Public Document Pack

County Offices Newland Lincoln LN1 1YL

22 May 2014

Planning and Regulation Committee

A meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee will be held on Monday, 2 June 2014 in the Council Chamber, County Offices, Newland, Lincoln LN1 1YL at 10.30 am for the transaction of business set out on the attached Agenda.

Yours sincerely

Tony McArdle Chief Executive

Membership of the Planning and Regulation Committee (15 Members of the Council)

I G Fleetwood (Chairman), D McNally (Vice-Chairman), J W Beaver, D Brailsford, D C Hoyes MBE, D M Hunter-Clarke, M S Jones, Ms T Keywood-Wainwright, D C Morgan, N H Pepper, Mrs H N J Powell, Mrs J M Renshaw, C L Strange, T M Trollope-Bellew and W S Webb

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE AGENDA MONDAY, 2 JUNE 2014

Item Title Report Reference 1. Apologies/replacement members

2. Declarations of Members' Interests (Councillors are reminded that there is no need to declare an interest if it has already been recorded on the register of disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or notified to the Monitoring Officer in accordance with the regulations. However, Councillors declaring interests must state what the DPI is and accordingly not speak or vote on the item)

3. Minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 7 April 2014 (Pages 1 - 14) 3.1 Minutes of the Site Visit to Mansgate Quarry, Nettleton (Pages 15 - 16) 4. Traffic Matters (Pages 17 - 26) 4.1 , Harrowby Road - Proposed Zebra Crossing (Pages 27 - 32) 4.2 Stamford - Ryhall Road Proposed Installation of Traffic Regulation Order - Increase 30 MPH Restriction (Pages 33 - 42) 5. County Matter Planning Applications

5.1 Supplementary Report - To use land situated within the former Mansgate Chalk Quarry as a primary aggregates (Pages 43 storage, processing and merchanting site and construction - 68) and demolition waste recycling facility and the retention and use of existing buildings, weighbridge facilities and associated vehicle parking areas in association with the proposed use at Mansgate Quarry, Nettleton - Mansgate Quarry Products Ltd - W66/131058/14

5.2 The Environment Act 1995: The First Periodic Review to update and replace the conditions already attached to the (Pages 69 mineral planning permission (E)N158/0097/99 at Saltfleetby A - 82) Wellsite, Saddleback Road, Howdales, - Wingas Storage (UK) Ltd - (E)N158/0526/14

5.3 Section 73 appli cation to vary condition 8 of planning permission (E)S86/2390/10 at Riddell Scrap Metals, Plot off (Pages 83 Spratt Close, - A Riddel & Son (Horncastle) - - 92) (E)S86/0511/14

6. County Council Planning Applications

6.1 To build a two classroom extension with ancillary spaces and the removal of an existing double classroom mobile unit at (Pages 93 Spalding Primary School, Woolram Wygate, Spalding - - 108) H16/0229/14

6.2 To convert the former Primary School to a Pupil Referral Unit, extend existing car park and construct two (Pages external canopies at former Baumber Primary School, Lincoln 109 - 122) Road, Baumber - (E)S11/0448/14

6.3 To change of use of the Riverhead Connect Resource Centre, for a period of 12 months, to provide a temporary fire station. (Pages The proposal would comprise the use of existing building to 123 - 138) provide staff offices/ accommodation base for the fire service in addition to the location of a temporary fire appliance garage on the existing hardstanding to the front of the site at Riverhead Day Centre, Victoria Road, Louth - E(N)105/0754/14

7. Other Applications

7.1 Outcome of Planning Appeal - Traynors Ltd, The Boundary, Gorse Lane, Grantham (Pages 139 - 150)

Democratic Services Officer Contact Details

Name: Steve Blagg Direct Dial 01522 553788 E Mail Address steve.blagg@.gov.uk

Please Note: for more information about any of the following please contact the Democratic Services Officer responsible for servicing this meeting

• Business of the meeting • Any special arrangements • Copies of reports

Contact details set out above.

All papers for council meetings are available on: www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/committeerecords

Agenda Item 3.

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014

PRESENT: COUNCILLOR I G FLEETWOOD (CHAIRMAN)

Councillors Mrs H N J Powell (Vice-Chairman), D Brailsford, D C Hoyes MBE, D M Hunter-Clarke, M S Jones, Ms T Keywood-Wainwright, D McNally, N H Pepper, Mrs J M Renshaw, C L Strange, T M Trollope-Bellew and W S Webb

Also in attendance: Councillors Mrs J Brockway (minute 184). Executive Councillors C J Davie (Economic Development, Environment, Planning, Tourism) and R G Davies (Highways, Transport, IT)

Officers in attendance:-

Steve Blagg (Democratic Services Officer), Graeme Butler (Project and Technical Support Manager), Paul Little (Head of Highways East), Charlotte Lockwood (Solicitor), Neil McBride (Development Manager) and Marc Willis (Principal Planning Officer (Development Management)

172 APOLOGIES/REPLACEMENT MEMBERS

An apology for absence was received from Councillor D C Morgan.

Councillor A E Reynolds replaced Councillor V C Ayling for this meeting only.

173 DECLARATIONS OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

None were declared at this stage of the meeting.

174 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 17 MARCH 2014

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 17 March 2014, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

175 TRAFFIC MATTERS

176 , SPA ROAD - PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF WAITING

Graeme Butler presented a report in connection with an objection and comment received to a proposal to introduce parking restrictions along Spa Road at Woodhall Spa.

Page 1

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014

Comments made by the Committee included:-

1. The parking situation had deteriorated since the introduction of parking charges by District Council which had meant people working in Woodhall Spa could no longer afford to park in the car parks all day and had to park on the street. 2. Residents were against all day parking outside their homes. 3. There were many elderly residents living in Woodhall Spa and speeding traffic was an issue for them. 4. Did Woodhall Spa have a dedicated Traffic Warden? 5. Need for enforcement to prevent vehicles parking on the pavement. 6. The use of H bars to prevent parking on access to driveways.

Graeme Butler stated that H bars were no longer used by the Council and added that there was not a dedicated Traffic Warden in Woodhall Spa.

A motion by Councillor C L Strange, seconded by Councillor H N J Powell, that parking restrictions should be imposed on the eastern side of Spa Road only in order to assess their affect and that if this was not successful then the recommendation as detailed in the report should be applied in full, was defeated by four votes for and seven votes against.

On a motion by Councillor D C Hoyes MBE, seconded by Councillor T M Trollope- Bellew, it was –

RESOLVED (8 votes for, 3 votes against. Councillor W S Webb abstained as he arrived in the meeting during the discussion.)

That the objection be overruled and the Order as advertised be implemented.

177 GRANTHAM, HARROWBY ROAD - PROPOSED ZEBRA CROSSING

Following discussions between the Chairman, the relevant officer, the local Member and member of the Committee, Councillor D C Morgan, who was absent for today's meeting, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the report to the next meeting of the Committee. NOTED.

178 TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS - PROGRESS REVIEW

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Director, Highways and Transportation, in connection the latest position on all current Traffic Regulation Orders received since the last meeting of the Committee.

RESOLVED

That the report be received.

Page 2

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014

179 COUNTY MATTER PLANNING APPLICATIONS

180 RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION IS SOUGHT TO USE THE LAND AND BUILDINGS FOR WASTE RECYCLING OPERATIONS AT BLUE SKY PLASTICS LTD, SOUTH FEN ROAD, BOURNE - BLUE SKY PLASTICS LTD (AGENT: GP PLANNING LTD) - S12/0601/14

(NOTE: Councillor T Keywood-Wainwright and Councillor M S Jones arrived in the meeting during consideration of this report and neither participated in the discussion or voting thereon).

Since the publication of the report a response to consultation had been received as follows:-

Environment Agency – Object to the application as submitted as at the time of the previous application (which was subsequently withdrawn) initially objected on flood risk grounds as the proposals for surface water management were inadequate. The application was withdrawn following the submission of a revised flood risk assessment which was included with the current application.

The site was subsequently inspected and it was noted that the arrangement identified in the flood risk assessment in relation to the management of runoff is not in place and does not fully accord with the arrangements agreed. To overcome this objection it is recommended that the flood risk assessment is revised to reflect the latest proposals for surface water drainage at the site. Should these be sufficient to prevent increased risk of pollution and flooding off-site the objection could be removed and the planning application and environmental permits would be in line.

Note in relation to the planning statement states that no hazardous waste is accepted on site which is inaccurate as the WEEE accepted on site potentially contains hazardous components which are to be removed using best available techniques and assessed as part of the permit.

Also have concerns regarding the safety of the access road and the height of stockpiles (proposed to be up to 5 metres) and number of waste piles on site which has implications in relation to the potential for fire and the ability of the Fire and Rescue Service to access the site.

Head of Planning – in light of the comments of the Environment Agency add a further reason for refusal as follows:-

Criterion (v) of the Waste Local Plan Policy 21 only allows planning permission to be granted where the development would not create an unacceptable risk of flooding elsewhere or where it would not harm water quality. The application has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the development will not prevent an increased risk of pollution and flooding off site. The application therefore does not meet the requirements of Policy WLP21 and consequently is not in accordance with Waste Local Plan Policy WLP7 of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan (2006).

Page 3

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014

Christian Smith, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

1. This was a resubmission of a previous application to the Committee. 2. The current site had planning permission, was not a scrapyard and had a history of operating in the area. 3. The applicant employed 24 people and if the application was refused they would lose their jobs. 4. If the application was approved it would create 30 extra jobs 5. The applicant was already doing a good job in recycling and the Council should support the application. 6. A change of highway officers had led to different opinions which the applicant needed to address. 7. Requested a deferral of the application to allow the applicant to consider the additional points raised by a new highways officer and by the Environment Agency.

The applicant responded to questions from the Committee as follows:-

1. Explained why the application had not been withdrawn prior to coming to the Committee which included the need to consider the comments of the Environment Agency and the highways officer which, in his opinion, had been received too late for detailed consideration. 2. Most of the workforce was employed locally. 3. Gave further details about the implications of the application on the employment of the current workforce.

Comments made by the Committee included:-

1. The access road to the site was unsuitable for HCVs, with the presence of dykes either side of the road. 2. The presence of high pressure gas mains in the verge of the access road and dykes prevented highway improvements being made. 3. While it was disappointing to hear comments about the effects on employment if the application was not approved the Bourne Industrial Estate was a more suitable location for the company. Also, District Council had a policy to encourage the relocation of businesses to this site. 4. The applicant was doing a good job. The highways officer needed to investigate this matter further to see whether it was possible to improve the road by a S278 Agreement. 5. The application should be deferred to allow the applicant to consider the comments of the Environment Agency and highways officer. 6. Any increase in HCVs on the road would lead to further deterioration. 7. Problems with accessing water to prevent fire damage remained an issue.

Officers stated that the views of the highways officer remained the same for this application as they did for the previous application, that the road was incapable of taking any increase in HCVs and could not be widened due to the presence of a pipeline and dykes on the verges. It was agreed that the presence and location of a pipeline(s) required investigation.

Page 4

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014

On a motion by Councillor J M Renshaw, seconded by Councillor H N J Powell, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That consideration of the application be deferred to the next meeting pending an investigation into the location of the pipeline(s) at the side of the access road leading to the application site and to allow further information to be obtained from highways on the position with the roads and possibility of works being done to upgrade them.

181 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF ONE POULTRY UNIT AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN ANAEROBIC DIGESTION PLANT COMPRISING OF A WASTE RECEPTION HALL, THREE DIGESTER TANKS AND A DIGESTATE STORAGE TANK, THREE DIGESTATE STORAGE LAGOONS AND A NUMBER OF ANCILLARY BUILDINGS ALONG WITH NEW ACCESS ROAD AT ANGEL WELLS FARM, MORKERY LANE, CASTLE BYTHAM - ANDIGESTION LTD (AGENT: BROWN & CO) - S19/0075/14

Since the publication of the report responses to consultation had been received as follows:-

Environment Agency – has now withdrawn their objection subject to the imposition of two planning conditions to cover surface water drainage and potential contaminated land being identified during construction works. It is therefore recommended that:

The following condition be imposed to replace that cited as Condition 14 in the report:

14. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

• full detailed surface water calculations and drawings to ensure adequate surface water drainage facilities on site all events up to an including 1% (1 in 100 Annual Excedence Probability) plus climate change; • an assessment of overland flows; • details of how the scheme will be maintained and managed after completion for the lifetime of the development.

The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

That the following additional condition also be imposed:

21. No development shall take place until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site have each been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Page 5

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014

a). A preliminary risk assessment which has been identified: • all previous uses; • potential contaminants associated with those uses; • a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; • potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. b). A site investigation scheme, based on (a), to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. c). The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (b) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. d).A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in remediation strategy in (c) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

All changes to these components require the express written consent of the Waste Planning Authority and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: The site has previously been used as a poultry unit and no information has been submitted about the current condition of the land. Given its former use, the redevelopment of the site has the potential to increase the risk of contaminants and pollutants entering the surface water and underlying groundwater systems especially given its close proximity to a sink hole north of the site which acts as a pathway to these systems. Details are therefore required to ensure and risks are minimised and controlled.

A series of Informatives are also provided which could be included/reference on any planning permission so that they are drawn to the attention of the applicant.

Highways - Having received further comments from the Highways Officer it is also recommended that Condition 12 be reworded to the following:

'Prior to the commencement of use of the access hereby approved, visibility splays shall be set-out on both sides of the access. These splays shall be determined by straight lines struck between a point measured 2.4 metres back from the nearside edge of the carriageway on the centreline of the access and points which are 130 metres to the left and to the right of the centreline of the access, measured along the nearside edge of the carriageway. The area between these splay lines and the carriageway shall at all times be maintained free of all obstructions which are greater than 1 metre in height.'

In response to comments made by the Committee, officers stated that Councillor B Adams had referred the matter to the Committee because of the concerns about the routing of vehicles visiting the site and the concerns of the Parish Council. The feedstock used for the anaerobic digestion plant was mainly commercial food waste

Page 6

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014 and due to the different techniques being used at the plant there was not a need for silage clamps. Also, the applicant hoped to relocate a chicken farm to the site and if there was any significant change to feedstock for the site then the conditions proposed on traffic movements an proposed routeing agreement would take account of this.

On a motion by the Councillor T M Trollope-Bellew, seconded by Councillor I G Fleetwood, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimous with the exception of Councillors M S Jones and T Keywood-Wainwright who had both arrived during the debate of the application)

That, subject to the applicant and any persons with an interest in the land first entering into and completing a S106 Planning Obligation to secure a vehicle routeing agreement and the maintenance of the visibility splays required in association with the proposed new access, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report, additional amendments to conditions 12 and 14 and an additional condition 21 as follows:-

Condition 12

Prior to the commencement of use of the access hereby approved, visibility splays shall be set-out on both sides of the access. These splays shall be determined by straight lines struck between a point measured 2.4 metres back from the nearside edge of the carriageway on the centreline of the access and points which are 130 metres to the left and to the right of the centreline of the access, measured along the nearside edge of the carriageway. The area between these splay lines and the carriageway shall at all times be maintained free of all obstructions which are greater than 1 metre in height.

Condition 14

No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

• full detailed surface water calculations and drawings to ensure adequate surface water drainage facilities on site all events up to an including 1% (1 in 100 Annual Excedence Probability) plus climate change; • an assessment of overland flows; • details of how the scheme will be maintained and managed after completion for the lifetime of the development.

The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

Page 7

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014

Condition 21

No development shall take place until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site have each been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

a) A preliminary risk assessment which has been identified: • all previous uses; • potential contaminants associated with those uses; • a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; • potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

b) A site investigation scheme, based on (a), to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. c) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (b) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. d) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in remediation strategy in (c) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

All changes to these components require the express written consent of the Waste Planning Authority and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: The site has previously been used as a poultry unit and no information has been submitted about the current condition of the land. Given its former use, the redevelopment of the site has the potential to increase the risk of contaminants and pollutants entering the surface water and underlying groundwater systems especially given its close proximity to a sink hole north of the site which acts as a pathway to these systems. Details are therefore required to ensure and risks are minimised and controlled.

A series of Informatives are also provided which could be included/reference on any planning permission so that they are drawn to the attention of the applicant.

Page 8

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014

182 FOR IMPORTATION, STORAGE, SCREENING, MERCHANTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF PRIMARY AGGREGATES, INCLUDING SANDS, GRAVELS AND CHIPPINGS, AND, THE IMPORTATION, STORAGE, PROCESSING, RECYCLING, MERCHANTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF SECONDARY AGGREGATES, SOILS AND OTHER MATERIALS, INCLUDING BRICKS, CONCRETE, INCINERATOR ASH/SLAG, ROAD PLANINGS, STONE AND TILES, AND, THE RETENTION AND USE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH OF EXISTING OFFICES, WORKSHOPS, BAGGING SHED/STORAGE BUILDING, GARAGE, TICKET HUT, WEIGHBRIDGE, WHEEL WASH, MINERAL STORAGE BAYS, STOCKPILES AND PROCESSING AREAS, LORRY AND CAR PARK AREAS AND SITE ACCESS ROADS AT MANSGATE QUARRY, NETTLETON - MANSGATE QUARRY PRODUCTS LTD (AGENT: DAVIS PLANNING PARTNERSHIP) - W66/131058/14

(NOTE: Councillor D C Hoyes MBE left the meeting at 12.25pm)

Since the publication of the report two further letters has been received from the applicant which clarify and confirm certain aspects of the proposal. A summary of the main points set out in these letters is as follows:

• The applicant, Mansgate Quarry Products Ltd, presently trades locally as A. Riddel & Sons Scrap Metal and Skip Hire Limited in Horncastle. The proposal would create 12 new local jobs and spin off employment in associated local firms in the locality which suffered when the quarrying, associated activities and transportation connected with Mansgate Quarry cease. • The incinerator ash (approx. 12-16,000 tonnes per annum) would be sourced from an integrated waste management facility operating in Killingholme as well as road plannings produced locally by the County Council and the Highways Agency. • The consultation process has revealed a level of local support for this proposal and Section 20 of the Officers report acknowledges that any potential environmental and amenity impacts arising from the development could be mitigated through conditions and the S106 agreement. The applicant has confirmed a S106 agreement could be secured to define HGV routeing and this could be extended to also restrict traffic using Whitegate Hill (in response to objections raised by local residents). The applicant has also now confirmed in writing that they would be willing to create calcareous grassland rather than woodland on the proposed 1.8ha area of land adjacent to the proposal site which is in line with the recommendations and comments made by the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and Lincolnshire Wolds Countryside Service. • The applicant argues that the only obstacle to allowing permission for this development is a difference in the interpretation of planning policy - in particular WLP Policies WLP5 and WLP21. It is stated that Policy WLP5 gives four locational criteria, of which compliance with one criteria would allow planning permission to be granted. In this case, it is stated that the proposal accords with

Page 9

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014

two of the four criteria in that it is located within a quarry and rather than prevent restoration, it would help in achieving a BAP priority habitat and the re-creation of calcareous grassland. The restoration requirements require the demolition of existing buildings which are in good condition and the re-use for the recycling proposals is a sustainable alternative option. The proposal is also directly associated with the existing Integrated Waste Disposal Facility (IWDF) at Killingholme and therefore meets criterion (ii). • The application confirms that any materials which cannot be recovered/processed would be removed from the site by licensed carriers for disposal at licensed landfill sites and the Officers Report confirms that the proposal accords with all the criteria in Policy WLP21 especially (xii). The applicant therefore considers that this interpretation of the policy demonstrates that the proposal accords with Policy WLP5 and would have no adverse impacts and may therefore be reasonably granted. • When set against the overall benefits of this recycling scheme in terms of sustainable development, restoration and contribution to the local economy, the planning policy aspect is just one of the material matters to be weighed in the decision making equation. Members who know the site will know that Mansgate Quarry and the associated facilities at the quarry had a long term and overall beneficial impact on the local economy which is missed and that the site has unique site factors which allow operations to take place on the land without damage to the local environment or amenity. • If Members have doubts about the long term impact on full quarry restoration, they may be minded to grant a temporary time limited permission and ask that the applicant include in the Unilateral Undertaking a commitment to accord with the quarry restoration requirements if the temporary permission is not renewed.

Comments made by the Committee included:-

1. Reference was made to the comments by the District Council local Member in connection with the fact that the quarry already existed and the potential to create employment opportunities for the local area. 2. The Lincolnshire Wolds Countryside Service had not objected to the application. 3. The effects of the National Planning Policy Framework in encouraging economic activity. 4. Employment was not a planning consideration. 5. The need for the Committee to make a site visit.

Officers stated that while the economy was a factor which needed to be taken into consideration in this particular application the locational criteria was main factor.

Page 10

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014

A motion by Councillor T M Trollope-Bellew, seconded by Councillor M S Jones, that the recommendations as detailed in the report should be approved, was lost by three votes for and six votes against.

On a motion by Councillor C L Strange, seconded by Councillor H N J Powell, it was – RESOLVED (7 votes for and 2 votes against)

That consideration of the planning application be deferred pending a site visit on 17 April 2014, to see the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent Wolds AONB and the suitability of the site for the proposed development bearing in mind its location in open countryside..

183 COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS

184 TO VARY CONDITION NUMBERS 1, 2, 5 AND 7 OF PLANNING PERMISSION W85/129659/13 TO CHANGE THE USE OF SCHOOL KITCHEN TO B2 (GENERAL INDUSTRY - CATERING FOOD PREPARATION PLACE) TO PROVIDE MEALS FOR OTHER SCHOOLS AT SAXILBY CHURCH OF PRIMARY SCHOOL, HIGHFIELD ROAD, SAXILBY - W85/130966/14

Since the publication of the report a response to consultation had been received as follows:-

Saxilby School Council - Submitted a petition with 63 signatures in support of the application drawing attention to the benefits of the kitchen as it would give the children a better choice of school dinners, cooking lessons and help other schools that have not got a school kitchen.

Debra Moore, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

1. The school had a large kitchen facility and was able to provide meals for other schools. 2. The County Council had invested a lot of money to provide the new kitchen facilities to meet the requirements of legislation from central government. 3. The problems of parking on the local highway was not the fault of the kitchen but the fault of parents who were dropping their children off and causing traffic congestion. 4. The school had no wish to see HCVs delivering to the school at anti-social times, the school had consulted local residents and there was no wish to change the conditions in this respect. 5. Since the imposition of conditions the school had not used its kitchen to produce meals. 6. The children at the school wanted to see the return of their kitchen to cook meals for their school and for other schools in the area.

Page 11

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014

Councillor J Brockway, the local Member, commented as follows:-

1. This was a difficult application. The school needed the kitchen to produce food and this was welcomed. 2. She had received numerous complaints from local residents. These included parking on the verges, the problems caused by the narrowness of Highfield Drive (where the school was located), anti-social visiting times by vehicles making deliveries to the school, noise from the banging of vehicle doors and the effects of an increase in vehicles visiting the school should the conditions be changed. 3. Did the school propose to police the increase in vehicles if the conditions were removed? 4. There was a lack of car parking on the school site for teaching staff. 5. The school had always provided its own meals and therefore there was no reason why it should not continue to provide meals for the school. 6. Residents would not support the operation of a kitchen hub for other schools during the school holidays. 7. The school was responsible for the traffic problems and there was a need to help them find a solution to the problem. 8. Was it possible to have a one year permission put in place? 9. There was a lack of engagement by the school with local residents. 10. Supported the application but was unable to support the removal of the conditions requested by the school.

In response to a question asked by the Committee, Councillor J Brockway stated that she did not know if the school was built before the nearby houses.

Comments made by the Committee included:-

1. The Department of Education and Skills in a recent statement had announced that all Key Stage 1 pupils would receive a hot meal at school and this would mean that the County Council would have to increase provision from 11,000 meals to 30,000 meals a day. Not all schools had kitchen facilities and therefore a "hub and spoke" system of providing schools meals was needed. 2. Parking on verges was an issue which the governors of the school needed to address. 3. It was suggested that if condition 7 was removed then this could lead to the fence either being removed or not being maintained.

A motion by Councillor T M Trollope-Bellew to retain condition 7 was not seconded.

On a motion by Councillor D Brailsford, seconded by Councillor W S Webb, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Page 12

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 7 APRIL 2014

185 TO CONSTRUCT TWO CLASS EXTENSION TO EXISTING SCHOOL AND REPLACEMENT HARD PLAY GAMES AREA AT PINCHBECK EAST CHURCH OF ENGLAND PRIMARY SCHOOL, FENNELL ROAD, PINCHBECK - H14/0087/14

Helen Banks, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

1. This was an outstanding school. 2. There had been a substantial increase in the school admission numbers. 3. The new accommodation would improve the education provision for children. 4. Poor parking by parents was an issue raised by residents. 5. A School Travel Plan was being developed and children were being encouraged to take their Cycle Proficiency test and cycle or walk to school. 6. Parking for teaching staff at the school had been provided. 7. The Executive Head teacher had given an assurance that she would work with all the relevant agencies to improve traffic congestion near the school.

In response to questions from the Committee, Helen Banks stated that the operation of a "School Train" whereby children would meet at a specific location to travel to school away from the school had been used and worked well. She stated that the use of resident's driveways by people visiting the school had been taken up by the school.

On a motion by Councillor M S Jones, seconded by Councillor I G Fleetwood, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimous with the exception of Councillor T M Trollope-Bellew who abstained from voting as he was not present in the meeting while the application was being discussed)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

(NOTE: Councillor D Brailsford left the meeting at 12.25pm)

The meeting closed at 12.40 pm

Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3.1 1

PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE SITE VISIT 17 MARCH 2014

PRESENT: COUNCILLOR I G FLEETWOOD (CHAIRMAN)

Councillors D M Hunter-Clarke, T Keywood-Wainwright, D McNally, N H Pepper, Mrs J Renshaw and C L Strange.

Officers in attendance:-

Marc Willis (Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) and Rachel Wilson (Democratic Services Officer)

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors V C Ayling, D Brailsford and D C Hoyes MBE, M S Jones, Mrs H N J Powell, T M Trollope-Bellew.

2 SITE VISIT TO MANSGATE QUARRY, NETTLETON

The Committee visited the application site and Marc Willis gave a brief explanation of application, and showed Members a plan of the site, including which parts of the land were covered by the application.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions and some of the points which were clarified included the following: • The only condition which was enforceable on the existing mineral permission was that all buildings are to be removed, however, if the application was approved the then three buildings would be retained including the brick building near the entrance to the site; • Other buildings associated with the former mineral operations were outside of the current application and so are to be removed; • From the County Council position the buildings would need to be removed by 2015; • The applicants were only planning to use part of the site for the activity stated on the application; • The site would not be used for skip hire; • There were concerns regarding the traffic movement restrictions as the site was accessed from a very narrow road; • It was noted there would be 19 HGV loads (38 movements per day) and 15 small vehicles (vans) (30 movements per day) so a total of 68 movements per day.

Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4.

Report Reference: Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Paul Coathup, Assistant Director, Highways and Transportation

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee Date: 02 June 2014 Subject: Traffic Regulation Orders – Progress Review KeyDecision decision? Reference: No Summary: This report informs the Committee of the position on all current Traffic Regulation Orders (Schedules 1-4) and petitions received since the last meeting (Schedule 5).

Recommendation(s): That the report be received and the receipt of petitions be noted.

1. Background N/A

2. Conclusion N/A

3. Consultation N/A

a) Has the Local Member Been Consulted? N/A b) Policy Proofing Actions Required N/A

4. Appendices

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report Appendix A Schedule 1 East Division Appendix B Schedule 2 North Division Appendix C Schedule 3 South Divison Appendix D Schedule 4 West Division Appendix E Schedule 5 Petitions that have been received since the last meeting

Page 1 Page 17 5. Background Papers

No background papers within Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 were used in the preparation of this report

This report was written by Alan Aistrup, Paul Little, Satish Shah and Brian Thompson and who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected].

Page 2 Page 18

SCHEDULE 1 EAST LINDSEY HIGHWAYS DIVISION PARISH LOCATION TYPE PREVIOUS POSITION PRESENT POSI TION 1. Alford South Market Place Waiting and Driving Restrictions Operative date to be arranged Operative 30/05/14 2. Alford Market Place Pavement Café Licence Advert 12/03/14 – 04/04/14 Licence Issued 17/04/14 3. Wainfleet Road / Millfield Road Weight Restriction Consulting As previous 4. B1192 30mph Speed Limit Operative date to be arranged As previous 5. Coningsby Leagate Road 50mph Speed Limit Advert 30/04/14 – 28/05/14 6. Coningsby Park Lane Waiting Restrictions Consulting As previous 7. Coningsby School Lane Waiting Restrictions Operative date to be arranged As previous 8. A155 50mph Speed Limit Operative date to be arranged As previous

Page 19 Page 9. / B1184 50mph Speed Limit Objections to be reviewed As previous 10. Various Roads Weight Restriction Operative date to be arranged As previous 11. / B195 50mph Speed Limit Consulting As previous 12. A153 50mph Speed Limit Awaiting Policy Review As previous 13. Hannah/ A1111 40mph Speed Limit Objections to be reviewed As previous 14. Horncastle Boston Road Speed Limit Review Consulting As previous 15. B1184 50mph Speed Limit Consulting As previous 16. A157 Speed Limit Review Consulting As previous 17. Louth/ A16 50mph Speed Limit Consulting As previous 18. Louth Nicholl Hill / Vickers Lane Waiting Restrictions Consulting Advert 21/05/14 – 18/06/14 19. Louth Old A16 Speed Limit Review Consulting As previous 20. Louth Upgate Waiting Restrictions Advert 28/05/14 – 25/06/14 21. High Street Waiting Restrictions To be re-advertised As previous 22. A155 50mph Speed Limit Consulting As previous 23. Revesby A155/B1183 50mph Speed Limit Consulting As previous

1033.X0R PARISH LOCATION TYPE PREVIOUS POSITION PRESENT POSI TION 24. Allenby Way Waiting Restrictions Operative date to be arranged Operative 02/06/14 25. Skegness Cavendish Road Waiting Restrictions To be advertised Advert 28/05/14 – 25/06/14 26. Skegness Cavendish Road Traffic Calming To be advertised Advert 28/05/14 – 25/06/14

27. Skegness Grand Parade / Edinburgh Pavement Café Licence Advert 26/03/14 – 16/04/14 Licence Issued 17/04/14 Drive 28. Queen Street Waiting Restrictions To be advertised As previous 29. Sutton on Sea Marine Avenue/Braemar Road Waiting Restrictions Consulting Advert 23/04/14 – 21.05/14

30. A1031/B1201 50mph Speed Limit Consulting As previous

31. Theddlethorpe Various Roads Speed Limit Review Operative date to be arranged As previous

32. / B1184 50mph Speed Limit Consulting As previous

Page 20 Page Gipsey Bridge 33. / Barton Street Experimental One-Way Traffic Consulting As previous 34. / B196 50mph Speed Limit Objections to be reviewed As previous Willoughby 35. A155 50mph Speed limit To Be Advertised As previous 36. Woodhall Spa The Broadway Pavement Café Licence To be advertised Licence Issued 37. Woodhall Spa Various Roads Waiting Restrictions Reported to Planning and Operative 01/07/14 regulation Cttee 07/04/14 38. Market Place Alteration to Pedestrian Crossing Awaiting Signal Improvement As previous Works

1033.X0R SCHEDULE 2 GREATER LINCOLN & GAINSBOROUGH HIGHWAYS DIVISION

PARISH LOCATION TYPE PREVIOUS POSITION PRESENT POSI TION 1. Bardney Horncastle Road Waiting Restrictions and Bus Stop Consulting As previous 2. Bassingham and Lincoln Road/ CarltonRoad Footway / Cycletrack Operative date to be arranged As previous Carlton le Moorland 3. Bigby A1084 to B1434 junction 50mph speed limit Consulting As previous

4. Bleasby Moor Village Roads 30mph Speed Limit Consulting Objections to be reviewed 5. Blyborough Westbeck Lane 30mph Speed Limit Operative date to be arranged Operative 29/05/14 6. Various Roads Waiting Restrictions To be advertised 7. Gainsborough Gladstone Street and Parnell Taxi Ranks Consulting As previous Page 21 Page Street 8. Gainsborough Tennyson Street Waiting Restrictions Operative date to arranged Operative 06/05/14 9. Gainsborough The Avenue 40mph speed limit To be advertised Objections to be reviewed 10. Gainsborough Heapham Road South 40mph speed limit To be advertised Operative date to be arranged 11. Glentworth St Georges Hill One Way Traffic Consulting As previous 12. Heapham Ommon Lane Stopping Up Consulting As p revious 13. Heighington High Street Waiting Restrictions Advert 10/04/14 – 08/05/14 Objections to be reviewed 14. Heighington Station Road 30mph Speed Limit Operative date to be arranged As previous 15. Hemswell Cliff A631 50mph Speed Limit Consulting As previous 16. Lincoln Brant Road Pedestrian Crossing Advert 05/06/14 – 03/07/14 17. Lincoln Brayford Wharf East One-way traffic/ Footway/Cycletrack Operative date to be arranged As previous conversion/contraflow cycle lane / Revocation of right turn ban 18. Lincoln High Street Waiting Restrictions Advert 10/04/14 – 11/05/14 Operative date to be arranged

1033.X0R PARISH LOCATION TYPE PREVIOUS POSITION PRESENT POSI TION 19. Lincoln Lime Kiln Way Waiting Restrictions Ad vert 05/06/14 – 03/07/14 20. Lincoln Lilleys Road Residents Parking Scheme Advert 03/04/14 – 01/05/14 Objections to be reviewed 21. Lincoln Long Leys Road / Carram Way Waiting Restrictions To be advertised Operative 20/06/14 22. Lincoln Roman Pavement Waiting Restrictions Consulting As previous 23. Various Roads Waiting Restrictions Consulting 24. Metheringham Drury Street 30mph speed Limit Operative date to be arranged Operative 19/05/14 25. North and south Mill Lane / Beck lane Shared Footway / Cycletrack Advert 17/04/14 – 15/05/14 As previous Hykeham 26. Whisby Road/Station Road Cycleways and Pedestrian Operative date to be arranged As previous Crossings 27. Odder Saxilby Road 30mph Speed Limit Operative date to be arranged Operative 02/06/14

Page 22 Page 28. Saxilby A57 / Mill Lane 30mph, 40mph and 50mph Speed Operative date to be arranged As previous Limits 29. Welton Lincoln Road Bus Stop Facilities Operative date to be arranged As previous

1033.X0R SCHEDULE 3 BOSTON & SOUTH HOLLAND HIGHWAYS DIVISION PARISH LOCATION TYPE PREVIOUS POSITION PRESENT POSI TION 1. Boston Bank Street Prohibition of Driving Objections to be reviewed As previous 2. Boston Fishtoft Road Waiting Restrictions Advert 26/03/14 – 23/04/14 Operative date to be arranged 3. Boston Market Place Review of Waiting Restrictions Consulting As previous 4. Boston New Street Waiting Restrictions Advert 02/04/14 – 30/04/14 Operative date to be arranged 5. Boston Wyberton Low Road Waiting Restrictions Advert 02/04/14 – 30/04/14 Operative date to be arranged 6. North Street Waiting Restrictions Advert 10/04/14 – 08/05/14 Re-advertised 22/04/14 – 22/05/14 7. Deeping St Nicholas Littleworth Drove 40mph Speed Limit Operative date to be arranged As previous 8. Kirton Willington Road Waiting Restrictions As previous As previous

Page 23 Page 9. Postland B1166 50mph Speed Limit Consulting Advert 17/04/14 – 15/05/14 10. Spalding B1165 40mph Speed Limit Consulting Ad vert 17/04/14 – 15/05/15 11. Spalding B1356 30mph Speed Limit Operative date to be arranged Operative 02/06/14 12. Spalding Double Street Taxi Rank Advert 17/04/14 – 15/05/14 13. Spalding Pinchbeck Road Cycleway / Footway Ad vert 17/04/14 – 15/05/14 14. Sutterton A17 Derestriction Consulting As previous 15. Sutton St James B1390 50mph Speed Limit Objections to be reviewed As previous 16. Sutton St James B1165 50mph and 40mph Speed Limits Objections to be reviewed As previous 17. Weston Hills B1165 50mph Speed Limit Consulting Advert 10/04/14 – 15/05/14 18. Wyberton Various Roads 30mph Speed Limit Consulting As previous 19. Wyberton / Frampton / B1397 Shared Footway / Cycletrack Operative date to be arranged As previous Kirton

1033.X0R SCHEDULE 4 SOUTH KESTEVEN AND HIGHWAYS DIVISION

PARISH LOCATION TYPE PREVIOUS POSITION PRESENT POSI TION 1. Bourne Burghley Street Waiting Restrictions Consulting Advert 25/04/14 – 23/05/14

2. Bourne Wherrys Lane Traffic Calming Consulting Advert 25/04/14 – 23/05/14

3. Burton Pedwardine Village Roads 30mph Speed Limit Advert 09/04/14 – 07/05/14 Operative 01/07/14

4. Grantham Bridge End Road Waiting Restrictions Advert 06/06/14 – 04/07/14

5. Grantham Harrowby Road (St Annes Pedestrian Crossing Reported to Planning and regulation See report to this meeting School) Cttee 07/04/14 6. Grantham Market Place / Wide Wesgate Waiting Restrictions / Advert 28/03/14 – 25/04/14 Objections to be reviewed

Page 24 Page Restricted Parking Zone 7. Grantham Prospect Place Waiting Restrictions Consulting As previous

8. Grantham Sandon Close Waiting Restrictions Consulting Advert 06/06/14 - 04/07/14

9. Grantham Station Road East Waiting Restrictions Consulting Advert 06/06/14 – 04/07/14

10. Grantham Wharf Road Waiting Restrictions Operative date to be arranged As previous

11. Grantham / Manthorpe A607 Shared Footway / Cycleway Operative date to be arranged As previous

12. Heckington Sleaford Road Stopping Up With Legal Services As previous

13. Langtoft A15 and West End Waiting Restrictions Operative date to be arranged Operative 29/05/14

14. Langtoft New Road 30mph Speed Limit Consulting As previous Extension 15. Sleaford King Edward Street / Castle Waiting Restrictions Awaiting NKDC Residents Parking As previous Causeway Consultations 16. Sleaford Road Waiting Restrictions Advert 09/04/14 – 07/05/14 As previous

1033.X0R PARISH LOCATION TYPE PREVIOUS POSITION PRESENT POSI TION 17. Sleaford Mareham Lane / Boston Road Waiting Restrictions Awaiting CPO process As previous

18. Sleaford Tamar Road Waiting Restrictions Consulting As previous

19. Stamford Castle Dyke Waiting Restrictions Advert 30/05/14 – 27/06/14 20. Stamford Ryhall Road 30mph Speed Limit Consulting See report to this meeting 21. Stamford Sheepmarket Pedestrian Crossing Advert 30/05/14 – 27/06/14 22. Stamford Various Roads Residents Parking Scheme Awaiting District Council Decision To be advertised Page 25 Page

1033.X0R SCHEDULE 5

The following petitions have been received since the last meeting. They have been acknowledged and will be dealt with in the normal manner.

PARISH LOCATION PETITION FOR

NONE

1033.X0R

Page 26 Agenda Item 4.1

Report Reference: Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills, Executive Director for Communities

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee Date: 02 June 2014 Subject: Grantham, Harrowby Road - Proposed Zebra Crossing KeyDecision decision? Reference: No Summary: This report details the objections received to the proposed zebra crossing on Harrowby Road, Grantham.

Recommendation(s): It is recommended that Members reject the proposal of the zebra crossing due to the high number of objections received.

1. Background

1.1 The area fronting St. Anne's school previously had a School Crossing Patrol (SCP) operating but, in accordance with current policy, when this operative left a review was undertaken to ascertain if an operative was required at this location. This failed and no new patrol installed. The thresholds for providing a SCP were not met.

1.2 In addition, a risk assessment was carried out to determine if it was safe for a SCP to operate at this location. This showed that it would be unsafe due to visibility problems, mainly caused by parked cars.

1.3 Since this time, numerous consultations and meetings have been undertaken; first to consult on a school safety zone, this was rejected by the public in the area. A zebra crossing was then proposed in association with footway build out areas. This scheme has been subject to public meetings and exhibitions, which have changed the scheme design to that now shown in Appendix A.

2. Current Proposals

2.1 Following the comments received from the original consultation, and a public meeting held on 4 December 2013, the scheme was redesigned. This new design incorporated footway/junction build outs to assist with visibility and relocation of the zebra crossing to that originally proposed, to remove any conflict

Page 1 Page 27 with the existing school car park and improve visibility of the zebra crossing. Consultations were then carried out on the revised proposals.

3. Consultations

3.1 218 houses were letter dropped on 18 December 2013 with a copy of the Plan showing the proposals and a covering letter inviting comments before 31 January 2014. All of the residents of Harrowby Road, from the Granville Road junction southwards to the Bridge End Road junction, were included as well as all of St Anne's Street, Stuart Street, Bridge Street and Croft Drive.

3.2 Consultation letters were also sent to five County Councillors: Cllr C Morgan, Cllr J Churchill, Cllr R Davies, Cllr R Wootten and Cllr L Wootten. Letters were also sent to Lincolnshire Ambulance Service, South Kesteven District Council, the Fire Brigade, Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership, Grantham Charter Trustees and the Headteacher of St. Anne's School.

3.3 Public notices were also erected on site from 19 December 2013 to 20 January 2014. During this time 5 letters concerning the proposal were received from residents.

3.4 Cllr C Morgan, as local Member, wrote a letter objecting to the proposal and included with it 87 completed pro-forma letters from residents together with 12 letters, and covering letters to the pro-formas, objecting to the scheme, from residents.

4. Objections

4.1 Cllr C Morgan has stated that whilst zebra crossings outside schools are normally welcome, she cannot support the proposal due to various concerns weighted against questionable benefits.

4.2 Cllr C Morgan recommends that the School Crossing Patrol is restored, as this is the right solution for the needs of this school. She would like this backed up with adequate training, a clear understanding of the correct crossing place and more warning signs on the school approaches.

4.3 Cllr C Morgan would also like a weight restriction on this road as she believes HGVs increase the risk to pedestrian and vehicle safety.

4.4 Cllr C Morgan also recommends the introduction of a 20mph speed limit on Harrowby Road to support the school and pedestrians.

4.5 Cllr C Morgan believes the current proposal is excessive and a meeting should take place to identify a method of improving visibility with minimal impact on residents and their visitors.

4.6 Cllr C Morgan also has concerns with the loss of on-street parking for residents as the area has multiple users and the school is only one of them. She states that drivers are already being forced to drive on to Dudley Road/Cecil Street

Page 2 Page 28 to find alternative parking. As for on-street parking, Cllr C Morgan believes that parents will park wherever they can to get their children to school on time and may block residents' driveways. She is also concerned with speeding vehicles and the use of the road by HGVs, making it unsafe for residents to see properly when leaving their driveway.

4.7 The Croft Drive junction is also an area of concern for Cllr C Morgan due to parking congestion and driveways being blocked by parents at school pick up and drop off times. She is also concerned that with the zebra crossing located close to Croft Drive, this will create a log jam at peak times.

4.8 Cllr C Morgan believes the proposed zebra crossing will have use for only a limited amount of time but will have an ongoing impact on the community. She would like the School Crossing Patrol reinstated with additional safety measures at the school, but would like a pedestrian crossing facility at the junction of Bridge End Road (A52) and Harrowby Road, to benefit the whole community.

4.9 With regards to residents in the vicinity of the proposed crossing site, Cllr C Morgan's observations are that they may suffer: • De-valuation of their property • Inability to park near their home on a permanent basis • Constant flashing of zebra crossing lights • Noise disturbance during the day as people meet on either side of the crossing • Intensification of the use of the street outside their homes which has resulted in litter in their gardens and use of their garden walls. • Loss of amenity of trees opposite their homes. • Increased noise of traffic accelerating and braking outside their homes, including HGVs and LGVs and motorbikes. • Increased air pollution due to engine revving as drivers stop/start on the hill. • Without a controlled pedestrian crossing there will be a constant drip feed of pedestrians during peak times. • Ongoing stress/worry regarding accident risk – especially at peak times and in poor light and poor weather. • Potential damage to their homes through increased vibration. • Misuse of the bollards outside their homes by street drinkers and children.

4.10 The Head Start Nursery is located on the corner of Dudley Road/St. Anne's Road and Cllr C Morgan believes the loss of parking on Harrowby Road will result in an increase of activity in this area and an increase in the risk to the safety of pedestrians in this area.

4.11 The majority of the other objections received from Lincolnshire County Council's consultations, and the letters received via Cllr C Morgan's pro-formas, are concerned with the loss of parking spaces in the area for local residents and the support for the reintroduction of a School Crossing Patrol. Some are also concerned with the speed of traffic and HGVs using Harrowby Road, as well as several other factors listed by Cllr C Morgan.

Page 3 Page 29 5. Comments 5.1 The proposed scheme would have allowed a SCP to be restored on a trial basis, whilst minimising the loss of parking spaces.

5.2 Assessments have shown that the current use of this road by HGVs does not justify introducing a lorry ban.

6. Conclusion

6.1 Following receipt of the numerous letters of objection and a petition, with no support, it is recommended that this proposal is not progressed.

a) Policy Proofing Actions Required n/a

Appendices

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report Appendix A Location Plan/Scheme Design

Background Papers

No background papers within Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 were used in the preparation of this report.

This report was written by Brian Thompson, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected].

Page 4 Page 30 Page 31 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4.2

Report Reference: Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills, Executive Director for Communities

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee Date: 02 June 2014 Stamford - Ryhall Road Proposed Installation of Traffic Subject: Regulation Order - Increase 30 MPH Restriction KeyDecision decision? Reference: No Summary: The proposal is to extend the existing 30 mph to cater for the new sports facilities on Ryhall Road, Stamford. Due to the traffic using the new right turn junction to gain access to the new Stamford Town football pitches, and the new sports education facility, it is proposed to reduce the speed limit on this section of Ryhall Road. There will also be an increase in the number of pedestrians and cyclists visiting the new development and using Ryhall Road. In order to maintain the safety of users of the new site, and users of the highway, a reduction in the speed limit is deemed necessary.

Recommendation(s): The objection is overruled and the 30 mph speed limit is extended.

1. Background

1.1 The proposal has been brought about due to the new sports pitches and education facilities being constructed on Ryhall Road, for which planning permission was approved in December 2013.

1.2 Due to the traffic using the new junction to gain access to the football pitches and the sports education facility and for car boot sales, it is proposed to reduce the speed limit on this section of Ryhall Road. There will also be an increase in the number of pedestrians and cyclists visiting the new development and using Ryhall Road. In order to maintain the safety of users of the new site and users of the highway a reduction in the speed limit is deemed necessary.

1.3 The proposal is to reduce the speed limit from Borderville Farm, which is the County boundary, from the national speed limit to 30 mph.

Page 1 Page 33 2. Consultations

2.1 Consultation Process

2.1.1 Consultation of the proposed scheme started on 31/01/2014 and local County Council elected members were forwarded the proposed restrictions for their consideration. One week after this point the following statutory bodies were consulted: • Freight Transport Association • Road Haulage Association • Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership • South Kesteven District Council • Stamford Town Council • Lincolnshire Fire Brigade • Lincolnshire Ambulance Headquarters • 24 local bus companies • • Stamford Chamber of Trade and Commerce • Stamford Civic Society • Stamford Town Centre Management Partnership • EMAS DIV HQ

2.2 Objections/Observations

2.2.1 From the statutory consultation we received two letters and a telephone call.

2.2.2 Local members comments – No comments.

2.2.3 The following comments and concerns were raised by residents and local bodies: • Inspector Burnett of Lincolnshire Police commented that Lincolnshire Police would support the proposal in its entirety. • Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership questioned as to whether consideration had been given to installing a limit of 40 mph. The design of the new access into the site will provide visibility consistent with a 30 mph limit. • Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership commented that if the 30 mph limit were to be installed then they would require the terminal signs to be illuminated and either the system of street lighting be continued from its existing point or repeater signs are installed. The design of the proposed street lighting is currently being undertaken by LCC Street Lighting Team and will form part of the S278 works. • Objection from Delaine Bus Company – whilst Delaine Bus Company accepted this section of highway should have a reduction in speed limit from the existing national speed limit, they were opposed to the speed limit being reduced to 30 mph. They asked for consideration to be given to reducing it to either 50 mph or 40 mph. The design of the new access into the site will provide visibility consistent with a 30 mph limit.

Page 2 Page 34 3. Conclusion

3.1 The current layout on the approach from Stamford to Rutland is 30 mph within the town, national speed limit past the development site to the Rutland boundary which is 50 mph.

3.2 As members can see from the drawing, the distance of the extension is approximately 495 metres. This gives 145 metres distance from the existing 30 mph point to the start of the Ghost Island, 175 metres of Ghost Island and a further 175 metres to the Rutland boundary.

3.3 Current policy is to not implement a speed limit change less the 300 metres as this would give drivers an inconsistent guide as to what speed they should be doing within Lincolnshire.

a) Policy Proofing Actions Required n/a

Appendices

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report Appendix A Location Plan Appendix B Proposed TRO Plan Appendix C Scheme Plan

Background Papers

No background papers within Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 were used in the preparation of this report.

This report was written by Brian Thompson, who can be contacted on 01522 553183 or [email protected].

Page 3 Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank Page 39 This page is intentionally left blank Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5.1

Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director for Communities

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee

Date: 2 June 2014

Subject: County Matter Application - W66/131058/14

Summary: Supplementary Report Planning permission is sought by Mansgate Quarry Products Limited (Agent: Davis Planning Partnership) to use land situated within the former Mansgate Chalk Quarry as a primary aggregates storage, processing and merchanting site and construction and demolition waste recycling facility and the retention and use of existing buildings, weighbridge facilities and associated vehicle parking areas in association with the proposed use. At its meeting on 7 April 2014 the Planning and Regulation Committee resolved to defer the determination of the application in order to carry out a site visit to view the proposal site and its surroundings. The site visit took place on 17 April 2014.

Recommendation: That planning permission be refused.

Background

1. At its meeting on 7 April 2014 the Planning and Regulation Committee considered an application by Mansgate Quarry Products Limited (Agent: Davis Planning Partnership) to use land situated within the former Mansgate Chalk Quarry as a primary aggregates storage, processing and merchanting site and construction and demolition waste recycling facility. The application also sought to retain and use existing buildings, weighbridge facilities and associated vehicle parking areas in association with the proposed use.

2. A copy of the detailed report presented to the 7 April 2014 Planning and Regulation Committee meeting is attached hereto as Appendix B.

3. As was reported in the written update provided to the Planning and Regulation Committee prior to the meeting on the 7 April 2014, two letters had been received from the applicant which reiterated and clarified certain aspects of the proposed development. A summary of the main points set

Page 43 out in these letters was included in the written update and for completeness, the issues/comments reported in the update are repeated below:

 The applicant, Mansgate Quarry Products Ltd, presently trades locally as A Riddel & Sons Scrap Metal and Skip Hire Limited in Horncastle. The proposal would create 12 new local jobs and spin off employment in associated local firms in the locality which suffered when the quarrying, associated activities and transportation connected with Mansgate Quarry cease.

 The incinerator ash (approximately 12-16,000 tonnes per annum) would be sourced from an integrated waste management facility operating in Killingholme as well as road planings produced locally by the County Council and the Highways Agency.

 The consultation process has revealed a level of local support for this proposal and Section 20 of the Officer's report acknowledges that any potential environmental and amenity impacts arising from the development could be mitigated through conditions and the S106 agreement. The applicant has confirmed a S106 agreement could be secured to define HGV routeing and this could be extended to also restrict traffic using Whitegate Hill (in response to objections raised by local residents). The applicant has also now confirmed in writing that they would be willing to create calcareous grassland rather than woodland on the proposed 1.8ha area of land adjacent to the proposal site which is in line with the recommendations and comments made by the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and Lincolnshire Wolds Countryside Service.

 The applicant argues that the only obstacle to allowing permission for this development is a difference in the interpretation of planning policy - in particular WLP Policies WLP5 and WLP21. It is stated that Policy WLP5 gives four locational criteria, of which compliance with one criterion would allow planning permission to be granted. In this case, it is stated that the proposal accords with two of the four criteria in that it is located within a quarry and rather than prevent restoration, it would help in achieving a BAP priority habitat and the re-creation of calcareous grassland. The restoration requirements require the demolition of existing buildings which are in good condition and the re-use for the recycling proposals is a sustainable alternative option. The proposal is also directly associated with the existing Integrated Waste Disposal Facility (IWDF) at Killingholme and therefore meets criterion (ii).

 The application confirms that any materials which cannot be recovered/ processed would be removed from the site by licensed carriers for disposal at licensed landfill sites and the Officer's report confirms that the proposal accords with all the criteria in Policy WLP21 especially (xii). The applicant therefore considers that this interpretation of the policy demonstrates that the proposal accords with Policy WLP5 and would have no adverse impacts and may therefore be reasonably granted.

Page 44  When set against the overall benefits of this recycling scheme in terms of sustainable development, restoration and contribution to the local economy, the planning policy aspect is just one of the material matters to be weighed in the decision making equation. Members who know the site will know that Mansgate Quarry and the associated facilities at the quarry had a long term and overall beneficial impact on the local economy which is missed and that the site has unique site factors which allow operations to take place on the land without damage to the local environment or amenity.

 If Members have doubts about the long term impact on full quarry restoration, they may be minded to grant a temporary time limited permission and ask that the applicant include in the Unilateral Undertaking a commitment to accord with the quarry restoration requirements if the temporary permission is not renewed.

4. Having considered the information contained within the letters received from the applicant your Officers maintain the view that planning permission for this development should be refused. As is explained in the report dated 7 April 2014 (attached as Appendix B) Officers disagree with the view that the proposed development accords with the locational criteria as set out in WLP Policy WLP5 and therefore is not within one of the locations considered suitable for the proposed use. Where planning permission for such facilities has been granted in quarries these have be granted and tied to the life of an existing mineral planning permission and this ensures that they do not compromise the restoration of those sites or result in permanent operations once the mineral operations cease. In this case, the quarry no longer has permission to be worked and so it would not be possible to restrict the proposed development and uses to the same time period as any mineral working operations and the buildings are to be demolished by June 2015 in order to comply with the restoration conditions. Therefore if planning permission were to be granted it would conflict with conditions attached to the existing permissions affecting the site and undermine the spatial and locational criteria for siting new development as advocated by the Development Plan.

5. A temporary planning permission is also not considered appropriate as such permissions should only be granted in limited circumstances such as when it is necessary to assess the potential impacts of a development or where a use is only required for a temporary period. In this case, the development conflicts with the spatial strategy and locational objectives of the policies contained within the Development Plan and therefore should not be permitted even if the potential environmental and amenity impacts are limited or could potentially be overcome or controlled by conditions. The buildings and associated infrastructure proposed to be used by this development are due to be demolished and removed in 12 months' time and even if planning permission were to be granted for this intervening period, there would still be a need to complete a Unilateral Undertaking (secured via a S106 Planning Obligation) before any operations/use could commence on site. Given the typical timeframes required to complete such agreements

Page 45 any permission granted would, in your Officer's view, be unlikely to be capable of being improved. Furthermore, if planning permission were to be granted for this proposal (even for a temporary period) then it would be difficult to resist any subsequent applications which may seek to retain this use permanently and/or to expand the facility or to site other similar waste management uses within the remaining quarry void area.

6. In light of the above, it is your Officer's view that planning permission for the development should therefore be refused for the reasons set out in the report date 7 April 2014 attached hereto as Appendix B.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That planning permission be refused for the reasons as originally set out in the report date 7 April 2014 attached hereto as Appendix B.

Appendices

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report

Appendix B Report Reference 5.3 to the Planning and Regulation Committee on 7 April 2014 relating to County Matter Applications W66/131058/14 at Mansgate Quarry, High Street, B1225, Nettleton

Appendix A Committee Plan

This report was written by Marc Willis, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]

Page 46

Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director for Communities

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee

Date: 7 April 2014

Subject: County Matter Application – W66/131058/14

Summary: Planning permission is sought by Mansgate Quarry Products Ltd (Agent: Davis Planning Partnership) for importation, storage, screening, merchanting and distribution of primary aggregates, including sands, gravels and chippings, and, the importation, storage, processing, recycling, merchanting and distribution of secondary aggregates, soils and other materials, including bricks, concrete, incinerator ash/slag, road planings, stone and tiles, and, the retention and use in connection therewith of existing offices, workshops, bagging shed/storage building, garage, ticket hut, weighbridge, wheel wash, mineral storage bays, stockpiles and processing areas, lorry and car park areas and site access roads at Mansgate Quarry, Nettleton, Lincolnshire.

Whilst there is support to provide recycling and recovery operations which help to reduce the demands on primary won aggregates and which help to reduce the amount of wastes that are disposed of to landfill, such operations should be appropriately located and therefore should only be supported where they are proposed in the locations and areas specifically identified as suitable for such uses as advocated by the policies of the Development Plan.

In this case, the proposed development seeks to use a greenfield site lying within the open countryside and therefore is located outside the defined settlement boundaries of nearby Nettleton and Caistor and is not a site identified or allocated as suitable for industrial/commercial uses. The proposed use is also not one for which an open countryside location is essential and given the planning status of the quarry, is not considered to accord with locational criterion of WLP Policy. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to the objectives and strategies for siting new development advocated by Local Plan policies STRAT3, STRAT12, STRAT 15 and Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan Policy WLP5 and also fails to demonstrate why this non-allocated site is an acceptable alternative location and therefore fails to comply with West Lindsey Local Plan policies ECON1 and SUS15.

Page 47

Recommendation: That planning permission be refused.

The Application

1. Planning permission is sought by Mansgate Quarry Products Ltd (Agent: Davis Planning Partnership) to use land situated within the former Mansgate Chalk Quarry as a primary aggregates storage, processing and merchanting site and construction and demolition waste recycling facility. The application also proposes the retention and ancillary use of identified buildings, workshops, weighbridge facilities and associated vehicle parking areas falling within the application site.

2. The application proposes to use the site for two main operations/activities. These include the importation, storage, screening and processing of primary aggregates (e.g. sands, gravels and chippings) which would be bulk stored (stockpiles not exceeding 5m high) on the site pending their sale and export off site for wider use. The site would also operate as a construction and demolition recycling/recovery facility which also proposes the importation, storage and processing of waste materials which would be processed to produce secondary aggregates. The recycling/recovery operations involve the receipt of incoming materials, pre-processing and storage of materials in stockpiles (not exceeding 5m high) and the crushing, screening and segregation of materials (including the recovery of metals) pending their sale and distribution off site. The applicant states that the secondary aggregates produced would meet the WRAP Protocol which is a recognised protocol and quality control procedure ensuring that secondary aggregates produced meet the necessary specification/standard that they can be categorised as a fully recovered product (i.e. no longer a waste). This means that the secondary aggregates can be sold and re-used in the construction market as an alternative to primary land-won aggregates. Materials that cannot be recycled (i.e. residual wastes) would be removed from the site and disposed of at licensed facilities elsewhere. No materials or wastes would therefore be permanently deposited or landfilled within the site.

3. The proposed development would have an expected annual throughput of up to 50,000 tonnes per annum. Based on this maximum annual throughput, the facility would generate an average of 19 HGV loads per day (38 two-way movements) and up to 15 light vehicles (30 two-way movements) per day which includes staff vehicles. In total, the operation would therefore generate up to 34 single vehicle movements (68 two-way movements) per day. The applicant has confirmed that they would be willing to enter into a Unilateral Undertaking (secured as part of a S106 Planning Obligation) which requires all HGV traffic associated with the development to only approach, enter and exit the site via the B1225 (High Street) which runs to the east of the site and which connects with the A46 further north.

Page 48

4. The proposed hours of operation would be between 0730 and 1800 hours (Monday to Friday) and between 0730 and 1300 hours (Saturdays). No operations or activities are proposed to take place on Sundays & Public Holidays.

5. The applicant states that the proposed development would employ approximately 12 employees, the majority of which would be operational staff working full time. The facility would also support existing firms that trade/utilise products produced by the facility and could also aid their future expansion.

6. Finally, following comments received from the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, the applicant has verbally confirmed that as part of the proposed Unilateral Undertaking (secured as part of a S106 Planning Obligation) they would be willing to restore a 1.8ha area of land to the north and west of the application site (also owned by the applicant) to calcareous grassland which is a Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority target habitat. The land identified has an extant planning permission (ref: W66/334/94) for the landfilling of inert and semi-inert wastes, however, those operations ceased in 2002 and the Environment Agency Permit/Licence which also covered those operations was surrendered in 2005. The creation of calcareous grassland on this land would therefore restore part of the former quarry to a beneficial after-use. The applicant has confirmed that they would be willing to revoke permission W66/334/94 as part of the Unilateral Undertaking and would have no objection to, nor seek compensation should the County Council seek to secure this.

Site and Surroundings

7. The application site lies within the confines of the former chalk quarry known as Mansgate Quarry which is located 1.2km south of Caistor and 1km east of the village of Nettleton. The proposal site occupies approximately 2.28ha of the larger 5.56ha former quarry and comprises of land which once formed the main entrance and reception areas serving the quarry and was formerly used for the storage and stockpiling of minerals extracted from the site and was also an area of land which was backfilled/landfilled using imported wastes. Access to the site would be gained via the existing entrance which is entranced off Mansgate Hill which runs along the southern boundary of the quarry and which joins the B1225 to the east. A weight restriction order prevents vehicles over 7.5 tonnes from traveling west out of the site entrance towards Nettleton village.

8. The quarry itself lies within the open countryside and although it abuts the defined boundary of the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural, it does not lie within it. The quarry is also designated as a Local Geological Site and it is adjacent to the Nettleton Scarp Road Verge Local Wildlife Site which is located to the west of the sites entrance. Despite its location, the quarry itself is relatively well screened from views outside the site which is partly due to the nature of the topography in the area but also due to existing bunding and tree and shrub planting which remain around the lateral

Page 49

boundaries of the site. These features help to restrict and filter views into the site not only from the immediate surroundings but also from distances away from the site including those from within the adjacent AONB. The quarry itself is no longer an operational quarry but there remain a number of large buildings and ancillary structures within the site. The largest of these buildings are located centrally within the quarry and are not subject of this application however, like the building's which are proposed to be retained by this application, are subject to extant restoration conditions attached to the mineral permissions and are required to be removed by June 2015.

9. The nearest sensitive receptors to the boundary of the application site (not the quarry boundary) are properties known as The Cottage and Shooters Hill situated to the north and north-east of the site (approx. 380m and 340m, respectively), Nettleton Bleak House to the west (approx. 470m) as well as other properties situated along Whitegate Hill to the north (approx. 550m). There is also a Public Right of Way approximately 400m to the south of the site.

Main Planning Considerations

National Guidance

10. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and is a material planning consideration in the determination of planning applications. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies as these will be published as part of the National Waste Management Plan for England. In the interim, national waste planning policy continues to be set out in Planning Policy Statement 10 ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’ and decisions on waste applications should have regard to policies in the NPPF so far as they are relevant.

The main policies/statements set out in the NPPF which are relevant to this proposal are as follows (summarised):

Paragraph 28 - To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

 support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;  promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land based rural business…;

Paragraph 103 - When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential and Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:

Page 50

 within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; and  development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.

Paragraph 109 - The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

 protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils.”  preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability;…

Paragraph 117 - To minimise impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity, planning policies should (relevant criteria cited):

 promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets, and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan;  aim to prevent harm to geological conservation interests.

Paragraph 118 – When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity and identifies a number of principles which should be followed. These include where significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused as well as encouraging proposals where opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments can be secured.

Paragraph 120 - To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land stability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the areas or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.

Paragraph 122 - Local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where they are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.

Page 51

Paragraph 123 – Planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as result of new development; mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions, and; identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value.

Paragraphs 186 and 187 – Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development and should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicant to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.

Paragraph 215 – states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF the greater the weight that may be given). This is of relevance to the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan 2006 and West Lindsey Local Plan 2006.

Paragraph 216 – states that decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be applied). This is of relevance to the Draft Core Strategy and Development Management Policies of the emerging Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) “Planning for Sustainable Waste Management” remains in force despite the recent introduction of the NPPF (above). PPS10 reiterates the principles of sustainable waste management and the waste hierarchy and states that in considering planning applications for new or enhanced waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact of the development on the local environment and amenity.

Annex E of PPS10 sets out the locational criteria which must be considered in relation to the suitability of proposed sites. Of particular relevance to this application are the issues relating to protection of water resources, visual intrusion, nature conservation, traffic and access, air emissions (including dust), noise and vibration, litter and potential land-use conflict.

Local Plan Context

11. Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan 2006 (WLP) - the following policies are of particular relevance to this application:

Policy WLP1 (Objective of the Plan) states that waste management proposals shall be considered in relation to their contribution towards the

Page 52

waste management hierarchy and assessed in terms of their accordance with the proximity principle, regional self-sufficiency, waste planning policies and their compatibility with neighbouring land uses and any environmental implications of the development on its setting.

Policy WLP5 (Construction and Demolition Waste Facilities) states that planning permission for such facilities will be granted where they are:

(i) located within quarries or near their associated processing plant sites and would not prevent the restoration of such; OR (ii) associated with an existing waste management facility; OR (iii) directly associated with a major demolition project; OR (iv) located within areas designated for general industrial uses (Class B2); AND (v) meet the criteria set out in Policy WLP21; AND (vi) demonstrate the arrangements for the disposal of the residual waste from recycling operations.

Policy WLP21 (Environmental Considerations) states that planning permission for waste management facilities will be granted where a number of environmental considerations are met. Of particular relevance to this application are:

(ii) Area of Landscape Importance – supports proposals where the landscape and visual impacts of the development would not materially harm the local landscape or townscape and would respect the character and local distinctiveness of the area. (v) Drainage, Flood Protection and Water Resources – supports proposals which would not adversely affect local land drainage systems, groundwater resources or be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or create an unacceptable risk of flooding elsewhere. (vi) Statutory Nature Conservation Sites – supports proposals where they would not adversely affect a Site of International or National Importance. (vii) Non-statutory Nature Conservation Sites & Protected Species – supports proposals where they would not adversely affect a non- statutory site of nature conservation interest and/or statutorily protected species and their habitats. (x) Public Rights of Way – supports proposals where the development would not adversely affect a public right of way unless adequate arrangements can be made to safeguard the existing routes or to provide suitable alternatives. (xi) Dust, Odour, etc – supports proposals where they would not have an adverse impact on local amenity including air quality and/or other land- uses as a result of traffic movements, visual impact, noise, dust, odour, litter and emissions, etc. (xii) Transport System – supports proposals where there is sufficient capacity on the local or wider road network to accommodate traffic associated with the development and/or results in improvements or

Page 53

alternative modes of transport that can be implemented and/or would not have an adverse effect on road safety. (xvi) Mineral Resources – where proven mineral resource would not be sterilised. (xvii) Recovery of Materials – supports proposals where they contribute to the potential recovery of materials and energy via recycling, energy recovery and composting in reducing the amount of waste for final disposal.

West Lindsey Local Plan 2006 - the following policies are of particular relevance to this application:

STRAT1 (Development Requiring Planning Permission) states all development must take full account of the need to protect the environment so that present demands do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and enjoy a high quality environment. Development must reflect the need to safeguard and improve the quality of life of residents, conserve energy resources and protect the Plan area’s character and be satisfactory with regard to a range of criteria as set out in the policy. The criteria/issues identified which are relevant to this proposal are as follows:

(i) The number, size, layout, siting, design and external appearance of buildings and structures; (ii) The provision of adequate and safe access to the road network to prevent the creation or aggravation of highway problems; (v) The provision of vehicular and cycle parking facilities; (vi) The impact on the character, appearance and amenities of neighbouring, and where relevant, other land, including visual encroachment into the countryside; (viii) The impact of the proposal on neighbouring and, where relevant, other uses; (ix) The availability and capacity of infrastructure and social/community facilities to adequately serve the development; (x) The retention and safeguarding of existing trees, woodlands and hedgerows where feasible and the incorporation of landscape measures and/or the utilisation of natural screening in order to maintain the ecological value of the site and the wider environment; (xii) Any other material considerations properly related to regulating the use and development of land, including:

- Protecting general water quality and the quality of groundwater; - Protecting land quality from contamination; - Maximising the use of previously developed land; - Avoiding utilising land subject to flood risk.

Adequate information must be supplied with all applications so that the effects of development proposals in relation to the policies contained in the Local Plan can be properly judged. Where in sensitive locations new development will have an impact on the character of the area by virtue of its

Page 54

location or scale, planning permission will not be granted unless detailed plans are submitted with the planning application.

STRAT3 (Settlement Hierarchy) lists a hierarchy of settlements. All land outside of the identified settlements falls within the area designated as open countryside.

STRAT12 (Development in the Open Countryside) states that planning permission will not be granted for development proposals in the open countryside that is, outside of the settlements listed in Policy STRAT3, unless the development is essential to the needs of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, mineral extraction or other land use which necessarily requires a countryside location, or otherwise meets an objective supported by other Plan policies.

STRAT15 (Employment Allocations) identifies sites within the District that are allocated for employment development/uses. One of these sites (i.e. C(E)3) includes an 11ha site/land located off North Kelsey Road, Caistor as suitable for the development of uses falling within Classes A2, B1, B2 and B8 uses.

SUS14 (Flood Risk Areas) seeks to ensure that new development, including the intensification of existing land or proposals to raise the level of the land, are appropriately located so as not to be at risk of flooding or increase the risk of flooding elsewhere and that surface water run-off is appropriately managed so as not to result in adverse effects.

SUS15 (Derelict, Under-utilised and Previously Developed Land) states that development will be permitted if it will bring derelict, under-utilised and previously developed land back into acceptable beneficial use or involves the reuse of existing developed buildings except where to do so would conflict with other policies.

Policy ECON1 (Employment Development Provision) states that employment-generating development or the construction of buildings for businesses, general industry, storage or distribution, port and wharfage development will be permitted on sites not allocated for any of these uses provided that the proposal meets all the following criteria:

(i). There is no available allocated site within the nearby settlements or an established employment area in existence within the locality; (ii). It would not generate traffic of a type or amount inappropriate for the character of access roads or require improvements which would damage the character of those roads; (iii). It would not harm the character or appearance of the countryside; (iv). It would not harm the character, appearance or setting of the local settlement or the amenity of nearby or adjoining residents or other land uses;

Page 55

(v). It would not harm any site of nature conservation value or archaeological importance or any building of architectural or historic interest, conservation area or historic landscape or their setting; (vi). It would blend into the landscape in design, siting and choice of materials; (vii). It is not sited in a Green Wedge, AONB, protected settlement break or other protected landscape area or feature; (viii). The site can adequately accommodate the proposal in terms of size and shape for the layout incorporating suitable access, parking, landscaping or any other requirements of the proposed development; (ix). The proposed development should be in scale with the size of the settlement within which it is proposed.

Priority will be given to previously developed sites over the release of greenfield sites.

CORE10 (Open Space and Landscaping within Development Limits) states that new development proposals will be expected to include proposals for landscaping and open space which:

(i). Help integrate the development into the surrounding environment; (ii). Are planned as an integral part of the development; (iii). Ensure important natural landscape and nature conservation features are retained and where possible the opportunity to seek to enhance the site’s wildlife value is undertaken; (iv). Ensure trees that are subject to a tree preservation order (TPO) are kept clear of proposed buildings and structures and are enclosed by fencing so they are not detrimentally affected by works connected with the development; (v). Seek to retain and protect existing trees and hedgerows on site; (vi). Take account of neighbouring uses in terms of amenity and safety considerations.

NBE10 (Protection of Landscape Character and Areas of Great Landscape Value) states that high priority will be given to conserving the distinctive landscape features, landscape character and the landscape amenity value of the District. Development will not be permitted if it is likely to have an adverse impact on the features, setting or general appearance of the Landscape Character Areas as defined in the Landscape Character Assessment and amplified in the Countryside Design Summary.

In cases where development is to be permitted proposals should meet the following criteria:

(i). It should respect and enhance local distinctiveness; (ii). The scale, design and materials used should reflect local styles and respect the local environment; (iii). Important landscape features should be maintained or enhanced as part of the scheme;

Page 56

(iv). Development should not have a detrimental effect on skylines or important views.

Areas of particularly high local landscape value because of their distinctive characteristics have been identified on the Proposals Maps as Areas of Great Landscape Value.

NBE12 (Locally Designated Nature Conservation Sites and Ancient Woodlands) states that development will not be permitted which would adversely affect any of the following, unless there is a demonstrable overriding regional or local need for the development which cannot be accommodated elsewhere and the reason for the development clearly outweighs the need to safeguard the substantive nature conservation value of the site:

(i). Site of Nature Conservation Importance; (ii). A Local Nature Reserve; (iii). A Lincolnshire Trust Nature Reserve; (iv). A Regionally Important Geological or Geomorphological Site; (v). Ancient Woodlands; (vi). Any species of animal or plant, or its habitat, protected under British or European Law.

Where development is permitted planning conditions will be imposed which will require:

(a). That adequate opportunity is provided to enable proper recording of the site;

(b). That before development commences measures are agreed with the Council and taken by the Developer which mitigates the effects of the development on the site, the woodland and the wildlife, and compensate for any potential loss, in order to recognise and preserve the nature conservation interest.

This policy is of relevance as the Mansgate Quarry site is designated as a Local Geological Site (LGS) which has the same status as a Local Nature Reserve and is also adjacent to the Nettleton Scarp Road verge Local Wildlife Site (LWS).

NBE15 (Water Quality and Supply) states that development will not be permitted which would constitute a risk to the quality and quantity of water resources or to fisheries, amenity and nature conservation by means of:

(i). Pollution from development or as a result of the disturbance of contaminated land; (ii). Water abstraction unless adequate measures are taken to reduce this risk to an acceptable level.

Page 57

NBE17 (Control of Potentially Polluting Uses) states that planning permission that may be liable to cause pollution of water, air or soil, or pollution through noise, dust, vibration, light, heat or radiation will only be permitted if the health and safety and amenity of users of the site or surrounding land are not put at risk, the quality and enjoyment of the environment would not be damaged and, adequate protection and mitigation measures are implemented to ensure that any potential environmental receptors are not put at risk.

NBE19 (Landfill and Contaminated Land) states that development on or near to landfill or contaminated land will not be permitted unless an appropriate site investigation and risk assessment has been undertaken to identify whether gas, leachate and other ground/water contamination presents a risk to human health and environmental receptors. If such problems are demonstrated to exist they will be appropriately remediated prior to development.

Results of Consultation and Publicity

12. (a) Local County Council Member, Councillor B W Kiemach – was notified of the application on the 14 February 2014 but not comments/response had been received at the time this report was prepared.

(b) Adjoining County Council Member, Councillor A H Turner – was notified of the application on the 14 February 2014 but not comments/response had been received at the time this report was prepared.

(c) Nettleton Parish Council – no objections but comment that when the quarry was operational they did have concerns regarding the number of vehicles accessing the site and the use of the wheel wash. Although the quarry had a wheel wash it has rarely used and this was vitally important given the steepness of the nearby roads. If planning permission is to be granted the Parish Council would like to see a condition requiring traffic to access the site from Caistor High St only and that there should be no access through the village, not even for light vehicles. The village is in the AONB and is regularly used by walkers/cyclists and the Viking Way runs along the bottom of Mansgate Hill.

(d) Historic Environment (Lincolnshire County Council) – has advised that there are no known archaeological implications for the above proposal.

(e) Environment Agency – no objection but have provided a number of informative comments which include:

 the site lies in a Source Protection Zone 3 associated with a public water supply abstraction and is situated on a highly permeable major aquifer;

Page 58

 the proposed waste operation will require an Environmental Permit but no such Permit has been made;  the EA note that wastes (in the form of incinerator bottom ash and construction and demolition wastes) have been imported and treated on the site without there being an Environmental Permit in place and therefore these wastes must be removed.

(f) Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust (LWT) – has confirmed that Mansgate Quarry is designated as a Local Geological Site (LGS) and it is adjacent to Nettleton Scarp Road Verge Local Wildlife Site (LWS). Subject to all HGVs being required to only enter and exit the site from the direction of the B1225 Caistor Road LWT do not expect the proposals to adversely impact on the LWS which occurs to the west of the quarry along Mansgate Hill Road. It is added that given that the proposed application relates to the continuation of works in the worked base of the quarry they would not expect the proposed works to have any adverse impacts on the geological interest of the site or protected species.

LWT have also commented that they welcome plans to enhance the biodiversity of the site but would not agree that woodland planting on the 1.8ha area of land identified by the applicant would be the best habitat to create within this site (as originally proposed by the applicant). Instead the LWT recommends that the restoration of the quarry provides an excellent opportunity for the creation of calcareous grassland habitat as the quarry is located in a priority area for calcareous grassland re-creation. Calcareous grassland is a habitat of principal importance in the UK and a Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitat and the re-creation of calcareous grassland at this site would help to meet UK and Lincolnshire biodiversity targets. In light of this advice, the applicant has confirmed that they would agree to the creation of calcareous grassland rather than woodland and that details for the creation and a management of this could be addressed by way of conditions/the unilateral undertaking.

(g) Natural England – does not wish to comment on this proposal, however, note that the proposal site is adjacent to the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Natural England therefore advise that the advice of the AONB Partnership be sought as their knowledge of the location and wider landscape setting of the development should help to confirm whether or not it would impact significantly on the purposes of the AONB designation. The AONB Partnership will also be able to advise whether the development accords with the aims and policies set out in the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB Management Plan 2013-2018.

(h) Lincolnshire Wolds Countryside Service (LWCS) – has commented that whilst the site is not within the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), it is adjacent to the boundary and has the potential to impact views to and from the protected landscape. It is

Page 59

recognised that the site is currently unworked but still retains a number of buildings, plant and features which relate directly to its previous use.

When viewed from external view points, the LWCS has found the current site and its associated infrastructure has a negligible visible impact on the AONB and they envisage that this planning application would not create further impact on the landscape scale, and following a viewing internally of the site, envisage that the application sought for the uses outlined should have no further impact on the AONB than its former use, when taken in conjunction with mitigation measures below.

A number of issues for mitigation which should be considered if this application is approved are recommended which include:

 All vehicle movements must take place via access from the B1225 (Caistor High Street) and none outside the hours of use unless for security reasons.  Noise and dust levels of operating plant and the site must be monitored to ensure that it falls within the HSE guidelines.  External lights not be used outside of normal operating hours and security lighting, if used, should be directional and motion activated.  Height of plant and stored heaps of material should not exceed 5 metres.  The hedged boundary on Mansgate Hill road in relation to the applicants land holding should be restored and maintained at a height of 8 metres minimum and a dense base to help screen the site further.  Further restoration works, such as calcareous grassland creation using locally sourced native wildflowers and grasses, to be submitted that will deliver actions within the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB Management Plan 2013-2018 and the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan.

(i) Highways (Lincolnshire County Council) – has no objection to the proposal provided that a routing agreement is secured to ensure that all HGV traffic associated with the development enter & exit the site via the B1225 & A46.

The following bodies/organisations were consulted on the application but no comment/responses had been received at the time this report was prepared.

Caistor Parish Council (adjoining Parish) Environmental Health Officer (West Lindsey District Council) Public Right of Way (Lincolnshire County Council) Anglian Water Services.

13. The application has been publicised by notices posted at the site and in the local press (Market Rasen on 12 March 2014) and letters of notification were sent to the nearest neighbouring residents to the site. Three

Page 60

representations have been received as result of this publicity/notification and a summary of the comments/objections received are set out below:

 Increase in traffic and concerns regarding damage to property as a result of unsheeted lorries carrying wastes/materials. This is stated as having been a previous problems associated with the former quarrying operations.  Increased traffic and use of Whitegate Hill especially since the advent of satellite navigation systems. Whitegate Hill is unsuitable for HGV use and a 30mph speed limit should be set and weight restriction imposed preventing its use by vehicles over 7 tonnes.  Potential litter problems as a result of the proposed use.  Potential noise impacts – noise limits should be imposed and monitored to prevent noise from activities/sources such as reversing bleepers on vehicles.  Concerns regarding potential dust and air pollution due to proposals to process ash on the site.  Concerns regarding the potential for leakage of stored and processed materials which could impact on water run-off but also pollute the underlying groundwaters and aquifer.  Concerns regarding potential visual impacts given its location. A dirty, smelly intrusive commercial activity should not even be considered in the countryside or the AONB.  Potential risk of a precedent being set which could allow for future explosion within the site.  A wheelwash should be required to prevent debris being brought onto the highway.  The quarry has been a largely dormant site in recent years and therefore the traffic to and from the site has not been at the level as cited in the application. Concerned that the development would therefore return the level of activity to that which existed when the quarry was fully operational and this would impact on local residents.  The proposed hours of operation are unsociable for an industrial site close to residential properties. Operations should not be permitted to start until after 8:30 am and not allowed on the weekend.  If woodland planting is proposed then this should be mature planting as saplings will take 20 years to mature and grassland offers no noise reduction.  No proposals to deal with the remaining areas of the quarry which are not subject of this application. The quarry should be restored to a nature reserve.

A representation has also been received from a West Lindsey District Council Councillor, Councillor Caine who has made a number of comments which are summarised as follows:

- The loss of most jobs at Mansgate Quarry caused some distress when it downsized and apart from trailing some debris on the roads when the

Page 61

weather was bad and adding to local traffic, the site is far enough away from neighbours not to cause daily disturbance. - The proposal is to create new jobs from a local company/business (Horncastle) and the jobs created will support the local economy. - Anything carried out on site is unlikely to impact on the views from surrounding areas or impact on the skyline. The Wolds have been worked for at least 8000 years so it is a working environment so why stop now? - Any work that creates dust or noise should be sited in the lower quarried parts of the site to act as a bund and away from workers and/or neighbours.

District Council’s Recommendations

14. West Lindsey District Council – has confirmed that they have no concerns regarding this proposal.

Conclusions

15. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The broad thrust and ethos of planning policy is to direct most new development towards urban centres and settlements, sites allocated for such purposes (as identified in the Development Plan) and away from rural areas and the open countryside. The main issue to be considered in the determination of this application is whether the proposed development in this location is appropriate in planning policy terms and whether it would give rise to any unacceptable adverse environmental, traffic or amenity impacts.

16. The proposed development, in particular the recycling operations, would recover materials from construction and demolition wastes and other waste streams and enable them to be re-used in other infrastructure and construction projects. The recovery and re-use of such materials therefore not only reduces the overall quantity of wastes that may otherwise go to landfill but also helps to reduce the demand for the extraction of primary or new virgin minerals. The recycling operations therefore represent a sustainable waste management practice and help to move the management of wastes up the waste hierarchy. Consequently, the carrying out of these operations/activities is in line with the principles and objectives of PPS10 and Policies WLP1 and WLP21(xvii) of the Waste Local Plan. However, whilst it is accepted that the operations do represent a sustainable waste management operation such facilities should only be permitted in appropriate locations and where they do not conflict with other objectives or policies set out in the Development Plan.

17. In terms of location, the proposal site is located within the confines of the former chalk quarry known as Mansgate Quarry and therefore is located outside the defined settlement boundaries of nearby Nettleton and Caistor

Page 62

(identified by WLLP Policy STRAT3) and is not a site identified or allocated by WLLP Policy STRAT15 as suitable for industrial/commercial uses. The site therefore falls within the open countryside (thus subject of WLLP Policy STRAT12) which advocates a general presumption against siting development in the open countryside unless it is essential to the needs of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, mineral extraction or other land that requires a countryside location, or otherwise meets and objective supported by other Plan policies. WLP Policy WLP5 identifies the specific locations where construction and demolition facilities should be sited and although criterion (i) does identify quarries as a suitable location, the Waste Planning Authority has only considered such facilities to be appropriate within existing operational quarries and where they would not prevent or delay the restoration of those sites.

18. In this case, planning permission no longer exists to allow mineral working to continue within Mansgate Quarry and instead the site is now subject of restoration conditions. Given the planning status of the quarry, the siting of such a facility in this former quarry is not considered to accord with criterion (i) of WLP Policy WLP5. Furthermore, although there is currently no comprehensive restoration scheme covering the whole of the former quarry, there are conditions attached to the mineral permissions which require all buildings within the site to be removed (including those not subject of this application) by June 2015. If planning permission were to be granted for this development it would therefore conflict with the current obligations and requirements of those conditions and delay the restoration of the quarry by allowing the retention and continued use of buildings and land which, if they had not previously been associated with the quarrying operations, would not have themselves been acceptable in this open countryside location.

19. With regard the other locations/sites identified by criterions (ii) to (iv) of WLP Policy WLP5, the site also fails to meet any of those cited as it is not an existing waste management facility, is not associated with a major demolition project and is not a site designated for general industrial uses. Finally, although it is accepted that WLLP Policy ECON1 does support employment generating development on non-allocated sites the proposal also fails to satisfy all of the required criteria/tests set out by this policy - in particular as it has not been demonstrated that there are no allocated or previously developed sites within the nearby settlements that are suitable for this proposed use (in particular those identified by WLLP Policy STRAT 15) and which should therefore be developed before the release of this greenfield site. Similarly, the development is also considered to be contrary to WLLP Policy SUS15 as the proposed continued use would conflict with the objectives of other policies contained within the development plan (namely WLLP STRAT3, STRAT12, STRAT15 and WLP Policy WLP5).

20. Having considered the responses received from statutory and non-statutory consultees and whilst it is noted that a number of objections have been raised by local residents regarding potential impacts such a noise, dust and visual impacts etc, on balance, it is considered that any potential environmental or amenity impacts arising from this development (i.e. noise,

Page 63

dust, traffic, visual impacts) could potentially be mitigated through conditions and/or the Unilateral Undertaking and despite the site being located in close proximity to the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB would not have a significant adverse impact upon it. However, it is your Officers view that given the planning status of the quarry the locational criterion of WLP Policy WLP5 which identifies quarries as potential suitable locations for the siting of such operations cannot be used as justification for allowing this development to take place in this case. The proposed uses not only include recycling and recovery operations but the use of the site as a primary aggregates stocking and merchanting site and whilst such uses may be common with an operational quarry (i.e. trading minerals sourced from within that quarry) as the mineral working operations have ceased there is no overriding need or justification which requires this type of use to be sited in this location. Instead such activities could be more appropriately carried out on previously developed land lying within the nearby settlements, be co-located with an existing waste management use or be sited within established industrial or commercial sites or land specifically allocated in the Local Plans as suitable for such uses. If the proposed development were to be granted planning permission, it would also delay the restoration of the quarry by allowing the retention of buildings and use of land within the site which, had it not been for their association with the former mineral working operations, would not be considered acceptable or justified in this open countryside location.

Conclusion

21. Whilst there is support to provide recycling and recovery operations which help to reduce the demands on primary won aggregates and which help to reduce the amount of wastes that are disposed of to landfill, such operations should be appropriately located and therefore should only be supported where they are proposed in the locations and areas specifically identified as suitable for such uses as advocated by the policies of the Development Plan. In this case, the proposed development seeks to use a greenfield site lying within the open countryside and therefore is located outside the defined settlement boundaries of nearby Nettleton and Caistor and is not a site identified or allocated as suitable for industrial/commercial uses. The proposed use is also not one for which an open countryside location is essential and given the planning status of the quarry, is not considered to accord with locational criterion of WLP Policy WLP5. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to the objectives and strategies for siting new development advocated by WLLP Policies STRAT3, STRAT12, STRAT 15 and WLP Policy WLP5 and also fails to demonstrate why this non-allocated site is an acceptable alternative location and therefore fails to comply with WLLP Policies ECON1 and SUS15.

Page 64

RECOMMENDATIONS

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

The proposed development seeks to use a greenfield site lying within the open countryside and therefore is not located within the defined settlement boundaries of nearby Nettleton or Caistor and is not a site identified or allocated as suitable for industrial/commercial uses. The proposed use is also not one for which an open countryside location is essential and the applicant has failed to demonstrate why this non-allocated site is a suitable alternative to those identified as suitable for such uses or why other derelict, under-utilised or previously developed sites are not available which would be more appropriate to accommodate this use. Therefore the proposed development is considered to be contrary to the objectives of Policies STRAT3, STRAT12, STRAT15 and have failed to demonstrate compliance with policies ECON1 and SUS15 of the West Lindsey Local Plan.

WLP Policy WLP5 identifies the specific locations where construction and demolition facilities should be sited and although criterion (i) does identify quarries as a suitable location, the proposal site lies within a now redundant quarry where restoration conditions remain extant. The Waste Planning Authority considers the planning status of the quarry means that the site fails to accord with the locational criterion of Policy WLP5 and that the retention of the buildings and use of land within the site for the proposed use would conflict with the current restoration conditions attached to the site and therefore delay its restoration.

Consequently, the proposed development is contrary to the core objectives and locational strategies for siting new development advocated for siting new development advocated by Policies STRAT3, STRAT12, STRAT 15 of the West Lindsey Local Plan and Policy WLP5 of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan and also fails to demonstrate why this non-allocated site is an acceptable alternative location and therefore fails to comply with West Lindsey Local Plan policies ECON1 and SUS15.

Appendix

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report

Appendix A Committee Plan

Page 65

Background Papers

The following background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.

Document title Where the document can be viewed

Planning Application File Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park W66/131058/14 House, Waterside South, Lincoln

National Planning Policy Communities and Local Government website Framework (2012) www.gov.uk

Planning Policy Statement 10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

Lincolnshire Waste Local Lincolnshire County Council website Plan (2006) www.lincolnshire.gov.uk

West Lindsey Local Plan West Lindsey District Council website (2006) www.west-lindsey.gov.uk

This report was written by Marc Willis, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]

Page 66 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING  Buildings out of applicants control - to be removed by June 2015 Site of Application

Remaining quarry (unrestored) Land within the applicants control - to be restored as part of the proposal

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Public Prevailing Wind Direction from the south-west  Right of Way

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Reproduced from the 1996 Os Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. OS LICENCE 1000025370

Location: Description: Mansgate Hill To use land as a primary aggregates storage, processing Nettleton and merchanting site and construction and demolition waste recycling facility including the retention and ancillary use of existing buildings, workshops, weighbridge facilities Application No: W66/131058/14W66/131058/14 and associated vehicle parking areas Scale: 1:5000 PlanningPage and 67 Regulation Committee 7 April 2014 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5.2

Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director for Communities

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee

Date: 2 June 2014

Subject: County Matter Application - (E)N158/0526/14

Summary: This application by Wingas Storage (UK) Limited (Agent: Barton Willmore) is an application seeking to update and replace the conditions already attached to the mineral planning permissions currently covering the site at Saltfleetby A well site, Saddleback Road, Howdales, South Cockerington. Under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995 all mining sites are subject to Periodic Review which at the time of the application was to take place at 15 year intervals. The purpose of the Periodic Review process is to update conditions to ensure that mineral extraction is carried out to modern standards.

Recommendation: It is recommended that that the amended schedule of conditions as set out at the end of this report be approved.

Background

1. At the time of application (under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995) all mining sites were subject to Periodic Review which was to take place at 15 year intervals.

2. The purpose of the Periodic Review process is to update conditions to ensure that mineral extraction is carried out to modern standards.

3. In the meantime the Government has released new Planning Practice Guidance which sets out requirements for Mineral Planning Authorities to request a Periodic Review only where ongoing issues cannot be resolved satisfactorily through negotiations. There is no fixed period when periodic reviews should take place so long as the first review is no earlier than 15 years after planning permission is granted or, in the case of an old permission, 15 years of the date of the initial review. Any further reviews should be at least 15 years after the date of the last review. Mineral Planning Authorities should usually only seek a review of planning conditions when monitoring visits have revealed an issue that is not

Page 69 adequately regulated by planning conditions, which the operator has been made aware of and has not been able to address. The main issues which were in need of addressing and modernising on this site are restoration of the site and the protection of amenity through noise conditions including a condition covering actions to be taken in the event of a noise complaint.

The Application

4. This is the First Periodic Review for Saltfleetby A well site, the original planning permission being in 1999, with the well site currently operating under the conditions imposed at that time.

5. The gas is currently extracted by conventional means and has been since the well site first starting operating.

6. This application does not propose the extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons i.e. any hydraulic fracturing for shale gas - 'fracking'.

7. In accordance with the Environment Act 1995, Wingas Storage (UK) Ltd has made an application for the determination of new (updated) conditions to which the Saltfleetby A well site is to be subject. The purpose of the review process is to update and modernise the conditions of old mining permissions to ensure that quarries operate to modern standards. The application therefore seeks to update and replace those conditions attached to the planning permission currently affecting the site reference:

(E)N/158/0097/99 To develop existing site, install production facilities to produce gas from the existing well and permitted exploratory wells as Saltfleetby A, Howdales Farm, Howdales, South Cockerington.

8. Whilst it is open to the Mineral Planning Authority to issue conditions that differ from those proposed by the applicant, it is not an option to refuse the application. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, the Planning and Regulation Committee is not being asked to consider whether or not to grant planning permission for the existing operations affecting the land subject of the application (as permission for those activities already exists) but are instead are being asked to consider whether the proposed revised conditions set out in this report are acceptable.

9. The application itself includes a description of the existing permitted operations and includes a schedule of 13 planning conditions which the applicant proposes would modernise and replace the existing conditions attached to the current planning permissions relating to the site. The conditions cover a range of topics/matters and would ensure that the operations can be carried out and controlled so as to not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the area or amenity of nearby residential properties or other sensitive receptors.

Page 70 Site and Surroundings

10. The site is 0.81ha and is on land approximately 4km to the north east of South Cockerington and 2.5km north west of Saltfleetby St Peter. There are dispersed individual dwellings in the area but none in close proximity to this site, the nearest is 520m to the north east.

11. The site has its own access to Saddleback Road 50m from the junction with North End Lane and visibility is excellent in both directions.

12. The site is satisfactorily screened with earth mounds and mixed planting of trees and shrubs.

13. The site is surrounded by open, expansive, agricultural land with drainage dykes and water courses.

14. The site is in Zone 3a which is an area of high probability of flooding.

15. On the site currently are two wellheads, storage tanks and associated structures including a switchroom/control cabin, tanks and generators and CCTV and lighting columns for security.

16. There are other smaller ancillary structures and earthworks/bunding on the site. In general the site is fairly low key and of modest impact upon the surrounding countryside.

17. There is a permission for an extension to the site with additional boreholes which has not been implemented and is not subject to this application for review of conditions.

Main Planning Considerations

National Guidance

18. National Guidance is now contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the latest Planning Practice Guidance with almost all elements of the previous PPS and PPG guidance now abolished. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which, it states, should be approved without delay.

Paragraph 215 states that 12 months after the publication of the NPPF (2012) due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework, with the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given. This is of relevance with regard to the Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan and the East Lindsey Local Plan. In line with the requirements of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Mineral Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way during the consideration of this application. This approach ensures that the application has been handled in

Page 71 a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England. The main policies and principles set out in the NPPF which are of relevance to this proposal are as follows (summarised):

Paragraph 123 states that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development. Decisions should also aim to mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.

Paragraph 144 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should, amongst other things:

 ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emission and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties; and  provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary.

The NPPF is accompanied by Technical Guidance that includes a section on minerals policy. This section provides guidance on a number of issues including dust, noise and restoration and aftercare.

On noise, the NPPF Technical Guidance advises that, subject to a maximum of 55dB(A)LAeq,1h (freefield), mineral planning authorities should aim to establish noise limits at noise sensitive properties that do not exceed the background level by more than 10dB(A). It is recognised, however, that in many circumstances it will be difficult not to exceed the background level by more than 10dB(A) without imposing unreasonable burdens on the operator. In such cases, the limit set should be as near that level as practicable during normal working hours (07:00-19:00) and should not exceed 55dB(A).

Local Plan Context

19. The Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan 1991 forms part of the Development Plan and therefore, as confirmed by the NPPF, due weight should be given to relevant policies within the Plan according to their degree of consistency with the policies of the NPPF. The following policies are considered to be generally consistent with the NPPF and are of relevance to this proposal (summarised):

Policy M10 (Surface Mineral Working - Working Requirements) indicates that planning permission for mineral workings shall only be permitted where the operations can be carried out in such a manner as they will minimise

Page 72 disturbance during working and that satisfactory restoration to an appropriate after-use can be achieved. In order to minimise the effects of the development the County Council will impose conditions to address and control any such impacts including, hours of operations, landscaping, appropriate restoration etc.

Policy M14 (Surface Mineral Working - Restoration) seeks to ensure that restoration proposals for mineral workings are accompanied by a detailed scheme for the restoration of the worked out site to agriculture, forestry or recreation/amenity use.

Policy M15 (Aftercare), where appropriate the County Council when granting planning permission for surface mineral working subject to restoration conditions will also impose after care conditions.

Policy M24 (Oil and Gas), applications for planning permission for oil and gas development will be considered against the criteria set out the key policies of the Local Plan.

20. The East Lindsey Local Plan (1999) forms part of the Development Plan and therefore, as confirmed by the NPPF, due weight should be given to relevant policies within the Plan according to their degree of consistency with the policies of the NPPF. The following policy is considered to be of particular relevance (summarised):

Policy A4 (Protection of General Amenities) states that development which unacceptably harms the general amenities of people living and working nearby will not be permitted and sets out a list of criteria for assessing applications.

Results of Consultation and Publicity

21. It should be noted that the application was made shortly after a Government announcement regarding the exploration for and production of hydrocarbons from unconventional sources (i.e. the hydraulic fracturing of shale "fracking"). Although this application does not involve such development, it was considered appropriate to include additional County Councillors/Parish Councils in the consultation in order to make this clear.

(a) Local County Council Member, Councillor D McNally – who is a Member of the Planning and Regulation Committee reserves his comments for the meeting.

(b) County Council Member, Councillor C Davie – was notified of the application on 14 March 2014 but no comments/response had been received at the time this report was prepared.

(c) County Council Member, Councillor I Fleetwood – who is Chairman of the Planning and Regulation Committee reserves his comments for the meeting.

Page 73

(d) County Council Member, Councillor M Hill – was notified of the application on 14 March 2014 but no comments/response had been received at the time this report was prepared.

(e) County Council Member, Councillor R Shore – was notified of the application on 14 March 2014 but no comments/response had been received at the time this report was prepared.

(f) Natural England – made specific comments regarding each condition. These comments have been noted however the conclusion of Natural England is that: "Natural England does not consider that the proposed changes to planning conditions pose any likely or significant risk to those features of the natural environment for which we would otherwise provide a more detailed consultation response."

(g) Environment Agency – would like to be consulted on restoration; decommissioning must ensure there is no risk to groundwater.

(h) Lindsey Marsh Internal Drainage Board – no comments on application but has informative comments for the applicant.

(i) Highways (Lincolnshire County Council) – will not be detrimental to highway safety or traffic capacity.

(j) Health and Safety Executive – does not advise against the development.

The following bodies/organisations were consulted on the application but no comment/responses had been received at the time this report was prepared:

South Cockerington Parish Council Saltfleetby Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council with Parish Council Parish Council Theddlethorpe Parish Council Anglian Water Lincolnshire Police Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust Lincolnshire County Council Public Rights of Way Chief Executive of East Lindsey District Council - Stuart Davy District Councillor Terrence Knowles (East Lindsey District Council) District Councillor Cath Pearson (East Lindsey District Council) Saltfleetby Liaison Group

22. A site notice has been displayed, a press notice has been placed in the Louth Leader on 2 April 2014 and the nearest neighbours have been consulted by letter. No representations have been received.

Page 74 District Council’s Recommendations

23. East Lindsey District Council object on the grounds that some of the wording proposed in the conditions is too vague and is open to interpretation for example: "Access. The term 'adequate' is imprecise and needs to be defined." They also comment on landscaping, noise, lighting and restoration in similar terms.

Conclusions

24. The key issues to be considered in relation to these proposals are the appropriateness and acceptability of the proposed conditions put forward within the application and an assessment of any potential adverse environmental and amenity impacts arising from the continued mineral extraction operations within the existing permitted boundary.

25. Where a Mineral Planning Authority determines conditions different from those submitted by the applicant and the effect of those conditions, other than restoration or aftercare conditions, as compared with the effect of the existing conditions is to impose a restriction on working rights then the applicant is entitled to claim compensation. Working rights in respect of a mining site are deemed to have been restricted if any of the following is restricted or reduced:

(a) the size of the area which may be used for the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste; (b) the depth to which any operations for the winning and working of minerals may extend; (c) the height of any deposit of mineral waste; (d) the rate at which any particular mineral may be extracted; (e) the rate at which any particular mineral waste may be deposited; (f) the period at the expiry of which any winning and working or minerals or the depositing of mineral waste is to cease; (g) the total quantity of mineral which may be extracted from, or of mineral wastes may be deposited on, the site.

26. It is inescapable that this type of development will have an impact upon the landscape. Some elements of the structures on site are visible at reasonable distances from the site, but this is largely mitigated through the landscaping that has now been in place for a number of years and the impact is considered acceptable and no further landscaping is needed.

27. The applicant proposes adequate noise protection through the proposed condition.

28. East Lindsey District Council object on the grounds that they feel the proposed conditions are imprecise and open to interpretation and they comment that the Council is not expert in areas of specifics such as restoration. However, it is considered that the proposed conditions are

Page 75 clear, precise and capable of providing the necessary environmental protections as well as protecting amenity.

29. The gas is piped directly to the applicant's nearby Saltfleetby B site so there is very little traffic generation.

30. Although the site is in flood risk zone 3a the applicant has indicated that the wellheads are capable of being submerged in water and the site will not increase flood risk elsewhere. An evacuation plan has been submitted - the Environment Agency has not objected.

31. The conditions are not considered to detrimentally affect the economic viability of the mining site, compared with the existing conditions, particularly as they allow the operations for a longer period in which to extract the hydrocarbons.

32. The development complies with national and local planning guidance and policy and the NPPF makes it clear that minerals are a national imperative, essential to the economy and therefore crucial to maintaining our way and quality of life.

33. It is therefore recommended that the schedule of conditions set out below be granted which include conditions that differ from those put forward by the applicant. However, it should be noted that the conditions, as amended, have been agreed by the applicant.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the amended schedule of conditions is approved as set out below:

Scope of Permission

1. This scheme of conditions relates to the site edged red on Drawing No. 16549/P10B, received 15 January 2014, for the continued use of the site for gas production, and all associated matters relating to gas production. The use hereby permitted shall cease no later than 15 March 2059 or when gas production ceases, whichever is the earlier, after which date all plant and machinery shall be removed from the site and the site restored in accordance with the conditions set out below.

Hours of Operation

2. Equipment assembly and HGV vehicles associated with equipment assembly shall only be permitted to visit the site during the following hours:

07:00-19:00 hours Monday to Saturday

No construction or equipment assembly operations shall be carried out on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays.

Page 76 Access

3. Adequate space and provision shall be maintained at all times for the parking, loading, unloading, manoeuvre and turning of all vehicles so as to enable such vehicles to leave the site in a forward gear.

Soil Storage and Landscaping

4. All existing perimeter soft landscaping (including existing earth soil bunds) shall be retained and maintained for the duration of the development and should any tree or shrub die, become diseased or damaged then it shall be replaced with an appropriate native/local species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority that such replacements are not necessary.

Noise

5. The noise level arising from the development at the junction of Saddleback Road and North End Lane, South Cockerington shall not exceed:

 between 07:00 and 19:00 hours, 55dB(A) LAeq 1 hour (free-field) or background level plus 10 dB(A), whichever is the lesser;  between 19:00 and 22:00 hours, background level plus 10dB(A); and  between 22:00 and 07:00 hours, 42dB(A)LAeq 1 hour (free-field).

6. In the event of the Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) notifying the operator that a complaint has been received regarding the noise levels from the well site the operator shall undertake a noise survey and submit the results to the MPA within 21 days of the MPA's notification. The survey shall be undertaken in accordance with the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. Should the results indicate that the noise levels exceed the limits set out in condition 5, the submission shall also include details for the approval of the MPA of the mitigation measures to be implemented to remedy the breach, and the timescale(s) for implementation. The mitigation shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details including timings.

7. Prior to the installation of any further noise generating plant or machinery on the well site a detailed noise assessment shall be undertaken to demonstrate that the noise levels arising from the introduction of the additional plant and machinery will comply with the permitted noise levels. The noise assessment shall be submitted to the MPA, for written approval prior to the installation of the plant/machinery.

Lighting

8. No external lighting beyond that already existing and installed within the site shall be erected or installed without the prior written approval of the Mineral Planning Authority having been obtained. Any additional lighting proposed

Page 77 to be erected or installed (except in the case of aircraft warning lights) shall be directed so as to minimise light spillage beyond the site boundary.

Surface Drainage and Pollution Protection

9. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or 125% of the capacity of interconnected tanks. All filling points, vents, gauges and site glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.

Restoration and Aftercare

10. Within three months of the permanent cessation of the use of the site for gas production the operator shall notify the Minerals Planning Authority in writing of the date of cessation.

11. Within 12 months of the permanent cessation of gas production all boreholes and wells shall be plugged and pumps, pipework, plant, machinery, ancillary equipment, hardstandings, perimeter fencing and associated infrastructure shall be removed from all the well site and the land restored in accordance with the details submitted with the application.

12. Within 12 months from the permanent cessation of gas production, the site shall be restored to agriculture in accordance with the details submitted with the application.

13. The site shall be subject to a five year aftercare programme in accordance with the details submitted with the application.

The reasons for the conditions are:

1. For the avoidance of doubt as to the scope of the mining permissions and to define the extent of the operations area for carrying out the development.

2. In the interests of the general amenity of the area and to minimise possible disturbance to residents in the locality in accordance with Policy A4 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999.

3. In the interests of highway safety and to minimise the potential noise arising from the movement of vehicles on the site.

Page 78 4. To ensure that all existing landscape screening is retained and maintained so as to help to minimise the visual impacts of the site on the surrounding area.

5, 6, 7 & 8 To minimise the potential nuisances and impacts of noise and light pollution on the surrounding area and residents in the locality in accordance with the principles of the NPPF, Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan Policy M22(d) and East Lindsey Local Policy A4.

9. To prevent the pollution of the water environment in accordance with the principles of the NPPF.

10 – 13 To ensure the satisfactory reinstatement and restoration of the site to an appropriate use in accordance with policies M14 and M15 of the Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan.

Informatives

Attention is drawn to the letters from the Environment Agency and Lindsey Marsh Internal Drainage Board attached to the Decision Notice.

Appendices

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report

Appendix A Committee Plan

Page 79 Background Papers

The following background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.

Document title Where the document can be viewed

Planning Application File Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park (E)N158/0526/14 House, Waterside South, Lincoln

National Planning Policy Communities and Local Government website Framework (March 2012) www.gov.uk

Lincolnshire Minerals Lincolnshire County Council website Local Plan 1991, Saved www.lincolnshire.gov.uk Policies

East Lindsey Local Plan East Lindsey District Council website 1999, Saved Policies www.e-lindsey.gov.uk

This report was written by Mark Simmonds, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]

Page 80 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING 

oadoad RR kk cc aa llllebeb dddd aa SS Well Site B Site of Application Well Site A

Prevailing Wind Direction from the south-west 

N o r th E n d L a n e 

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Reproduced from the 1996 Os Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. OS LICENCE 1000025370

Location: Description: Saltfleetby A Wellsite The First Periodic Review of the mining site at Saltfleetby A Saddleback Road well site. Howdales, South Cockerington Application No: (E)N158/0526/14(E)N158/0526/14 Scale: 1:10 000 PlanningPage and 81 Regulation Committee 2 June 2014 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5.3

Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director for Communities

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee

Date: 2 June 2014

Subject: County Matter Application – (E)S86/0511/14

Summary: Planning permission is sought by A Riddel & Sons Metal & Scrap Hire Ltd (Agent: For-Ward Planning Consultancy Ltd) to vary condition 8 of planning permission (E)S86/2390/10 which relates to a waste management facility at Spratt Close, Horncastle. Condition 8 of planning permission (E)S86/2390/10 requires the submission of details of a scheme to cover finished products stored outside. The application seeks to remove the requirement to cover the shredded paper. The proposed variation to the condition would, in effect, allow the applicant to continue the waste paper operation without controls to contain the baled shredded paper stored outside. The main issue to be considered in relation to this proposal is whether the removal of condition 8 would reduce the planning control over the site operations and activities to an extent that would give rise to an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of the area.

Recommendation: That planning permission for the variation/removal of condition 8 of planning permission (E)S86/2390/10 be refused.

Background

1. Following the granting of conditional planning permission by the Planning and Regulation Committee in January 2011 an industrial unit was erected on a plot off Spratt Close, Horncastle to establish a waste paper shredding facility. The paper would be shredded and baled within the proposed building. The baled paper would be stored outside of the building before being transported off-site for further processing by another provider. The Committee was concerned of the potential of litter arising from the outside storage of the baled waste and requested an additional condition was imposed to address this.

Page 83 2. Condition 8 captures this requirement and states as follows:

"Prior to the commencement of development details of a scheme to cover finished products shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details."

Reason: In the interests of the general amenity of the area.

The Application

3. Planning permission is sought by A Riddel & Sons Metal & Scrap Hire Ltd (Agent: For-Ward Planning Consultancy Ltd) to vary/remove condition 8 of planning permission (E)S86/2390/10 which relates to a waste paper shredding facility off Spratt Close, Horncastle.

4. This application seeks to remove the requirement to cover the finished product prior to transportation off site.

5. The applicant states that the variation/removal of condition 8 is necessary because the finished products once shredded will be baled, come out pre- batched and tied with steel wire in 800kg bales. However there is no facility to cover the finished bales, as the mills to which the bales are sent will not accept 'covered bales', or bales tied with anything other than steel wire, and this is the same across the country and worldwide.

6. The applicant adds that there is not a requirement to cover the finished bales in the yard area either given that their collections once shredded will be regular, and furthermore, given the fact that the bales are highly compacted before being tied with steel wire, there will be no litter or danger of there being any shredded paper falling from the bales once stored outside ready for collection.

7. In this case therefore, whilst the condition can be complied with in part, (with them being tied with steel wire), there is not a facility to cover the finished bales either on site, or with any form of protection from the weather for example, meaning that this element of the condition is in the applicant's opinion not necessary and, as a result, would not meet all the tests as set down in Circular 11/95 – "The use of conditions in planning permission."

8. The applicant states further that once baled, the shredded paper is collected by 44 tonne (gross) lorries with a loading capability of circa 27 tonnes per trip. Based on bales being on average 800kg, the total number of bales per trip that will be collected will be not more than 33 bales.

9. The proposed variation to the condition would, in effect, allow the applicant to steel wire bale the finished product only and store the finished product outside of the building until sufficient product has been collected for transportation off site.

Page 84 10. Given the potential of fugitive paper arising from the handling of this waste, the applicant has stated that whilst there is not a requirement to cover the finished bales in the yard area either, given that their collections once shredded will be regular, and furthermore, given the fact that the bales are highly compacted before being tied with steel wire, there will be no litter or danger of there being any shredded paper falling from the bales once stored outside ready for collection.

Site and Surroundings

11. The site is on the Abigate Industrial Park to the south east of the town of Horncastle along the eastern boundary of the industrial park. The site is designated for industrial use by the East Lindsey Local Plan Proposals Map. Land to the west of the site has been developed since 2011 with a number of small industrial/office units sharing the access road to Spratt Close to the west. Land to the north and south also forms part of the industrial park, and is occupied by both industrial and retail units. Agricultural land extends from the east of the boundary and beyond this, to the north east of the site, is the closest residential property to the site, Stonehill Farm, 160m away. The next nearest residential properties are those on College Park approximately 225m west of the site.

12. The site is bound on the south and west by brick walling with embedded black painted metal railings and a mesh fence on the inside to a height of 3m. The industrial unit has been constructed abutting the north boundary with a roller conveyor abutting the unit to transport the baled product from the baling machine (located within the building) to the external yard. A galvanised metal palisade fence has been retained along the eastern boundary with mature trees within the site along the eastern fence line. There are a number of structures outside of the building retained from the previous use of the site, namely a mobile office unit, metal shelving and security dog enclosure. The concrete yard in front of the building is partly being used for the storage of baled paper stored to a height of 2m.

Main Planning Considerations

National Guidance

13. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) sets out the Government's planning policies for England and replaces the majority of the former national planning policy statements and guidance notes.

The main policies/statements set out in the NPPF which are relevant to this proposal are as follows (summarised):

Paragraph 122 – Local planning authorities should focus on whether the development in itself is an acceptable use of land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where they are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.

Page 85

Paragraphs 206 – Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) "Planning for Sustainable Waste Management" is the main relevant land use document at the national level.

Paragraph 27 of PPS10 states that the planning and pollution control regimes are separate but complementary. Pollution control is concerned with preventing pollution through the use of measures to prohibit or limit the release of substances to the environment to the lowest practicable level. The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest and should focus on whether development is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses on the development and use of land. Waste planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced.

Paragraph 29 - Local Environmental Impacts, directs that in considering planning applications for waste management facilities waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity (see Annex E). These can also be concerns of the pollution control authorities and there should be consistency between consents issued under the planning and pollution control regimes.

Paragraph 32 – Planning Conditions, states that it should not be necessary to use planning conditions to control the pollution aspects of a waste management facility where the facility requires a permit from the pollution control authority (i.e. Environment Agency).

Finally, Annex E of PPS10 sets out the locational criteria which must be considered in relation to the suitability of proposed site. Of particular relevance to this application are the issues relating to litter.

Local Plan Context

14. Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan 2006 the following policies are of particular relevance to this application:

Policy WLP21 (Environmental Considerations) states that planning permission for waste management facilities will be granted where a number of environmental considerations are met. Of particular relevance to this application are:

(xi) Dust, Odour etc – supports proposal where they would not have an adverse impact on local amenity including litter and/or other landuses as a result of traffic movements, visual impact, dust etc

15. The East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 (ELLP) forms part of the Development Plan and therefore, as confirmed by the NPPF, due weight

Page 86 should be given to relevant policies within the Plan according to their degree of consistency with the policies of the NPPF. The following policy is considered to be generally consistent with the NPPF and of relevance to this proposal:

Policy A4 (Protection of General Amenities) states that development, which unacceptably harms the general amenities of people living or working nearby, will not be permitted.

Results of Consultation and Publicity

16. (a) Local County Council Member, Councillor W Aron - understands that the town council are happy to support the application and would go with this view.

(b) Horncastle Town Council – who commented that they supported the application, provided that there would not be any litter on the site resulting from the storage of the bales.

(c) Lincolnshire County Council (Highways Officer) – has no observations, it is considered by the Highway Authority that the proposed development will not be detrimental to highway safety or traffic capacity.

(d) East Lindsey District Council (Environmental Health Officer) – has no objection with respect to Environment CCU, Land Drainage SRO, Contaminated Land ABH.

(e) Environment Agency - condition 8 was not imposed at our request and we do not wish to comment on the proposal to vary it. For information, the applicant has registered the relevant waste exemptions for this waste operation. If the tonnages exceed the limit of the exemptions, an environmental permit would be required.

(f) Parish Meeting - the general consensus of opinion was that removing/amending condition 8 of this planning consent would not have a massive impact on our community.

(g) Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue - wish to make no representation.

17. The application has been publicised by site notice and press notice in the Horncastle News on 19 March 2014. Letters of notification were been sent to 15 neighbouring resident/businesses to the site. No representations have been received.

District Council’s Recommendations

18. East Lindsey District Council raise no objection to the application.

Page 87 Conclusions

19. The main issue to be considered in relation to this proposal is whether or not the proposed variation/removal of the existing condition would reduce the planning control over the site operations and activities to an extent that would cause an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area.

20. The proposed revision to condition 8 would allow the finished product to be stored outside of a building without covering, although the applicant has confirmed that this product would be steel wire baled sufficient to prevent shredded paper dropping off during handling. It is also acknowledged that although the applicant has made no reference to this, the mesh fence attached to the inside of the railings along the southern and western boundaries provides enclosure of the site to prevent litter escaping.

21. The current arrangement does not ensure shredded paper is adequately contained by the steel wire baling and that paper falls from the bales during handling and storage although the majority of this remains within the site boundary. Also the site is currently exempt from the requirement for a waste permit. Consequently there is no requirement to comply with a permit which would control day-to-day operations such as litter control. The applicant has been advised that the condition could be varied in such a way as to permit the submission of a comprehensive litter management scheme, which would negate the need for covering the product. To date no details have been provided by the applicant and therefore Officers are not satisfied that adequate measures would be capable of being maintained or enforced to prevent litter escaping from the site and therefore at this time cannot support the removal of condition 8.

22. In light of the above, and taking a precautionary approach, it is your Officer's view that given the lack of covering of the product together with the continued handling and storage of the product outside of the building could give rise to litter escaping the site which the Committee previously requested the condition to address. As a result, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy WLP21 of the Waste Local Plan and Policy A4 of the East Lindsey Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That planning permission be refused for the variation/removal of condition No. 8 of planning permission (E)S86/2390/10 for the following reason:

Policy WLP21 of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan 2006 requires that developments do not have an adverse impact on the local amenity through litter. Policy A4 of East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 does not permit development which unacceptably harms the general amenities of people living and working close to developments. In this case given the lack of covering of the product, there is a potential for litter to arise from the transferal, movement and handling of those

Page 88 products notwithstanding the use of metal wire to hold the bales together. Given the open nature of the site and its close proximity to industrial, retail, office units and open countryside the proposed amendment/removal of condition 8 has the potential to adversely impact upon the local amenity by virtue of litter blowing from the site. Therefore the removal of this condition is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 10, Policy WLP21 of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan 2006 and Policy A4 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999.

Appendices

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report

Appendix A Committee Plan

Background Papers

The following background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.

Document title Where the document can be viewed

Planning Application File Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park (E)S86/2390/10 House, Waterside South, Lincoln

National Planning Policy Communities and Local Government website Framework (2012) www.gov.uk Planning Policy Statement 10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

Lincolnshire Waste Local Lincolnshire County Council website Plan (2006) www.lincolnshire.gov.uk

East Lindsey Local Plan East Lindsey District Council website Alteration (1999) www.e-lindsey.gov.uk

This report was written by Felicity Webber, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]

Page 89

Page 90 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING 

Site of Application

Building for shredding

Site of Application

Area used for outside storage

Prevailing Wind Direction from the south-west 

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Reproduced from the 1996 Os Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. OS LICENCE 1000025370

Location: Description: Riddel & Sons Metal & Scrap Hire Ltd Section 73 application to vary condition 8 of planning Spratt Close permission (E)S86/2390/10 Horncastle Application No: (E)S86/0511/14(E)S86/0511/14 Scale: 1:2500 PlanningPage and91 Regulation Committee 2 June 2014 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6.1

Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director for Communities

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee

Date: 2 June 2014

Subject: County Council Development – H16/0229/14

Summary: Planning permission is sought to build a two classroom extension with ancillary spaces and the removal of an existing double classroom mobile unit at Spalding Primary School, Woolram Wygate, Spalding.

Recommendation: Following consideration of the development plan policies and comments received through consultation and publicity it is recommended that conditional planning permission be granted.

Background

1. Spalding Primary School is an existing and established school which has expanded over the years with several planning permissions having previously been granted for both permanent extensions to the main school building and for the siting of temporary mobile classroom units within the site. The following previous planning applications/permissions are considered to be of relevance and provide useful background in relation to this proposal:

 H16/0191/12 (dated 21 June 2012) – planning permission was refused for the proposed expansion of the school through the construction of a single storey free standing extension building incorporating nine classrooms, hall with servery, staff room, library and other ancillary rooms/facilities, two nursery rooms and associated facilities including kitchen and office space. The extension was proposed as an earlier strategic review of primary education provision in the Spalding area had identified that there was a significant shortfall in primary age pupil places which was due to increased birth rates in the local community but also due to three new residential developments nearby at Wygate Park. The proposed development would have provided classroom space to enable the school to accommodate a total of 630 pupils by 2018 (an increase of 210 places). This application was, however, considered to be

Page 93

unacceptable and refused planning permission for a number of reasons including the poor design of the proposed building, over development of the site as well as associated impacts and problems including poor access, lack of suitable parking and increased traffic congestion which would all have had an unacceptable impact on local residents. Since this application was refused planning permission (ref: H16/0321/13) for a new primary school on the nearby Wygate Park residential development has been granted and is due to open in September 2014 (see below).

 H16/0580/12 (dated 3 September 2012) – following the decision to refuse application H16/0191/12 planning permission was subsequently granted to site a double classroom mobile unit within the school. This classroom was required in order to enable the school to still accommodate a limited number of additional children at the school whilst proposals for the new Wygate Park Primary School (later granted by permission H16/0321/13) was being prepared and planning permission subsequently sought. A condition attached this permission requires this classroom unit to be removed by 31 August 2015.

 H126/0321/13 (dated 15 July 2013) – planning permission was granted to construct a single storey one form entry primary school at land within the nearby Wygate Park residential development. This school was developed as an alternative to the expansion proposals which were previously proposed and refused permission at Spalding Primary School and is to provide places for children aged between 4 and 11 years and will have a maximum capacity of 210 pupils. The school is currently under construction and is expected to accept its first intake of 30 pupils in September 2014.

The Application

2. Planning permission is sought to extend the Spalding Primary School, Woolram Wygate, Spalding. The proposed extension would create two new classrooms with integral stores and associated cloaks, toilet facilities and circulation areas. The proposed classrooms are to provide permanent purpose built accommodation for pupils that currently attend the school and which are taught in a temporary double mobile classroom building which was granted planning permission in September 2012 (ref: H16/0580/12). As confirmed by the description of this proposal the applicant proposes to remove this double mobile classroom building once the proposed extension has been completed and is ready for occupation, however, a condition attached to the planning permission for the double mobile classroom unit already requires it to be removed by 31 August 2015.

3. The proposed extension would be constructed on the southern elevation of the school as an extension to the central block of the main school building. The extension follows the same design and appearance as the existing school building and would comprise two classroom rooms with mono- pitched roofs linked by a central corridor which would have a flat roof. The

Page 94

extension would be approximately 22m wide by 8m deep with the mono- pitched roof sections extending from 6.9m to 10.13m high. The external materials used in the construction of the building would match the existing school building in both colour and style being red facing brick, brown concrete ridged roof tiles with aluminium windows and doors and white uPVC fasciae and rainwater goods. The end gable walls of the building would be rendered in an off white colour with a pressed metal capping.

4. The proposed extension would result in the loss of a small area of the existing playground, however, a similar sized area of playground would be reinstated/made available once the double mobile classroom building that is currently on site is removed. Therefore the development would not result in any significant loss of existing playground space.

5. Finally, as the proposed extension is to provide permanent accommodation to replace existing temporary accommodation at the school, there would be no increase in the existing number of staff (61) or pupils (467) currently attending the school as a result of this proposal.

Site and Surroundings

6. Spalding Primary School is located within a residential area approximately 1.2km to the north west of Spalding Town Centre. The site is surrounded by residential development with properties to the north (along Bramble Grange) sharing their boundary with the school and with further properties to the west (on Grevel Close) and to the east on the opposite side of Woolram Wygate. To the south there are further residential properties along Wygate Meadows although an intervening footpath/cycleway provides physical separation between the school and these properties. The boundaries of the school are marked by a combination of fencing with some trees which help to filter views into the site. Access to the school is gained via the entrance off Woolram Wygate and there are footways on either side of the road with yellow school exclusion markings some 20 metres in each direction of the access.

7. The proposed extension would be constructed at the rear of the main school building and as a result would be largely restricted from views outside of the site by the existing intervening building and site boundary treatments. Views of the proposed extension would, however, be visible from the footpath/ cyclepath running along the southern boundary of the school site and also from the eastern corner of the site (once the double mobile classroom unit is removed). The boundary of the nearest residential property to the extension is approximately 25m to the south with the properties being approximately 45m.

Page 95

Main Planning Considerations

National Guidance

8. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and is a material planning consideration in the determination of planning applications. In assessing and determining development proposals, Local Planning Authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The main policies/statements set out in the NPPF which are relevant to this proposal are as follows (summarised):

Paragraph 36 - All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan.

Paragraph 72 – The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local Planning Authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:

 give great weight to the need to create, expand and alter schools; and  work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.

Paragraph 103 - When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential and Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:

 within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; and  development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.

Paragraphs 186 and 187 – Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development and should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicant to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.

Paragraphs 215 and 216 - states that 12 months after the publication of the NPPF due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework (the closer the

Page 96

policies in the plan to the policies in the framework the greater the weight that may be given). This is of relevance to the South Holland Local Plan 2006.

Local Plan Context

9. South Holland Local Plan 2006 (SHLP) – the following policies are of most relevance to the current proposal:

Policy SG9 (Development and Flood Risk) states that in areas of flood risk planning permission will only be granted where a flood risk assessment has been carried out and, where necessary, proposals include details of measures designed to reduce the risk and consequences of flooding.

Policy SG12 (Sewerage and Development) states that proposals for development which would give rise to foul sewage discharge will only be granted planning permission if they include provision for its effective collection, treatment and disposal.

Policy SG14 (Design and Layout of New Development) states that new development should be designed to ensure that it makes a positive contribution to the architectural and visual quality of its surroundings. It should normally respect the vernacular architecture of the area in which it is located although high quality contemporary design will be supported in appropriate contexts. In assessing the design and layout of new development the following matters will be taken into consideration (relevant criteria cited):

(2) the choice of materials; (4) the relationship of the development to the character, form and scale of existing buildings nearby; (5) the scale, form and height of the proposed development; (6) architectural detailing; (7) the effect of the development on the amenity of nearby residents in terms of noise, smell, general disturbance, overlooking and loss of light; (9) the layout of vehicular access, parking and manoeuvring facilities and the provision of facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.

Development that would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the locality, or which would prejudice the comprehensive development or redevelopment of an area, will not be permitted.

Policy SG17 (Protection of Residential Amenity) states planning permission will be granted for development which would not cause material harm to residential amenity. In considering proposals the following criteria will be taken into account:

(1) the extent of any overlooking or loss of privacy; (2) the extent of any overbearing or overshadowing effect;

Page 97

(3) potential noise nuisance including that associated with vehicular activity; (4) the levels of smell, emissions and pollutants.

Policy SG20 (Extensions and Alterations to Existing Buildings) supports extensions to buildings subject to the following criteria being met:

(1) the scale, design and materials of construction of the extension would not adversely alter the appearance of the building, its visual and architectural relationship with adjoining development or the character of the area; (2) the extension would not materially harm the amenity of adjacent residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing or loss of light; (3) the operational car parking needs of the development would continue to be met; (4) in the case of extensions to buildings outside defined settlement limits, the extension would be subservient to the host property in terms of scale and would have no material impact on the appearance of the wider landscape.

Results of Consultation and Publicity

10. (a) Local County Council Member, Councillor Mrs A Newton – has commented that residents have expressed objections and concerns to her given that it is proposed to now replace a temporary classroom building (which was said to only be required to temporarily accommodate additional children at the school) and to now replace this with a permanent building. Councillor Newton adds that it is a pity that the other mobile classroom units on the site are not proposed to also be removed at the same time as she feels this would assure residents that the number of pupils on the school roll would eventually be reduced as a total of four classrooms would be replaced with just two - thus reducing the level of accommodation available.

(b) Historic Environment (Lincolnshire County Council) – advised that there are no known archaeological implications for this proposal.

(c) Highways (Lincolnshire County Council) – has commented that whilst they acknowledge that the extent of parental car parking in the vicinity of this school at the beginning and end of the day appears to be greater than that which might be expected for a school placed so centrally at the heart of its catchment area, the withholding of planning permission for this current proposal would not directly result in a reduction of parental car parking as the proposed classrooms would be direct replacements for existing temporary classrooms that are due to be removed from the site under the planning conditions imposed on those consents. Accordingly, the Highway Authority does not object or wish to restrict the grant of planning permission for this application.

Page 98

(d) Accessibility (Lincolnshire County Council) – has responded and made a number of recommendations regarding some of the initiatives and targets that are contained within the Travel Plan. It is recommended that a planning condition be imposed which requires the applicant to implement and review the Travel Plan so its success in achieving the targets or objectives identified and/or the need for new initiatives to address any issues identified can be monitored. The Accessibility Team would also support a planning condition requiring the school to provide additional cycle/scooter storage facilities given that there is a shortfall in spaces to meet current demand.

(e) Arboricultural Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) – supports the recommendations contained within Tree Survey which supported the application*.

*It should be noted that the Tree Survey is the same as that which supported the application for the double mobile classroom building which is proposed to be removed once the proposed classroom extension has been completed and by no later than 31 August 2015. Therefore although this survey is not directly relevant to the consideration of the proposed extension, the recommendations regarding the need to protect the site boundary trees during the removal of the mobile building are relevant and so it is considered appropriate to remind the applicant of these by way of an Informative.

The following bodies were also consulted on the application on 18 March 2014 but no comments/response has been received within the statutory time period or at the time of writing this report.

Environment Agency South Holland Internal Drainage Board

11. The application has been publicised by notices posted at the site and letters of notification were sent to the nearest neighbouring residents to the site. Six representations have been received which object or raise concerns about the proposal which are as follows (summarised):

 The proposed classrooms would replace a temporary double classroom building which was understood to have only been approved whilst planning permission was sought to develop a new school on Wygate Park. This proposal would therefore permanently expand the accommodation available at the school and the pupils in attendance. Previous proposals to expand the school have been declined due to traffic problems that exist around the school as a result of inadequate parking for staff/visitors and during pupil arrival/departure times. The new school on Wygate Park is nearing completion and is due to open in September 2014 and therefore there is no reason to renege on previous planning agreements and allow the school to expand its current level of accommodation and pupil numbers on a permanent basis by allowing this development.

Page 99

 There are already problems of traffic congestion and on-street parking associated with the school and residents are therefore concerned that these existing problems would remain if the classrooms are made permanent.

 There are not enough parking spaces at the school to accommodate existing staff and so this leads to them parking on adjoining roads which impacts on the amenity and access of those residents.

 The current school safety zone is inadequate and not adhered to with vehicles often parking on the zigzag exclusion zones outside the school. If permission is to be granted the double yellow lines should be included in the zigzag zone as well as extended along sides roads such as Wygate Meadows and Bramble Grange.

 A new entrance to the school should be considered from Claudette Avenue (to the west) with parents being required to drop off children from this entrance.

 Concerns regarding potential noise and dust impacts arising from the building construction works which would prevent residents living near to the site from being able to sit and enjoy their gardens.

 Queries regarding whether there is adequate drainage infrastructure to serve the development.

In addition to the above, a representation has also been received which supports the proposal and makes the following points/comments (summarised):

 Whilst there are difficulties caused by parking of school staff and parents this situation would not be made worse by removing the existing mobile classroom, which is an eyesore, and replacing it with a permanent bloc. However, plans should be put in place to remove the other two mobile classroom units on the site once the extra cohort of pupils have passed through the school. By doing this the numbers at the school would remain static.

 A longer-term solution to staff parking should be investigated to prevent parking in adjacent roads.

 Disagrees with the comments made by the PEDALS group (see above) about the possibility of extending double yellow lines along the length of Woolram Wygate as this inevitably would cause even more parking down Wygate Meadows and Bramble Grange.

Page 100

District Council’s Observations

12. South Holland District Council – no objections subject to suitable conditions being imposed which require the development to be carried out in accordance with the application details and which requires the existing double mobile classroom unit on the site to be removed as soon as is practicable after the commencement of the use of the proposed classroom extension.

Conclusions

13. The main issues to be taken into consideration in this case are the design, scale and location of the proposed extension and any potential environmental and amenity impacts arising from the development in particular in terms of flood risk and any increase in traffic and congestion as a direct result of this proposal.

14. The proposed extension is of the same design, form and scale to that of the existing building and would be positioned within the school grounds which, due to the intervening buildings and existing boundary treatments, would largely not be visible from views outside the site. Where views of the proposed extension could be obtained (notably along the footpath/cycleway to the south), when viewed in the context of the existing school and given that it is of the same design and materials as the existing building it is your Officer's view that the development would not detract or impact upon the appearance of character of the area and therefore accords with the objectives of SHLP Policies SG14, SG17 and SG20.

15. A number of objections have been received by local residents relating to concerns over the existing traffic and parking problems associated with the school and on the grounds that this proposal would permanently expand the accommodation available at the school and therefore the number of pupils in attendance. It is accepted that the school has increased its annual pupil intake number from 60 to 90 places since September 2012 in order to meet the demand for places in the local area and whilst planning permission for a new school on Wygate Park was sought and obtained. Due to this increase in the school roll additional classroom space was required and this is currently being provided by the double mobile classroom building which is to be replaced by the permanent classroom extension being proposed as part of this development. Whilst the proposed extension would therefore create permanent classroom accommodation enabling the school to retain the existing pupil numbers, the school intake is to drop back to 60 in September 2014 as the remaining 30 places are to be available and provided by the new Wygate Park School (which is due to open in September 2014). Although the description of this proposal confirms that the applicant proposes to remove the double mobile classroom building once the proposed extension has been completed and is ready for occupation, should planning permission be granted it is your Officer's view that it would not be necessary to make this a requirement or condition of any planning permission for this proposal as a condition attached to the permission

Page 101

covering the double classroom building already requires it to be removed by 31 August 2015. This timeframe would therefore provide sufficient overlap to ensure that the school still has sufficient classroom and teaching space available to accommodate pupils whilst the proposed extension is being constructed and therefore would not impact negatively on the day-to-day operations or requirements of the school.

16. In terms of the objections and concerns regarding existing traffic problems and congestion as a result of existing pupil numbers, this proposal would not increase pupil or staff numbers beyond those which are currently in attendance and therefore not increase or exacerbate the existing issues or problems associated with traffic and parking at the school. Notwithstanding this situation however, like many schools in the county, it is acknowledged that the school and local area does have traffic and parking issues especially during the start and end of the school day and that this can have a negative impact on local residents. Given the physical constraints of the school site it may not be feasible to provide new or expanded staff or parent parking/drop off areas within the school grounds, however, the school does have a Travel Plan which sets out a series of initiatives and measures that are adopted by the school to try and alleviate and reduce such issues/ impacts occurring. Such measures include promoting and encouraging parents and children to walk to school, pedestrian and cycle training for pupils and the provision of dedicated cycle storage facilities at the school. The Travel Plan submitted in support of the application identifies that whilst there are cycle/scooter storage facilities at the school and these are well used, previous surveys have indicated the number of staff/children cycling to school or who would wish to do so exceeds the number of cycle stands/ scooter spaces available. Although weather conditions and the time of year may result in a fluctuations in the number of staff/children actually cycling/ scootering and using these facilities it is evident that there is currently insufficient provision available to meet existing demand and as a result it is considered appropriate to impose a planning condition as part of this proposal which requires additional storage facilities to be installed within the school site. The Travel Plan requires the school to continue to actively promote, implement and review the Plan and, if necessary, ensure that new measures/initiatives are identified and to try and mitigate any trends or problems identified. No objections have been raised from the Highways Officer and the Accessibility Officer also supports the proposed conditions requiring additional cycle storage facilities to be provided and for the Travel Plan to be updated and reviewed regularly. Consequently, whilst the objections of local residents are noted, it is concluded that subject to the conditions recommended above, the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety or the surrounding highway network and complies with the objectives of policies contained within the NPPF and SHLP Policies SG14, SG17 and SG20.

17. Finally, in terms of flood risk, educational establishments are categorised by the NPPF Technical Guidance (Table 2) as being a 'more vulnerable' form of development in terms of their flood risk vulnerability and should only be permitted in Flood Zone 3 where the Exception Test has been applied and

Page 102

met. In this case, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in this location and meets the Exception Tests as set out in the NPPF for the following reasons:

 the classrooms are required to serve the school and therefore need to be located within the school grounds. Given the school's location there is no alternative/suitable land available which has a lower probability of flooding which could practically be used;

 in order to minimise the risk to users in the event of extreme flooding, the finished floor level of the building would be set at 150mm above the existing ground (i.e. 3.15m Ordnance Datum) which is above the maximum level that flood waters are assessed as potentially reaching during a major flood event such as the breaching of the River Welland or Verdants Drain;

 the proposed extension would be constructed on an existing area of hardstanding and therefore there would be no change to the existing level of impermeable surface. Foul and surface waters (i.e. from the roof of the extension) would be managed via connections to the existing sewer/drainage network serving the school and these systems are likely to be able to cope with any additional run-off and therefore not cause any issues of on-site flooding or result in increased flooding off-site.

18. It is therefore considered that the development is acceptable and would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the water environment or flood risk and therefore does not conflict with the objectives of policies contained within the NPPF or Policies SHLP SG9 and SG12.

Final Conclusion

19. It is considered that the proposed development would not have a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity or the character the local area given the scale, appearance and location of the development and therefore accords with the relevant statements policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies SG9, SG12, SG14, SG17 and SG20 of the South Holland Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the County Planning Authority within seven days of such commencement.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following documents and plans (all date stamped received 4 March

Page 103

2014) except where modified by conditions attached to this planning permission or details subsequently approved pursuant to those conditions. The approved documents and plans are as follows:

 Planning Application Form, Planning Statement, Flood Risk Assessment;  Drawing No. 0001 – Site Location Plan;  Drawing No. 0010 – Proposed Site Plan;  Drawing No. 0011 – Proposed Plan;  Drawing No. 0013 – Proposed Elevations.

3. Before the extension building hereby permitted is brought into use, an additional 13 cycle stands (12 child sized and 1 adult sized) and 3 scooter pods/scooter storage facilities shall be installed within the school site in accordance with details that have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. To define the permission and to ensure the development is implemented in all respects in accordance with the approved details.

3. To ensure that appropriate facilities are installed so as to address the current shortfall in existing provision and to encourage staff and pupils to use more sustainable modes of transport.

Informatives

Attention is drawn to:-

(i) Sections 7 and 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and

(ii) Design Note 18 "Access for Disabled People to Educational Buildings", published in 1984 on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment, or any prescribed document replacing that note.

Appendices

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report

Appendix A Committee Plan

Page 104

Background Papers

The following background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.

Document title Where the document can be viewed

Planning Application File Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park H16/0229/14 House, Waterside South, Lincoln H16/0321/13 H16/0580/12 H16/0191/12

National Planning Policy Communities and Local Government website Framework (NPPF) www.gov.uk (2012)

South Holland Local Plan South Holland District Council website (2006) www.sholland.gov.uk

This report was written by Marc Willis, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]

Page 105

Page 106 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING 

Site of Application

Proposed Two Classroom Extension Existing Double Classroom Mobile Unit

Prevailing Wind Direction from the south-west 

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Reproduced from the 1996 Os Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. OS LICENCE 1000025370

Location: Description: Spalding Primary School To build a two classroom extension with ancillary spaces Woolram Wygate and the removal of an existing double classroom mobile Spalding unit Application No: H16/0229/14H16/0229/14 Scale: 1:2500 PlanningPage and 107 Regulation Committee 2 June 2014 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6.2

Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director for Communities

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee

Date: 2 June 2014

Subject: County Council Development – (E)S11/0448/14

Summary: Planning permission is sought to convert the former Baumber Primary School to a Pupil Referral Unit, extend existing car park and construct two external canopies at Lincoln Road, Baumber. The main issues to consider in the determination of this application relates to whether the impacts associated with the development on the local highway network, Public Right of Way and amenity of the area would be in accordance with the relevant development plan policies.

Recommendation: Following consideration of the development plan policies and comments received through consultation and publicity it is recommended that conditional planning permission be granted.

Background

1. Baumber Primary School was first built in 1876, the original School House adjoining the school was sold in 1985 and remains in private ownership. The school was extended in 1993 and again in 2006. When active, the school had a pupil roll of 105 supported by a full time equivalent staff of 6.3. The school closed in August 2010 and the mobile classroom units on site were removed. The school has stood dormant since, whilst remaining on the Lincolnshire County Council property portfolio.

The Application

2. The proposal concerns the re-commissioning of Baumber Primary School and part of the school grounds as a Pupil Referral Unit. The initial intake would be seven pupils, supported by five full time equivalent staff members. It is anticipated that in the first year there would be an increase to a maximum of 20 pupils, supported by six full time equivalent staff. The Baumber Unit will share some of the staffing services of the Lincolnshire Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC) but the children attending will be

Page 109 resident in East Lindsey District. Currently children are transported long distances by taxi to Lincoln, Boston and Grantham. The pupils' age range would be five to 14 years.

3. Term time opening hours would be 07:00 to 19:00 hours Monday to Friday for staff and pupils arriving from 09:00 and leaving before 14:45 hours. Children would arrive and be collected in groups by taxi and for reasons of safety and security, within the confines of the school site.

4. The school building would be re-modelled internally to accommodate specific educational needs. The external appearance of the school building would be largely retained intact, with the exception of the metal framed windows which would be replaced by UPVC items. The existing mullion and transom configurations would remain. Drainage would be to the existing foul and surface water drainage systems. To enhance the security of the site three CCTV cameras would all be mounted, on existing structures, to focus on the key entrance points to the building and two additional lighting columns would be erected to illuminate the car parking areas.

5. The existing parking would be re-configured and extended to include a turning circle adjacent to the vehicular access to the site and a total of seven standard and one disabled parking bays will be provided for staff. This would increase the tarmacadam surfacing in this area to 423m2. To accommodate the car park extension and turning circle one Sycamore and one Silver Birch would be removed, together with a number of self-seeded saplings distributed throughout the wider site. Compensatory planting of two trees to the western boundary and one to the north east boundary of the school would be carried out in accordance with the details agreed with Lincolnshire County Council Trees Officer.

6. To the north of the main school two free standing canopies would be erected. One would be constructed of a green powder coated metal frame surmounted by a mono-pitched, clear polycarbonate roof and would be used for teaching 'wet trades' such as brickwork. This structure would measure 8 metres long and 4 metres wide with a ridge height of 3 metres and would be erected on an existing concrete base measuring 5 metres by 9 metres (formerly the location of a mobile classroom unit), approximately 20 metres from the main school building. The second canopy would be sited immediately to the north and would be in the form of a green powder coated metal frame, surmounted by a dark green conical, tensile fabric roof, to be used for teaching bush-craft and would measure 6 metres by 6 metres, being 3 metres high at the central finial and 2.4 metres to the eaves. Both canopies would have UPVC rainwater goods with drainage to soak away.

7. The site perimeter would be re-fenced and gated, replacing a large proportion of existing picket and closed board timber and wire mesh fencing, mounted on concrete posts and there would be additional fenced zones created within the site. The material would be green (RAL 6005) powder- coated, metal weld mesh to a height of 2.4 metres. The exception being the

Page 110 fencing abutting the School House, this section of fencing would be a closed board wood panel.

Site and Surroundings

8. Baumber Primary School is situated 8km east of Wragby and 5km north west of Horncastle on an elevated site to the north of the A158 (Lincoln Road), which bisects the village of Baumber. A speed limit of 30mph exists on this stretch of road. The school frontage, on the A158, gives pedestrian access only to the school site from the footway and bus stop separating the school boundary from the main road. Vehicular rights exist over Public Right of Way (PROW) Footpath (Baumber) 92, which runs north from the A158 to the school and vehicle access rights are also in place for three other properties. There are zigzag lines along the A158 with painted school warnings on the road surface on the approach to the school from either direction. The School House, to the east, abuts the main school building and is the closest residential property. One other residential property is to the west of the school boundary, with the bungalow approximately 6 metres distant, approximately 2 metres below the level of the school grounds. This property has a single storey garage between the dwelling and the school boundary.

9. The topography of the outdoor area is sloping ground, running uphill from south to north, with open pasture beyond. A pre-fabricated double garage unit (used for storage) is located along the eastern boundary approximately 40 metres north of the vehicular access to the site. Within the school grounds and along the perimeter are a number of mature trees and shrubs that filter views from the north, east and west. The PROW continues along the school's eastern boundary. The footpath leads to the Church of St Swithin, a Grade 1 Listed building, approximately 100 metres to the north east. There are limited views into the site from the footpath, the church and cemetery, by virtue of the rising ground and intervening vegetation, including the mature trees to the south west of the raised cemetery. A cluster of Grade 2 listed buildings namely the Thatched Cottage, the pump and the wash house, is located approximately 40 metres to the south east of the school frontage and south of the A158 and is wholly screened from views into and out of the site by virtue of the boundary wall of the Red Lion public house.

Main Planning Considerations

National Guidance

10. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) sets out the Government's planning policies for England.

The main policies/statements set out in the NPPF which are relevant to this proposal are as follows (summarised):

Page 111 Paragraphs 56, 57, 58 and 61 – Design of the Built Environment, High Quality and Inclusive Design, Understand the Defining Characteristics of the Area and Integration.

Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and to achieve high quality and inclusive design for all development including individual building and public spaces. That development will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development and does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. Address connections between people and places and integrate new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

Paragraph 72 – School Places – great importance is attached to ensuring that sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing communities giving great weight to the need to create or alter schools.

Paragraphs 186 and 187 – Pre-application advice and processing applications efficiently. Local planning authorities should be proactive and seek solutions to support sustainable development.

Paragraph 215 – states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the framework the greater the weight that may be given). This of relevance to the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration (1999). The policies in this plan which are relevant to this application and confirmed as being in conformity with the NPPF are set out below.

Local Plan Context

11. East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration (1999) forms part of the Development Plan and therefore, as confirmed by the NPPF, due weight should be given to relevant policies within the Plan according to their degree of consistency with the policies of the NPPF. The following policies are considered to be generally consistent with the NPPF and of relevance to this proposal:

Policy A4 – Protection of General Amenities

Development which unacceptably harms the general amenities of people living or working nearby will not be permitted.

Policy A5 – Quality and Design of Development

Seeks to ensure that all development proposals including their layout, density, scale, appearance or choice of materials do not detract from the distinctive character of the locality; retains or incorporates features or characteristics which are important to the quality of the local environment, and; where necessary include landscaping schemes appropriate to its setting.

Page 112

Policy ENV3 – Foul and Surface Water Disposal

Development will be permitted where it can be shown that foul sewers, sewage treatment and surface water drainage of adequate capacity and design are available.

Policy C11 (A and C) – Lincolnshire Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)

Development will not be permitted which would:

i) harm landscape features which contribute to the character of the area; or ii) harm the distinctive character, role or local historic significance of the area.

Small scale development will be permitted where:

i) it is in or alongside a settlement; and ii) it is required to meet the social needs of the Wolds communities.

Policy REC3 – Loss of Formal Recreation Facilities

Development which results in the loss of land for sport including playing fields will not normally be permitted unless:

c) there is shown to be an excess of available land for sport or recreation within the local catchment area.

Results of Consultation and Publicity

12. (a) Local County Council Member, Councillor D Hoyes – who is a member of the Planning and Regulation Committee reserves his comments for the meeting.

(b) Baumber Parish Council – offered the following (summarised) comments:

 the property does not have mains sewerage; it has a shared septic tank;  the proposed perimeter fence has risen two feet from six feet to eight feet, six feet being the figure put forward during the initial consultation. The fence will impose upon the privacy of neighbours;  the narrow access to the car park of the school would not be adequate for the volume of traffic and those living nearby would be blocked twice a day. Driving onto the A158 is risky. Dropping off children at the school has always been a nightmare;

Page 113  the maximum number of children proposed for the Unit has risen from 14 to 20 since initial consultations. How far are the goalposts going to move and will our concerns ever be addressed?

(c) Highways Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) – has visited the site and considers that it would be quite difficult for vehicles to turn left into the site. Request a condition is imposed on the planning permission to require a scheme to be submitted for access improvement to address this. The refurbishment of the building will not have any effect on the highway. They may wish to discuss signing and guarding of these works and delivery of materials with the area officer.

(d) Countryside Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) - the access to the development site uses a track that forms part of Baumber Public Footpath 92. This is quite narrow and would put path users into conflict with vehicles entering/exiting the site. If possible I would prefer to see no vehicular access taken to the site via this track. However, if access must be taken this way then I believe that the roadway needs to be made up to a proper highway standard and a walkway highlighted (utilisation of yellow/white lines painted on the tarmac) along it for pedestrians using the footpath. This would help safeguard users of the path and ensure that this Health and Safety consideration has been addressed.

(e) Historic Environment Officers (Lincolnshire County Council) - there are no known archaeological implications for the above proposal. Having seen the proposals and the photographs taken on site specifically with the impact on the listed church in mind, I feel that the impact on the setting on the church will be negligible. The canopy which is closest to the church is some distance away, and changes in ground level and screening by trees and shrubs mean that it will be visible only minimally. Making the colour of the canopy roof dark green will help to blend the new structure into its setting, and will reduce the impact further. Given the information that is already available, and the location of the canopy in relation to the church, I don't feel that a Heritage Statement is needed.

(f) Accessibility Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) summarised – does not feel that the Travel Plan submitted addresses the issues that a Pupil Referral Unit in Baumber will experience. The document should make reference to the fact that the majority of transport will be arranged by the LCC who proactively reduce trips by shared used of taxis wherever possible. The plan needs to address how the unit will manage arriving taxis as I understand some pupils may have to be 'handed over' and 'collected' from the unit by the driver/escort. The plan infers that there will be some shared services, presumably including some staff, from the Lincoln TLC. How this is anticipated to be achieved should be discussed and included in the plan. A revised Travel Plan is requested with a more realistic Action Plan included,

Page 114 reflecting that pupils will arrive by taxi and how this will be managed at the school.

13. The application has been publicised by site notice and press notice in the Horncastle News on 12 March 2014. Letters have been sent to four neighbours. Two letters have been received, offering the following (summarised) objections:

 The high metal link fence that will surround two sides of our property will look unsightly, we would lose our privacy and will devalue our home as it will look like we live next door to a prison, mature planting will also be disrupted due to a new fence being erected.

 Concerns about construction traffic and access from Lincoln Road, particularly with traffic coming from Lincoln as the entrance is particularly sharp. Especially as some road users do not pay attention to the speed limit. When we had the consultation we were lead to believe that any children arriving by taxi would be met at the bus stop and escorted by a teacher onto the school premises. This could now mean that we now have the potential for a possible 54 vehicle movements passing within close proximity of my front door, possibly hindering our entrance and exit from our property. The height of the fence is being increased from six feet to eight feet, making it look more like a prison and possibly devaluing my property.

District Council’s Observations

14. East Lindsey District Council raises no objection to the application in principle subject to the following comments:

 The works are to be carried out to the rear of the existing buildings where they will be visible from the public footpaths lead to St Swithin's Church, a Grade 1 listed building. The proposal potentially affects the setting to that listed building but no assessment of the significance of the heritage asset as called for by paragraph 128 of the NPPF, or the impact of the proposal on that significance, has been included in the application submission. The Lincolnshire County Council should therefore satisfy itself, that the setting to the listed building is not adversely affected by the proposal.

Conclusions

15. The main issues to be taken into consideration in the determination of this application relate to access and amenity issues.

Page 115 Access

16. Regarding the traffic implications of re-opening the school, consideration is given to the impact of vehicle movements on the access road which is a Public Right of Way and neighbours amenity. Whilst the vehicle access to the site is gained over a public right of way (surfaced with tarmacadam), this is shared with three other properties, one of these properties uses a strip of land to the east of the PROW for parking. The school would operate Monday to Friday in term-time only and there would be no extra-curricular activities commonly associated with schools, such as sports day. The Highways Officer has identified that the left turn into the lane from the A158, giving access to the site from the west is difficult and the Countryside Officer has identified a potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrians using the Public Right of Way. The Highways Officer has requested the access onto the A158 is improved. This could be secured by a planning condition.

17. Prior to 2010 Baumber Primary School had a pupil role of 105 and children were mainly transported to school by car, given the rural nature of the catchment area. An agreement existed at that time with the Red Lion public house, now closed, to use the car park for dropping off/picking up children and the children then crossed the A158 on foot. However, with this proposal for reasons of safety all pupils would be dropped off within the school premises using taxis and consequently the number of vehicle movements along the access track per day could be 54 as compared to 20 previously.

18. This proposal would provide a specialist educational resource, not available within East Lindsey District, to children residing wholly in East Lindsey District, who currently travel long distances by taxi to Boston, Lincoln and Grantham. Whilst the children would be transported to the Unit by taxi, under contract to Lincolnshire County Council, insofar as is possible the children would travel in groups depending on where they live. A turning circle would be created, so as to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. In addition, the drop off and pick up times would be staggered, to prevent queuing on the access track. The staff would be on site in the morning before the children and the existing car park would be extended to accommodate all staff vehicles, although it is proposed to review staff travel arrangements at a later date.

19. Baumber is located to the far west of East Lindsey District and the road networks, providing the main routes of access to the Unit's catchment, are predominantly to the east of the village. It is anticipated that the majority of children would be brought to the site from the east with the traffic from the west likely to be staff. The Accessibility Officer notes the Travel Plan requires considerable revision and recommends that a more realistic Action Plan be drafted, reflecting how the pupil transportation would be managed and clarity on how shared services (staff) of Lincolnshire TLC will be implemented.

Page 116 Amenity

20. In respect of the visual impact of the proposed fencing on the amenity of the neighbours and users of the PROW, materials proposed would be green powder coated mesh, which is commonly used in Lincolnshire County Council school sites because of its limited visual impact without compromising school security. The landform being rising ground together with the vegetation both within the site and along the perimeter would negate any adverse visual impacts on the users of the PROW from the additional physical structures.

21. Planning policy at national and local level is to grant permission for proposals which provide sustainable development. Paragraph 72 of the NPPF states that sufficient choice of school places to meet the needs of existing communities are forthcoming. As a consequence the development as proposed would not conflict with the aims and objectives of Policies A4 or C11 of East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration (1999) which identifies the appropriateness of amenity and design in assessing planning applications.

22. Paragraphs 128 and 129 of the NPPF identify the importance of protection of heritage assets, including development affecting the setting of a heritage asset. The Historic Environment Officer has confirmed the impact of the modest structures proposed to be negligible on the Grade 1 Listed church and therefore despite the comments of the District Council the proposal would not affect the setting of the church. Consequently it was not necessary to submit a Heritage Statement for this application.

23. In respect of the comments of Baumber Parish Council concerning drainage the applicant confirms that there is no septic tank but two chambers located at the front of the school which are connected to the mains sewer. Therefore the application conforms with Policy ENV3. No part of the former playing field would be lost as a result of the proposed works and therefore there is no conflict with Policy REC3.

24. The NPPF Paragraphs 32, 34 and 36 require consideration of sustainable transport; this should be addressed in relation to location, access and safety. Given the unit being located within the catchment area of the children attending it, there would be a significant reduction on travel particularly given the rural nature of East Lindsey District and the stated intention to transport the children in groups. However, to address the site specific issues identified it would be appropriate to impose a condition to fully evaluate the transportation impacts of the proposed development through a comprehensive revision of the Travel Plan, requiring an Action Plan relating to the management of the taxi service and an assessment of staff travel with particular reference to shared services with the Lincolnshire TLC. This can be secured by a planning condition attached to any permission granted.

Page 117

RECOMMENDATIONS

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the following documents and plans, or where modified by the conditions attached to this planning permission or details subsequently approved pursuant to those conditions. The approved documents and plans are as follows:

 Planning application form (date stamped received 24 February 2014);  Design and Access Statement 'Rev A 4.2.14 (date stamped received 4 March 2014);  Canopy Specifications 'Job No: 56407 JF' (date stamped received 24 February 2014) and e-mail 'Canopy Colour' dated 17 April 2014;  Drawing No. A.01 'Location & Site Plan_rev' (date stamped received 24 February 2014);  Drawing No. A.04 'Proposed Site Plan_revA' (date stamped received 20 May 2014);  Drawing No. A05 'Proposed Floor Plan_revA' (date stamped received 24 February 2014; and  Fence line marked blue attached to e-mail date stamped received 13 March 2014.

3. Notwithstanding the details contained in the Lincolnshire TLC (Baumber Site) Travel Plan May 2014 (date stamped received 24 February 2014). Prior to the development hereby approved being occupied, a further Travel Plan shall be submitted, and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. It shall include an Action Plan relating to the management of the taxi service for pupils and an assessment of staff travel with particular reference to shared services with the Lincolnshire TLC. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in full and include a requirement for an annual review. Any amendments to the Travel Plan as a result of the annual review shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority prior to implementation.

4. The compensatory planting shall be carried out in accordance with the detail agreed in e-mail correspondence with Lincolnshire County Council Trees Officer (date stamped received 5 March 2014), in the first available season following the implementation of the permission. For avoidance of doubt, this shall be between the months of October and March inclusive.

5. No development shall commence on site until a scheme for the improvement of the vehicular access to the A158 has been submitted to the

Page 118 County Planning Authority for written approval. The approved details shall be implemented on site before the development is first brought into use.

Reasons for Granting Planning Permission

1. To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. To define the permission and to ensure the development is in accordance with the approved details.

3. To ensure that sustainable modes of transport are used to reduce dependency on the car.

4. To ensure that the planting will be successful in the interests of the amenity of the area.

5. To improve the efficiency of this access so as vehicles can enter and leave the access in a safer and more efficient way.

Informative

Attention is drawn to:-

(i) Sections 7 and 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and

(ii) Design Note 18 "Access for Disabled People to Educational Buildings", published in 1984 on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment, or any prescribed document replacing that note.

Appendices

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report

Appendix A Committee Plan

Page 119 Background Papers

The following background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.

Document title Where the document can be viewed

Planning Application File Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park (E)S11/0448/14 House, Waterside South, Lincoln

National Planning Policy Communities and Local Government website Framework (2012) www.gov.uk

East Lindsey Local Plan East Lindsey District Council website Alteration (1999) www.e-lindsey.gov.uk

This report was written by Felicity Webber, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]

Page 120 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING 

Site of Application

Proposed Canopies

Proposed Parking

Proposed Turning/ Drop-off Point

Prevailing Wind Direction from the south-west 

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Reproduced from the 1996 Os Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. OS LICENCE 1000025370

Location: Description: Former Baumber Primary School To convert the former Baumber Primary School to a Pupil Lincoln Road Referral Unit, extend existing car park and construct two Baumber external canopies Application No: (E)S11/0448/14(E)S11/0448/14 Scale: 1:1250 PlanningPage and 121 Regulation Committee 2 June 2014 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6.3

Report Reference: Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director for Communities

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee

Date: 2 June 2014

Subject: County Council Development – (E)N105/0754/14

Summary: Planning permission is sought to change the use of the Riverhead Connect Resource Centre, Victoria Road, Louth, for a period of 12 months, to provide a temporary fire station. The proposal would involve the use of existing building to provide staff offices/accommodation base for the fire service in addition to the location of a temporary fire appliance garage on the existing hardstanding to the front of the site. The key issues to be considered in this case are the impacts of the use on the amenity of occupants of residential properties and highway safety.

Recommendation: Following consideration of the relevant development plan policies and comments received through consultation and publicity it is recommended that conditional planning permission be granted.

Background

1. Planning permission was granted in March 2014 for the redevelopment of the existing fire station site on Eastfield Road, Louth, 253m from the proposed site. That application was made as a result of Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue conducting a fundamental review of its response capability across the County. One of the key changes agreed after consultation was to increase the number of stations staffed 24 hours a day by firefighters from two to nine. Lincoln North and Lincoln South are crewed 24 hours a day. Boston, Skegness, Grantham and Gainsborough were brought on line in 2012, Spalding was completed in December 2013. Sleaford will go live in a temporary location on 1 September 2014.

2. To facilitate this change new working and training facilities were required. The approved proposal would enable a 24 hour a day fire and rescue service to be provided from the Louth Fire Station, substantially improving on the current service. This change would be of significant benefit to the community. Whilst the current fire station is rebuilt, Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue remain responsible for the maintenance of a high level service which responds to, and protects, residents and businesses in the event of

Page 123 emergencies. Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue has therefore been looking for a site to provide a temporary base for the Fire and Rescue Service during the redevelopment. Investigations have taken place to find a suitable location for the relocation of the Fire and Rescue Service.

3. Following careful investigation it was resolved to submit an application for a temporary change of use at this site situated just off Victoria Road. This site was chosen as it would meet the Fire and Rescue Services criteria; it is located in an area not far from the current fire station, enabling the Fire and Rescue to continue to maintain a high level of response to incidents quickly and effectively for a limited period of time. The size, scale and nature of the buildings and land would provide the necessary office/storage accommodation and would also accommodate and allow the movement of emergency vehicles; the site is neither too small nor too large. There is also a cost implication for the Service. This site would fulfill the requirements of the Service. The other sites looked at did not, or would require certain changes. Given that the proposed use is for a temporary period the Fire and Rescue Service would have to lease somewhere which may be less suitable and at a commercial rate for a limited period of time. Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue considered that on balance and having regard to the possible impacts and the limited duration of the proposal, when weighted against the benefits to the community, the Service and their operational requirements, the site meet their and the wider community's needs, for this 12 month period.

The Application

4. Planning permission is sought to change the use of the Riverhead Connect Resource Centre, for a period of 12 months, to provide a temporary fire station. The proposal would comprise the use of existing building to provide staff offices/accommodation base for the fire service in addition to the location of a temporary fire appliance garage on the existing hardstanding to the front of the site. This site would be used for 12 months during the construction of a permanent new fire station on the same site as the existing Louth Fire Station on Eastfield Road.

5. The existing building on site would provide office accommodation for the staff of the fire service. There is no proposed change to the existing external elevations of this building. Two smaller buildings on site - a prefabricated storage building and a metal container – would provide additional storage. The existing building and car parking area to the front have been unoccupied since October 2013 so the proposal would bring back into use an existing building and associated land which currently lie vacant. The site would accommodate three members of staff (local fire officers responsible for the area) on a full time basis (09:00–17:00) along with 12 retained fire fighters, however due to work patterns the level of fire fighters responding would be between 5 – 8 crew members. On average over the past three years Louth Fire and Rescue have responded to an average of 554 incidents per annum. Crews respond to fire calls, with blue lights and audible warning devices, on average of 25 times per month. The

Page 124 crews would only use two-tones for safety reasons and as such they would not be needed on every occasion when leaving the site, although blue lights would always be turned on. As such by the time they reach certain areas in the locality the noise level would be similar to the current site, as the travel time by motor vehicle is approximately one minute.

6. A fire appliance garage would be stationed on site on a tarmac area currently marked out for parking spaces to the front of the existing building. The location for the garage has been chosen to maximise the remaining clear area for vehicular access and turning for the fire service vehicles. Three areas of permeable grasscrete parking would be created to replace the parking spaces lost temporarily due to the stationing of the garage and the manoeuvring of vehicles. It is also proposed to provide parking for 10 cycles in a five hoop cycle shelter adjacent to the existing building. No trees or shrubbery would be lost as a result of the proposal and all areas soft landscaping areas on the site would remain as the existing.

7. The fire appliance garage would be 15.25m long x 10.12m wide, 4.3m to eaves and 6.8m to the ridge. It would be constructed in steel cladding in goose wing grey with an insulated PVC roof and provide accommodation for two fire engines and one van. It would have three electronically operated roller shutter doors on the south elevation directly facing the site access. It is proposed to locate standard domestic style PIR external lighting on the proposed new garage at eaves level, comprising one light fitting on each of the two front corners of the garage facing the site hardstanding access area. This fire appliance garage would be removed from site at the end of the temporary use of the land and building.

8. A new non-illuminated freestanding sign is proposed to be located adjacent to the site; this would be 1.2m wide and 1.8m high. There is no proposed change or alteration to the existing access into the site from the highway.

9. The change of use for the existing Connect Resource Centre, proposed new temporary fire appliance garage, as well as the associated proposed external works to the car park area would be used solely for use by the fire service. At the end of the 12 months, the use of the building and associated storage would cease, the temporary fire appliance garage would be removed from the site and the hardstanding returned to its existing use. It is proposed that the additional permeable grasscrete parking would remain for future use.

Site and Surroundings

10. The site is located to the north east of the Louth Town Centre, 58m north of the Louth Conservation Area, 36m north of the nearest listed building a Grade II public house, however due to the distance, the land form and the tree belt in between, the proposal would not harm the setting of the Listed Building. The site is located in a primarily residential area, with some community and commercial uses nearby. The existing fire station is located within an area of similar uses just 253m south east from this site. To the

Page 125 south of the site lie a public house and several rows of terraced houses which front onto the Louth Canal. These properties have long back gardens which run toward the site. The boundary of the nearest residential property to the south is 12m from the site – the dwelling is 47m from the site. At the end of the gardens is a small drain then the land rises a few metres to the site. To the north of the site the land rises again by couple of metres. The boundary of the nearest property to the north is 9m from the site; the dwelling is 17.5 metres from the site. The dwellings along this boundary are enclosed by a 1.8m high chain link fence standing on a small brick boundary wall with well-maintained hedging behind. Other properties on this boundary have 1.8m close board wooden fencing along their boundaries. To the rear of the existing building and to the east of the site the boundary of the nearest property is 29.8m, and the property is 33m from the site. A substantial close board wooden fence marks the boundary of the nearest residential property to the west, the fence is 9.8m from the site; the property is 28.9m from the site. This boundary fence runs parallel with the car park of the Louth Theatre. The theatre car park and theatre beyond are located to the west of the site, beyond lies the access onto Victoria Road, the public highway. To the south west is the building previously used for a swimming pool and the associated hardstanding area used for parking.

11. The existing building within the site comprises a single storey prefabricated building, with a very shallow pitched roof. To the south of the building lie a prefabricated storage building and a metal container, both of which would be retained for storage. An area directly in front of the building, previously used to station a mobile unit has been partially cleared. This area would be used to station the cycle shelter and for additional parking.

Main Planning Considerations

National Guidance

12. The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England. It is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and adopts a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF introduces a set of 12 core principles which should underpin decision taking, and specifically states that the planning system should enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives. In doing so, planning should also proactively support sustainable economic growth to deliver the required homes, business and infrastructure that the country needs.

At paragraph 65 it notes that planning permission should not be refused for buildings or infrastructure which promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about incompatibility within an existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).

Page 126 Paragraph 123 – decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as result of new development.

Paragraphs 186 and 187 require the local planning authority works with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner by processing the application efficiently so as to prevent any unnecessary delay. This approach ensures the application is handled in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development and is consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) states that following 12 months since the publication of the Framework, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the Framework the greater the weight that can be given). This is of relevance to the East Lindsey Local Plan (1999), and the following policies are relevant to this proposal and in conformity with the NPPF and should continue to be given due weight in the determination of this application.

Local Plan Context

13. Policy A4 - General Amenity, of the East Lindsey Local Plan (1999) (Alteration) applies. This policy states that development which unacceptably harms the general amenities of people living or working nearby will not be permitted.

Policy REC2 - Main Sport and Formal Recreation, applies. The site is part of a larger areas of land identified as protected or allocated for sport or formal recreation. The explanation to the policy states that Policy REC2, is not intended to constrain the necessary expansion, improvement or re- building of community facilities - including schools - which already exist on the site. Whilst the paragraphs which refer to the Louth Area Maps, indicate that the site of the existing swimming pool, lorry park, redundant health centre (this site) and library stores on Victoria Road/Riverhead Road offers the greatest potential for such use as a community leisure centre, it is obviously the District Council's long term objective to use an area which includes this site as the site for a community leisure centre. It should be noted that since the writing of this Local Plan provision has elsewhere within the Town for a community leisure centre. However, the temporary use proposed does not compromise the aims and objective of the Policy and the District Council.

Results of Consultation and Publicity

14. (a) Local County Council Member, Councillor S Dodds – consulted on 14 April, but had not replied.

Page 127 (b) Louth Town Council – object on the grounds that the exit onto Victoria Road is not wide enough to allow large vehicles through quickly. There would not be enough room on the site for fire fighters to abandon their cars in order to perform their roles. The presence of the theatre on the adjacent site when in session would present a risk to the general public should they be arriving or exiting the theatre at the time of a call out and would hamper the reaction speed of the emergency services. Victoria Road is also used by hundreds of little children going to and from school and the dangers of large vehicles using the road at speed would be immense.

(c) Highways (Lincolnshire County Council) – it is considered that the access on to Victoria Road is of sufficient width to allow for a fire appliance to leave the site and safely enter Victoria Road. There is adequate visibility in both directions and adequate pedestrian visibility. It is also envisaged that both motorists and pedestrians would give an emergency vehicle with its lights etc. flashing priority. These emergency vehicles already use the surrounding highway network when responding to a call out and travel along these streets. It is agreed that should a call out occur when the theatre is exiting this will have to be carefully managed by the theatre and fire service, however, there are some temporary measures which looking on site could be made all be it with the loss of a few parking spaces. To this end highways will monitor the situation and put in keep clear markings if it is deemed as necessary. The Highways Authority does not wish to raise any objections to this proposal.

(d) Environmental Health Officer (ELDC) – raise no objection.

(e) Accessibility (Lincolnshire County Council) – raise no objection.

(f) Environment Agency – raise no objections.

15. The application has been publicised by site notices and 21 letters have been sent out notifying local residents and businesses of the application. Three letters have been received, one on behalf of the Louth Playgoers Society (LPS). The comments of the Louth Playgoers Society were made following a meeting with Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue and two LCC Councillors. The issues raised are in regard to safety concerns and are not an objection to the principle of a temporary fire station on this site. Louth Playgoers Society (LPS) Ltd owns the Riverhead Theatre, the car park and the access road from Victoria Road, Louth. It is acknowledged that there is a right of way over this drive to allow vehicular and pedestrian access to the site at the rear of the LPS property owned by Lincolnshire County Council. However this proposal raises a number of concerns. These issues were fully discussed at the meeting referred to above. Whist the LPS is not 100% comfortable with the concept, they accept that Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Services are prepared to undertake significant risk management to alleviate any issues. The main concerns are summarised below:

Page 128  safety on our site for pedestrian and vehicle traffic;

 the ability of fire appliances to enter and exit the site safely and rapidly on at least 180 days per year. LPS do not wish to face the criticism should a fire appliance not be able to exit the site quickly if it coincides with the beginning or end of a production in the theatre when the car park will be congested and queuing traffic of preventing fire appliances being able to access Victoria Road quickly and safely;

 although LPS do all in their power to discourage parking on Victoria Road invariably vehicles (not necessarily associated with the theatre) park between the Ramsgate Road crossroads and our entrance and beyond which does impede safe and easy egress from our site.

LPS has suggested measures which could be manage risk:

 weekly meetings on site between representatives of LPS and Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Services aimed at ascertaining the level of use of the building for the following week;

 ensuring a 24 hour (or reasonable) contact was available for communication from the theatre in the event of unforeseen circumstances.

 assessment by LCC Highways as to any parking restrictions necessary on Victoria Road;

 subject to discussions above, arrange for the temporary relocation of fire appliances to Louth Police Station when our use of the site may present a risk to the satisfactory response by the fire service to an incident;

 in liaison with the theatre to provide appropriate signage to warn our customers of the potential for fire appliance exiting the site in response to an incident;

 ensure that no use of sirens is permitted on site;

 maintain an open dialogue leading up to and during the building of the new fire station;

 return the fire appliances as soon as possible to the new garage (which would be built first if possible) at the new fire station. Administration etc. facilities would be maintained on this site until the new station is completed;

 ensuring the current retained staff and the new permanent staff (nights) are fully aware of our concerns and the risks associated with both foot and vehicular use of our site and to work together to minimise risk and disruption to the operation of either organisation.

Page 129

LPS would like to be reassured that the concerns and the risk management offered would be considered and not minimised.

Letters from two from local residents set out the following (summarised) objections:

 headlights from cars shine into the windows of our property more vehicles will add to this problem;

 more vehicles will generate more noise;

 this is not a suitable location for emergency services, it should be located on the industrial estate where they are used to industrial volumes of traffic and away from residential properties;

 access to the public highway will be impinged by the congestion caused by the use of the theatre car park and general congestion on the roads around this area;

 the proposed use will generate noise and disturbance due to the number and times of the call outs;

 will compensation be offered to residents for the disruption which would be caused?

 a gate to the rear of this property allows access through the proposed site. This access is used by the owner of the properties, daughter and her friends they will now be in danger from the emergency vehicles travelling at speed.

16. Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Service has carefully considered the objections raised by the Town Council, the comments of the Louth Playgoers Society and the two objector, and have the provided the following comments:

 during the rebuild of the fire station on the existing site in Louth, Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue still have a responsibility to maintain the high level of response and protection to local residents in the event of emergencies. Fire and Rescue Service considers that the site situated just off Victoria Road provides an excellent temporary solution to allow the Service to respond to incidents quickly and effectively during this time;

 the existing station is currently staffed by retained fire fighters (part time) with the response time to station based on the current fire station site. As such the location of the temporary site (close to the current one) allows the response times to remain relatively unchanged;

Page 130  Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue has explored units currently on the industrial estate, and decided against this due to the:

- extra travel distance; - size of units; - cost of an annual lease; - proposed site is currently within the LCC Property Portfolio and as such presents good value for money for the County;

 in addition, following discussions with LPS, when the theatre has particularly busy performances (about 10 – 15 times per annum, when visiting school students attend performances) Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue has agreed to relocate the fire engines to an agreed secure location to assist the local community. The appliances would be moved to cover the performance time, for example move the trucks at 17:00 hours and return them at 22:30 hours. There are several potential locations but Fire and Rescue has a preferred option at the police station;

 the use of sirens would be kept to an absolute minimum, however Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Service need to retain the right to use them in emergency situation for public safety;

 all crews are aware and are reminded of the local sensitivity around responding at night or in the early morning and as always staff must respond to the station in a professional manner and line with the Highway Code. Extra vigilance would be undertaken when leaving the sit;

 should planning permission be granted, Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue would work very closely with local residents and would invite them to attend a meeting where issues can be discussed and any resolutions sought;

 Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue require the temporary fire station from July 2014 until the new site opens in April 2015. It is the aim of Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue to move the appliances to the new station as soon as possible as this would help all concerned, however this outcome cannot be guaranteed as this outcome is dependent on building works and mobilising software that would be needed on site;

 Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue fully appreciates the concerns raised with any new development and if planning is successful local consultation would be key in gaining a good understanding of the local issues. The aim of Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Service is to provide a first class emergency service whilst having a good relationship with local residents over the short period of their proposed stay (10 – 12 months).

Page 131 District Council’s Observations

17. East Lindsey District Council raise no objection.

Conclusions

18. The application is concerned with the temporary change of use of an existing building and land currently unoccupied but previously utilised by the NHS, for use as a temporary fire station, the erection of a temporary appliance garage and some minor elements (covered cycle, use of existing storage units, construction of grasscrete parking area) associated with the proposed use. The site lies within a larger area identified in the East Lindsey Local Plan as land protected or allocated for sport or formal recreation. As noted previously since the adoption of the Local Plan, provision has been made elsewhere within the Town for a community leisure centre. This temporary use would not compromise the aims of this policy as the proposal is for a 12 month period only, to enable Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue to continue to provide the high standard of services provided by them to the community. Following completion of the redevelopment of the existing fire station on Eastfield Road the proposed use would cease, the appliance garage would be removed and the site would revert to its previous use. Therefore this proposal would not conflict or jeopardise the aims and objectives of Policy REC2.

19. As noted, this site was chosen following careful consideration of other sites including, as suggested by an objector, relocating on Louth Industrial Estate. However, due in part to the requirements on the service, other locations were less suitable. Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Service has already undertaken discussions with the Louth Playgoers Society and, as noted, are happy to maintain an ongoing dialog with the LPS and local residents, during the temporary period they would be on site to ensure they are a "good neighbour". They have already identified and agreed certain measures which can be undertaken to address some concerns, however, it must also be born in mind that the Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Service is required to maintain the high level of response and protection to local residents and businesses in the event of emergencies.

Highways Issues

20. The two main issues raised are the impact on highway safety, the possible conflict between emergency vehicles and pedestrians/cars, and the impact on residential amenity. As noted no highways objections have been raised to the proposal. The comments and objections raised during the consultation and publicity period have been carefully considered by the highways authority. Following site inspection and careful consideration of the comments/objections raised, the highways authority has confirmed that the access on to Victoria Road is of sufficient width to allow for a fire appliance to leave the site and safely enter Victoria Road and that there is adequate visibility in both directions and adequate pedestrian visibility. The highways authority also notes that these emergency vehicles already use

Page 132 the surrounding highway network when responding to a call out and travel along these streets. It is agreed that should a call-out occur during a theatre performance this would have to be carefully managed by the theatre and fire service. As noted the fire service has agreed to work closely with the LPS and has suggested certain mitigation measures during exceptionally busy times which should address such concerns. The highways authority has confirmed that they would monitor the situation closely and should the proposed use give rise to issues and it is considered necessary, parking restrictions could be introduced for the duration of the change of use. It is also envisaged that both motorists and pedestrians would be sensitive to the need to give any emergency vehicle, with its lights flashing, priority.

Amenity

21. Policy A4 of the East Lindsey Local Plan states that development will not be permitted where it results in unacceptable harm to the general amenity of people living or working nearby. As noted in the report no objection has been raised to the proposal by the East Lindsey District Council. There is no doubt that there would be some impact when bringing a building and land back to an alternative use since it was last used in October 2013. As noted the closest properties to the site are to the north on land which rises from the site. The houses to the south have substantial back gardens which run from house to embankment upon which the site is located. The main impact is likely to be noise from a night time call out as visually any impact would be minimal. The fire appliance garage is of a design, size, scale and temporary nature which is considered acceptable and would not harm residential amenity for the short length of time it would be stationed on site. It is also considered that the impact of lights shining into the rooms of the properties, some 47m distant, on the occasions when the site is in use during the hours of darkness for the temporary period required, would not be unacceptable. Unlike other uses, restrictions on hours of operation cannot be imposed. Whilst the fire station would not be permanently occupied there is obviously a need for the retained fire personnel to gain access to the site and to respond to emergency calls as and when required. Crews respond to fire calls, with blue lights and audible warning devices, on average of 25 times per month. Retained fire crews are aware of the sensitivities of the localities in which their fire stations are situated. Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Service has indicated their intention to endeavour be a good neighbour, to minimise potential impacts and disturbance on residents as a result of noise and traffic, and keep lines of communication open with LPS and local residents with regular meetings, whilst balancing this with the need to operate from a site which would ensure quick response times are maintained to the benefit of the community it serves. As noted the change of use is required for a period of only 12 months. Taking into account the above and given the temporary duration of the proposed use, the development is considered not to compromise ELDC Policy A4 to an extent that justifies refusal of the application.

22. Having regard to the benefits this development offers in terms of providing a temporary fire station facility in close proximity to the community that it is

Page 133 intended to serve, this would have limited environmental impacts. It is acknowledged for the short duration of the use there will be impacts on the amenity of local residents, but it is considered the community benefits of ensuring a fire service is provided whilst a new fire station is built outweigh these impacts. Therefore on balance the proposed change of use and associated developments in this location are considered acceptable for the duration of 12 months.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the temporary appliance garage hereby permitted shall be removed on or before 31 May 2015 and the land reinstated to its former condition.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Application Form (received 13 March 2014), Design and Access Statement (received 10 April 2014), Travel Plan (received 13 March 2014) and the plans/drawings set out below. The approved plans/drawings are as follows:

 AL(0) 0100: Site Location Plan (received 13 March 2014);  AL(0) 0101: Existing Site Plan (received 13 March 2014);  AL(0) 0110: Proposed Site Plan (received 13 March 2014);  AL(0) 0111: Proposed Site Context Plan (received 13 March 2014);  HOCKWER L-SERIES, Specification (received 18 March 2014).

Reasons:

1. To ensure that the use and development hereby permitted is temporary and to comply with the timeframe for which planning permission was sought.

2. To define the permission and to ensure the development is implemented in all respects in accordance with the approved details.

Appendices

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report

Appendix A Committee Plan

Page 134 Background Papers

The following background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.

Document title Where the document can be viewed

Planning Application File Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park (E)N105/0754/14 House, Waterside South, Lincoln

National Guidance Communities and Local Government website National Planning Policy www.communities.gov.uk Framework (March 2012)

East Lindsey Local Plan East Lindsey District Council website (Alteration)(1999) www.e-lindsey.gov.uk

This report was written by Anne Cant, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]

Page 135

Page 136 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING 

Site of Application

Prevailing Wind Direction from the south-west 

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Reproduced from the 1996 Os Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. OS LICENCE 1000025370

Location: Description: Riverhead Day Centre To change of use of the Riverhead Connect Resource Victoria Road Centre, for a period of 12 months, to provide a temporary Louth fire station. Application No:(E)N105/0754/14(E)N105/0754/14 Scale: 1:1250 PlanningPage and 137 Regulation Committee 2 June 2014 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7.1

Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director for Communities

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee

Date: 2 June 2014

Subject: Outcome of Planning Appeal – Traynors Limited, The Boundary, Gorse Lane, Grantham

Summary: This report sets out the outcome of an appeal following the Council's decision to refuse planning permission to vary condition 6 of planning permission S35/2558/10 so as to remove the restricted hours of operation in relation to the western part of the site (Yard 2) at Traynors Limited, The Boundary, Gorse Lane, Grantham. A copy of the Inspector's decision letter is attached as Appendix A.

Recommendation: That the decision of the Planning Inspectorate is noted.

1. Traynors Limited's site at Gorse Lane is used for the sale, service, repair and dismantling of motor vehicles and plant and is broadly split into two parts. The western part (Yard 2) currently operates as an unrestricted scrap yard, for which an Established Use Certificate (Ref. SK.35/EU03/91) was issued in 1991. The eastern part (Yard 1) is used as an extension to the vehicle storage area, which was granted planning permission (Ref. 97/0112/35/05) in 1997. On 7 September 2011 planning permission (Ref. S35/2558/10) was granted to demolish a number of existing depollution/ store buildings and to replace them with a single purpose built unit, to widen the existing vehicular access and to install additional vehicle racking equipment and concrete surfacing as well as other alterations and improvements to the site. This permission covered both parts of the site and so in granting planning permission for the development a condition (Condition 6) was imposed which defined the hours of operation for the whole site.

2. In January 2013 the applicant made a further application (Ref: S35/0842/13) which sought to vary Condition 6 of permission S35/2558/10 as they felt the hours of operation cited were too restrictive and therefore if the permission were to be implemented they would cause operational difficulties for the site. A report on that application was brought to the Planning and Regulation

Page 139 Committee on 8 April 2013 where, in line with the Officer's recommendation, the application was refused.

3. The applicant made an appeal against the decision to refuse permission for application S35/0842/13 and the appeal was heard and determined by the written representation procedures. The Planning Authority submitted that the hours of operation cited by Condition 6 were necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects and struck a reasonable balance between the operational needs of the applicant's business whilst safeguarding the amenity of local residents. It was argued that whilst the hours of operation would restrict the current hours of operation currently in force and operated on parts of the site, overall the hours imposed would not have been unduly restrictive that they would have nullified the benefits of the improvements that were to be made to the site as authorised by permission S35/2558/10. However, having considered the arguments and representations made by both parties as part of the appeal the Inspector decided to allow the appeal and to impose the following conditions which define the hours of operation relevant for specified activities/operations associated with the development:

1) Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the waste planning authority, the development hereby permitted shall not be open to the public outside the following times:

0800hrs to 1800hrs Monday to Friday; and, 0800hrs to 1300hrs on Saturday.

Nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

2) Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the waste planning authority, no activities or operations associated with the development hereby permitted in Yard 1 shall take place outside the following times:

0800hrs to 1800hrs Monday to Friday; and, 0800hrs to 1300hrs on Saturday.

Nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

3) Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the waste planning authority, the activities or operations associated with the development hereby permitted in Yard 2 shall be restricted in the following ways:

i) Metal breaking and baling shall not take place outside the following times:

0800hrs to 2100hrs Monday to Friday; and, 0800hrs to 1300hrs on Saturday.

Nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Page 140 ii) Loading and unloading of vehicles to/from HGVs/Car Transporters shall not take place outside the following times:

0800hrs to 2300hrs Monday to Friday; and, 0800hrs to 1300hrs on Saturday.

Nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

iii) No more than three HGVs/Car Transporters per calendar month shall be permitted to arrive at the site between 2300hrs and 0700hrs the following morning and these vehicles shall not arrive within five minutes of each other.

iv) The noise levels emitted from within the site boundary shall not exceed the following limits as measured at a free field location representative of the closest demise of any neighbouring non- associated residential property to the site:

47dB LAr between 1800hrs and 2100hrs; 42dB LAr between 2100hrs and 2300hrs; and, 35dB LAr between 2300hrs and 0800hrs the following morning.

4. A copy of the Inspector's decision is attached to this report as Appendix A. As the appeal and the Inspector's decision only relates to changes to the hours of operation condition, the other conditions imposed on permission S35/2558/10 so far as the same are still subsisting and capable of taking effect remain intact. Consequently, the applicant now has until 7 September 2014 to implement the permission which is three years from the date that permission S35/2558/10 was originally granted.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the contents of the report are noted.

Appendices

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report

Appendix A Planning Inspectorate's Appeal Decision dated 9 April 2014.

This report was written by Marc Willis, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]

Page 141

Page 142

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 March 2014 by Karen L Baker DipTP MA DipMP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 9 April 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/Q2500/A/13/2202809 The Boundary, Gorse Lane, Grantham, Lincolnshire NG31 7UE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mrs Jane Traynor, Traynor’s Limited against the decision of Lincolnshire County Council. • The application Ref. S13/0842/CM, dated 3 August 2012, was refused by notice dated 8 April 2013. • The application sought planning permission to demolish a number of existing de- pollution/store buildings and replace with a single purpose built unit; widen existing vehicular access; install additional vehicle racking equipment and concrete surface; alter perimeter bunds and boundary treatments; and, install CCTV and external lighting (in accordance with amended details received on 29 June 2011) without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref. S10/2558/CM, dated 7 September 2011. • The condition in dispute is No. 6 which states that: ‘Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, no activities or operations associated with the development hereby permitted, including the movement of scrap in and out of the site by heavy commercial vehicles, shall take place outside the hours of: 08:00 to 18:00 – Monday to Friday, and 08:00 to 13:00 – Saturday. No activities or operations associated with the hereby permitted use shall take place on Sundays, Public Holidays or Bank Holidays.’ • The reason given for the condition is: ‘To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with approved details, and in the interests of local amenity.’

Procedural Matters

1. The appellants have referred to Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions, which has been largely superseded 1 by the Planning Guidance (PG). Following the publication of the PG, the views of the main parties on the implications of it were sought. I have had regard to the matters raised during my consideration of this appeal.

Decision

2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to demolish a number of existing de-pollution/store buildings and replace with a single purpose built unit; widen existing vehicular access; install additional vehicle racking equipment and concrete surface; alter perimeter bunds and boundary

1 Appendix A (model conditions) of Circular 11/95 is retained, with the rest of the document cancelled. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 143 Appeal Decision APP/Q2500/A/13/2202809

treatments; and, install CCTV and external lighting (in accordance with amended details received on 29 June 2011) at The Boundary, Gorse Lane, Grantham, Lincolnshire NG31 7UE in accordance with the application Ref. S13/0842/CM, dated 3 August 2012, without compliance with Condition No. 6 previously imposed on planning permission Ref. S10/2558/CM, dated 7 September 2011, but subject to the other conditions imposed therein, so far as the same are still subsisting and capable of taking effect and subject to the following new conditions: 1) Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the waste planning authority, the development hereby permitted shall not be open to the public outside the following times: 0800hrs to 1800hrs Monday to Friday; and, 0800hrs to 1300hrs on Saturday. Nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays 2) Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the waste planning authority, no activities or operations associated with the development hereby permitted in Yard 1 shall take place outside the following times: 0800hrs to 1800hrs Monday to Friday; and, 0800hrs to 1300hrs on Saturday. Nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. 3) Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the waste planning authority, the activities or operations associated with the development hereby permitted in Yard 2 shall be restricted in the following ways: i) Metal breaking and baling shall not take place outside the following times: 0800hrs to 2100hrs Monday to Friday; and, 0800hrs to 1300hrs on Saturday. Nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. ii) Loading and unloading of vehicles to/from HGVs/Car Transporters shall not take place outside the following times: 0800hrs to 2300hrs Monday to Friday; and, 0800hrs to 1300hrs on Saturday. Nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. iii) No more than 3 HGVs/Car Transporters per calendar month shall be permitted to arrive at the site between 2300hrs and 0700hrs the following morning and these vehicles shall not arrive within 5 minutes of each other. iv) The noise levels emitted from within the site boundary shall not exceed the following limits as measured at a free field location representative of the closest demise of any neighbouring non-associated residential property to the site:

47dB L Ar between 1800hrs and 2100hrs;

42dB L Ar between 2100hrs and 2300hrs; and,

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Page 144 Appeal Decision APP/Q2500/A/13/2202809

35dB L Ar between 2300hrs and 0800hrs the following morning. Main Issue

3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of varying Condition No. 6 on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular reference to noise and disturbance.

Reasons

4. The appeal site is located on the southern side of Gorse Lane, to the south west of the town of Grantham, within the open countryside. The appeal site is around 2.2ha and is bounded by a mature hedgerow of varying heights and a 2.5m high steel palisade security fence. The access road is located to the west of an existing dwelling, which is within the appellants’ ownership. A ribbon of residential properties is sited on the northern side of this part of Gorse Lane, with the closest dwelling being around 30m from the appeal site’s boundary with Gorse Lane. To the east, west and south of the appeal site is undulating countryside which is predominantly in agricultural use.

5. The appellants operate the appeal site for the sale, service, repair and dismantling of motor vehicles and plant. The appeal site can be broadly split into 2 parts. The western part (Yard 2) operates as an unrestricted scrap yard, for which an Established Use Certificate (Ref. SK.35/EU03/91) was issued on 16 April 1991, and the eastern part (Yard 1) is used as an extension to the vehicle storage area, which was granted planning permission (Ref. 97/0112/35/05) on 10 October 1997. Planning permission (Ref. S10/2558/CM) was granted on 7 September 2011 to demolish a number of existing de- pollution/store buildings and to replace them with a single purpose built unit; widen the existing vehicular access; install additional vehicle racking equipment and concrete surface; alter perimeter bunds and boundary treatments; and, install CCTV and external lighting at the appeal site. Planning permission (Ref. S12/2299/FULL) was granted on 22 November 2012 for the retention of a de- polluting unit within Yard 2, which had been erected by the appellants following a fire which destroyed the previous building in this location.

6. The development granted in September 2011 would secure a number of improvements to the site and the operation of the business. These would include widening the road along the site frontage and access; improving access to allow lorry parking inside the site and off the public highway; improving lighting to minimise light pollution; fitting effective silencers to all machinery and equipment on the site; installing more efficient vehicle racking equipment to speed up the movement of vehicles around the site; replacing a number of makeshift buildings with one purpose built building; providing a new soakaway drainage system with interceptor tanks to accommodate surface water run-off from new areas of concrete surfacing; landscaping along the boundaries to provide increased screening; improving car parking and turning areas; and providing cycle parking.

7. At the time of my site visit Yard 1 was being used for the storage of vehicles, with some stored using a racking system, while others were parked on the ground. Yard 2 currently has an informal car and HGV parking area, towards the northern end of the site, with a number of de-pollution, dismantling and storage buildings towards the middle. Beyond these buildings is an external area currently used for the baling operation, which includes a baling machine

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Page 145 Appeal Decision APP/Q2500/A/13/2202809

and storage for cars prior to and following this operation, along with access for a collection vehicle. To the rear of the area used for the baling operation, and within the southern part of Yard 2, is a further car storage area. During my site visit I observed vehicles being dismantled and de-polluted within the de- polluting unit granted planning permission in November 2012 and witnessed the baling operation being carried out whilst I was both within the appeal site and from a position along Gorse Lane. Furthermore, the movement of vehicles by forklift trucks within the appeal site was also taking place at the time of my visit.

8. If the development approved by planning permission Ref. S10/2558/CM was implemented, the disputed condition would restrict the hours of operation of the business to between 0800hrs and 1800hrs (Monday to Friday) and 0800hrs and 1300hrs on Saturday on that part of the appeal site (Yard 2) which currently has no restrictions. Indeed, I note the appellants’ concerns that Condition No. 6 seeks to limit the operation of the site to the times that Yard 2 is open to the public and not the times that the site currently operates within. The appellants state that such a restriction would be unacceptable as it would not make any allowance for staff to enter or leave the site, tidy up before and after the public arrive or leave or to take delivery of stock. Furthermore, they say that a degree of flexibility is required for evening and night-time working, which can include the recovery of vehicles from road traffic accidents and the arrival of vehicle transporters from Northern Ireland, via ferry, outside normal working hours. I acknowledge, therefore, the appellants’ statement that, given the restrictions which would be placed on the appeal site by Condition No. 6, they would continue to operate without implementing this planning permission. Therefore, the other improvements to the appeal site that would result from its implementation would not occur.

9. The appellants consider that, given that the development permitted by this planning permission was for facilities that would improve the appearance and operation of the appeal site and that it would not expand the site nor intensify its use, there would be no increase in noise levels which could legitimately have invited a control to be imposed on the operating hours of the business. As such, they consider that the imposition of Condition No. 6 was ultra vires. Nevertheless, the appellants have put forward an alternative condition which restricts activities or operations associated with the development taking place within Yard 1 to between 0800hrs and 1800hrs (Monday to Friday) and 0800hrs and 1300hrs on Saturday and which enables activities to continue within Yard 2 unrestricted, with some exceptions. These include that metal breaking and baling shall cease no later than 2100hrs; loading and unloading shall cease no later than 2300hrs; no more than 3 HGVs/Transporters shall be permitted to arrive at the site between 2300hrs and 0700hrs and these shall not arrive within 5 minutes of each other and shall not be unloaded or loaded between 2300hrs and 0700hrs; and sets limits for the noise levels to be emitted from within the site between 1800hrs and 0800hrs.

10. Although I acknowledge that the approved development would not intensify the existing use of the appeal site and that it would provide many benefits, including the provision of modern purpose built buildings, improved access arrangements and boundary treatments, in my opinion, it would constitute a materially different development to that which already exists. As such, I consider that it was reasonable for the Council to impose a condition restricting the hours of operation. However, given the current unrestricted nature of Yard

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Page 146 Appeal Decision APP/Q2500/A/13/2202809

2, along with the operational requirements of the business, I consider that the condition imposed was overly restrictive. Indeed, given the nature of this condition, from the evidence before me it would be likely that the appellants would not implement the approved development and would instead continue to operate the site in an unrestricted manner.

11. At the time of my site visit background noise levels were relatively low, there was very little wind and the day was bright and sunny. I acknowledge, however, that background noise levels are generally lower during the evening and overnight. Local residents and the Council are concerned about the impact of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers within their dwellings along the northern side of Gorse Lane, particularly during the evening and overnight. The appellants submitted an Outward Noise Impact Assessment 2 with the planning application. This assesses the noise impact of the operations of concern, namely the sound levels associated with a lorry arrival/departure and the unloading of cars off the lorry during the evening; the occasional arrival of a lorry with cars during the night time, with the unloading carried out the following day; and the breaking and/or baling operations up to around 2300hrs.

12. I note the findings of the Noise Surveys carried out on 7 November 2012 between 1315hrs and 1645hrs and between 2000hrs and 2300hrs, along with the measurements attributed to each of the operations of concern. The Assessment also summarises the total contributory Rated Noise Level at the closest neighbouring dwellings of concern, namely those sited on the northern side of Gorse Lane, for the evening and night time periods. The report concludes that the loss of amenity criterion has the potential to be exceeded but that by ensuring that the Baling operation does not occur after 2100hrs and that during the night time period a lorry and transporter do not arrive within 5 minutes of each other it is possible to ensure that the loss of amenity criterion is not exceeded.

13. The Council is concerned that the Outward Noise Impact Assessment carried out by the appellants does not fully assess the full potential noise impacts from the development and as such it would be difficult to ensure that the noise levels arising from the site activities would not fall within the range whereby they would be classed as having an adverse amenity impact on local residents. In particular, I note the Council’s concerns in respect of the Breaking operations which it states are referred to in the report as taking place within the shed. The appellants have confirmed that Breaking includes the de- polluting of fluids from the car, removal of saleable parts, stripping of engines and the stripping of tyres, amongst other items, and that this operation only occurs within the buildings. Indeed, Condition No. 17 imposed on planning permission Ref. S10/2558/CM requires this operation to only be undertaken in the replacement building. The Council is also concerned about the Baling operation being carried out externally within the yard up to 2100hrs. It was apparent from my site visit that Baling is performed by the Baling machine, which is housed outside, and although it is transportable because it has wheels, the appellants have confirmed that it remains in the same place at the appeal site. Condition No. 7 imposed on planning permission Ref. S10/2558/CM requires the fitting of effective silencers on all vehicles, plant, power driven equipment and machinery employed at the site.

2 Prepared by Lester Acoustics LLP www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Page 147 Appeal Decision APP/Q2500/A/13/2202809

14. I am satisfied, from the evidence before me, that the appellants’ Outward Noise Impact Assessment has adequately assessed the noise levels arising from these activities. Furthermore, I consider that the recommendations made within this assessment in terms of the hours of operation of the Baling operation and the limitations on the number of vehicles arriving overnight, along with the other conditions imposed to limit noise and disturbance from the site, would ensure that the proposed development would not unduly harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Indeed, I consider that the proposal would, subject to more appropriately worded planning conditions in respect of the hours of operation and noise levels, represent an improvement upon the existing situation in Yard 2, which currently has no such restrictions.

15. Both parties have put forward suggested alternative conditions which could be imposed if I was minded to allow the appeal. In my opinion, a condition restricting the hours of operation of the appeal site would be reasonable given the nature of the development proposed. However, a balance needs to be struck between the currently unrestricted nature of Yard 2 and the overly restrictive Condition No. 6 imposed by the Council, which would accommodate the operational requirements of the appellants’ business while safeguarding the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. In order to do this, a condition restricting the hours that the appeal site would be open to the public to between 0800hrs and 1800hrs (Monday to Friday) and between 0800hrs and 1300hrs on Saturdays would be reasonable. Furthermore, a condition preventing any activities or operations associated with the development to take place in Yard 1 outside of these times would also be reasonable.

16. With regards to Yard 2, it would be reasonable for the activities and operations associated with the development to have some restrictions, in order to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to noise and disturbance. These would be that Breaking and Baling operations shall only be carried out between 0800hrs and 2100hrs (Monday to Friday) and between 0800hrs and 1300hrs on Saturdays; loading and unloading of vehicles from HGVs/Transporters shall only occur between 0800hrs and 2300hrs (Monday to Friday) and between 0800hrs and 1300hrs on Saturdays; no more than 3 HGVs/Transporters per month shall be permitted to arrive at the site between 2300hrs and 0700hrs and these shall not arrive within 5 minutes of each other; and, that noise levels should not exceed specified limits.

17. I note the Council’s concerns relating to the enforceability of such conditions, particularly in respect of the limit in the number of HGVs/Transporters permitted to arrive at the site per month, the time required to be left between each arrival and the restrictions relating to loading and unloading. Indeed, I acknowledge its reference to another appeal decision (APP/Q2500/C/07/2039818) in this regard. Since that appeal decision, however, there has been a number of technological advances which allow drivers to more easily monitor the location of other vehicles. Given this, along with the close working relationship between the drivers in this case and the limited number of times when this would be likely to occur, I consider that it would be relatively simple to ensure that HGVs/Transporters would not arrive at the site together. Furthermore, it is apparent from the correspondence from local residents that they monitor the activities in and around the appeal site. If a breach of these conditions were to occur, it is likely that they would contact the Council who would then be able to take the appropriate action.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Page 148 Appeal Decision APP/Q2500/A/13/2202809

18. From the evidence before me, I conclude that varying Condition No. 6 would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular reference to noise and disturbance. As such, it would accord with Policy EN1 of the Local Development Framework for South Kesteven: Core Strategy, adopted in July 2010, and Policy WLP21 of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan, adopted in May 2006.

19. I have considered all the other matters raised by the Council and third parties, including light pollution from the proposed development; highway safety; traffic congestion; car parking along Gorse Lane; and, the carrying out of unloading operations on the public highway; but none changes my overall conclusion that the appeal should be allowed.

20. As stated above, both the Council and the appellants have suggested alternatively worded conditions. I have had regard to the guidance in the PG during my consideration of these conditions and I consider that 3 new conditions along the lines of those described above should be imposed in order to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to noise and disturbance. Karen Baker

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Page 149 This page is intentionally left blank