High Street St Martins the proposed development would be an isolated estate and would not integrate successfully with the surrounding historic, built or natural environment Development in Stamford should be to the north of the town located away from the conservation area and not located to the south of the town diversion of the existing footpaths will reduce peoples enjoyment of them the abrupt change from rural to urban character, a unique feature of the southern approach to Stamford will be destroyed
7.2 Stamford Protect Our Green Space was established in August 2013 to campaign against inappropriate development of green space in St Martins and Wothorpe. The points raised in their letters of objection are summarised below:
Summary of Reasons for Objection
“Elected Members of the Development Control Committee refused this application by 13 votes to 1, against the officers' recommendation. We believe they were right to do so. The Planning Inspector dismissed Kier's appeal against this refusal. We believe she was right to do so. We submit that there are five key areas where this amended application still deserves refusal. All relate to material planning considerations as defined by the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
1. Lack of Compliance with LPA Strategy and Policies in the Development Plan
The SKDC website states: "Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Local Plan for the district currently comprises the Core Strategy, Site Allocation and Policies DPD….." Ref: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Core Strategy Policy EN1 requires development to be "appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated". As confirmed by the Planning Inspector, this modern, suburban estate (even with slightly fewer, but larger, houses) would not be appropriate.
Core Strategy Policy H3 requires that on developments of more than 5 houses, 35% of the supply must be affordable housing, supplied on the site. Kier proposes that only 4 of the 29 houses (13.79%) will be affordable housing. They propose to offer a further half-dozen affordable homes on their vast estate at Bourne. How does offering affordable housing in Bourne help young people in Stamford to get on the housing ladder?
In the SAP-DPD (page 22), the Inspector required that at this site (STM1a) "Development… should preserve and enhance the setting of Stamford and nearby heritage assets... (and)…not adversely affect the approach to the town and nearby heritage assets…". As confirmed by the Planning Inspector, this plan fails on both counts. In their latest iteration, Kier have failed to show HOW this development will "preserve and enhance…" Rather they focus on trying to show that, whilst acknowledging it WILL harm the whole setting of the Conservation Area and other heritage assets, it will not be quite as bad as previously!
17 There is no need for this development. SKDC's own figures show Stamford's planned housing requirement to 2026 has already been exceeded by over 15% - 10 years early. Ref: SKDC Five Year Housing Land Supply Assessment 2015-2020. The Core Strategy (Policy H1) required Stamford to deliver 1140 houses between 2006 and 2026. Now in 2016, half-way through, 733 houses have been completed and a further 579 sites have planning permission and either under construction, or not yet started.
2. Lack of Compliance with National Policy
The SKDC website states: "In addition to our local plan policies, national planning policies are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF]. These must be taken into consideration in the preparation of Local Plans and the determination of planning applications."
The application clearly fails to meet statutory requirements under section 16(2) and section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to preserving a Listed Building or its setting, and under section 72 of the same Act to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.
The application falls well short of meeting a number of key policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) especially paragraphs 64, 66, 74, 109, 131, 132, 134 and 135.
Planning Practice Guidance ("PPG") is also a material consideration. Paragraph 001 of the section headed What is the policy for the historic environment states: "Protecting and enhancing the historic environment is an important component of the National Planning Policy Framework's drive to achieve sustainable development (as defined in Paragraphs 6- 10). The appropriate conservation of heritage assets forms one of the 'Core Planning Principles' (Paragraph 17 bullet 10) that underpin the planning system. This is expanded upon principally in Paragraphs 126-141 but policies giving effect to this objective appear elsewhere in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Historic England's guidelines in GPA3 reiterate the NPPF in stating that, where developments affecting a setting result in harm to its significance, this harm can only be justified if the development delivers substantial public benefit and that there is no other alternative (i.e. redesign or relocation). There is no inherent public benefit from this development - it is merely additional (expensive) modern housing; there are plenty of other current housing developments taking place in Stamford.
Historic England further states that paragraphs 126 and 131 of the NPPF require that local planning authorities should take into account "the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness". Paragraph 9 says that pursuing "sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the...historic environment..." The design policies further reinforce the objective of enhancement of an area's character and local distinctiveness, concluding that "Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area..." (para 64).
3. Failure to Recognise Results of Consultation
In a comprehensive evaluation, statutory consultee English Heritage (now Historic England) concluded in their letter dated 5 December 2014 "In our view the scheme as proposed would not meet the requirements of the NPPF and we recommend refusal of the application for planning permission." This letter is still referenced in current comments dated 29 November.
18 Their subsequent letter of 11 May 2016, which dealt with some minor modifications in layout and design, still asserts that the amended development "…would be harmful to the setting and significance of Stamford Conservation Area, Burghley House registered park and garden and Burghley House."
Stamford Town Council, Stamford Civic Society, Peterborough City Council, Wothorpe Parish Council, Barnack Parish Council and in excess of 2000 individuals objected strongly to the previous application due to a range of material planning considerations. All requested that permission be withheld. We have not yet seen (although have requested from SKDC) the results of current consultation of these bodies; we understand from informal contacts that they are unlikely to be any different. In addition, CPRE (the Campaign to Protect Rural England) has recently written to notify their full support for our objection.
The current iteration of the draft Stamford Neighbourhood Plan is an "emerging new plan which has already been through at least one stage of public consultation" as defined in the RTPI/DCLG guidance. We have - as a community - demonstrated our willingness to work with SKDC to identify sites for future development through the Neighbourhood Plan. The consultation on priorities for Stamford had a huge response (over 21% of households) and there is enormous consensus about what is important (over 81%) to local people. We are agreed that - in the future - there should be significant development to the north of Stamford.
We, as a community are not shirking our responsibility to increase housing stock. However, the people of this town prize above everything else Stamford's history and heritage assets. This is what makes Stamford what it is.
We are agreed that there should not be development to the south of the town - anywhere near the conservation area. This site was wrongly (and we believe improperly) allocated. It should not be beyond the wit of the planning department to de-allocate it and to accept the - completely reasonable - will of the local people.
4. Harmful Impact on Environment and Deficiencies in Social Facilities
The development would exacerbate problems of already gridlocked roads and junctions, and severe increases in air pollution. With nearly three car spaces per four bedroomed house, existing problems on the B1081 (the route into Stamford from the A1), the A43 (Kettering Road), High Street St Martins, Wothorpe Road, First Drift and Barnack Road will be exacerbated with the addition of at least an extra 60-80 cars per day to morning and evening rush hours, leading to even longer queues than already experienced. These extra cars are in addition to those already anticipated from the development under construction on the former Stamford AFC ground opposite. Local residents and school children will be put at increased risk as they use nearby footpaths and are threatened by 'rat runners' in nearby streets.
The Transport Statement and Green Travel Plan are fatally flawed identifying as available schools that are already full and bus routes that do not exist.
The flood risk has been seriously under-estimated; this site is a water-meadow for half the year. This is effectively admitted in Kier's revised drainage plan where they concur that they will have to make provision for water flowing off the land which overlaps on to Kettering Road.
A major risk to rare flora and fauna, which have developed over the past 250+ years on uncultivated meadow/common land, would result from development. Kier's revised Ecological Assessment adds nothing to the shamefully inadequate document previously presented. The assessor spent a few hours on site and spotted half a dozen species of birds including two from the Amber list and three from the Red List of endangered birds. 19 We have a regular spotter who has recorded 43 different species visiting the site over an extended period including eight Amber List and nine from the Red List.
Again the Kier assessment concentrated on the height of the grassland, and the fact that in some places it was "overgrown". It failed to mention the more than 110 specific varieties of grasses, wild flowers and other flora that were counted in a recent study by qualified horticulturalists. These are not simply "overgrown" patches of grassland - they are a bio- diversity rich natural habitat for invertebrates, reptiles, mammals, birds and other species fulfilling part of what SKDC should be doing to meet its Section 40 responsibilities to the development and protection of the area's rapidly disappearing natural habitat.
5. Impact of Recent Case Law
The LPA is presumably aware of Mr Justice Lindblom's judgment in The Forge Field Society and others -v- Sevenoaks District Council in March 2014, following judicial review of a planning officer's decision to permit construction of five affordable homes in the setting of listed buildings and a conservation area (*see Appendix). In paragraph 92 of his conclusion Mr Justice Lindblom referenced: "…the Council's failure to apply the strong statutory presumption against planning permission being granted for development which would harm either the setting of a listed building or a conservation area, or, as in this case, both."
In his judgement, Mr Justice Lindblom drew heavily on the Court of Appeal's judgement in Barnwell. Particularly relevant are paragraphs 45-60 which relate closely to the facts of this application. In the case of S13/3322 we suggested that the SKDC planning department did not even consider these elements. It is to be hoped that, in line with the Inspector's veiled assertion in paragraph 3 of her Appeal Decision, they will this time be "mindful of …statutory and non-statutory duties in these respects."
Even more significantly, the judgement previously handed down by Mrs Justice Lang on 8 March 2013 in the High Court in the case of East Northamptonshire District Council, English Heritage and the National Trust -v- Barnwell Manor Wind Energy regarding an inspector's decision to permit the construction of large wind turbines within the setting of a listed building (*see Appendix), and its subsequent upholding in the Court of Appeal by Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lord Justice Sullivan and Lady Justice Rafferty on 18 February 2014, must render agreement to this application impossible.
Lord Justice Sullivan said: "It does not follow that if the harm to such heritage assets is found to be less than substantial, the balancing exercise referred to in policies HE9.4 and HE 10.1 should ignore the overarching statutory duty imposed by section 66(1), which properly understood (see Bath, South Somerset and Heatherington) requires considerable weight to be given by decision-makers to the desirability of preserving the setting of all listed buildings, including Grade II listed buildings."
He continued: "As the Practice Guide makes clear, the ability of the public to appreciate a heritage asset is one, but by no means the only, factor to be considered when assessing the contribution that setting makes to the significance of a heritage asset. The contribution that setting makes does not depend on there being an ability to access or experience the setting."
He concluded: "no matter how non-prescriptive the approach to the policy guidance in PPS5 and the Practice Guide, that guidance nowhere suggests that the question whether the harm to the setting of a designated heritage asset is substantial can be answered simply by applying the "reasonable observer" test adopted by the Inspector in this decision." Thus case-law vindicates and reinforces the Inspector's comments regarding the setting not only of the Grade II Fryer's Callis opposite the site and Grade II The Elms overlooking the site from Wothorpe, but also the range of Grade II and II* buildings in St Martins, extending to encompass the Grade II, II* and Grade l listed buildings, walls, and parkland of Burghley. 20 Furthermore, one would expect SKDC planning officers to be especially cognisant of the importance attached by the Court to the importance of observing statutory requirements from their experience in the case of Trustees of The Cecil Family Estate -v- South Kesteven District Council in 2015.
Mr Justice Holgate's judgement states:
i. '... development which affects a listed building or its setting...'
It is impossible to accept the Council's construction of the phrase 'development which affects a listed building' without the same construction also applying to 'development which affects the setting of a listed building'. As regards the second limb, the setting of a listed building, the Council's argument would confine the application of section 66(1) to development of the setting itself. In other words, the presumption in section 66(1) in favour of the preservation of the setting of a listed building (see Barnwell at paragraph 28 and Field Forge Society) would not apply to a proposed development on a neighbouring site which would harm the setting of a listed building albeit that the expressly stated objective of the provision is the preservation of that setting.
The Council's construction is inconsistent with the well-established understanding of the scope of section 66(1) upon which many decisions of the courts (not least Barnwell) and of planning inspectors have been based. For example, the decision on ground 1 in Barnwell would have been unnecessary if the Council's interpretation is correct. Indeed, it is inconsistent with the approach taken by the Council itself in the present case when applying section 66(1) to the effect of the proposed development upon the setting of the listed buildings (see paragraph 15 of the Council's detailed grounds of defence).
Second, the Council's argument involves rewriting, not interpreting, section 66(1). Parliament did not enact the alternative phrase "development of a listed building or its setting". It chose to use instead the phrase "development which affects" in order to make it clear that the scope of section 66(1) is not limited to development of the listed building or its setting, but also embraces development which would have an impact upon a listing (sic) building or its setting, whether direct or indirect, and whether harmful or beneficial, or a mixture of the two."
In so far as the proposed development impacts on the setting of a conservation area, the effect of section 72 of that Act is to impose an irreducible duty on the Council when exercising its planning functions under any of the planning Acts to pay "special attention ... to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area." Binding judicial authority advises that unless a development will enhance or preserve the character or appearance of a conservation area it is almost inevitable that it will have a detrimental and therefore harmful effect on the area's character or appearance, with the result that the presumption in favour of development is rebutted and permission must be refused unless the advantages or benefits of the development would outweigh the failure to satisfy the preservation or enhancement test. The setting of the whole townscape of Stamford would be impacted by this modern development.
Nothing has been put forward by Kier which, in any way, mitigates the harm that this development would inflict on this iconic green-field site, its heritage assets and its historic footpaths, or - more importantly - seeks to preserve and enhance their settings. There is no need for these houses - current, and already-approved, building more than meets the projected Stamford targets up to and beyond 2026. The site is unacceptable to residents who have voted both on our petition and in hundreds of letters to SKDC; it is unacceptable to the significant number of local residents who have expressed their views in the consultation process for the emerging Neighbourhood Plan; development along the western corridor of Kettering Road was robustly ruled out in the Capacity Study commissioned from independent consultants by SKDC. 21 What makes Stamford's case different from many others is that the conservation area is not a rural area, park or small group of buildings. Rather it is the whole of St Martins and the built centre of Stamford. This skyscape is what can be seen from the southern approaches. Foisting modern houses of the density, scale, design and appearance as proposed on this land would blight that whole setting, as the Inspector so clearly saw and upon which her refusal was largely predicated.
Each of the above reasons alone is sufficient to reject the Application. Collectively, they represent an overwhelming case for rejection. We believe that officers should review these arguments carefully and advise the applicants to withdraw their application. If Kier insist on going ahead we believe officers cannot and must not recommend acceptance to the Development Control Committee. “
7.3 Shailesh Vara MP has written in on behalf of a local resident asking that the views of local residents are properly considered as part of the determination of this application.
7.4 2 letters of support has also been received. The points raised can be summarised as follows:
Stamford requires new homes The planned housing will improve the area the development will provide affordable housing which will provide an opportunity for local people to become homeowners person is interested in buying a house on the site
8.0 Evaluation
8.1 Background
8.1.1 The site has been allocated for residential development under policy STM1: Housing Allocations in Stamford of the Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document, which was adopted on 17 April 2014.
8.1.2 A Screening Opinion was sought by the applicants under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations in September 2013. The Council confirmed that the development was not EIA development in October 2013.
8.1.3 A full application for the development of 48 houses on the site (application S13/3322) was received in January 2014. The application was refused planning permission in May 2014 for the following reasons:
"The proposed development of 48 dwellings fails to preserve and enhance the character and setting of Stamford, the adjacent Conservation Area and nearby heritage assets due to the developments density, layout, scale, design and appearance. Acceptance of the proposal would have a detrimental impact on this sensitive approach to this historic town contrary to the requirements of policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy, Policy STM1a of the adopted South Kesteven Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework."
8.1.4 The developers appealed the decision and in June 2015 the appeal was dismissed. The Inspector considered the main issue in the appeal to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to whether or not it would preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings and the registered park and garden, and preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
22 8.1.5 Paragraph 12 of the Inspectors decision letter states:
"The site is allocated for housing development in the recently adopted South Kesteven District Council Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document 2014 (SAP) and, as such, the principle of developing the site has very recently been considered acceptable. Notwithstanding the very strong local concerns that have been expressed in this respect, there is no substantive evidence before me that would lead me to consider that this recently adopted allocation, or SAP Policy STM1a, are out of date or that material considerations exist that indicate that the appeal site should not be developed for some form of housing. Such a development would, inevitably, result in a change to the character of the site which, for the above reasons, would be very likely to have some impact on the setting of the town and the nearby heritage assets. However, local and national planning policies and guidance require this change to be managed sensitively."
8.1.6 Paragraphs 14 to 16 of the appeal decision set out the matters that the Planning Inspector considered to be of concern. In particular the Inspector was concerned that the appeal scheme did not appear to follow the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Landscape appraisal submitted with the application. The Inspector noted that the development would not be set back from the southern boundary of the site and the design of the proposal would not result in a landscape dominated street scene or, taking account of its impact from London Road on the Burghley Lodges and west gate, one in which new development on the site would appear as rooftops within groups of trees.
8.1.7 The inspector concluded that the pattern of development proposed, with dwellings variously grouped around estate roads, access drives and parking areas, together with the absence of significant landscaping within much of the site, would result in a car-dominated layout and an overall design of development that would appear as a modern form of suburban housing. Notwithstanding the more substantial planting and landscaping to the site frontage, the inclusion of footpath links through the site and the varied mix of dwellings, the Inspector considered this to be at odds with the character of much of the existing townscape in the vicinity of the appeal site.
8.1.7.1 The Inspector stated that:
"due to the design of the proposal and the limited landscaping proposed on the southern boundary of the site, as well as the topography of the locality and the intervisibility of the site with its surroundings, the scheme as proposed would not effectively blend into the countryside in views from the south.
Notwithstanding the roadside hedges or separation distances involved, the proposal would figure prominently in views of Stamford from this direction and, as a result of its inappropriate layout and insensitive design, it would have a significant adverse impact on the approach to the town and on the setting of nearby heritage assets. The envisaged landscaping elsewhere within the site, retention of existing planting, provision of an area of open green space to the south of the site, inclusion of chimneys and the orientation and siting of the dwellings, would not be sufficient to address this harmful impact. "
8.1.8 Having regard to existing development nearby, the Inspector was satisfied that the height and appearance of the appeal dwellings would not be materially detrimental to the character of the area. Furthermore, she considered that issues relating to concerns about the quality of the materials proposed could be addressed by condition.
8.1.9 The application the subject of this report (application S14/3078) was submitted on the 14th November 2014. The application was originally submitted for a residential development comprising 39 houses and associated parking spaces and garaging together with access road and turning areas, open space and landscaping, foul water pumping station, surface water balancing pond and open space. The application was submitted in response to the reasons for refusal relating to application S13/3322, but prior to the appeal decision. 23 8.1.10 Following the appeal decision the Council instructed an independent consultant Conservation Architect / Planner to review the current application. The Consultant Conservation Architect raised a number of issues with the scheme and the developers have taken these concerns on board and those of other consultees and this has resulted in the submission of the revised proposals which are currently before the Council for consideration.
8.2 Principle of the use
8.2.1 Policy SP1 of the Adopted Core Strategy states that new development in Stamford will be allowed where it helps to maintain and support its role as a market town. The policy indicates that preference will be given to sustainable sites within the built up part of the town and sites allocated for development in the Site Allocation and Policies DPD.
8.2.2 The site is allocated as being suitable for residential development by Policy STM1a of the Site Allocation and Policies DPD, which states that, "STM1a should be developed as a single site with a single point of access, subject to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. Development of this site should preserve and enhance the setting of Stamford and nearby heritage assets. The quantum of houses built on the site must be supported by a heritage impact assessment which demonstrates the layout and design of a proposal will not adversely affect the approach to the town and nearby heritage assets and preserves local distinctiveness."
8.2.3 Some of the objectors have requested that the site should be de-allocated. This could only be undertaken through a review of the development plan - which can take the form of a full or partial review and would require the full process of community engagement and Examination in Public. In addition to consultation, any review would need to be supported by robust and consistent evidence to justify any modifications. From a policy perspective, there is no available evidence to support a modification to the current statutory development plan and in any event the application has to be determined having regard to the policies that are applicable at the time. This issue was considered by the Inspector with respect to the recent appeal on this site (S13/3322). As outlined above the appeal inspector concluded that there was no substantive evidence before her to consider that the adopted allocation is out of date or that material considerations exist that indicate that the site should not be developed for some form of housing.
8.2.4 Policy H1 of the core strategy makes it clear that development rates in Stamford and the Deepings should be maintained at a modest level to meet the needs of these market towns, and to support the provision of additional community infrastructure in accordance with Circular 05/05 and policy SP4. Concern has been raised that the housing figures for Stamford have already been met. It should be noted that the target housing figures set out in policy H1 are minimum targets and not maximum and any additional provision should not be considered as a justifiable reason for refusal.
8.2.5 Taking the above policies into account and the comments of the previous appeal decision it is clear that the proposed development can be considered to be in full accordance with the requirements of Policy H1 of the adopted Core Strategy and policies SP1 and STM1a of the SAP.
8.3 Impact on the character and appearance of the area
8.3.1 When considering whether to grant planning permission for developments which affect a listed building or its setting, Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. Similarly Section 72 of the Act requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.
8.3.2 The importance of considering the impact of new development on the significance of designated heritage assets is explained in section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 132 of the NPPF advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to 24 the asset's conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alterations or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Any such harm or loss therefore requires clear and convincing justification.
8.3.3 Paragraph 133 of the NPPF advises that where a proposed development leads to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset planning permission should be refused, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss. Paragraph 134 advises that where a development proposal leads to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
8.3.4 In addition to the above statutory requirements and national guidance Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy establishes that all applications should be considered in terms of their impact on 14 criteria including:
1. statutory, national and local designations of landscape features, including natural and historic assets 2. local distinctiveness and sense of place 3. historic character, patterns and attributes of the landscape 4. the layout and scale of buildings and designed spaces 5. the quality and character of the built fabric and their settings 6. the condition of the landscape 7. biodiversity and ecological networks within the landscape 8. public access to and community value of the landscape 9. remoteness and tranquillity 10. visual intrusion 11. noise and light pollution 12. Conservation Area Appraisals and Village Design Statements, where these have been adopted by the Council 13. impact on controlled waters 14. protection of existing open space (including allotments and public open space, and open spaces important to the character, setting and separation of built-up areas)
8.3.5 The South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (January 2007) (LCA) indicates that the site falls within the Kesteven Uplands Character Area. The key characteristics of the area are:
1. A relatively unified, simple, medium-scale agricultural landscape, with a high proportion of historic woodland. 2. Undulating landform based around the valleys of the Rivers Witham and East and West Glen and the Welland to the south. 3. Picturesque villages built of local limestone, with collyweston slate roofs to the south, and pantiles to the north. 4. High concentration of houses and parks, with areas of farmland under estate management. 5. A dispersed, nucleated settlement pattern, mostly following the river valleys. 6. Enclosed mostly by hedgerows, with hedgerow trees. 7. Modern human influences include airfields and the A1, Great North Road.
8.3.6 The LCA considers the landscape of the Kesteven Uplands Character Area to have a medium to high sensitivity to new employment or residential development, because of the high proportion of valuable landscape elements and relatively undisturbed character. The strong landscape pattern including many woodlands could, however, in places be beneficial in assimilating new development.
8.3.7 The application site lies adjacent to the Stamford Conservation Area. The area of the conservation area closest to the site is the character area of St Martin's. The key characteristics for the character area of St Martin's include:
25 1. The medieval street pattern remains intact 2. There is a high concentration of listed buildings 3. The buildings are aligned to the rear of the footways and are tightly packed along the streets which contain the views 4. The predominant building material is stone with either coursed rubble masonry or ashlar for the higher status buildings 5. The buildings vary in terms of plot width and are mainly two or three storeys in height 6. The rising topography means the views along the streets are constantly unfolding 7. Chimneys, dormer windows and boundary walls are important features
8.3.8 There are a number of heritage assets located in close proximity to the application site to which special consideration needs to be given too. These include The Fryers Callis, a grade II listed almshouse which is situated to the north of the site on the corner of Kettering Road and Wothorpe Road. The grade II* listed Burghley House Park and Garden which is located to the east of the site on the B1081 London Road.
8.3.9 The Bottle Lodges which form the western entrance to Burghley House Park and Gardens, these are grade II listed.
8.3.10 As set out above the appeal inspector when considering the previously refused scheme considered the key areas of concern related to:
The proximity of the development to the southern boundary of the site Car dominated layout and modern form of suburban housing Limited landscaping proposals
8.3.11 In order to address these concerns the developers have submitted the current amended proposals. The dwellings in the northern corner of the application site have been simplified in their form and now face directly onto Kettering Road. The proposed development maintains the existing green frontage onto Kettering Road with the nearest proposed dwellings being set back from the road frontage. This will ensure that any adverse impact on the setting of Fryers Callis by the proposed development is minimised and in any event, less than that resulting from the current residential redevelopment of the former football ground site.
8.3.12 The proposed development includes predominantly two storey and two and a half storey dwellings. All of the dwellings have off-street parking provision in the form of parking spaces, covered parking and garages. The dwellings are proposed to be constructed using a mixture of materials appropriate to this sensitive area including, a mix of sawn bedstone, reconstituted stone and render with stone quoins. The design of the proposed dwellings would preserve the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the setting of the adjacent conservation area and surrounding heritage assets. When considering the previous appeal scheme the inspector was satisfied that the height and appearance of the dwellings would not be materially detrimental to the character of the area and it is considered that these proposal are similarly acceptable in design terms
8.3.13 The proposed dwellings are set back from the sites southern boundary with the most southerly dwelling sited no further south than the existing built form of the dwellings on Pinfold Lane. This set back is in line with the comments made by Historic England. Whilst Historic England objected to the original proposals, they subsequently withdrew their objection following submission of the current scheme and commented as follows:-
"Whilst there remains an impact due to the loss open field space, we consider that drawing back the housing towards Kettering Road as now proposed would appreciably reduce the impact on the setting and significance of Stamford Conservation Area, Burghley House registered park and garden and Burghley House. The proposed development would have more of the character of development on a back lane in Stamford. The proposed layout allows an open space to be included across the whole of the southern boundary of the development site which would be, in effect, a small field. Together with the proposed landscaping and 26 boundary treatment, this open area would have much of the character of the existing rural setting of the designated heritage assets affected and of key approaches to them."
8.3.14 It is also proposed to undertake additional landscaping along the sites southern boundary in order to further soften the edge of the development and minimise views of the development from the south. Although an element of grasscrete surfacing of the roadway to serve plots 9-11 is proposed, officers do not consider that this is an appropriate surface material and it is recommended that a condition be attached to any consent requiring revised road surfacing materials to be provided for this section of the estate.
8.3.15 The development proposes 29 dwellings on the site this is a reduction of 19 dwellings on the previously refused scheme which comprised 48 dwellings. This represents a 40% reduction in the total number of dwellings proposed on the site. The development has a low density of approximately 16 dwellings per hectare.
8.3.16 The location of the access road into the site has been amended to increase the number of trees which can be retained at the site frontage. The street pattern has also been simplified taking into account the comments of the Council's Consultant Conservation Architect and Historic England.
8.3.17 The application has removed the covered parking area from the entrance of the site which was criticised by the appeal inspector and the off-street parking arrangements and garages are now proposed to be located predominantly within plot boundaries. The amount of car parking courts has been significantly reduced and these are now in discreet locations.
8.3.18 The proposed development seeks to retain where possible existing hedges and trees and to uses these features to help assimilate the development. Additional planting is proposed to help soften the built form of the development and it is recommended that conditions be attached to any consent securing a full landscaping scheme and management plan.
8.3.19 The application site is located to the south west of Stamford Conservation Area which abuts the north eastern corner of the site. The scheme has been amended to take into account the advice of both the Council's Consultant Conservation Architect and Historic England. It is considered that the revised proposals will have no significant material impact on Stamford Conservation Area.
8.3.20 The application site is visible to the north west from the Bottle Lodges and the West Gate. The significant reduction in the density of the development, along with the proposed additional tree planting and landscaping, will considerably soften the impact of the development in views from the south, in particular from London Road and First Drift. The visual impact of the development will mostly be one of buildings viewed beyond the proposed landscaping and tree planting on the southern boundary where roof tops, ridges and chimneys are visible. Whilst the development will result in some change to the wider setting of the Bottle Lodges, the West Gate and Burghley Historic Park and Gardens it is considered that it would not result in any harm to their significance.
8.3.21 Wothorpe and Wothorpe Special Character Area are located to the west of the application site along with The Elms a grade II listed building. Given the reduction in the density of the development and the additional landscaping on the site boundaries it is considered that the proposed buildings will not appear as prominent features in views from Wothorpe. Peterborough Council, in whose area Wothorpe is located, do not object to the proposal and note that whilst they consider some harm would arise to the rural setting of Wothorpe Special Character Area affecting its significance, this is considered to be "low".
8.3.22 Paragraphs 134 and 135 of the NPPF indicate that where there is less than substantial harm to heritage assets, this harm needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this instance it is considered that the scheme has been significantly amended to reduce the impact of the development on the nearby heritage assets. Whilst it is accepted that the development will result in some less than substantial harm to the setting of some of these 27 heritage assets it is considered that on balance the planning benefits of providing much needed residential development and affordable dwellings outweighs this harm.
8.4 Impact on the residential amenity
8.4.1 Concern has been raised about overlooking and loss of privacy, particularly in relation to those properties on Pinfold Lane which back on to the sites eastern boundary. The separation distances between the proposed dwellings those on Pinfold Lane are in excess of 30m and all of the proposed dwellings have garden depths of 10m or more. The separation distances are therefore acceptable and will not result in any significant overlooking or loss of privacy. Taking into account, the separation distances, orientation of the buildings, as well as screening from landscaping and boundary treatments, it is considered that the development would not detrimentally affect the residential amenities of future occupiers or the occupiers of neighbouring properties from overbearing impact, overlooking or loss of light.
8.4.2 Concern has also been raised in relation to the small parking area to the rear of plot 5. Given the long gardens to the rear of the properties on Pinfold Lane it is considered that this would not result in any significant impact from noise and disturbance. The property located directly to the east of this area has a garden measuring approximately 40m in depth.
8.5 Highway issues
8.5.1 There has been significant concern raised by objectors in relation to highway safety issues including, increased congestion, potential for rat runs to be used through Wothorpe, limited access on to the A1 and concerns about the proposed parking provision. Guidance contained within Paragraph 32 of the NPPF required developments that generate significant amounts of movement to be supported by a Transport Statement. The NPPF also advises that when considering planning applications local authorities should take account of whether:
1. the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; 2. safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and 3. improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
8.5.2 The applicants have submitted a Transport Statement and a Green Travel Plan in support of the proposed development. The local highway authority asked the developers to consider the impacts of the development from the site access on to Kettering Road and at the junction of Kettering Road and High Street St Martin's. Capacity assessments have been undertaken at these junctions during the peak periods between 07:45-09:15am and 16:45-18:15pm. The assessment demonstrates that these junctions would still have capacity and that the development would not result in any significant harm to highway safety or the capacity of the highway network.
8.5.3 The site is located within walking distance of the nearby railway station (550m) and the nearest bus stop on Water Street (750m) where the 201 bus runs an hourly service on weekdays between Peterborough and Bourne. The site is also 700m or a 7 minute walk from Stamford bus station. The site is also within reasonable walking distance of the town centre and other facilities such as schools etc.
8.5.4 Both the local highway authority and the Highways England have been consulted and raised no objection to the proposed access and parking arrangements, subject to conditions. The development therefore complies with the guidance contained in the NPPF and the requirements of policy SP3 of the adopted core strategy. The development is therefore acceptable in highway safety terms.
28 8.5.6 In addition, various concerns were raised regarding the two footpaths crossing the site, but these will be diverted and the Lincolnshire Fieldpaths' Association has raised no objection.
8.5.7 A condition is also proposed requiring a footpath to be constructed running from the sites north- eastern corner linking to the existing public footpath to the east of Pinfold Lane, in order to improve pedestrian links to and from the site.
8.6 Flood Risk and Drainage
8.6.1 The application site lies within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Zone maps with the nearest fluvial flood plain associated with a 1 in 100 year event being related to the River Welland which is located around 200m to the west and approximately 5m below the lowest ground level on the site. The site is therefore considered to be at a low risk of flooding.
8.6.2 A local watercourse runs alongside the western boundary of the site. This ditch has in recent times resulted in some escape of water towards Kettering Road, but this has not caused any flooding on site. Detailed investigations of this ditch revealed a blocked pipe at the northern end of the ditch together with a headwall incorporating a sump structure. From here the system connects to a piped system on the northern side of Kettering Road which continues in a westerly direction before ultimately combining with a similar pipe which runs along the southern side of Kettering Road and then run in a 450mm pipe to the western edge of the school before passing under the railway line and ultimately into the River Welland. As part of the proposed development it is proposed to replace the blocked pipe with a new system and as such the existing flooding problem from the ditch on to Kettering Road will be addressed.
8.6.3 The proposed development would use storm water drainage which limits the discharge rate to that equivalent to the existing greenfield runoff rate. This means that the existing land drainage regime will be protected and that there will be no increase in flood risk for other nearby developments.
8.6.4 The plans submitted with this application show that the majority of the site would be connected to the western boundary ditch beyond the southern edge of the proposed houses having first passed through the intended dry detention basin (located on the southern edge of the site). Flows leaving this facility will be limited to greenfield runoff rates. The remainder of the site will drain to a replacement of the pipe system which is currently blocked at the northern end of the western boundary ditch. This will be controlled by hydrobrakes to a greenfield runoff discharge rates. The proposed drainage solutions will ensure that the site does not result in any additional flood risk. It will also fix the existing problem with the blocked pipes in Kettering Road being replaced, stopping the existing issue of surface water being discharged into Kettering Road.
8.6.5 The Environment Agency, Lead Flood Authority, Anglian Water and the Internal Drainage Board have all been consulted in relation to the proposed surface and foul water drainage measures. These consultees have raised no objections to the proposed drainage arrangements, subject to conditions to ensure that the drainage is provided and maintained in accordance with the submitted details and Flood Risk Assessment.
8.7 Affordable Housing Provision
8.7.1 Policy H3 of the adopted Core Strategy requires a target provision of 35% affordable housing on all developments comprising 5 or more dwellings. For a scheme of 29 dwellings, this would equate to a provision of up to 10 affordable units. A reduction in this figure would usually only be considered where it could be demonstrated that provision of the full amount would make the development unviable.
8.7.2 In this case the applicant has expressed a willingness to enter into a negotiated S106 agreement for a provision of 44.8% almost 10% above the required level. The applicants have proposed the following arrangements:
29 4 x 3 bed shared ownership units are provided on-site (13.8%) 8 rented units and 1 shared ownership unit be provided off-site (31%)
8.7.3 The affordable housing to be provided on-site will be situated in plots 1 to 4 located in the north east corner of the site fronting onto Kettering Road. The off-site provision would be located in the southern half of the district on the Elsea Park development. The council's Partnership Projects Officer has raised no objections and has indicated that the additional housing will help to meet the needs for affordable housing within the southern part of the district in particular Stamford and Bourne. In this respect the proposal accords with the NPPF (Core Planning Principles and Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes) CS Policies SP4 and the South Kesteven Planning Obligations SPD. Whilst there is some conflict with policy H3 of the Core Strategy it is recognised that there are limited available sites for the off-site provision of affordable housing within Stamford. On this basis the provision of an off-site provision elsewhere within the southern half of the district is considered appropriate and acceptance of this arrangement would result in the development providing a 44.8% contribution towards the districts affordable housing supply.
8.8 Open Space Provision
8.8.1 Policy SAP10 sets out that new open space should form an integral part of the development layout. It should also be easily accessible by means of pedestrian connections through the development and should be clearly visible to the public. The policy also indicates that where open space provision cannot be provided on-site, an off-site contribution towards improving facilities in the locality will be expected.
8.8.2 The proposed development will utilise existing public rights of way to connect the open space to the development and this will help to ensure good links to the open space provision. The areas of open space also form an important element of the landscaping and setting of the development. In order to ensure that the development assimilates into its surroundings and in order to protect the setting of adjacent heritage assets the developers have provided over 3,000m2 of informal open space towards the southern end of the site. This is almost double the amount required by the council's policy. In addition to the on-site informal open space the development would also generate a requirement for an off-site contribution of £22292.10 towards an equipped area of open space.
8.9 Ecology and Wildlife
8.9.1 Concerns have been raised in relation to the impact of the development on local wildlife and ecology. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey was originally undertaken in 2013 and the applicants have also undertaken an update of this assessment which was carried out in June and July 2016. The Phase 1 Habitat Survey indicates that the development will not have any significant adverse impact on any protected species, although it does recommend some mitigation measures including providing additional bat and bird boxes as part of the development. It is recommended that a condition requiring the proposed mitigation measures be attached to any consent. Natural England has raised no objections to the proposed development.
8.9.2 The applicants have also submitted an updated Arboricultural Impact Assessment dated October 2016 in support of the application. In order to implement the development the assessment indicates that it will be necessary to remove a total of seven trees/groups and parts of three groups. The development will also require the pruning of other trees on-site. The trees to be removed are of low or moderate quality and the development includes additional tree planting which will mitigate the loss of these trees. It is recommended that conditions are attached requiring a detailed arboricultural method statement and tree protection plans to be submitted if the development is granted planning permission.
30 8.10 Conclusion
8.10.1 This is a site allocated for residential development in the Council's development plan and an Inspector on appeal has accepted that these policies were up to date and there was no reason why the "site should not be developed for some form of housing." The proposed development has been significantly amended taking into account the advice of the Council's Consultant Conservation Architect and that of Historic England and in order to address the specific concerns raised by the Inspector. It is considered that the significant reduction in the development proposed, the improved layout and the provision of additional landscaping significantly reduce any harm to the setting of adjacent heritage assets and on balance it is considered that benefits of providing much needed residential development and affordable housing outweighs any harm.
9.0 Section 106 Heads of Terms
9.1 Affordable housing provision
9.2 POS - based on 29 dwellings = £22292.10
10.0 Crime and Disorder
10.1 It is considered that the proposal would not result in any significant crime and disorder implications.
11.0 Human Rights Implications
11.1 Articles 6 (Rights to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.
11.2 It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.
12.0 RECOMMENDATION: that the development is Approved subject to the following conditions
Time Limit for Commencement
1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: In order that the development is commenced in a timely manner, as set out in Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
Approved Plans
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans:
1255-03 Rev K Planning Layout 1255-31 Rev E External Masonry Finishes Plan 1255-46 Rev B Street Scenes Sheet 1 of 2 1255-47 Rev B Street Scenes Sheet 2 of 2 1255-48 Rev A Site Sections 1255-49 Rev B Proposed Footpath Diversion Route 1225-33 Rev A Dante House Type 1225-35 Eversden House Type 31 1225-36 Mayfair House Type 1225-37 Palmerston House Type 1255-38 Rev A Woburn House Type 1225-50 Rev B House Type FOG - Plot 5 1255-51 Rev A Palmerston House Type - Plots 1 to 4 only 1255-42 Double and Shared Ownership Garage 1255-41 Single Garage 17117/2002 Rev A - Woods Hardwick Access Plan 17117/2003 Rev C - Woods Hardwick Refuse Vehicle Tracking Plan 17117/05 202 - Woods Hardwick Proposed Contours 17117/05 201 Rev J - Woods Hardwick Drainage Strategy JBA 13/147-TS02 Rev D Tree Protection Plan JBA 13/147-01 Rev B Coloured Landscape Masterplan
Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.
Reason: To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.
Before the Development is Commenced
3 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, all existing trees shown on the approved plan to be retained shall have been fenced off to the limit of their branch spread in accordance with BS 5837. No works including:
i. removal of earth, ii. storage of materials, iii. vehicular movements or iv. siting of temporary buildings
shall be permitted within these protected areas.
Reason: To prevent unnecessary damage to existing trees and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).
4 No development shall be commenced until full engineering, drainage, street lighting and constructional details of the streets proposed for adoption have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall, thereafter, be constructed in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Note:-
The applicant is advised to obtain a technical approval for all estate street details from the Local Highway Authority prior to the submission of such approved details to the Local Planning Authority to discharge this condition.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety; to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the highways infrastructure serving the development; and to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and users of the highway in accordance with Policies SP3 and EN1 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy.
5 No dwellings (or other development as specified) shall be commenced before the first 50m metres of estate road from its junction with the public highway, including visibility splays, as shown on drawing number 1255-03 Rev K has been completed.
Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site and to enable calling vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway of Kettering Road.
32 6 No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable urban drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall:
a) Provide details of how run-off will be safely conveyed and attenuated during storms up to and including the 1 in 100 year critical storm event, with an allowance for climate change, from all hard surfaced areas within the development into the existing local drainage infrastructure and watercourse system without exceeding the run-off rate for the undeveloped site;
b) Provide attenuation details and discharge rates which shall be restricted to 5.6 litres per second;
c) Provide details of the timetable for and any phasing of implementation for the drainage scheme; and
d) Provide details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed over the lifetime of the development, including any arrangements for adoption by any public body or Statutory Undertaker and any other arrangements required to secure the operation of the drainage system throughout its lifetime.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drainage scheme and no dwelling shall be occupied until the approved scheme has been completed or provided on the site in accordance with the approved phasing. The approved scheme shall be retained and maintained in full in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the development has adequate drainage provision in accordance with policy EN2 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy.
7 No development shall take place before a scheme has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority for the construction of a 1.5 metre wide footway, together with arrangements for the disposal of surface water run-off from the highway at the frontage of the site. The agreed works shall be fully implemented before (any of) the dwelling(s) is/are occupied. Or in accordance with a phasing arrangement to be agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure safe access to the site and each dwelling/building in the interests of residential amenity, convenience and safety.
8 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, details of hard landscaping works shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include:
i. proposed finished levels and contours; ii. means of enclosure; iii. car parking layouts; iv. other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; v. hard surfacing materials; vi. minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc.); vii.proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.); viii. retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant.
Reason: Hard and soft landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).
33 During Building Works
9 Notwithstanding the road surface details shown on drawing 1255-03 Rev K details of an alternative means of surfacing the area of road in front of plots 9 and 10 shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The road shall then be surfaced in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: The Local Planning Authority do not consider the use of grasscrete to be an appropriate road surface for this section of road, in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy.
10 All first floor bathroom and ensuite windows shall be obscure glazed.
Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring/adjoining property.
11 Before any of the works on the external elevations for the building(s) hereby permitted are begun, samples of the materials (including colour of any render, paintwork or colourwash) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then only be completed in accordance with the approved details
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).
12 No hard-standing areas shall be constructed until the works have been carried out in accordance with the surface water strategy so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding, in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN2 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy.
13 Before the works to provide the boundary treatments hereby permitted are commenced, a plan indicating the heights, positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To provide a satisfactory appearance to any boundary treatments and by screening rear gardens from public view, in the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupants of the proposed dwellings and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).
14 Prior to the pumping station hereby approved being installed precise details of its external appearance and means of enclosure shall be submitted to an agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The pumping station shall only be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reasons: To ensure that the pumping station assimilates in to the surrounding development in accordance with the requirements of policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy.
15 Before any construction work above ground is commenced, details of any soft landscaping works shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include:
i. planting plans; ii. written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); iii. schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate;
34 Reason: Soft landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).
16 The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the recommendations and conclusions of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey dated November 2013 and the Updated Ecological Assessment undertaken by James Blake Associates Ltd dated 26th July 2016.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not adversely impact on the local ecology in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy 2010.
Before the Development is Occupied
17 Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied/brought into use, all hard landscape works shall have been carried out in accordance with the approved hard landscaping details.
Reason: Hard landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).
18 Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied/brought into use, a landscape management plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include:
i. long term design objectives, ii. management responsibilities and iii. maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than privately owned, domestic gardens.
Reason: Landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).
19 No dwelling shall be occupied until the estate street(s) affording access to those dwelling(s) has been completed in accordance with the Estate Street Development Plan.
Reason: To ensure that the estate streets serving the development and completed and maintained to the approved standard, and are available got use by the occupants, and other users of the development, in the interest of highway safety; to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the highways infrastructure serving the approved development; and the safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and users of the highway, in accordance with Policies SP3 and EN1 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy.
20 Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied/brought into use, the works to provide the boundary treatments shall have been completed in accordance with the approved boundary treatment scheme.
Reason: To provide a satisfactory appearance to any boundary treatments and by screening rear gardens from public view, in the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupants of the proposed dwellings and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).
21 The approved Green Travel Plan dated October 2016 shall be adhered to as long as any part of the development is occupied and implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein.
Reason: In order that the local planning authority conforms to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, a Travel Plan has been conditioned to ensure that access to the site is sustainable and reduces dependency on the car. 35 22 Before the end of the first planting/seeding season following the occupation/first use of any part of the development hereby permitted, all soft landscape works shall have been carried out in accordance with the approved soft landscaping details.
Reason: Soft landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).
Ongoing Conditions
23 For a period of not less than 5 years following the first occupation of the final dwelling/unit hereby permitted, the approved Landscape Management Plan shall be adhered to in full unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: Hard and soft landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).
24 Within a period of five years from the first occupation of the final dwelling/unit of the development hereby permitted, any trees or plants provided as part of the approved soft landscaping scheme, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced in the first planting season following any such loss with a specimen of the same size and species as was approved in condition above unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.
Standard Note(s) to Applicant:
1 Anglian Water has assets close to or crossing this site or there are assets subject to an adoption agreement. Therefore the site layout should take this into account and accommodate those assets within either prospectively adoptable highways or public open space. If this is not practicable then the sewers will need to be diverted at the developers cost under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991. or, in the case of apparatus under an adoption agreement, liaise with the owners of the apparatus. It should be noted that the diversion works should normally be completed before development can commence.
2 Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue has advised that access to buildings for fire appliances and fire fighters must meet with the requirements specified in Building Regulations 2000 Part B5. These requirements may be satisfied with other equivalent standards relating to access for fire fighting, in which case those standards should be quoted in correspondence.
Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue also require a minimum carrying capacity for hard standing for pumping appliances of 18 tonnes, not 12.5 tonnes as detailed in the Building Regulations 2000 part B5.
3 Your attention is drawn to the attached letter from Lincolnshire Police Force Crime Prevention Design Advisor.
4 You are advised that a public footpath crosses the site. This approval does not allow it to be diverted or stopped up.
5 The footway and associated works shall be done under a Section 278 Minor Works Agreement under the Highways Act 1980 with Lincolnshire County Council. Lincolnshire County Council shall be contacted on 01522 782070 for the specification, approval and inspections of the works.
36 6 All wild birds, nests, eggs and young are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The grant of planning permission does not override the above Act. All applicants and sub-contractors are reminded that persons undertaking site clearance, hedgerow removal, demolition works etc. between March and August may risk committing an offence under the above Act and may be liable to prosecution if birds are known or suspected to be nesting. The Council will pass complaints received about such work to the appropriate authorities for investigation. The Local Authority advises that such work should be scheduled for the period 1 September-28 February wherever possible. Otherwise, a qualified ecologist should make a careful check before work begins.
7 The developer is reminded of the need to comply with the requirements of the associated S106 Legal Agreement
8 During any works allowed by this permission, users of the Public Right of Way should not be inconvenienced or exposed to hazards by any such work.
9 The sections of proposed footpath which run to the south of Kettering Road should be constructed to a width of 1.8m and tarmacked. The proposed section of FP15 which runs through the area of green space and the proposed section of FP 14 which runs from the development to the existing drain should both be constructed to a width of 1.8m and stoned with an appropriate material.
10 In reaching the decision the Council has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner by determining the application without undue delay. As such it is considered that the decision is in accordance with paras 186 - 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45