1 1 Glebe House

3 1 The Old 57.9m Honeysuckle School

LL Cottage House CC

HH 2 4 CC The School RR

UU Cott House 3 HH

CC 3

Caldecott a

6 2 Priest Hall House

EE NN 9 Ivy House 8 AA Markham LL 2

LL 1

HH House 7 5 Farm 1

CC RR 3 UU HH 0 1 Meadow CC

3 2

Riverbanks Farm 1 4 2

ok 7 ro 5 1 14

The Plough 3 1

6 The Green

7 Inn

1 3 3

6

2

3 M 3 M 7 IILIL 7

LL EEEEETT

REEE 3 L TR 9

LA N SSTS

INIINN 2

N MA 5 M 3 9

E TCB a

Pond 4 1

8

3

5 1

1 2

4

3 9

Sluice

Mill Cott 3

4 5 1

2 4 2

3 51.5m

ge

ara Stable Yard G 2

Ppg 1 Sta

ay lw ai R d le nt ma is D

m 2 .2 1 H R

52.4m

BS

Pond The Castle Inn (PH)

D

D DDD DD DDDD DD e f

A AAA AAA AAA AA

O OOO OO OOOO OO

R RRR RR RRRR RRR

WB

M MMM MM MMM MMM

AA AAA AAAA AAA

H HHH HHH HHH HH

G GG GGG GGGG GG

N NNNN NNN NNNN NNN

IIII IIII I IIII I III I

K KK KKK KKK KK

CC CCC CCC CCC

OO OOO OOOO OOO

R RRR RR RRR RRR

52.4m

Pond

0 1 2 3 400m

Rutland County Council Scale - 1:2500 Time of plot: 12:24 Catmose, Date of plot: 21/01/2014 Oakham, Rutland LE15 6HP

© Crown copyright and database rights [2013] Ordnance Survey [100018056] 17

Application: 2013/0967/OUT ITEM 2 Proposal: Outline planning permission for the erection of circa 47 No. dwellings, associated parking and ancillary amenities. Address: Land south of Caldecott Applicant: Mr M Sharman Parish Caldecott Agent: Mr Drummond Robson Ward Lyddington Reason for presenting to Committee: Major application in open countryside Significant local objection

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is an outline application for residential development on open pasture land to the south of the village. The site is outside the Planned Limit to Development and in open countryside. The site was submitted as a potential housing site in the Site Allocations and Polices DPD process but was not allocated as a development site in the Submission document. The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate an up to date 5 year land supply, including the 20% margin required by the National Planning Policy Framework. There has been significant local opposition to the proposal. The application is contrary to policy and there are no material considerations that would suggest that the development should be approved. Flooding, archaeology and ecology issues have not been satisfactorily resolved. No Developer Contributions have been offered as part of the application.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION, for the following reasons:

1. The site lies outside the Planned Limit to Development for Caldecott where policies in the Rutland Local Plan (2001) and the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) limit development in the countryside to certain essential uses provided that these meet certain criteria. The proposal does not constitute one of these exceptions. The emerging Site Allocations and Polices DPD (Proposed Submission Document, April 2013), also shows that the proposed area for residential development lies outside the Planned Limit to Development for Caldecott and is therefore subject to its policies relating to housing in the countryside, which again are restrictive. The site was put forward by the applicant for inclusion as a housing allocation in the Site Allocations and Policies DPD but it was not accepted by the Council following a site appraisal process. The site, together with wider land to the south of Caldecott is designated in the Rutland Local Plan as Particularly Attractive Countryside.

The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate an up to date five year land supply with a 20% buffer as required by Para 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The Local Planning Authority does not accept the reduced figures suggested by the applicant, based on reduced delivery at the Oakham North site. Similarly, there is no identified need for additional housing in Caldecott that would justify overriding the policies. On that basis there is no need to exceptionally release this land for

18 development.

The development would be prominent in the landscape when approaching Caldecott from the south and would harm the tranquil rural character of this edge of the village. The proposal would constitute a significant rise in the number of dwellings in a Smaller Service centre, leading to an unacceptable impact on the character of the area and further burden on an already low level of local services.

The proposal would thereby be contrary to saved Policies EN26 and EN28 of the adopted Rutland Local Plan (2001), Policies CS4 and CS21 of the adopted Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and Policy SP5 of the Site Allocations and Polices DPD (April 2013).

2. The design illustrations of the proposed dwellings are considered to be inappropriate for this location on the edge of a traditional Rutland village where the predominant materials are ironstone and slate. The layout is led by the need to avoid the main flood zone area and as such is not locally distinctive where the pattern of development in the village is of buildings close to the rear of the footpaths. The development is urban in nature in that it utilises terraces of properties and presents a car dominated appearance. The proposal would thereby be contrary to the advice in Para 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS19 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and Policy SP14 of the Submission Site Allocations and Polices DPD (2013).

3. The application is not accompanied by any commitment to make developer contributions in line with the Council’s polices. The proposal would thereby be contrary to Policies CS8 and CS11 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Documents on Developer Contributions (2010) and Affordable Housing (2012).

4. The site is in an area at risk of flooding from both the Eye Brook and the Eyebrook Reservoir. The Environment Agency advises that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment does not adequately deal with this issue. Potential occupiers of the development would thereby be subject to an unnecessary risk in addition to the development displacing flood water elsewhere to the detriment of other nearby property. The proposal would thereby be contrary to the advice in saved policy UT5 of the Rutland Local Plan (2001), Policies CS1 and CS19 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and the advice in Para’s 99-103 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. No archaeological study has been undertaken to understand the importance of the site. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy CS22 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011), saved Policy EN14 of the Rutland Local Plan (2001), Policy SP19 of the Submission Site Allocations and Polices DPD (April 2013) and the advice in Para’s 128, 129 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. The site is considered to be of ecological importance and the submitted Habitat Survey is not considered to adequately address this issue. The development is also considered to be too close to the river and site boundaries to ensure that biodiversity and protected species are adequately protected. The scheme is thereby contrary to advice in Paragraph 118 of the NPPF and Policy CS21 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and Policy SP18 of the Submission Site Allocations and Policies DPD (2013).

19

7. The application is accompanied by traffic data which the highway authority considers to be unreliable, the access lacks adequate width, the new southern access lacks adequate visibility for an access outside the 30mph limit and the proposal would be likely to result in standing traffic on a section of highway in a rural area, to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal is thereby contrary to the advice in Para 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, saved Policies HT4, HT5 and HT6 of the Rutland Local Plan (2001) and Policy SP14 of the Submission Site Allocations and Polices DPD (2103).

Site & Surroundings

1. The site is located in open countryside to the south of the village of Caldecott. The land here is designated Particularly Attractive Countryside in the Rutland Local Plan. The site adjoins the Planned Limit to Development as defined in the Rutland Local Plan and the Submission Site Allocations and Polices DPD.

2. The site comprises open fields including field hedges and trees. There is some historic ridge and furrow on the site. The Eye Brook runs through the site. The site is generally behind a high roadside hedge. The site is around 3ha in total although only 1.6ha is included within the red line site for the purposes of this application.

3. To the south of the site is the Castle public house which is in Harborough District (Leicestershire). To the south east is the line of a dismantled railway.

4. The land is variously identified as Flood Plain Zones 1, 2 and 3.

Proposal

5. The proposal is an outline application for 47 ‘affordable’ dwellings, although the agent confirms that they are not proposed as Affordable Housing in the planning sense. 2 access points are indicated. The access, layout and scale of development are included for approval at this stage. The proposal seeks to provide allotments and play areas in addition to a footpath link to the Castle PH but these are outside the red line site area. The layout seeks to utilise land that the applicant considers to be Flood Zone 1, resulting in a fragmented layout of 2 main areas separated by the Eye Brook, one of 21 units off a spur from the entrance road to Stable Yard and one of 24 units, the latter served off a new access outside the 30-mph limit.

6. The units to the east of the site would be of an ‘eco’ style design, single storey with timber cladding and ‘habitat’ roof’s, described as ‘allotment houses’. Other dwellings closer to the road would be of a more conventional scale, although the submission indicates they would have large openings in the form of agricultural buildings and be rendered with some stone detailing and timber cladding on the upper storey. The layout has attempted to mimic the ‘grain’ of the wider village.

7. The proposal is accompanied by Transport, Drainage, Design & Access, Planning and Sustainability Statements, Flood Risk Assessment and various other supporting documents and information.

20 8. The application was accompanied by a short document referred to as an Environmental Statement, but following advice from the Secretary of State, the application was screened in accordance with the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and it was concluded that the development is not EIA development.

9. The thrust of the applicants case is that the Councils housing figures and policies are out of date and this development will breathe life into the village and be sustainable as it is so close to Corby. Caldecott is served by bus service RF1 on an hourly service Monday to Saturday between 0730 and 1830. The full submission can be viewed on the web site.

Illustrative details are attached at APPENDIX 1.

Relevant Planning History

Application Description Decision 2012/0275 Erection of 15m Wind Refused Oct 2012 Turbine Planning Guidance and Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

The Framework promotes sustainable development but confirms that development that is not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local Authorities should maintain an up to date 5 year supply of deliverable sites for housing. Policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites.

Para 55 states that in rural areas, (i.e. outside defined village envelopes) to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.

The Framework also provides advice on design, transport, archaeology, ecology and flooding.

The Rutland Core Strategy

CS1 – Sustainable Development Principles CS2 – The Spatial Strategy CS3 - The Settlement hierarchy. Caldecott is classified as a Smaller Service Centre where CS4 (Location of Development) indicates that a minor scale level of development can be accommodated mainly on previously developed land on a limited scale appropriate to the character and needs of the village, comprising affordable housing sites, infill developments and re –use of redundant buildings. CS8 - Developer Contributions CS9 – Provision and distribution of new housing

21 CS10 – Housing Density and Mix – 30 Dwellings per hectare in the villages CS11 – Affordable Housing – Minimum target of 35% CS19 – Promoting Good Design CS21 – The Natural Environment CS22 – The Historic & Cultural Environment (Archaeology) CS23 – Green Infrastructure and Open Space

Rutland Local Plan

EN1 – Location of Development EN14 - Archaeology EN18 – Trees and Hedgerows EN26 – Development in the Countryside EN28 – Particularly Attractive Countryside EN29 – Amenity HT4 – Development likely to increase traffic HT5 – Road access and Design

Other Material Considerations

Site Allocations and Policies DPD (Submission Draft April 2013)

SP5 – Housing in the Countryside SP8 – Affordable Housing SP14 – Design & Amenity SP18 – Biodiversity and geodiversity conservation SP22 – Landscape Character in the Countryside

Supplementary Planning Document – Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document – Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance – Countryside Design

Consultations

See APPENDIX 2.

Neighbour Representations

10. There have been 59 letters of objection from residents of Caldecott, together with a petition containing 33 signatures. Tata Steel, which owns the Eyebrook Reservoir has also objected, on the grounds that, although unlikely, the reservoir could be subject to failure which could have catastrophic results on this site. Tata is also obliged to release larger amounts of water into the river during times of heavy rainfall. The agents on behalf of the Grade 1 listed Rockingham Castle Estate have also objected, including similar policy, flood and highway grounds to residents, but also regarding the impact on the view of Caldecott in its context in this part of the Welland Valley.

The main objections can be summarised as follows:

 Flooding on the site from the river and the reservoir (raised by most if not all objectors)

22  Additional traffic onto the A6003  Out of scale with the village (c50% increase in dwellings)  Detracts from the character and appearance of the village which is a gateway to Rutland  Designs are out of keeping with Rutland villages  Contrary to the Core Strategy  Loss of historic meadow containing ancient earthworks  Insufficient services in the village  Visual impact from Rockingham hill  Difficulties with traffic at the traffic light controlled bridge  The Eye Brook reservoir dam almost breached after heavy rain last summer  Impact on wildlife on site  Ecology report is inaccurate – there are many birds on site  Corby is expanding quickly on its own land and this is not needed for Corby  The reference to Caldecott ‘dying’ in the application is a disgrace  No demand for allotments – already some in the village  Unacceptable impact on adjacent residents  Overloaded sewage system – risk of pollution to the Eye Brook  Recent development refused on the Station yard by Harborough DC, same reasons should apply here  No social or environmental benefit to the village  Contradictory statements in the application – ‘village is dying’ and village is ‘rich and socially cohesive’?  Community Involvement statement indicating local support is inaccurate  The Castle PH is not the village pub, its in Leicestershire, there is one in the village.  The Inspector, in allowing the applicants previous development on the edge of the village, identified the important character of this wider land.

Planning Assessment

11. The applicant has requested that the Local Planning Authority enters into a formal Extension of Time with him until April to enable him to deal with some of the technical issues that have resulted in reasons for refusal. As the proposal is so clearly contrary to planning policy, Officers consider that the application should be determined now and that any outstanding issues can be resolved prior to any re-submission or the lodging of an appeal.

12. The main issues are planning policy, visual impact, residential amenity, flooding, highway safety, ecology, archaeology and developer contributions.

Planning Policy

13. The Council’s planning policy guidance is set out in the 2011 adopted LDF Core Strategy and the ‘saved’ policies of the 2001 adopted Rutland Local Plan. There are emerging policies in the Submission Draft Site Allocations and Policies DPD (SAPDPD) which is awaiting a PINS Inspector report following recent examination. Policies in this plan carry significant weight and this plan is expected to be formally adopted later this year.

23 14. The application site lies outside the Planned Limits to Development (PLD) at Caldecott which are defined on the same lines in the 2001 adopted Local Plan and the SAPDPD. The PLD therefore determines that the application site is located in what is defined in planning policy terms as “countryside”. In the Rutland Local Plan, the land is also ‘Particularly Attractive Countryside’.

15. Policy CS4 of the Core Strategy seeks to direct the location of development. It makes it clear that development in the countryside will be strictly limited to that which has an essential need to be located in the countryside and will be restricted to particular types of development to support the rural economy.

16. The relevant 2001 Local Plan policy guidance on development in the countryside is set out at Policy EN26. This sets out a number of requirements relating to what is considered essential development in the countryside that would normally be granted planning permission. Criteria A of the policy requires that the development cannot reasonably be accommodated in the planned limits of development of the towns and villages as defined on the Local Plan Proposals Map.

17. Caldecott is a “Smaller Service Centre” as defined in the Core Strategy (Policy CS3 refers).

18. Policy CS4 states that such settlements “can accommodate a minor scale level of development mainly on previously developed land on a limited scale appropriate to the character and needs of the village concerned, comprising affordable housing sites, infill developments and conversion or re-use of redundant suitable rural buildings.”

19. The Core Strategy explains the planning policy approach to the smaller service centres at page 22, para. 2.1. Minor level development is defined as being an individual development of up to 5 dwellings. Residential infilling is also defined.

20. The proposed development is clearly on a scale far greater than considered acceptable even if it was within the settlement’s Planned Limits to Development. This is an important point as even a re-positioning of the planned limits around the application site would not render residential development of the land at the proposed scale acceptable in planning policy terms.

21. The Council’s approach as summarised above and detailed in the Core Strategy is supported by NPPF paragraph 55 which states housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The settlement hierarchy in Rutland is a useful approach to ensure new development is located in a sustainable way, where local services will be available and the need to travel is reduced.

22. The Council has a 5 year supply of housing land in relation to the Core Strategy objective to deliver 3,000 dwellings over the plan period at a rate of 150 dwellings per year. The 5 year supply has been assessed on the basis that a need for a 20% buffer is necessary due to housing completions over the plan period to date falling below the annual rate required. Furthermore, a method of assessment has been used that shows the accumulated housing delivery shortfall being made up within the 5 year assessment period rather than over the entire remaining plan period which is considered to be the most robust method of calculation.

24 23. There is a target of 190 new dwellings for the “Other Villages” over the period 2010 to 2026 (ref policy CS9). Although this is over and above existing commitments as at 2010 and some of these outstanding commitments may lapse, historic rates of supply have been assessed and an estimate of adequate future small windfall sites calculated that is entirely in conformity with national planning policy guidance.

24. It is therefore concluded that the Council can demonstrate that there is an adequate 5 year supply of housing land readily available in accordance with national planning guidance. Furthermore, it is being delivered in accordance with the adopted local plan Core Strategy policies which seek to direct the bulk of new housing to Oakham, Uppingham and the 7 Local Service Centres and maintain a policy of restraint in the other villages, including the “Smaller Service Centres”. As such even if a 5 year supply was not evident, this would not be a good location to provide extra land. As can be seen from the consultation responses, Harborough District Council also has a 5 years land supply so this site cannot be justified as assisting that authorities needs.

25. The scale of the proposal is significant in relation to Caldecott. It appears that there are just over 100 dwellings in the village at present so this would represent almost 50% increase with no additional services to cater for local demand.

Visual Impact

26. The Landscape Character assessment describes this part of the Welland Valley as:

‘… with extensive ridge and furrow in fields grazed by sheep and cattle…together with the width of the valley it creates a relatively open, large scale, sweeping, pastoral, valley landscape with few buildings in the valley floor. The valley is important in views form the higher slopes both within Rutland and in Northamptonshire. 27. The Countryside Design Guidance SPG states that the objective here is to

“To safeguard the distinctive landscape and settlement character of the Middle Valley West sub-area…” key objectives being “To safeguard the valley floor from the encroachment and proliferation of development” and “To safeguard the sensitive edges of Lyddington, Caldecott and Thorpe by Water”

28. This is reflected in Northamptonshire’s own landscape character of its adjoining areas. 29. The design of the proposed dwellings is not typical of the local vernacular. The allotment houses are single storey and have living roofs. The other dwellings are 2 storey, , but use render and timber cladding which is not typical in Rutland. The layout is claimed to reflect the grain of development in the village but the typical character is of stone buildings close to the street. This layout is restricted in its form by the need to avoid the worst of the flood plain so appears somewhat randomly set out over 2 main areas.

30. It is considered that the development of this land, even if partly screened by the roadside hedges, would detract from the character of the countryside on this edge of the village. This is contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS21.

25 Residential amenity

31. There are 2 main areas to the development, one to the south access via a new access from the unrestricted part of the A6003 and one to the north which uses an existing access track. This would lead to a terrace of dwellings at the rear of properties at 1-3 Stable Yard. As the layout is included for approval, it is possible to assess the impact of the development on immediate neighbours. The nearest corner of the northern most terrace of properties would be 24m from the rear of properties at 1 and 2 Stable Yard. This is within acceptable limits although seems unnecessarily close considering the overall size of the site. There is no other impact on residential amenity. Rutland Local Plan Policy EN29 and the amenity element of SP14 of the Site Allocations DPD are considered to be met.

Flood Risk

32. Members will see from the Environment Agency’s (EA) comments in Appendix 2 that there is concern about allowing development on this site, particularly as it lies astride the Eye Brook which acts as a relief area for Eyebrook Reservoir. Recently published EA flood maps indicate that the whole site would be inundated by a failure of the dam, the results of which are described by the EA as being catastrophic. The dam has a syphon system which allows excess water to be released in times when rainfall raises reservoir levels to near the top of the dam. The EA considers that this would be uncontrollable to some extent, resulting in extensive flooding around the site. The EA is not convinced that the siting of the dwellings as proposed would result in homes being protected in times of high flood water other than a dam failure.

33. The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted with the application is considered to inadequately address flooding issues but the EA considers that no amount of revised FRA will overcome the potential for failure of the dam or relief of high water levels in times of heavy rain.

34. Some residents have indicated that tipping has taken place on site to raise levels in order to change the flood zone. The Environment Agency confirms that their data confirms that some small areas have been raised but not sufficient to alter their assessment of Flood Zones.

Highway Safety

35. The highway authority has objected to the development on the grounds that the traffic data is unreliable, that the access widths are inadequate and that the new southern access lacks adequate visibility where the speed limit is 60mph. On this basis the development is considered to be unacceptable on highway safety grounds.

Ecology

36. The Council’s Ecology advisors state that the habitat survey which has been carried out is inadequate and more surveys should be carried out at the appropriate time of year. However, there is a fundamental objection to the proximity of built development to the watercourse and boundary hedges in that a 10m buffer should be maintained. The development is also specifically considered to be too close to the river for Otters. The development would thereby be contrary to Para 118 of the NPPF and Polices CS

26

Archaeology

37. The Councils Archaeological consultant considers that assessments of the sites interest needs to be carried out before a planning application can be determined, as set out in t he consultation response in Appendix 2. On the basis that the application is now for consideration and this work has not been done, this is a reason for refusal.

Developer contributions

38. No proposals for developer contributions have been put forward so the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS8 and the 2 SPD’s, set out in the Policy section above.

27 28 29 30 31 32 APPENDIX 2

Consultation Responses

Housing Strategy Manager

Policy CS11 of the Core Strategy requires, for exception sites, justification by evidence from a local needs survey, for sites in any case to be 'small', for households which are currently resident or have a local connection as defined in the Council's housing allocations policy [generally focused on the parish and adjoining Rutland parishes in line with paragraph 3.38 of the Core Strategy] and for homes 'to remain affordable to successive occupiers in perpetuity. This in our view does not extend to the needs of residents in Corby.

Even if the need for affordable housing is justified it will need to have reasonable access to at least a basic range of service appropriate to the housing proposed, this proposal is not considered to be of a scale appropriate to Caldecott. The sustainability assessment for Caldecott acknowledges it has good public transport links, but it otherwise fails because the village doesn't have a local shop or employment opportunities. The village's sustainability and classification as a smaller service centre was not an issue at the examination of the Core Strategy and the document was adopted in July 2011.

Evidence from the Council’s housing register showed that there were only two households waiting for a property in Caldecott who currently either live or work in the village, as of July 2012. In my opinion, the demonstrated housing need would be for two to four affordable homes, which would be to meet need in accordance with the Council's Housing Allocation Policy, predominantly of properties for rent. A local household survey for Caldecott might produce more detailed information.

RCC Highways

Objection

 The TRICs data supplied is flawed. The report was run on 14/10/2011 on version 2011(B)v6.8.2, the selected locations are surburban, edge of town and neighbourhood centre, not rural village. The rates appear low compared to those that would be expected. Census based multi-modal trip generation would be more accurate.  Policy HT6 - The proposed development is likely to result in overflow parking which will be detrimental to highway safety  Policy HT4 - The proposal will be detrimental to highway safety as it would increase the probability of stationary vehicles in the public highway  Policy HT5 - The proposal will be detrimental to highway safety as the visibility splays on the southern access are inadequate. The existing visibility splays are 2.4 metres by 96 metres to the left and 2.4 metres by 50 metres to the right. The required visibility splays are 2.4 metres by 215 metres to the left and 2.4 metres by 215 metres to the right. The applicant may be able to overcome this objection by providing a speed survey to demonstrate that reduced visibility splays are acceptable.  Policy HT5 - The access width is unsatisfactory and needs to have a corridor width of 7.5 metres

33

Corby BC

Northants CC Highways

No response.

LCC Highways

Comments Awaited

Harborough District Council

We make the following comments about the scheme –

 Harmful impact on the character and appearance of the countryside  The scheme doesn’t relate to the village, especially the southern section  The views into the development will potentially be of the back of houses and boundary treatment of back gardens  The proposal doesn’t respond well to its locality  The internal layout looks like it would be dominated by the car  The internal layout is very linear and urban with all the rows of terraces

We would also refer you to the planning application we dealt with at the Old Station Yard, Rockingham Road, Great Easton for Conversion and extension of locomotive shed building to village/farm shop and cafe, conversion of existing overnight accommodation to 6 flats, erection of 4 business units and erection of 19 dwellings (All Matters Reserved) Reference no. 13/00621/OUT. This application was refused for the following reasons –

1. The proposal would represent unsustainable development in the countryside, which would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Polices CS2, CS11 and CS17.

34 2. The proposal, if permitted would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic turning onto or off a Class I road in an area remote from main development and where traffic speeds are generally high. The proposal, if permitted would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic using an access which has poor geometry. Such an increase would be to the significant detriment of highway safety and would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS11.

3. A lack of archaeological information has been submitted so that any impact on potentially significant remains cannot be assessed. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraph 128, Chapter 12 of the NPPF and Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Harborough District Council has a 5 year housing supply so at present development outside of the Limits to Development is considered unjustified.

Environment Agency

We advise that given our concerns with the current level of information accompanying the application our position, at this stage, is one of objection for the following reasons: Flood Risk Management

The flood risk assessment (FRA) submitted with this application does not comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 9 of the Technical Guide to the NPPF. The submitted FRA does not therefore provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development.

The applicant can overcome our objection by submitting a FRA which covers the deficiencies highlighted below and demonstrates that the development will not increase risk elsewhere and where possible reduces flood risk overall. If this cannot be achieved we are likely to maintain our objection to the application. Production of a FRA will not in itself result in the removal of an objection.

In particular, the submitted FRA fails to:

1. Consider the impact of Eye Brook Reservoir. All 47 single and two storey dwellings are shown within the area at risk of reservoir inundation. Failure of the dam could lead to rapid inundation which may present a risk to life. The views of the reservoir supervising engineer and Tata Steel should be sought in relation to the proposals.

Point one should be addressed first, after which points two to five also need to be considered before the FRA would be acceptable.

2. Take a sequential approach to the site layout. We are not in favour of private gardens located within the floodplain. This is because it is difficult to ensure that flood flows are not impeded. We suggest that these areas are kept as open space or communal gardens.

3. Set out the appropriate finished floor levels. Given the proximity to flood zones 2 and 3, single storey dwellings should be provided with a higher finished floor level set above the 0.1%(1 in 1000) probability flood level .

4. Consider the requirement for flood emergency planning including flood warning and evacuation of people for a range of flooding events up to and including the extreme event as well as reservoir failure.

35

5. Ensure surface water attenuation features are located above ground and on land outside Flood Zone 3. An indicative location is required for an outline planning application. The drainage strategy drawings should be legible.

We ask to be re-consulted with the results of the FRA. We will provide you with bespoke comments within 21 days of receiving formal re-consultation. Our objection will be maintained until an adequate FRA has been submitted.

Flood Map Challenge. The site is currently shown to lie within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 on the Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning. Prior to this application being submitted, the applicant formally challenged our flood map. For transparency we wish to summarise this process here.

Our modelled flood levels were provided to the applicants in November 2012. The applicants undertook a site specific topographic (ground level) survey and plotted it against our flood levels. For this site they found that the plotted flood extent was less than our published map. We reviewed the survey report they provided to us (dated July 2012) against our latest ground level data. This had been updated since we produced the current Flood Map in 2007. We use LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) to determine ground levels. This is obtained by flying over the survey area and obtaining levels using a laser on a 1m grid. The latest flight in this area was in February 2009. We found that their survey data matched ours and agreed that we would update our Flood Map based on our own survey data.

We are aware that this field has flooded in the past. We have stated that the site will remain categorised as Flood Zone 2 and we will amend Flood Zone 3 only.

Since the application has been made, several local residents have advised us that ground raising has taken place in the field to the west of Eye Brook, within the proposed development site. As a result we have reviewed our decision to accept the flood map challenge. We have established that our LiDAR data does show a small area (approximately 1500m2) may have been raised since our previous flight in 1999. Across the rest of the field, the ridge and furrow features are still evident. This small area of raised ground is on land which would have been removed from Flood Zone 3 even if it had not been raised given the surrounding ground levels. This does not therefore affect our decision to accept the flood map challenge. We have yet to formally change our flood maps.

If the applicants or agents wish to discuss this position with us, they should contact Rhiannon Swindale, 01536 385142. We would strongly recommend a meeting with all parties, including Tata representatives in relation to Eye Brook Reservoir.

Sequential and Exception test

The application site lies partially within Flood Zone 2 and 3, defined by the Environment Agency Flood Map as having a medium and high probability of flooding. Paragraph 101 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires decision-makers to steer new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding by applying a ‘Sequential Test’. In this instance no evidence has been provided to indicate that this test has been carried out.

Our objection can be overcome by providing evidence that the Sequential Test and where appropriate the Exception Test have been completed and demonstrates that there are no

36 reasonably available alternative sites in areas with a lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate for the type of development proposed. We should be re-consulted once this has been carried out.

Water quality

The Drainage Feasibility Study dated October 2013 submitted with the application states that a connection to Anglian Water Services (AWS), sewer and upgrades will be considered. Details of discussions with AWS about collection capacity and feasibility of upgrades have not been provided. It is the developer’s responsibility to demonstrate sufficient capacity within environmental infrastructure to serve the development. The NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to, or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution.

We look forward to receiving confirmation from AWS in the suggested informatives and conditions report, that there is sufficient infrastructure capacity for the connection, conveyance, treatment and disposal of quality and quantity of water within the proposed phasing of the proposed development.

Environment Agency Further Comments (15 Jan 14)

Caldecott Flood Risk

Further to our letter of 19 December 2013, we wish to make additional comments to explain the risk of flooding to this proposed development and to respond to the site allocation comments made by Drummond Robson. The site is at risk of flooding from Eye Brook and the Eyebrook Reservoir. Both scenarios are discussed in more detail below:

Eye Brook

Flooding from the Eye Brook itself is heavily influenced by the discharge of water from the reservoir. The reservoir outlets consist of a scour valve that can be regulated to provide baseflows of 0-3m3/s and approximately sixteen siphon units near the top of the dam wall which provide a significant increase in outflow from the reservoir for relatively small increases in water level. Therefore it is difficult to predict flood risk from Eye Brook downstream of the reservoir using traditional flood estimation techniques. The reservoir has been included in our flood model taking these features into account and flows in Eye Brook determined based on water levels in the reservoir.

We have applied a set of probabilities of these levels occurring in order to link this to our flood map but this is based on a single scenario and higher flows from the reservoir could occur depending on how the reservoir is operated as opposed to the amount of rainfall we have had and the catchment conditions.

The site has flooded on several occasions in recent history as a result of discharge from the reservoir, most notably in 1998. On this basis this site will remain in flood zone 2.

Eyebrook Reservoir

37 In addition to risk of flooding from Eye Brook, the reservoir itself presents a flood risk as there is the potential for breaching or overtopping which has not been considered in the FRA. Flooding in this situation could potentially happen quickly and the water would be deep and fast flowing. It is therefore paramount that the views of the Reservoir Supervising Engineer are sought in relation to fact that development proposed only 1.5km downstream of the dam.

Site Allocations – Drummond Robson Representation

We were consulted by Rutland County Council (RCC) on the proposed site allocations. At the Issues and Options stage of the LDF process we identified that SALL/CAL/01 was in Flood Zones 2 and 3. As such this site would have required additional work in terms of sequential and exception testing in line with PSS25 (which was current at the time of our response in 2011). We did not make any site specific comments about the flooding mechanisms for this site as it was not pursued by RCC.

We note that the planning application is supported by the submission from Drummond Robson which attempts to demonstrate that this site should have been considered further in the site allocations process. In Section 5.6.4, reference is made to the flood map challenge and it is stated that “the Environment Agency who now accept that the land proposed by the applicant and agent can be developed with 47 dwellings in flood zone 1 and essential infrastructure in flood zone 2”. Our position is that we have accepted the flood map challenge but we would stress that we are not the decision maker and have not stated that it would be appropriate for development.

Anglian Water

Section 1 – Assets Affected

There are assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreement within or close to the development boundary that may affect the layout of the site. Anglian Water would ask that the following text be included within your Notice should permission be granted.

“Anglian Water has assets close to or crossing this site or there are assets subject to an adoption agreement. Therefore the site layout should take this into account and accommodate those assets within either prospectively adoptable highways or public open space. If this is not practicable then the sewers will need to be diverted at the developers cost under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991 or, in the case of apparatus under an adoption agreement, liaise with the owners of the apparatus. It should be noted that the diversion works should normally be completed before development can commence.”

WASTEWATER SERVICES

The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Great Easton STW (LEICS) that will have available capacity for these flows.

The sewerage system at present has available capacity for these flows. If the developer wishes to connect to our sewerage network they should serve notice under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. We will then advise them of the most suitable point of connection.

The preferred method of surface water disposal would be to a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) with connection to sewer seen as the last option.

38 Building Regulations (part H) on Drainage and Waste Disposal for England includes a surface water drainage hierarchy, with infiltration on site as the preferred disposal option, followed by discharge to watercourse and then connection to a sewer.

The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application relevant to Anglian Water is unacceptable. We would therefore recommend that the applicant needs to consult with Anglian Water and the Environment Agency. We will request that the agreed strategy is reflected in the planning approval.

Suggested Planning Conditions

Anglian Water would therefore recommend the following planning condition (for Surface Water Disposal) if the Local Planning Authority is mindful to grant planning approval.

CONDITION

No drainage works shall commence until a surface water management strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No hard-standing areas to be constructed until the works have been carried out in accordance with the surface water strategy so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding

Caldecott Parish Council

Caldecott Parish Council has considered this application for an estate of 47 properties on the outskirts of Caldecott and strongly objects to it. At two Parish council meetings, large numbers of villagers (over 50) attended and vociferously voiced their concerns and objections. This letter includes first of all the Parish Council’s objections, followed by a review of the supporting documentation, much of which is riddled with error, bias and overlooks many important factors.

1. The proposed site in the application has previously been submitted for inclusion in the Rutland Local Plan, Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan (Preferred Options), but was rejected by Rutland County Council. There is no obvious reason for this position to have changed, and the document has not been amended to include the proposed site. The conclusion must therefore be that the proposed development is superfluous to Rutland’s needs.

2. Referring again to the preferred options document, the site is entirely outside the existing planned limit of development for the village. The proposal should therefore be rejected as it is not within the approved area. The Parish Council strongly feels that the existing limits of development for the village are adequate, and should not be altered to accommodate such proposals.

3. The proposals represent an increase in the size of the village of nearly 50%. The Parish Council feel this is entirely unacceptable and would massively change the character of the village. The design and layout of the plans shows a group of terraced blocks which are not in keeping with village in any way.

4. Caldecott Parish Council questions the need for this development within the village. There are two precedents for this, firstly a development of 6 houses for sale by the applicant, has not

39 seen all of the properties sold since their completion some years ago. Secondly, an application to demolish a property in Church Lane and build six small terraced properties was approved a number of years ago, but has never been started. This clearly indicates that there is no demand in the village for such developments.

5. The proposed development site is on a flood plain (as shown on Environment Agency maps) and there has been a recent instance of flooding of a large part of the site towards the Castle Inn (1998). Serious levels of flooding were also experienced in 1995.Considering that climate change is resulting in more, not less chances of flooding countrywide, it seems likely that the risk here also becomes greater. Flooding is generally caused by the need to lower the level of water in Eyebrook Reservoir. To this end, it is worth noting that water from the reservoir is only used in the Tata Steelworks in Corby (one of three sources). Since the closure of much of the steelworks less water is taken from the reservoir meaning it fills more easily during periods of wet weather, thus increasing the risk of flooding. Furthermore there are no longer any permanent staff at the reservoir to ensure the correct opening sequence for sluices on the Eyebrook to prevent major flooding of the proposed site.

6. The proposals will cover a large part of green belt land with concrete. There must be adequate and safe flood/rain water attenuation systems. These must also ensure that no pollutants (road salt, diesel spills etc.) are allowed to enter the watercourse of the Eyebrook and subsequently the river Welland.

7. The proposed site is in the Welland Valley, an area designated by Northamptonshire as an area of special landscape. This development would have a detrimental effect on this landscape. Similarly, the Eyebrook is a site of special scientific interest. Were this development to take place it would have a significant effect of wildlife. Caldecott Parish Council feels this is unacceptable

8. The Eyebrook with its numerous trees is a known bat feeding area and also a raptor habitat. The creation of a housing estate in this area would again have a significant and unacceptable effect on these species.

9. The plans seem to prevent access to organisations such as the environment agency for purposes of river maintenance and aquatic/wildlife surveys.

10. Caldecott Parish Council is extremely concerned about the increase in traffic that this proposed development will necessarily create. There will be a great increase in traffic coming onto the A6003 at the traffic lights in Caldecott and also further up the road in the sixty miles per hour zone outside the village. Also there is concern over traffic turning right into both parts of the estate. There seems to be no concern on the part of the applicant to make the area safe for road users. Councillors consider the safety of road users to be of paramount importance. The A6003 through Caldecott already has three “bottleneck” points. This development could create a major source of congestion during peak traffic periods.

11. Pedestrian safety is also of great concern to councillors; the footpath alongside the A6003 is regularly used by ramblers, dog walkers and customers of the Castle Inn, the increase in traffic and number of road entrances to be crossed will necessarily make the footpath more dangerous to users. The applicant appears to imply that, by making provision for an otherwise unnecessary footpath to the Castle Inn, the existing footpath will become too dangerous for pedestrians to use. Whether the owners of the Castle Inn want a footpath to emerge in the middle of their lawn does not appear to have been questioned.

40

12. Councillors note that there would be a necessary increase in the use of cars for residents in the proposed estate to get to all amenities, with the exception of a C of E church and public house. Developments of this nature should be where there are amenities with good transport services, not out in the country where there are neither of these things. The major amenity is of course employment, of which there is precious little in Caldecott. All residents in this proposed estate would have to travel to work, increasing the strain on transport services at peak usage times, or more likely road congestion.

13. The Parish Council questions whether there are adequate local education facilities to cope with the potential increased population of Caldecott. It is our understanding that the nearest senior school is now fully subscribed and the local first school is close to full capacity.

14. The village gas supply main was sized to cater for a certain level of uptake by residents, with a contingency level applied. It is a spur main, not part of a ring, and ends at the northern end of Caldecott. No effort seems to have been made to determine if there is capacity to cover an increase in gas consumption of perhaps more than 50%. The parish council feels it is crucially important to know that the gas supply to Caldecott is adequate to ensure no loss of pressure or supply to existing properties. This may represent a significant safety problem to residents.

15. Likewise for the water main that supplies the village, is this adequate for the 50% increase in the size of the village? No clear attempt has been made to ascertain this. Unlike gas which is compressible, water is not, it is important to assess the adequacy of supply as there may be a possibility of negative pressure occurrences and the ingress of ground water into drinking water mains through small leaks, which would endanger the health of residents through the purity of their water supply.

16. The parish council notes that the electricity supply for the village may not be adequate for the potential increase in the size of the village, also that the supply is on a spur, and cannot be supplied from a different source in the case of a power outage. This and many other points do not seem to have been considered by the applicant.

17. Caldecott does not have a sewage treatment plant. Sewage is treated at Great Easton and is pumped there from Caldecott pumping station. The parish council questions the capacity of the pumping station and the sewage works at Great Easton to cope with the increase caused by a development of this size.

18. Any thought of self-contained sewage treatment is out of the question. The site is in a flood plain, and all chances of pollution of the Eyebrook (an SSSI) and River Welland into which it flows must be avoided.

19. The Parish Council objects to the usage of green field land for this proposal. At present it is designated agricultural land. Brown field sites should be addressed and used to capacity before green belt is built upon. Indeed, there is currently a potential brown field site within the village.

20. The entire character of Caldecott would be irreparably damaged should this proposal go ahead. The first view visitors and tourists get when coming into Rutland from the south is of Caldecott. At the moment it is one of fields, a brook and a not unattractive small village. Under these proposals the view would be of a set of allotments with their intrinsic untidiness and clutter of home-made sheds, cold frames and fences made old pallets or the like, followed by an array

41 of prefabricated terraced houses, some with grass roofing. The parish council feels this is not the impression visitors to the county should suffer.

21. The proposed designs are not complementary to the existing houses in Caldecott. No consideration has been given to reducing the impact on the village.

22. The use of prefabricated structures is completely out of character, not just for the village of Caldecott, but for all of the surrounding villages, not just in Rutland, but also Northamptonshire and Leicestershire.

23. Any reference to social housing does not consider the obvious lack of facilities and amenities to fulfill people’s needs. Caldecott does not boast a wide range of facilities, the local town of Corby provides all of these and much social housing to boot, as it is a major development area due to double in size and population.

24. The provision of allotments, apart from spoiling the view of Rutland when coming into the county from the south will be of no benefit to the village, which already has seventeen large allotments on good soil by the B672 road. Of these, only five are rented out to residents of Caldecott, the rest are used by people from surrounding villages and Corby. Clearly, the provision of allotments would result only in an increase in traffic and the associated dangers it will cause, as they would have to be let to people from outside Caldecott or allowed to stand fallow and become an untidy mess and eyesore. 25. A substantial part of the site is of historic value as it is a ridge and furrow field. Some of this has been backfilled by the present owner, which may be in contravention of uncultivated land regulations. This point must be checked. The destruction of historic ridge and furrow land should be avoided.

26. The proposed development would have a significant impact on nearby properties, already developed by the applicant; some of the properties would overlook the existing properties and have a significant effect on their privacy. There would also be an unacceptable increase in traffic and pedestrian noise, resulting in a further deterioration of the privacy of the existing properties. The proposed development backs right up to the boundaries of the existing houses.

27. Caldecott Parish Council regards the inclusion of “nature roofs” on some of the proposed properties as a cynical apology for the large amount of natural habitat that would be lost if this proposal were allowed to proceed. Councillors also question the structural integrity of these properties given that they will hold a large weight of water, and in winter, snow, in addition to their intrinsic weight, which will increase over years with plant growth.

28. Councillors also note that a large number of gardens in the proposed development run down to the banks of the Eyebrook. This will inevitably have a detrimental effect on the aquatic and bank side habitat and is entirely unacceptable. The parish Council would also like to address omissions and inaccuracies in the documentation of the application as follows.

The Parish then goes on to critically analyse the submission, making extensive further comments on all aspects of the scheme. The full letter can be read on the web site.

Parish Closing Comments:

In conclusion, Caldecott Parish Council strongly objects to this application on many points. The majority of these being the effect on local residents regarding intrusion on privacy, noise etc.

42 The effect on the village as a whole, that the proposals do not complement the village in any way. The effect on the environment and use of green field land, road user and pedestrian safety and that the development is in a flood plain with historic occurrences of flooding over the vast majority of the site, there is also demonstrably, no need for the development.

The Parish Council would also point out that approval would set a terrible precedent as two other similarly ill-suited applications in Great Easton Parish have already been refused by Harborough District Council.

The Parish Council must also note the reaction of the electorate to this proposal. The vast majority of residents are firmly set against the proposals and councillors have been alarmed at the strength of their feeling. Separate meetings have been set up and there is talk of protest groups, a recent routine meeting of Caldecott Parish Council was heavily attended by residents opposed to the application, with only one supporter, the applicant himself.

LCC Ecology

We maintain our Holding Objection for this application.

Many thanks for sending through the ecology report for the above application (ESL, December 2013). The survey makes a good assessment of the habitats on site, given the time of year that it was completed. However, due to the seasonal constraints we consider it to be inadequate to support this planning application and further survey work should be completed, prior to the determination of this application.

Habitat Survey – Section 1.3 of the report clearly states that ‘early December is not an ideal time for undertaking an ecological survey…’. We are in agreement with this statement as it follows the national guidelines (Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey, JNCC, 2010) which require surveys to be completed between late March and mid October. Section 5.1.3 of the report recommends further botanical survey and we would request this detail, prior to the determination of the application. The survey identified some areas of good botanical diversity (considering the season) and these must be further surveyed in order for us to adequately assess the impact of the development, should it be permitted.

Great Crested Newts – The report identifies one pond within the immediate vicinity of the application site, across the A6003 road. It is considered in the report that the road provides significant barrier to prevent newts crossing to the current application site. However, our maps indicate that the road may form a bridge over the existing dismantled railway, which may provide connectivity to the site. This should be considered and we would recommend that an HSI survey of the pond is completed, with further surveys if necessary, in accordance with the Leicestershire and Rutland GCN Protocol. Additionally, our maps identify another pond within 500 metres of the application site (grid ref 486690 293080). This pond should also be considered for its potential to support great crested newts, if it is still present.

Otters – We note that evidence of otters was recorded by the ecologist along the Eye Brook. It is therefore essential that the Eye Brook has a significant buffer between the banks and the development (at least 10 metres) to allow for the passage of this species through the site. This buffer must not be included in gardens, as there is no long-term security for the retention and maintenance of the corridor, and the installation of fences etc would break the connectivity.

43 Additionally, otters are not always welcome in gardens, particularly where residents try to maintain ornamental fish ponds!

Badgers – A badger sett was identified close to the site boundary. At this stage, no further survey work is required. However, updated surveys will be required in the future and prior to the submission of a full planning application.

Crayfish – Section 4.6.1 of the ecology report states that the ‘Eye Brook looks potentially suitable habitat for white-clawed crayfish there have been no records for the general area for many years’. Section 5.5 then states ‘they are thought highly unlikely to be present’. There are still populations of White Clawed Crayfish within the county and, unless the site has recently (within the last 2 years) been surveyed with negative results, a full crayfish survey must be completed and submitted in support of the application.

Birds – We note that the survey states ‘no Schedule 1 bird species are thought likely to use the site for nesting’. Local residents have indicated that Kingfisher and Barn Owl have been seen on or very close to the site. Is there any potential nesting habitat for these species on site? If so, surveys should be completed at the optimum time of year.

Additionally, we maintain our objection based on the proposed layout for the development. As discussed in my previous email, existing ecological features on and bordering (water courses, hedgerows, dismantled railway lines etc.) the site must be protected with at least a 10 metre buffer from any development or plot boundaries. The proposed gardens of the two storey houses are immediately adjacent to the Eye Brook with no buffer and this is unacceptable.

We would therefore recommend that the application is either withdrawn or refused as insufficient information has been submitted to adequately assess the impact of the development on the current biodiversity on site.

LCC Archaeology

The Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER) notes that the site lies within and adjacent to the medieval and post-medieval historic settlement core of Caldecott (HER ref.: MLE10185). To the south west of the Eye Brook, the proposals overlie well preserved earthwork remains of the „open field system surrounding the village; the latter forms part of a spread of surviving ridge and furrow earthworks surrounding the village and extending into the adjacent parish of Great Easton. The open field systems of Rutland and the adjacent counties appear to have come into being around the 9th-10th century AD, associated with the development of nucleated villages such as Caldecott. The present area of surviving ridge and furrow presents at best a fragment of its former extent, truncated most especially as a result of the extension of arable cultivation since WW2. The HER also notes the presence of significant multi-period archaeological remains to the west of the application area (MLE1566-1571, 1573 & 6141). These appear to suggest the presence of prehistoric, Roman and Anglo-Saxon activity overlooking the Eye and the present site of Caldecott. The presence of similar archaeological evidence within the application is a distinct possibility, with the added bonus of possible palaeo-environmental remains associated with the Eye.

The preservation of archaeological remains is, of course, a “material consideration” in the determination of planning applications. The proposals include operations that may destroy any

44 buried archaeological remains that are present, but the archaeological implications cannot be adequately assessed on the basis of the currently available information. Since it is possible that archaeological remains may be adversely affected by this proposal, we recommend that the planning authority defer determination of the application and request that the applicant complete an Archaeological Impact Assessment of the proposals.

This will require provision by the applicant for:

1. An Archaeological desk-based Assessment 2. A field evaluation, by appropriate techniques including trial trenching, if identified necessary in the assessment, to identify and locate any archaeological remains of significance, and propose suitable treatment to avoid or minimise damage by the development. Further design, civil engineering or archaeological work may then be necessary to achieve this.

This information should be submitted to the planning authority before any decision on the planning application is taken, so that an informed decision can be made, and the application refused or modified in the light of the results as appropriate. Without the information that such an Assessment would provide, it would be difficult in our view for the planning authority to assess the archaeological impact of the proposals.

Should the applicant be unwilling to supply this information as part of the application, it may be appropriate to consider directing the applicant to supply the information or to refuse the application. These recommendations conform to the advice provided in DCLG National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 12, paras. 128, 129 & 135).

Should you be minded to refuse this application on other grounds, the lack of archaeological information should be an additional reason for refusal, to ensure the archaeological potential is given future consideration.

45