29-Apr-2010 Applicant E Bowman

AGENDA ITEM

Development Control Committee 20 July 2010

JJ1 S10/0364/MJRR Target Decision Date: 29-Apr-2010

Applicant E Bowman & Sons Limited E Bowman & Sons Ltd, Cherryholt Road, Stamford, Stamford, Lincolnshire, PE9 2ER Agent Wythe Holland Partnership LLP Unit 6, Messenger Centre, Crown Lane, Tinwell, Stamford, PE9 3UF Proposal Erection of 45 dwellings (Approval of Reserved Matters) Location Land And Premises Of E Bowman & Sons, Cherryholt Road, Stamford App Type Major RM (Residential) Parish(es) Stamford

REPORT

Members will recall that this application was considered at your last meeting on 22 June 2010. Members had concerns about the potential impact of the development, particularly on the amenities of some local residents. The application was deferred to allow for negotiations to be held with the developer with the aim of securing an amended scheme to address those concerns. The applicants’ agent however has advised that, “after due consideration we wish the above application to be presented to the next Planning Committee (sic) meeting in July 2010 without amendment”. The agent further advises that, “we were extremely disappointed with the behaviour of some Councillors and to this end will present a letter in support of the application.” The letter referred to is attached as an appendix to this report.

The following report is identical to that presented to the last meeting amended to incorporate some minor amendments arising at the late item stage.

Members are reminded that there is a valid, extant outline planning permission in place for the residential development of this site. This was granted in March 2008 and was the subject of a Section 106 agreement. The application under consideration is for the approval of reserved matters. It is therefore not possible, in law, to consider, or reconsider, matters of principle such as the suitability of the site for residential development, or flooding issues, or the terms of the agreed Section 106 agreement.

Application Category

This application is categorised as a major application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application has been reported to the Development Control Committee as it is a major application

The Proposal

This is a reserved matters application for residential development of land off Cherryholt Road, Stamford. The application proposes the erection of 45 dwellings comprising a mix of two and three storey town houses and flats.

The proposed development would have two main access points onto Cherryholt Road, one located towards the northern end of the site and one located at the southern end.

The applicants have suggested a limited palette of building materials and window styles to provide an overall unity to the scheme. The walls are proposed to be natural stone, lime rendered or brick with featured areas of cut stone blocks. The roofs are either artificial Collyweston slate or pantile.

The application site and its surroundings

The application site measures approximately 0.74ha and is currently a stonemasons premises located on the eastern side of Cherryholt Road.

The site is located in a mixed use area with some residential, commercial and industrial premises and an electricity substation on the opposite side of the road. There are further commercial premises at the southern end of the road, adjacent to the river. To the south and east of the site lies pasture land. To the north, on higher ground, are residential properties, one fronting Cherryholt Road and the remainder on Priory Road.

The site currently comprises a mixture of office and industrial style buildings constructed from a variety of materials including brick, timber and concrete blockwork. The unbuilt areas of the site are used for storage and vehicular parking and manoeuvring.

Site History

In March 2008 outline planning permission S06/0439 was granted for the residential development of the site. The application was approved subject to a Section 106 Agreement seeking contributions towards affordable housing provision, open space and highways contributions.

Representations Received

Environment Agency: No objections

Environmental Protection: No objections subject to contamination report being submitted in accordance with condition 5 of the outline planning consent.

Stamford Town Council: “The Committee is gravely concerned that Policy EN1 may be compromised as a result of the traffic impact to the site junction which is narrow and exceptionally busy road. In view of this consultation with LCC Highways Authority is requested. It is recognised that the site is suitable for residential development but the proposed volume is excessive and it is strongly considered a reduction to 35 or less mixed dwellings would be preferable. It is considered there would be major impact on residents on Priory Road and neighbours’ amenities should not be compromised.

It is noted that there appears no Sec. 106 agreement in Place. It is requested that any money from such agreement is used for the construction of a highway, footway and cycle path across both the river Welland and the railway, which will allow access from Barnack Road and Cherryholt Road to relieve traffic pressure”.

English Heritage: No objections

Leisure Officer: No objections to the proposed open space provision.

Highway Authority: No objections subject to the recommended conditions being imposed. The Local Highway Engineer has advised that the £30,000 S106 contributions from the outline application will be used to provide parking restrictions along Cherryholt Road.

Representations as a result of publicity

The application has been advertised in accordance with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement and 11 letters of objection have been received. The comments can be summarised as follows:

1. Concerns re access and parking provision along Cherryholt Road. 2. Concerns relating to increase in traffic to area. 3. Loss of privacy / overlooking. 4. Concerns relating to noise and disruption during construction. 5. Concerns that additional on-street parking would have a detrimental impact on the operation of nearby local businesses. 6. Dominant and oppressive impact on existing dwellings in Cherryholt Road. 7. Loss of light / overshadowing. 8. This area is mainly industrial and should remain so. 9. Double yellow lines should be put along Cherryholt Road.

Policy Considerations

National Planning Guidance

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment

PPG 13 – Transport PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control PPG25 – Development and Flood Risk

East Midlands Regional Plan 2009

Policy 1 Regional Core Objectives Policy 2 Promoting Better Design Policy 26 Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage Policy 27 Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment Policy 48 Regional Car Parking Standards

Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan

Policy EN1 Protection and Enhancement of the Environment Policy H6 Housing Development Policy E11 – Safeguarding Industrial Sites

Key Issues

Impact on residential amenity Impact on highway safety Parking provision Impact on the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area

Officer Evaluation

Outline planning consent was granted for the redevelopment of the application site for residential development in March 2008. The principle of residential development of this areas has therefore already been accepted. This application seeks reserved matters approval for the specific details relating to access, appearance, layout, scale, and landscaping.

The site currently has three access points on to Cherryholt Road. The application proposes to have one access serving the main courtyard area located towards the north of the site and a second access towards the southern end of the site. 74 off-street parking spaces would be provided. The local highway authority has been consulted and raised no objections to the access and parking arrangements. In addition to the suggested conditions the developer is required under the existing S106 Agreement to pay £30,000 towards highway improvements in the area. The highway authority has advised that these improvements will include parking restrictions being put in along Cherryholt Road in order to improve access in the area.

The proposed development has been set out such that the residential amenities of the existing properties will be preserved and there will not be any significant loss of privacy or overlooking. The proposed separation distances will also ensure that the buildings do not appear overbearing or out of scale and character with other properties in the area. The developer has also made use of the levels changes across the site in order to further

4 minimise the impact of the development. Where the properties on Priory Road back on to the proposed development two storey dwellings are proposed in order to reduce the impact of the development.

The proposed three storey block of flats located towards the southern end of the site (units 35-40) will have some impact on the residential amenities of the proposed occupiers of plots 41, 42 and 33, 34 due to its overall scale and the close proximity of the adjacent proposed dwellings. The block of flats has been designed to be a focal point at the end of the site and form an end stop adjacent to the open space provision. Although the block of flats will be a dominating feature at the southern end of the site it is considered that anyone purchasing one of the units will be aware of the situation. Furthermore the adjacent affected dwellings would not be particularly overshadowed as the gardens would get most of the midday sun given the site layout. The arrangement is therefore on balance acceptable considered to be acceptable.

Most of the proposed development comprises a mix of two and three storey town houses and flats. The proposed dwellings have a traditional appearance which is reflective of other buildings in the surrounding area. A mixture of natural stone and brick is proposed for the elevations with either artificial Collyweston slate or pantiles for the roofing materials. Overall it is considered that the development would preserve and enhance the appearance of the area and the adjacent Conservation Area.

The application has been accompanied by an Flood Risk Assessment and the Environment Agency has raised no objections to the proposed arrangements.

Crime and Disorder Implications

It is considered that the proposed development would raise no significant crime and disorder implications.

Human Rights Implications

Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

Conclusion

It is considered that the proposed development complies with the requirements of all relevant policies and the application is therefore recommended for approval.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL

This is a reserved matters application for the erection of 45 dwellings comprising a mixture of two and three storey town houses and flats. It is considered that the proposal is in

5 accordance with national and local policies as set out in Planning Policy Statement PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), PPS3 (Housing), PPS5 (Planning and the Historic Environment), PPG13 (Transport), PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control) and PPG25 (Development and Flood Risk). Policies 1, 2, 26, 27 and 48 of the East Midlands Regional Plan and Saved Policies H6, EN1 and E11 of the South Kesteven Local Plan. Concerns have been raised in relation to highway safety. The Local Highway Authority has been consulted and raised no objections to the development subject to the attached conditions. A Section 106 contribution of £30,000 was previously required on the substantive outline permission S06/0439 which will go towards the provision of double yellow lines along Cherryholt Road.

With regard to residential amenity it is considered that the scheme respects the residential amenities of the residents of all existing properties and will ensure that there is no significant loss of privacy or overshadowing issues.

The development is therefore considered to be appropriate for this location.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. This permission relates solely to the application as amended by (to follow) received on…………

Reason: The earlier submitted drawings were unacceptable because………….

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the building(s) shall be carried out without Planning Permission obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority considers that further development could cause detriment to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties or to the character of the area, and for this reason would wish to control any future development in accordance with Saved Policies H6 and H7 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no window, dormer window or rooflight other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed without planning permission having first been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties in accordance with Saved Policies H6 and H7 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

4. The kitchen window(s)in the eastern and western elevations of units 35 to 50 (inclusive) shall not be glazed otherwise than with obscured glass and fixed shut

and thereafter permanently retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining properties in accordance with Saved Policies H6 and H7 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

5. No development shall take place until samples of the materials (including colour of render, paintwork or colourwash) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

6. No development shall take place until a scheme for the storage of refuse and recycling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in full as approved prior to the first occupation of any part and the refuse and recycling storage facilities shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory facilities for the storage of refuse in accordance with Saved Policies H6 and H7 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

7. The rooflights in the approved development shall be of 'conservation style' fitted flush with the adjoining roof surface and shall not project above the plane of the roof.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

8. Before development commences on site further details relating to the vehicular access to the public highway, including materials, specification of works and construction method shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The approved details shall be implemented on site before the development is first brought into use and thereafter retained at all times.

Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site.

9. Prior to any of the buildings being occupied, the private drive shall be completed in accordance with the details shown on drawing number 1587-21D dated ***.

Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site.

10. No development shall take place before the detailed design of the arrangements for surface water drainage has been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied before it is connected to the agreed drainage

system.

Reason: To ensure that surface water run-off from the development will not adversely affect, by reason of flooding, the safety, amenity and commerce of the residents of this site.

11. No dwellings (or other development as specified) shall be commenced before the first 25 metres of the estate road from its junction with the public highway, including visibility splays, as shown on drawing 1587-21D dated *** has been completed.

Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site and to enable calling vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway of Cherry Holt Road.

12. Before any dwelling is commenced, all of that part of the estate road and associated footways that forms the junction with the main road and which will be constructed within the limits of the existing highway, shall be laid out and constructed to finished surface levels in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site.

Note(s) to Applicant 1. Where private drives are proposed as part of any development you should be aware of the requirements laid down in the Lincolnshire Design Guide for Residential Areas. 2. Prior to the submission of details for any access works within the public highway you must contact the Divisional Highways Manager on 01522 782070 for application, specification and construction information. 3. This road is a private road and will not be adopted as a Highway Maintainable at the Public Expense (under the Highways Act 1980) and as such the liability for maintenance rests with the frontagers. 4. You are advised to contact Lincolnshire County Council as the local highway authority for approval of the road construction specification and programme before carrying out any works on site.

* * * * * *

JJ2 S10/0429/OUT Target Decision Date: 15-Apr-2010

Applicant Mr & Mrs A Field 2, The Grove, Hanthorpe, Bourne, PE100RD Agent Mike Sibthorp Planning Logan House, Lime Grove, Grantham, NG319JD Proposal Erection of 2 dwellings (outline) with consideration given to access and layout Location 2, The Grove, Hanthorpe, Bourne, PE100RD App Type Outline Planning Consent Parish(es) Morton

REPORT

Application Category

This application is categorised as a minor application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

This application has been reported to the development control committee at the request of Cllr Cartwright due to concerns about highway safety.

The Proposal

This is an outline application for the erection of two dwellings. A one and a half storey dwelling and a single storey dwelling. Issues relating to access and layout are to be considered with all other matters reserved for subsequent approval.

The application site and its surroundings

The application site is located in the settlement of Hanthorpe which is located approximately 3km north of Bourne. The application site is located towards the western end of the village and comprises part of the rear garden of No.2 The Grove Hanthorpe. The area is residential in character and with a mixture of housing types and ages, including some recent developments.

Site History

None

Representations Received

Local Highway Authority: No objections subjection to conditions.

Arboriculturalist: Comments awaited.

Assets and Facilities: Any subsequent application will require full design details for drainage, especially regarding the close proximity to the culverted watercourse.

Morton & Hanthorpe Parish Council: The Parish Council has considered this application and wishes to object on the following grounds – The siting of the house at the roadside, in conjunction with a very narrow road at this point, makes the intended access very limited and unsafe. All recently built properties in Edenham Road have been erected behind the modern building line. Any property on this piece of land should conform to this line. The Council consider that this is only suitable for one dwelling.

Archaeology: it is considered that the site offers a potential for archaeological remains to be encountered during development. This consideration is based on the extent and type of remains recorded in the close vicinity. It is recommended that an archaeologist be contracted to carry out a watching brief during the groundworks stages of the development in order to record and retrieve any archaeological remains which are disturbed.

Representations as a result of publicity

The application has been advertised in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement and 5 letters of objection have been received. The comments are summarised below:

1. Concerns relating to highway safety and visibility if a property is built on the back edge of the highway. 2. The proposed building to the front of the site should be set back to match the existing properties on the road frontage. 3. When numbers 2, 4 and 6 Edenham Road and Barley Court were built a footpath was installed at the developers cost. This is a more responsible approach. 4. Concerns relating to highway safety and HGV’s which use Edenham Road. 5. Concerns relating to the accuracy of the plans when showing the driveways to adjacent developments. 6. Any new property should be built along the same building line as other properties built in the last 50 years.

Policy Considerations

National Policy

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1): Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5): Planning for the Historic Environment

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13): Transport

East Midlands Regional Plan 2009

Policy 1 Regional Core Objectives Policy 2 Promoting Better Design Policy 26 Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage Policy 48 Regional Car Parking Standards

South Kesteven Core Strategy

Policy SP1 Spatial Strategy Policy SP2 Sustainable Communities Policy SP3 Sustainable Integrated Transport Policy EN1 Protection and enhancement of the character of the district Policy EN2 Reducing the risk of flooding

Key Issues

Visual Impact Planning Policy Impact on residential Amenity Highway Safety

Officer Evaluation

This is an outline application for the erection of two dwellings on land to the rear of No. 2 The Grove Hanthorpe. Items relating to layout and access are to be considered with all other matters reserved for subsequent approval.

The application site is garden land and following the Governments recent amendments to the definition of ‘previously developed land’ as defined by PPS3 the site can no longer be considered ‘previously developed’. The site is however located within the built confines of the village of Hanthorpe and is surrounded by residential development. The proposed development would not therefore have a detrimental urbanising impact and would not extend the built form of the settlement out into the open countryside. The proposed development of a single storey dwelling to the rear or the site and a one and a half storey dwelling to the front of the site would respect the character and appearance of this part of the village.

Policy SP2 of the Core Strategy identifies the villages of Morton and Hanthorpe as sustainable settlements. This policy seeks to guide new development to sustainable locations where the villages have the local facilities to ensure that residents are not totally dependant on the motor car. This reflects the national policy guidance set out in PPS3 which seeks to locate development in sustainable locations with the necessary facilities to support housing development. Although the application site cannot be considered as ‘previously developed land’ under the revised definition set out in PPS3 the site is clearly located in a suitable location for housing development and the use of the site for housing

11 would comply with the general policy guidance in PPS3 which seeks to make the most efficient use of land.

Concern has been raised about developing a dwelling on the road frontage. The majority of the issues raised in relation to this relate to highway safety and the existing buildings been set further back from the highway edge. Adjacent to the site is the existing property No.2 The Grove which has a side gable which directly abuts Edenham Road and then to the east of the application site N0.16 Edenham Road also abuts the highway. It is therefore considered that the location of a dwelling directly adjacent to the back edge of the highway would not appear out of character as there are other examples directly adjacent to the site. The local highway authority has also been consulted and they have raised no objections to the proposed access arrangements. It is therefore considered that the proposals will no be detrimental to highway safety.

Although this is an outline application with appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for subsequent approval it is considered that there will be adequate separation distances and amenity space to ensure that the residential amenities of the existing and proposed dwellings are protected.

Crime and Disorder Implications

The proposed development does not raise any significant crime and disorder implications.

Human Rights Implications

Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

Conclusion

The proposed development complies with the policies of the development plan and is accordingly recommended for approval.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL

The application site is allocated for residential development and the proposed development is considered to reflect the scale and character of the surrounding development. The proposed development is in accordance with national and local policies as set out in Planning Policy Statements PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS3 - Housing, PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment, PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, PPG13 - Transport and PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, Policies, 1, 2,26 and 48 of the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009; Policies SP1, SP3, EN1 and EN2 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy and Policy H3 in the Saved

Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan. Although concerns have been raised in relation to the design, scale, density, highway safety and residential amenity it is considered that the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impacts and is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of the above policies.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or two years from the approval of the last of the reserved matters, whichever is the later.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Details of the reserved matters set out below shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval within three years from the date of this permission:

(a) scale; (b) appearance; and (c) landscaping.

Approval of all reserved matters shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3. No development shall take place within the application site until the applicant has secured the maintenance of an on-site watching brief by a suitably qualified and experienced archaeologist during construction work in accordance with written details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In the event of important archaeological features or remains being discovered which are beyond the scope of the watching brief to excavate and record and which require a fuller rescue excavation, then construction work shall cease until the applicant has secured the implementation of a further programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to provide a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

4. The minimum width of the access shall be 4.1 metres.

Reason: To ensure safe access to the site and each dwelling/building in the interests of residential amenity, convenience and safety.

5. Before the access is brought into use all obstructions exceeding 0.6 metres high shall be cleared from the land between the highway boundary and the vision splays

indicated on drawing number MSP.567/001 dated 18 February 2010 and thereafter the visibility splay shall be kept free of obstacles exceeding 0.6 metres in height.

Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site.

6. When application is made for approval of the 'Reserved Matters', that application shall show details of arrangements to enable a motor vehicle to turn within the site so that it can enter and leave the highway in a forward gear.

Reason: To allow vehicles to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

7. No development shall take place before the details design of the arrangements for surface water drainage has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority and no building shall be occupied before it is connected to the agreed drainage system.

Reason: To ensure that surface water run-off from the development will not adversely affect, by reason of flooding, the safety, amenity and commerce of the residents of the site.

8. Before any development is commenced, details including location and means of disposal of surface water and foul drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the district planning authority, and no building shall be occupied until the drainage works have been provided.

Reason: To ensure that the site has adequate drainage and does not increase the potential risk of flooding in the area.

9. Any subsequent reserved matters applications shall comply with the scale parameters set out on Drawing No. MSP.567/001 unless otherwise agreed by the district planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that the reserved matters applications reflect the scales of the proposals envisaged at the outline application stage.

* * * * * *

JJ3 S10/0744/FULL Target Decision Date: 02-Jun-2010

Applicant Mr B Maynard, Stamford Homes Ltd Ashurst, Southgate Park, Bakewell Road, Orton Southgate, Peterborough, PE2 6YS Agent LMC Architect 11, Main Street, Lyddington, Rutland, LE15 9LR Proposal Erection of three dwellings and associated works amendment to previously approved layout (S09/1659) (plots 21-22a) Location Former Quarry Farm Brickworks, Little Casterton Road, Stamford App Type Full Planning Permission Parish(es) Stamford

REPORT

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application has been referred to the Development Control Committee at the request of Cllr Jalili.

The Proposal

The proposal is for the erection of three dwellings and associated works (amendments to previously approved layout (S09/1659) (Plots 21-22a)).

The application site and its surroundings

The site, which is located on the northern edge of the settlement of Stamford, was part of the former Williamson Cliff brickworks situated to the north of and Haddon Road and West of Little Casterton Road.

There are existing residential properties to the south, south-east, south-west and east.

The site forms part of a larger residential scheme extending from Belvoir Close to Little Casterton Road.

Representations Received

Local Highway Authority: No objections made.

Community Archaeologist - No archaeological intervention required

Stamford Town Council – No objections subject to neighbours amenities being respected. They do raise an issue regarding the S106 and how the additional dwelling will impact on the affordable housing element of the agreement.

Environment Agency – No objections subject to the development proceeding in accordance with the previously approved surface water management scheme covered under S05/1552

Police Liaison Officer – Requests that due regard be given to lighting, landscaping and perimeter fencing.

Representations as a result of publicity

The application was advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement with the closing date for third party objections being 17 May 2010.

As a result of the consultation period 2 objections were received. A summary of the material planning considerations raised in the objections were;

1. Additional car parking

2. Increase in levels of traffic

Site History

S01/1449 – Outline planning for residential development with associated works – Approved on 26 September 2003

S05/0309 – Reserved Matters for the erection of 64 dwellings – refuse on 27 May 2005

S05/1552 – Reserved Matters for the erection of 89 dwellings – approved on 13 February 2006.

S09/1659 – Full planning for the erection of 59 dwellings – approved on 27 October 2009

Policy Considerations

National Policy

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS 3 – Housing

PPG13 – Transport

PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk

Regional Policy

EAST MIDLANDS REGIONAL PLAN 2009

Policy 1 – Regional Core Objectives

Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design

Saved Policies of South Kesteven Local Plan

Policy H6 (a,i,ii,iii,iv,v)

Policy EN1(i,ii,iii,v,vii,vii)

Key Issues

Layout and design

The proposal is for amendments to plots 21 and 22, which include a further detached dwelling and housetype revisions, for a previously approved scheme for 59 dwellings. The road layout, open space provision and the affordable housing plots are not the subject of this application as they have also been previously approved; however, the S106 legal agreement has been varied to take into account of the revised plots for this application.

The revised designs of the dwellings are identical to the house types found on plots 20 and 23, which are also two-storey in height. The amendments are as a result of changes in the current housing market..

It is acknowledged that a further dwelling is to be introduced in this location; however, it is considered that the layout of the immediate and surrounding area will not be adversely affected.

Impact on residential amenity

It is considered that the layout of the plots and the orientation of the dwellings ensure that there is adequate private amenity space and that future occupiers will enjoy a good level of privacy.

Crime and Disorder Implications

The site appears to raise no concerns relating to crime and disorder.

Human Rights Implications

It should be noted that Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) will be taken into account in determining this application

It is considered that no other relevant Article will be breached.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL In the opinion of the local planning authority it is considered that the proposed amendments to the original scheme, which included the revision of two house types and the introduction of a further dwelling, are acceptable in terms of general layout and design.

It is further considered that the new house types and new dwelling will not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the occupants of the existing dwellings surrounding the site or future occupiers of the proposed new properties.

It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with national and local policies as set out in Planning Policy Statements 1 and 3 (PPS1 and PPS3), Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13), Policies 1 and 2 of the Regional Plan and Saved Policies H6 (i, ii, iii, iv, v) and EN1 (i, iii, iv, v, vi, vii) of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

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

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

2. The material used in the construction of the development shall proceed fully in accordance with the submitted schedule as on drawing 228-SK-05 received on 26 March 2010.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the interests of visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved South Kesteven District Local Plan.

Note(s) to Applicant 1. This site is within 50m of a Land Contamination Concern. Please contact Environmental Protection Services on 01476 406300 for further information. 2. You are advised that the application site falls within an area affected by Radon. You are asked to contact the Council’s Building Control section (telephone number 01476 406187) to ascertain the level of protection required and whether a geological assessment is necessary. 3. Attention is drawn to the attached comments of the Lincolnshire Police Civic Prevention Design Adviser.

* * * * * *

JJ4 S10/0745/FULL Target Decision Date: 02-Jun-2010

Applicant Mr B Maynard, Stamford Homes Ltd Ashurst, Southgate Park, Bakewell Road, Orton Southgate, Peterborough, PE2 6YS Agent LMC Architect 11, Main Street, Lyddington, Rutland, LE15 9LR Proposal Erection of four dwellings and associated works (Plot substitution 46-49 of application S09/1659) Location Former Quarry Farm Brickworks, Little Casterton Road, Stamford App Type Full Planning Permission Parish(es) Stamford

REPORT

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application has been referred to the Development Control Committee at the request of Cllr Jalili.

The Proposal

The proposal is for the erection of four dwellings and associated works (substitution of house types for plots 46-49 of S09/1659)

The application site and its surroundings

There are existing residential properties to the south with a number of new dwellings being constructed to the west, east and north east.

The site forms part of a larger residential scheme extending from Belvoir Close to Little Casterton Road.

Representations Received

Local Highway Authority: No objections made.

Community Archaeologist - No archaeological intervention required

Environment Agency – No objections subject to the development proceeding in accordance with the previously approved surface water management scheme covered under S05/1552

Police Liaison Officer – Requests that due regard be given to lighting, landscaping and perimeter fencing as per previous response.

Representations as a result of publicity

The application was advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement with the closing date for third party objections being 17 May 2010.

As a result of the consultation period 1 objection was received. A summary of the material planning considerations raised in the objections were;

1. Visually intrusive 2. Sense of enclosure 3. Pedestrian rat run will be created

Site History

S01/1449 – Outline planning for residential development with associated works – Approved on 26 September 2003

S05/0309 – Reserved Matters for the erection of 64 dwellings – refuse on 27 May 2005

S05/1552 – Reserved Matters for the erection of 89 dwellings – approved on 13 February 2006.

S09/1659 – Full planning for the erection of 59 dwellings – approved on 27 October 2009

Policy Considerations

National Policy

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS 3 – Housing

PPG13 – Transport

PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk

Regional Policy

EAST MIDLANDS REGIONAL PLAN 2009

Policy 1 – Regional Core Objectives

Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design

SOUTH KESTEVEN CORE STRATEGY 2010

Policy EN1

Key Issues

Layout and design

The proposal is for a substitution of house types for plots 45-49 of a previously approved scheme for 59 dwellings. The road layout, open space provision and the affordable housing plots are not the subject of this application as they have also been previously approved. It should be noted that the S106 legal agreement has been varied to take into account of the revised plots for this application.

The revised design for the houses see an increase in the height of the ridge by over 1.5m to accommodate a third storey that will result in contrasting roof pitches between plots 49 and 50. The proposed changes to the footprint of the new dwellings will be revised from a row of four town houses and a pair of semi detached houses to two rows of three town houses. Plot no. 50, the closest dwelling to the southern boundary, remains unchanged.

Notwithstanding that the proposal is for a substitution of house types only, it is considered that the introduction of three-storey dwellings in this location, in particular the dwelling at plot no. 49, will result in a poor visual relationship between the house types to the detriment of the general setting and layout of the development. This appearance will also appear incongruous within the streetscene and from other public vantage points.

Impact on residential amenity

The proposed three-storey dwelling at plot 49 will have a separation distance of 12m between its southern elevation and the north elevation of no.24 Haddon Road. Whilst this dwelling may a limited degree of dominance for the occupants of no.24 it is considered that the proposed increase in height, when coupled with the stark contrast in design and scale with plot no. 50, will be somewhat visually intrusive causing undue harm for the occupants of no. 24.

Crime and Disorder Implications

The site appears to raise no concerns relating to crime and disorder.

Human Rights Implications

It should be noted that Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) will be taken into account in determining this application

It is considered that no other relevant Article will be breached.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Refused for the following reason(s):

1. In the opinion of the local planning authority it is considered that the proposed substitution of house types, which introduced three-storey dwellings to replace two- storey dwellings, will result in a design that is both out of scale and incongruous to the surrounding built form to the detriment of its setting and the street scene.

It is further considered that the new house types, in particular plot no. 49, will cause undue harm to the private amenities of the occupants of no. 24 Haddon Road by way of visual intrusion.

It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to national and local policies as set out in Planning Policy Statements 1 and 3 (PPPS1 and PPS3), Policies 1 and 2 of the Regional Plan and Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).

* * * * * *

JJ5 S10/0776/FULL Target Decision Date: 02-Jun-2010

Applicant Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited C/o Agent Agent Andrew Astin, Indigo Planning Ltd 36, Park Row, Leeds, LS1 5JL Proposal Extension to existing foodstore, including reconfiguration of car park Location J Sainsbury Plc, Exeter Street, Bourne, Lincolnshire, PE10 9NJ App Type Full Planning Permission Parish(es) Bourne

REPORT

Application Category

This application is categorised as a minor application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application has been referred to the development control committee as it is considered to be locally significant and at the request of the Lead Professional.

The Proposal

The proposed development consists of three key elements:

The formation of a new first floor to the north east corner of the store to relocate the domestic area and allow for the extension of the sale area internally.

Single storey bulk stock extension into the service yard area.

Alterations to the existing surface car park to maximise capacity and to resolve existing traffic movement issues.

The proposed first floor extension will increase the height of the rear of the store from 7.253m to 9.1m. The extension would increase the total gross and net floorspace proposed by 615 sq m and 536 sq m respectively, this will primarily be used for additional convenience goods floorspace.

The existing shop front facilities, including the customer café, toilets and cash machine will be refurbished and rebranded.

The proposed alterations also result in an overall increase of 15 parking spaces within the existing car park including 3 additional disabled spaces and the provision of 15 bicycle

23 parking hoops at the front of the shop, in order to encourage the use of sustainable methods of transport. The proposed development will not increase deliveries to the store.

In addition, improvements are proposed to the access/egress junction from Exeter Street involving the first aisle of the car park converted to one-way only, to prevent vehicles turning right into this aisle upon entry to the car park.

The proposed extension is required in order to improve facilities to address issues of overtrading at the store and to improve the retail offer and the range of goods available for customers as well as providing a more attractive and customer friendly store layout.

The application site and its surroundings

The application site comprises a large food supermarket within a residential area to the west of Bourne Town Centre. The supermarket fronts Exeter Street and backs onto properties within Tarragon Way, Thyme Avenue, Aveland Close and Tin Lane. A customer car parking area lies to the south of the supermarket building with access off Exeter Street. The service area is located on the north side with access also off Exeter Street via a short service lane in shared use with a veterinary surgery. The service yard is gated, and enclosed with high brick walls. Residential properties lie close to the service yard boundary and directly opposite the service lane junction with Exeter Street.

Site History

SK.96/1069 – In January 1998 outline planning permission was granted for the erection of a foodstore and associated works.

S98/0979 – In December 1998 reserved matters approval was granted for the erection of a foodstore and associated works.

S99/0520 – In June 1999 planning permission was granted for the erection of three covered trolley bays.

S01/1255 – In November 2001 temporary planning permission was granted to extend the stores opening hours over the Christmas period.

S02/1188 – In March 2003 planning permission was granted for an extension to the store.

S03/0779 – In August 2003 planning permission was granted for the erection of vehicular access gates and modifications to the pedestrian access to the store.

S07/1338 – In January 2008 the Development Control Committee granted temporary planning permission to vary the hours of delivery to the store.

S08/0709 – In August 2008 temporary planning permission was granted to extend the delivery hours (variation to condition 10 of S02/1188)

S08/1130 – In November 2008 planning permission was granted for the erection of a metal framed canopy to the rear of the store.

S09/0152 – In February 2009 planning permission was granted to extend the opening hours by 1 hour (variation to condition 9 of S02/1188).

S09/0295 – In September 2009 a planning appeal against non-determination which sought to extend the delivery hours at the store was dismissed. (Variation to condition 10 of S02/1188).

S09/0826 – In September 2009 a planning appeal against non-determination which sought to extend the delivery hours at the store was dismissed. (Variation to condition 10 of S02/1188).

S09/0828 – In September 2009 a planning appeal against non-determination which sought to extend the delivery hours at the store was dismissed. (Variation to condition 16 of SK.96/1069).

S10/0860 – This is a current application which relates to the continued use of the Sainsbury's store without compliance with condition 10 of planning permission SK.96/1069 which relates to the net internal trading floorspace of the store. This application has been submitted in order to ensure that if this current application is approved the condition is amended to state the new floor area. This application will be considered under the council’s delegated procedure following the determination of this application by the development control committee.

Representations Received

Bourne Town Council: the committee objects to this application on the grounds that it will create a dominant and oppressive environment for neighbouring residents. Concerns were also expressed regarding the added noise nuisance for local residents.

With regard to the amended plans reducing the height of the store the Town Council stated that they have no objections to the height of the extension. However, the Town Council has concerns regarding windows overlooking private properties and requests that obscured glass or brick is used to restrict the view.

Community Archaeologist (Heritage Lincolnshire): No objections

Highways: No objections subject to conditions requiring on site parking and turning and the submission of a Travel Plan

Environmental Health Officer: Has no concerns with the parking arrangements but has expressed some concerns that the extension into the delivery bay could result in a greater degree of manoeuvring by lorries, with the resultant rise in noise levels.

Following further discussion the EHO has advised that she has no objections provided the lorries can manoeuvre easily within the delivery yard.

The EHO has also advised that they are currently investigating a complaint about noise form deliveries from a resident on Exeter Street opposite the development.

Environment Agency: Comments Awaited

Planning Policy Team:

“PPS4 was published in December 2009 and replaces the previous PPS6 Planning for Town Centres. The key change, in relation to the consideration of planning applications, is the removal of the requirement for applicants to demonstrate that there is a need for development proposals located outside defined town centres. Whilst PPS4 retains a town centre first approach this does not rule out development proposals outside the town centre provided they satisfy compliance with the sequential approach and show no significant adverse impacts when assessed against a number of defined considerations.

The Core Strategy identifies Bourne as a main town where development that maintains and enhances the role and function of the town will be supported. The Core Strategy policy on retail development (Policy E2) reflects PPS4 and the sequential approach to site selection where town centre sites cannot accommodate new retail proposals. The Inspector’s Report following the examination of the Core Strategy has recently been received. The Inspector has found the Core Strategy to be sound and, therefore, significant weight can be given to its policies. It is proposed that a report on the adoption of the Core Strategy be considered by Council in early July.

In advance of the Core Strategy adoption, then the saved policies of the Local Plan still retain relevance as part of the Development Plan. These policies seek to ensure new retail development would normally be located within or adjoining town centers (S1) but this needs to be applied in the context of the more recent PPS4. The proposal would also need to satisfy the requirements of Policy EN1 in terms of its environmental and additional traffic impacts.

A District wide Retail Needs and Town Centre Study was completed by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) in March 2010. The main conclusions in relation to Bourne town centre and retail floorspace capacity for convenience goods were:

Based on existing market shares there is limited surplus convenience expenditure up to and beyond 2016 to support additional floorspace in Bourne there is the potential for Bourne to increase its market share of expenditure through diversion of some expenditure leakage going to Stamford and Market Deeping. increasing the range and choice of shops in Bourne was identified as the main reason that would encourage people to visit the town centre more often

I am aware that NLP have undertaken a critique of this application against the requirements of PPS4. I have no reason to disagree with their conclusions on these matters.”

Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (Retail Consultants):

Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) were commissioned by South Kesteven District Council to undertake an independent review of the retail assessment prepared by Indigo in relation to the proposed extension to the Sainsbury’s store. NLP also considered the cumulative impacts of this development and the proposed Tesco store on Cherry Holt Road Bourne (S10/0069).

The Report Conclusions are set out in full below:

“Retail Need and capacity

Indigo have adopted many of the assumptions used in the NLP study. By increasing the market share for Bourne, Indigo demonstrates that there would be sufficient convenience expenditure to support the Sainsbury’s extension 2013 and the replacement Co-op store but not the proposed Tesco Store. However, PPS4 indicates that the oversupply of floorspace is not in itself a reason for refusal and it is necessary to consider impact.

The Sequential Approach

Based on the information available to us, there appears to be no available, suitable or viable sites capable of accommodating a food store of the size proposed, even allowing for an appropriate level of flexibility in terms of store format. We consider that the sequential approach has been appropriately undertaken.

Retail Impact

PPS4 states that is a proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impact, whether on its own or cumulatively, it should be refused. Where there is no significant adverse impact, the local planning authority is required to determine an application taking account of the positive and negative impacts of the proposal and any other material considerations.

Cumulative trade diversion to both application proposals from convenience shops in the town centre is estimated to be £0.57 million (14.1%). If the Tesco scheme is implemented, the greatest impact is forecast to be on the edge of centre Sainsbury’s store, and there is the possibility that this would jeopardise the proposed extension.

The loss of convenience trade from businesses within the town centre and at the edge of centre Sainsbury store will have an indirect impact on other shops and services in the town centre, due to lost linked shopping trips. However, the Tesco store will to attract new linked shopping to Bourne. On balance we believe any net loss of linked shopping trips should be small.

Representations as a result of publicity

The application has been advertised in accordance with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement and 7 letters of objection have been received. The comments are summarised below:

1. Any vertical extension would be obtrusive to adjacent residential properties. 2. Concerns relating to vehicle movements / highway safety and the safety of pedestrians crossing. 3. Concerns relating to noise and disturbance in the yard area. 4. Concerns that the development will have a detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre and local shops. 5. The store has been extended enough previously. 6. Concerns that reports make reference to a store in Scunthorpe and that the report does not relate to the Bourne Store. 7. Concern that the proposed roofline along the northern and western elevation will be obtrusive and highly visible from Tarragon Way and Exeter Street. 8. Loss of property values. 9. If permission is granted the windows in the northern elevation should be obscure glazed. 10. The proposed extension will appear out of scale and character with the rest of the area. 11. Recently an appeal was dismissed to increase the store delivery hours and any increase in the size of the store will result in increased deliveries. 12. Concerns relating to overlooking and loss of privacy. 13. Concerns that the proposed parking arrangements and location of cycle bays will cause conflict with disable car parking. 14. Any increase in parking should not be at the expense of landscaping. 15. A 2 hour parking restriction has been put in place which puts pressure on other car parks in the area and on on-street parking. 16. Concerns that existing drainage may not be able to cope with the extended roof area. 17. If the development takes place how long will the building work take and what compensation will Sainsbury’s make to residents that are disturbed during this period. Last time the store was extended work was undertaken most mornings after midnight and before 5am in the morning.

Policy Considerations

Central Government Guidance

PPS1- Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS1 sets out the overarching policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. It promotes the plan-led system and the certainty and predictability it aims to provide, and also seeks a balance between considering environmental issues, the need for economic development, and the aim of creating sustainable communities.

A key strand of current government planning policy that is embedded in PPS1 is the commitment to social cohesion and inclusion. The government is committed to reducing social inequalities through the planning system with the aim of meeting the diverse needs of all people in the community; i.e. creating equal opportunity for all.

PPS1 also provides the government’s position regarding supporting economic development. Paragraph 23 states that the government is committed to ensuring there is a strong, stable and productive economy and requires planning authorities to ensure that suitable locations are made available for, inter alia, industrial, commercial and retail development (sub paragraph iii) so that the local economy can prosper. It goes on further to suggest that sufficient infrastructure and services need to be provided to support new and existing economic development and housing.

Additionally, PPS1 emphasises good design, reflecting the importance that the Government attaches to ensuring high quality design is delivered by the planning system. Good design is inseparable from good planning, in delivering safe, inclusive and successful communities.

PPS4 – Planning For Sustainable Economic Growth

PPS4 sets out the Government’s national policies for economic development. The Government’s overarching objective is for sustainable growth. In order to help achieve this one of the key Government objectives for planning is to promote the vitality and viability of town and other centres as important places for communities. To do this the Government wants amongst other things:

New economic growth and development of main town centre uses to be focused in existing centres, with the aim of offering a wider range of services to communities in an attractive and safe environment and remedying deficiencies in provision in areas with poor access to facilities.

Competition between retailers and enhanced consumer choice through the provision of innovative and efficient shopping, leisure, tourism and local services in town centres, which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the entire community.

Policy EC10.1 of PPS4 advises that local authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development. Planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably.

Policy EC10.2 advises that all planning applications for economic development should be assessed against the following impact considerations:

a. whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to, climate change b. the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured c. whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions

d. the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives e. the impact on local employment

Policy EC14 sets out what supporting evidence should be provided in connection for planning applications for main town centre uses. Policy EC14.3 states that a sequential assessment (under EC15) is required for planning applications for main town centres uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to date development plan.

Policy EC14.4 states that in advance of development plans being revised to reflect PPS4, an assessment of impacts in policy EC16.1 is necessary for planning applications for retail and leisure developments below 2,500 square metres which are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan that would be likely to have a significant impact on other centres.

Policy EC15 sets out the key considerations for the sequential assessment of planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan. EC15.1 states that in considering sequential assessments required under policy EC14.3, local planning authorities should:

a. ensure that sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability. b. ensure that all in-centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered c. ensure that where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre sites to accommodate a proposed development, preference is given to edge of centre locations which are well connected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access d. ensure that in considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres, developers and operators have demonstrated flexibility in terms of: i. scale: reducing the floorspace of their development; ii. format: more innovative site layouts and store configurations such as multi- storey developments with smaller footprints; iii. car parking provision; reduced or reconfigured car parking areas; and iv. the scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisure development, including those which are part of a group of retail or leisure units, onto separate, sequentially preferable, sites. However, local planning authorities should not seek arbitrary sub-division of proposals

Policy EC16 sets out the criteria which planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be assessed against. This includes:

a. the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal

b. the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer c. the impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan d. in the context of a retail or leisure proposal, the impact of the proposal on in- centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made, and, where applicable, on the rural economy e. if located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres f. any locally important impacts on centres under policy EC3.1.e

Policy EC17 sets out the considerations of applications for development of main town centre uses not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan. Policy EC17.1 states that planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be refused planning permission where:

a. the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach (policy EC15); or b. there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of the impacts set out in policies EC10.2 and 16.1 (the impact assessment), taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments

Policy EC17.2 advises that where no significant adverse impacts have been identified under policies EC10.2 and 16.1, planning applications should be determined by taking account of:

a. the positive and negative impacts of the proposal in terms of policies EC10.2 and 16.1 and any other material considerations; and b. the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments

Policy EC17.3 states that judgements about the extent and significance of any impacts should be informed by the development plan (where this is up to date). Recent local assessments of the health of town centres which take account of the vitality and viability indicators in Annex D of PPS4 and any other published local information (such as a town centre or retail strategy), will also be relevant.

PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment

PPS5 sets out the Government’s policies in relation to the historic environment and provides guidance on the determination of applications affecting heritage assets including Conservation Areas remains.

PPG13 – Transport

PPG13 sets out the Governments approach to transport policy. The main objectives are to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level to:

• Promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and moving freight; • Promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling, and • Reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

PPS22 – Renewable Energy

PPS22 sets out the Government’s approach towards renewable energy. Paragraph 18 advises local authorities and developers to consider the opportunity for incorporating renewable energy projects in all new developments. Small scale renewable energy schemes utilising technologies such as solar panels, biomass heating, small scale wind turbines, photovoltaic cells and combined heat and power schemes can be incorporated both into new developments and some existing buildings. Local planning authorities are advised to encourage such schemes through positively expressed policies in local development documents.

PPS24 – Planning and Noise

PPS24 provides guidance to local authorities on the use of planning powers to minimise the adverse impacts of noise. It:

• outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which will generate noise; • introduces the concept of noise exposure categories for residential development, encourages their use and recommends appropriate levels for exposure to different sources of noise; and • advises on the use of conditions to minimise the impact of noise.

PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk

PPS25 advises that the aims of planning policy on development and flood risk are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk.

East Midlands Regional Plan (Adopted March 2009)

Policy 1: Regional Core Objectives

This policy states that to secure the delivery of sustainable development within the East Midlands, all strategies, plans and programmes having a spatial impact should meet eleven core objectives:

a) To ensure that the existing housing stock and new affordable and market housing address need and extend choice in all communities in the region, b) To reduce social exclusion, c) To protect and enhance the environmental quality of urban and rural settlements, d) To improve the health and mental, physical and spiritual well being of the Region’s residents, e) To improve economic prosperity, employment opportunities and regional competitiveness, f) To improve accessibility to jobs, homes and services, g) To protect and enhance the environment, h) To achieve a ‘step change’ increase in the level of the Region’s biodiversity, i) To reduce the causes of climate change, j) To reduce the impacts of climate change, k) To minimise adverse environmental impacts of new development and promote optimum social and economic benefits.

Policy 2: Promoting Better Design

This policy seeks to promote better design in developments and states that the layout, design and construction of new development should be improved by amongst other things, making the most efficient use of land, minimising energy use and locating and designing access from new developments to local facilities on foot, by cycle or by public transport.

Policy 3: Distribution of New Development

This policy seeks to ensure that new developments are sustainably located so as to reduce the need to travel and unnecessary car usage and that priority is given to the use of previously developed land.

Policy 4: Development in the Eastern Sub-area

This policy advises amongst other things that development in the Eastern Sub-area should maintain and enhance the roles of defined Main and Small Towns as locally significant service and employment centres through the protection of existing retail and community facilities, and sustainably located new housing and local employment generating development.

Policy 22: Regional Priories for Town Centres and Retail Development

This policy requires local authorities to promote the vitality and viability of existing town centres, including those in rural towns.

Policy 48 Regional Car Parking Standards

This policy states that local planning authorities should apply the maximum amount of vehicle parking for new development as set out in PPG13. Car Parking facilities in excess of the maximum standards in PPG13 should only be provided in exceptional circumstances.

South Kesteven Core Strategy

SP1: Spatial Strategy

This policy seeks to guide development to sustainable locations. It indicates that new development which helps to maintain and support the role of the three market towns of Stamford, Bourne and the Deepings, will be allowed. Priority is to be given to sites within the built up areas of the town where development would not compromise the nature and character of the town.

EN1: Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District

This policy requires developments to be appropriate to the character of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration. All developments are assessed in relation to the following criteria:

1. Both statutory and local designations of landscape features, flora and fauna; 2. Local distinctiveness and sense of place; 3. Historic character, patterns and attributes of the landscape; 4. The layout and scale of buildings and designed spaces; 5. The quality and character of the built fabric and their settings; 6. The condition of the landscape; 7. Biodiversity and ecological networks within the landscape; 8. Public access to and community value of the landscape; 9. Remoteness and tranquillity; 10. Visual intrusion; 11. Noise and light pollution; 12. Conservation Area Appraisals and Village Design Statements, where these have been adopted by the Council; 13. Impact on controlled waters; 14. Protection of existing open space (including allotments and public open space).

Policy EN2: Reduce the Risk Of Flooding

This policy seeks to ensure that all developments are not at risk of flooding in accordance with the guidance and requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25

EN4: Sustainable Construction and Design

This policy seeks to ensure that proposals for development consider the potential for limiting the effects of climate change.

Policy E2: Retail Development

This policy seeks to guide development Sequential to sub regional centres (Grantham) and then to the main towns (Stamford, Bourne and the Deepings) and finally to local service centres (defined by policy SP2). The policy also seeks to locate development primarily within town centres and then if there are no sites available on the edge of the town centre and finally only then will consideration be given to out of centre sites.

Bourne Town Centre Redevelopment Supplementary Planning Guidance.

This sets out the Council’s aspirations for the comprehensive redevelopment of Bourne Town Centre in relation to retail and residential development.

South Kesteven District Council Retail Needs and Town Centre Study March 2010.

Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) were commissioned by the District Council to prepare a retail needs and town centre study for the district. The study is used to provide an evidence base to inform the Council’s work on the emerging Local Development Framework (LDF), Supplementary Planning Documents (SPG) and management plans for individual town centres. The information in the assessment has also been used in the assessment of this current application.

Key Issues

The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are:

The principle of the development – does the development comply with the relevant development plan policies and the criteria contained in PPS4, in particular does the development impact on the vitality and viability of Bourne Town Centre?

Impact on the surroundings – does the development have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area?

Impact on residential amenity – what impact does the development have on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties?

Impact from pollution and noise – does the development raise and pollution or noise and disturbance issues?

Impact on highway safety – Does the development comply with the requirements of PPG13 and will there be any adverse highway safety implications?

Officer Evaluation

Quantative Need

NLP on behalf of the authority have undertaken a critique of this application against the requirements of PPS4. The assessment also considers the cumulative impact of the development taking into account the Tesco’s application on Cherry Holt Road (S10/0069).

The NLP Retail Needs Assessment, which established shopping patterns based on a household survey, suggests that at present only 65% of available convenience goods expenditure is retained within the Bourne catchment area, but this could increase to 85% if food provision was improved in Bourne.

Indigo (the applicant’s retail consultants) state that their figures demonstrate that there is only capacity to support the Sainsbury’s extension and the Co-op replacement store on the Cherry Holt Road Site (Replacement Rainbow Store), but not the proposed Tesco store instead of Co-op. NLP have advised that the replacement Co-op store is now unlikely to be implemented and that PPS4 no longer requires applicants to demonstrate need or quantitative capacity for their proposals, and this is not on its own a reason for refusal. The key issue is whether any over-provision will have an adverse impact on Bourne town centre.

Qualitative Need

NLP have advised that Indigo has provided a justification for the proposed Sainsbury’s store in terms of qualitative need, with an emphasis on the need to improve the range of food products and services and address operational problems within the existing store. Increasing the choice and range of shops in Bourne was identified within the NLP household survey as a key reason that would encourage people to visit Bourne more often. The benefits of improving the shopping offer of the store need to be considered against and disbenifits of the proposals, particularly in terms of impact on the town centre and the possible closure of existing stores.

Sequential Approach

NLP has advised that as the Sainsbury’s development seeks to serve Bourne and its catchment area a food store in another town would not adequately serve the needs of customers in Bourne’s catchment area. NLP therefore considered that sites within other centres should not be considered in the sequential analysis.

The applicants have examined in detail the following sites as part of their sequential assessment:

North street/Burghley Street Bus Station, North Street/St Gilberts Road Former Budgens Store and Car Park South Street

Based on the submitted assessment the Council’s consultants NLP have advised that in their opinion there appears to be no available, suitable or viable sites capable of accommodating a food store of the size proposed, even allowing for an appropriate level of flexibility in terms of store size and format. NLP has therefore advised that they consider that the sequential approach has been appropriately undertaken.

Retail Impact

Applications for retail developments such as this have to be assessed against the impact test set out in Policies EC10.2 and EC16 of PPS4. Policy EC17 of PPS4 states that if a proposal is likely to lead to a significant adverse impact, whether on its own or cumulatively, it should be refused. Where there is no significant adverse impact, the local planning authority is required to determine an application taking account of the positive and negative impacts of the proposal and any other material considerations.

NLP has undertaken an impact assessment to consider the cumulative impact of the proposed Sainsbury’s scheme and the proposed Tesco Store at Cherry Holt Road (S10/0069). Based on NLPs assessment it is considered that the cumulative impact from both the proposed Tesco’s development (s10/0069 and the proposed Sainsbury’s extension if both schemes were to be approved would not lead to a significantly adverse impact on the vitality or viability of Bourne Town Centre. The assessment undertaken by NLP indicates that the cumulative impact on convenience shops in the town centre will be 14.1% and 33% on the Tesco Express. The forecast impact of 14.1% on other convenience shops in the town centre may potentially cause one or two shops to close, but this may not represent a significant impact on the town centre because of the limited representation of convenience shops.

The implementation of both proposals is likely to result in trade diversion between the extended Sainsbury’s store and the new Tesco store. The result is that if both schemes are implemented, it is likely that both stores will trade below the respective company average. Impact on the extended Sainsbury’s store is estimated to be 32.7%, and the store would be trading at around 22% below the company average. The Tesco store is estimated to trade at around 90% of the company average. This is not likely to result in the closure of a store but may affect Sainsbury’s decision to extend the store.

NLP has advised that the implications of the above is that the Sainsbury’s extension may not be implemented if the Tesco scheme is approved. However, as the Sainsbury’s store is located in an edge of centre location, this would not constitute an impact on planned investment in the town centre.

The proposed Sainsbury store will generate linked shopping trips that will also help to draw trade into Bourne town centre and further help to support the vitality and viability of the area. NLP have advised that although the approval of the Tesco’s store would divert trade from the Sainsbury store and therefore some of the linked trips the Tesco’s development will also generate linked shopping trips and on balance they consider the net loss of linked shopping trips to be small.

Highway Safety

Concerns have been raised by local residents relating to highway safety and the proposed parking revisions. The local highway authority has assessed the arrangement and has raised no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions. It is therefore considered that the proposed development will not result in any significant impacts in terms of highway safety than the existing store.

Design / Visual amenity / Residential amenity

The proposed store extension picks up on the architectural style of the existing building and is considered to be appropriate in this location. Given the separation distances to adjacent residential properties it is considered that the amended scheme will not have a significant impact on residential amenity and will not appear over dominate or out of character.

Concern has been raised about loss of privacy and overlooking it is however considered that the proposed development and in particular the first floor addition will not result in any significant loss of privacy given the orientation of the proposed additional windows and the separation distances between the elevations and adjacent properties.

Noise and disturbance

The proposed development will not result in any changes to the existing delivery times or opening hours. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers did raise some concerns about the reduction of the size of the delivery yard area and that this may result in additional vehicle movements which would create noise. However these concerns have been dropped as the plans clearly show sufficient room for vehicles to manoeuvre within the service yard without having to make excessive movements to entre and exit the site.

It is proposed to attach conditions to restrict the delivery and opening times to those currently operating at the store.

Concerns have also been raised about the possibility of disturbance during construction works. As the site is located in very close proximity to residential properties it is considered appropriate to attach a condition restricting the hour of construction.

Crime and Disorder Implications

The proposed development does not raise any significant crime and disorder implications.

Human Rights Implications

Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL The proposal is in general accordance with national and local policies as set out in Planning Policy Guidance notes PPS1, PPS4, PPS5, PPG13, PPS22, PPS24 and PPS25 and Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 22 and 48 of the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 (RSS8) and South Kesteven Core Strategy Policies SP1, EN1, EN2, EN4 and E2.

The issues relating to highway safety, impact on shops in the town centre, impact on residential amenity and noise pollution are material considerations but, subject to the conditions attached to this permission, it is considered that these are not sufficient in this case to indicate against the proposal and to outweigh the policies referred to above.

The proposed development will introduce additional choice in convenience retail in the Bourne area which will help to increase expenditure retention in the area. The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

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

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

2. This permission relates solely to the application as amended by Drawing No. PL03 Rev A received 7 April 2010, Drawing NO. PL05 received on 30 March and Drawing No. PL09 Rev B received on 19 May 2010.

Reason: The previously submitted plans have been amended to reduce the impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

3. The external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match in material, colour, style, bonding and texture those of the existing building.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

4. The arrangements shown on the approved plan 2007-22/PL03 Rev A dated 7 April 2010 for the parking/turning/manoeuvring/loading/unloading of vehicles shall be available at all times when the premises are in use.

Reason: To enable calling vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway of Exeter Street and to allow vehicles to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

5. Within 6 months of the development being occupied, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter annually a staff survey shall be analysed and submitted to the local planning

authority that will provide details of the implementation of the Travel Plan. The occupier shall ensure that travel arrangements are fulfilled in accordance with the Travel Plan, unless the local planning authority stipulates approval to any variation.

Reason: In order that the local planning authority conforms to the requirements of PPG13 Transport, a Travel Plan has been conditioned to ensure that access to the site is sustainable and reduces dependency on the car.

6. No more than 8,889 sq.m. of floor area shall be used for direct retail sales.

Reason: To ensure that the size of the retail operation on the site would not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the town centre.

7. There shall be no variation of the internal subdivision of the retail unit without prior written approval from the district planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that the size and type of any future retail operation on the site would not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the town centre.

8. The opening hours shall be restricted to 0800 hours to 2100 hours Monday to Saturday, and 1000 hours to 1600 hours on Sundays.

Reason: In the interests of amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties.

9. Deliveries to and from the store as extended shall not take place outside the hours of 0630 to 2230 hours Mondays to Saturday, and 0830 hours to 1630 hours on Sundays.

Reason: In the interests of amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties.

Note(s) to Applicant 1. The Draft Travel Plan covers all the main points expected. However, it is lacking in detail in a number of places particularly in the action plan and in relation to current staff travel patterns. No targets have been set and the objectives contained in Section 1 are not specific to the development or the area. As submitted, the travel plan may not result in any modal shift. The annual travel survey is key to monitoring the performance of the plan against agreed targets that need to be included within the plan.

In order to develop the plan, it is suggested the Applicant contact the Accessibility Delivery Team at Lincolnshire County Council.

* * * * * *

JJ6 S10/0911/MJRF Target Decision Date: 19-Jul-2010

Applicant Mr C Williams, Taylor Wimpey East Midlands Unit 2, The Osiers Business Park, Laversall Way, Leicester, LE19 1DX Agent Mr M Czerniuk, Design for Housing Maxana House, Unit 3 & 5 Watling Court, 82-84, Watling Street, Towcester, Northants, NN12 6BS Proposal A.R.M. for residential development of 98 dwellings with associated roads, sewers and public open space (zone 4 - area 1) Location Elsea Park (Zone 4, Area 1), South Road, Bourne App Type Major Full (Residential) Parish(es) Bourne

REPORT

Application Category

This application is categorised as a major application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application is for major development and the Council’s Acting Lead Professional has requested that the application be referred to the Development Control Committee.

The Proposal

This is a reserved matters application for the erection of 98 dwellings on zone 4 area 1 of the Elsea Park development. The application originally proposed 99 dwellings however a plot has been omitted from the scheme. This report relates to the amended scheme.

The development proposes a mixture of mostly 2 storey dwellings but with some strategically positioned 2.5 and 3 storey dwellings in line with the existing character of Elsea Park.

The proposed dwellings predominantly front onto a proposed estate road which will loop around this phase of the development. The proposed dwellings along the southern edge of the site will back onto the earth mound which forms the boundary to Bourne’s Southern Relief Road.

A 400sq m LEAP (Local Equipped Area for Play) is to be provided in the south east corner of the site. In order to minimise the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings there would be a 20m stand off from the play space and the façade of the proposed dwellings.

The application site and its surroundings

The application site is located towards the southern boundary of the Elsea Park Development. The site occupies a total area of approximately 2.8 hectares (6.9 acres) and is currently undeveloped agricultural land.

Access to the development is via The Gables which joins the Raymond Mays Way Bourne Southern Relief Road adjacent to the sites south eastern corner.

To the north of the site lies open agricultural land which is allocated for further residential development and Wherry’s Spinney. To the east of the site lies residential development (2 of the Elsea park development). To the west of the site lies a small development of bungalows.

Site History

SK.94/0124 - In June 2001 outline planning permission was granted for residential development of the site (now known as Elsea Park).

Representations Received

Community Archaeologist (Heritage Lincolnshire): No objections

Arboriculturalist/Landscape Officer: The landscape plan is comprehensive and will enhance the built environment and add colour to the street scene.

Partnership and Project Officer (affordable housing): “I note from the submitted documentation that this particular phase of development (Zone 4 area 1) on Elsea Park has been sold to Taylor Wimpy without the need to develop affordable housing. The S.106 requires 0.61 hectares (1.5 acres) of affordable housing land to be provided on Zone 4, but there is no restriction to the provision of affordable housing on individual areas within the Zone. Therefore, as per the application there is no affordable housing requirement on the application area. However, it should be noted that there is a requirement for affordable housing on Zone 4 and this requirement needs to be taken account of in any future planning applications for Zone 4.”

Leisure Officer: Following my own calculation I am happy for the developer to proceed with the delivery of a LEAP provision in the SE corner of the development as stated in the Design and Access Statement, in accordance with Fields in Trust (FIT) guidance.

I will be interested how the LEAP provision will be made around the existing watercourse, if not redirected, and I would wish to view and approve plans for the LEAP provision prior to its installation.

If the developer is then expecting SKDC to maintain I would request £15,000 (50% of the capital cost) for the on going maintenance.

Bourne Town Council: No objections

Natural England: Based on the information provided Natural England have placed a holding objection on this application until it can be determined as to whether the open space provision is sufficient for a site of such a size and also whether opportunities have been taken to provide green links across this site and with other development areas surrounding it.

Environment Agency: No objections

LCC Footpaths: No objections Raised

Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust: Thank you for consulting the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust on the above application which is adjacent to Bourne Wildlife Park Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI).

We can not find any details relating to the outline planning application and so do not know whether ecological surveys have been carried out on the site. If not, we would strongly recommend that walk over surveys are carried out by an ecologist at the appropriate time of year to determine the presence, or potential presence, of protected species or habitats.

We note that the small copse of trees existing on site is to be removed. We would strongly recommend that any existing habitats on site, including the copse, should be retained and incorporated into the landscaping scheme in order to minimise biodiversity losses. If the trees must be removed, they should first be assessed by a suitably qualified ecologist for the presence of roosting bats and breeding birds. Bats and their places of shelter or protection are protected by law. It is an offence to intentionally damage, destroy or obstruct access to their place of shelter or protection. Where there is evidence of use of a building or tree as a bat roost, licenses may be issued by Natural England to permit work.

Through PPS9 we would expect a development such as this to contribute to a net gain in biodiversity on the site. The landscaping plan includes many non-native species. We would strongly recommend the use primarily of native species, preferably of local provenance. Other means of increasing biodiversity on the site should also be considered. For example, use of native wildflower seed mixes on verges rather than turf, or the incorporation of features for bats and birds within the development. Roosting spaces for bats and nesting sites for birds such as swifts can easily be built into the design of buildings or alternatively boxes can be fitted externally.

Highways: Comments awaited.

Representations as a result of publicity

The application has been advertised in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement and four letters of comment have been received. The comments raised can be summarised as follows:

1. The proposals will result in overlooking and loss of privacy.

2. The density of the development will have an adverse impact on access to the Elsea Park. 3. Development and result in adverse highway safety issues due to on-street parking. 4. Concerns about the construction of three storey dwellings next to bungalows. 5. Loss of light / overshadowing. 6. Concerns about safety and the location of the children’s play area. 7. Loss of property value. 8. Concerns relating to loss of trees and hedgerows. 9. Concerns about the loss of the public footpath which runs through the site.

Policy Considerations

National Policy

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1): Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5): Planning for the Historic Environment Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9): Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13): Transport Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG17): Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

East Midlands Regional Plan 2009

Policy 1 Regional Core Objectives Policy 2 Promoting Better Design Policy 26 Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage Policy 48 Regional Car Parking Standards

South Kesteven Core Strategy

Policy SP1 Spatial Strategy Policy SP3 Sustainable Integrated Transport Policy EN1 Protection and enhancement of the character of the district Policy EN2 Reducing the risk of flooding

Saved Policies of South Kesteven Local Plan

Policy H3: Housing (15)

Key Issues

Planning History Allocated Site Site Layout Impact on Residential Amenity Design Highway Safety

Open Space Provision

Officer Evaluation

Scale / Layout

As stated above this is a reserved matters application for the erection of 98 dwellings and associated open space. The application site is allocated in the Saved policies of the adopted local plan for residential development under policy H3. The principle of residential development of the site is therefore considered acceptable. The site is located within the sustainable settlement of Bourne and is within walking distance of the town centre and has good access to public transport links.

The development comprises a mix of two and three storey detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. The proposed design and layout is similar to the designs used in zones 1 & 2 of the Elsea Park development and is considered to be appropriate. Overlooking / loss of privacy

It is considered that given the proposed site layout and orientation of the proposed dwellings and the separation distances between existing and proposed dwellings the development will not have any significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. Plots 32 to 35 have been re-orientated in order to minimise the impact on the adjacent bungalows. There is now a separation distance from the rear of the proposed plots to the existing boundary with 7 The Ridings of 11m and 12m to the side of the bungalow. There are a number of windows on this elevation it is however considered that most of these are secondary windows and subject to a suitable boundary treatment there will be no significant loss of privacy. It is recommended that a condition requiring details of the boundary treatments be submitted in order to further minimise the impact of the development.

Plots 40 -42 have also been amended and redesigned to ensure that there is no significant overlooking of No 14, 15 and 16 The Ridings. This has been achieved by increasing the separation distances and by re-orientating the dwellings and through the careful positioning of windows.

Loss of light / overshadowing

The proposed site layout and separation distances between existing and proposed dwellings will ensure that the development will not have any significant or detrimental impact on the residential amenity of adjacent properties by way of causing loss of light or overshadowing.

Traffic Generation / Parking

The local highway authority has been committed and raised no objections to the proposed development. It is therefore considered that the proposed access and parking arrangements are acceptable and will not be detrimental to highway safety.

Ecology

Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust has raised some concerns about the proposed development and Natural England has submitted a holding objection to the proposals. Conditions 11 & 12 of the outline consent require an ’ecological management plan’ to be submitted in relation to each individual phase of the Elsea Park development. It is considered that these conditions will ensure that suitable mitigation measures are put in place. Details of these conditions have been passed on to Natural England and any additional comments received from them will be reported in the Late Background Papers Document.

Open Space Provision

The Open Space Officer has advised that the proposed open space provision will be acceptable and complies with the requirements of the S106 Agreement relating to the substantive outline consent. The issue about maintenance are also already dealt with as part of the existing S106 Agreement and future contributions cannot be requested.

Crime and Disorder Implications

The proposed development will not result in any significant crime and disorder implications.

Human Rights Implications

Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

Conclusion

The proposed development accords with all relevant national and local development plan policies and is accordingly recommended for approval.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL The application site is allocated for residential development and the proposed development is considered to reflect the scale and character of the surrounding development. The proposed development in accordance with national and local policies as set out in Planning Policy Statements PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS3 - Housing, PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment, PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, PPG13 - Transport and PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, Policies 1, 2, 26 and 48 of the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009; Policies SP1, SP3, EN1 and EN2 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy and Policy H3 in the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan. Although concerns have been raised in relation to the design, scale, density, highway safety and residential amenity it is considered that the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impacts and is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of the above policies.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. This permission relates solely to the application as amended by:

Drawing No. 300/D1227V/PL2 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/D1227V/PL1 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/D1227/PL2 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/A656/PL2 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/A656/PL1 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/GD/01 received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/GD/10 received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/D1400/PL2 Rev A received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/D1400/PL1 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/D1536/PL2 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/D1536/PL1 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/D1735/PL2 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/D1735/PL1 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/609-665/PL4 received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/609-665/PL3 received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/609-665/PL2 received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/609-665/PL1 received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/H1089/PL2 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/H1089/PL1 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/H819/PL2 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/H819/PL1 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/HA21/PL2 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing No. 300/HA21/PL1 Rev B received 9 April 2010. Drawing Note 902-SS1 received 19 April 2010. Drawing No. 1089 Cross received 4 June 2010. Drawing No. SL1 Rev A received 4 June 2010.

2. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc.); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant.] Soft landscape works shall include [planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; implementation programme]

Reason: Hard and soft landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and the submitted details need to be amended to reflect the amendments made to the overall site layout.

3. The arrangements shown on the approved plan TWEM902/SL1 as amended dated 4 June 2010 for parking/turning/manoeuvring/unloading of vehicles shall be available at all times when the premises are in use.

Reason: To enable calling vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway of The Gables and to allow vehicles to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

4. Before each dwelling is occupied the roads and/or footways providing access to that dwelling, for the whole of its frontage, from an existing public highway, shall be constructed to a specification to enable them to be adopted as Highway Maintainable at the Public Expense, less the carriageway and footway surface courses. The carriageway and footway surface courses shall be completed within three months from the date upon which the erection is commenced of the penultimate dwelling.

Reason: To ensure safe access to the site and each dwelling in the interests of residential amenity, convenience and safety.

5. No development shall take place before the detailed design of the arrangements for surface water drainage has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority and no building shall be occupied before it is connected to the agreed drainage system.

Reason: To ensure that surface water run-off from the development will not adversely affect, by reason of flooding, the safety, amenity and commerce of the residents of this site.

6. No dwellings shall be commenced before the first 40 metres of estate road from its junction with the public highway, including visibility splays, as shown on drawing TWEM902/SL1 as amended dated 4 June 2010 has been completed.

Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site and to enable calling vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway of The Gables.

7. Before any dwelling is commenced, all of the part of the estate road and associated footways that forms the junction with the main road and which will be constructed within the limits of the existing highway, shall be laid out and constructed to finished surface levels in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site.

8. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, a scheme to increase the boundary treatment along the sites western boundary with The Ridings. The agreed boundary treatments shall be implemented and maintained in perpetuity prior to the occupation of the dwellings on plots 25-39.

Reason: To ensure that the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties are protected.

9. Prior to the development taking place, details of the lighting scheme for the car parking and other public areas shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall only take place in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the occupiers of the proposed apartments and in order to help to protect against crime and disorder.

Note(s) to Applicant 1. Where private drives are proposed as part of any development you should be aware of the requirements laid down in the Lincolnshire Design Guide for Residential Areas.

2. This road is a private road and will not be adopted as a Highway Maintainable at the Public Expense (under the Highways Act 1980) and as such the liability for maintenance rests with the frontagers. 3. You are advised to contact Lincolnshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority for approval of the road construction specification and programme before carrying out any works on site. 4. The applicant is reminded of the need to comply with the requirements of the substantive outline consent (SK.94/0125) and its accompanying S106 agreement.

* * * * * *

JST1 S10/1060/FULL Target Decision Date: 12-Jul-2010

Applicant Mrs C Rudd & Mr R Reedman 31A, East End, Langtoft, Peterborough, Lincolnshire, PE6 9LP Agent Mrs E D Aaron, Avocet Design Ivy Cottage, 1, Sluice Road, Saracens Head, Spalding, Lincs, PE12 8BH Proposal Conversion and extension of cattle shed to create a dwelling and erection of detached garage Location Land Between, 48 & 50, East End, Langtoft App Type Full Planning Permission Parish(es) Langtoft

REPORT

Application Category

This application is categorised as a minor application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application is being reported to the Development Control Committee as a previous application for the conversion and extension of the cattle shed was refused by the Committee.

The Proposal The application proposes the conversion and extension of the existing cattle shed to create a 3 bed dwelling. The creation of the accommodation would involve the re-roofing of the existing shed, the insertion of an opening in the west elevation and the erection of a single storey L shaped extension to the rear. The new addition would have a projection beyond the rear of the shed of 11.4 metres and an overall width of 9.2 metres. The closest element of the new extension would be within 2 metres of the boundary of No. 50 and would comprise of a 4.7 metre wide hipped roof projection. The new addition would have an overall height of 4.3 metres and would be sunk into the ground by 0.35 metres. It is proposed to use Sandtoft Arcadia Clay Pantiles on the roof and Terca Pastorale multi brick on the walls. The new roof would be approximately 0.3 metres higher than the existing corrugated metal roof. New boundary gates would replace the existing run down wooden fence fronting east end. The application also includes the provision of a garage to the rear of the site accessed off an un-adopted road leading from New Road that leads to a number of existing garages located to the rear of the Neighbouring East End Properties . The double garage would have a width of 6.4 metres, a depth of 5.4 metres and a height of 5.15 metres and would have a storage area in the roof that would be lit by two roof lights.

The application site and its surroundings The 0.73 hectare site is located towards the north east edge of the Langtoft settlement and within the Conservation Area. Langtoft is designated as a Local Service Centre within the Local Plan with the surrounding area being predominantly residential in character. The main building material in East End is stone whilst the more modern properties to the rear of the site, off New Road, are constructed of brick. Directly adjacent to the site across East End are two Grade II Listed Buildings. The site itself comprises of the existing cattle shed which is currently in a poor state of repair. It is attached to the flank elevation of 50 East End. The single storey stone building has a blank rear elevation which abuts East End and a partially open south east elevation facing into the site. Its roof is made up of a patchwork of corrugated metal sheets which are in poor condition. The generous plot includes a number of trees and shrubs within the centre of the site and a number of larger trees along the rear boundary, some of which would be removed to make way for the new garage and to clear the site. The boundary treatment between the site and No.50 is a thick boundary hedge of approximately 2.5 metres in height. The ground level of the neighbouring property appears to be approximately 0.4 metres lower than the application site. There is limited boundary treatment between the site and No.48. The flank wall of the dwelling is sited along the first 18 metres of the boundary. A window within the flank elevation of the proposal faces the site. Site History S09/0501/FULL – Dwelling and Conversion of Cattle Shed – Refused under delegated powers – 17.07.09 S09/2651/FULL – Proposed Dwelling and Conversion of Cattle Shed – Refused by the Development Control Committee – 02.02.10 Both of the two refused proposals contained two storey elements to the rear of the cattle shed. Representations Received Lincolnshire County Council Highways Authority: No objection to the proposal subject to conditions. Building Control: The foul drains are shown connecting to the existing. Storm Drains not shown but soakaways work fine in the village. Natural England: Object to the application as insufficient information has been submitted to ensure that this development will not have an impact on protected species, particularly in relation to Great Crested Newts. Archaeology: The application does not affect any known sites of archaeological interest therefore no archaeological intervention is required. Conservation Officer: Comments awaited.

Representations as a result of publicity At the time of writing the report one latter of representation had been received. The following issues were raised. No objection to the proposal but object to the use of the back lane. At present there only appears to be an overgrown pedestrian access. We had an application for a new dwelling refused in 2002 on the grounds that the access/exit onto New Road was not suitable.

Policy Considerations National Planning Policy PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing PPS5: Planning and the Historic Environment PPG13 Transport East Midlands Regional Plan: Policy 2: Promoting Better Design Policy 27: Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment. Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan: Policy H6 Policy EN1 Interim Housing Policy

Key Issues

The impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area The impact on residential amenities Highways Implications The suitability of the barn for conversion Ecological implications

Officer Evaluation Suitability of the barn for conversion:

The structural report submitted with the application generally accepts the principle of replacing the roof. The walls show some sign of decay but the report concludes that the main walls are structurally sound and apart from some minor repair work are capable of being retained in a suitable conversion scheme. The impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposed brick extension would project to the rear of the shed and have a height subordinate to the proposed roof. The views of the building are limited by the close proximity of and relationship to Numbers 48 and particularly 50 which also directly abut the footpath. The only view of the extension will be from an oblique angle over a fence which runs from the side of the shed to the boundary of 48 East End. It is considered that the limited visual impact of the proposal on the street scene when viewed across the 3.5 metre space would not materially harm the character and appearance of the conservation area. The use of brick on the rear section is considered acceptable as it is seen on the rear projection of No. 48 and other neighbouring properties. The most visual impact will arise from the replacement of the roof and the use of clay pantiles. The surrounding established dwellings to either site have grey plain tiles and the use of the more orange curved pan-tiles will differ in appearance. It is not considered that this would be wholly unacceptable as similar tiles are commonly use on subordinate outbuildings and the tiles will retain the cart sheds character and appear more attractive than the existing metal roof. Impact on Residential Amenities: The main implications for residential amenities will be in relation to the two neighbouring properties. The single storey extension would project beyond the rear of the existing building by 11.4 metres and would be sited approximately 4.5 metres from the flank elevation of No. 48 which has a window directly facing the site. The secondary opening would be sited approximately opposite to the door and bathroom windows within the proposed rear projection. Whilst the proposed extension would have an impact on this opening, which currently has an open outlook, it is not considered reasonable to refuse the application on the grounds of overbearing impact as this is a secondary opening overlooking private land. It is considered that with the installation of a suitable boundary treatment, required by way of a landscaping condition, the privacy of the new dwelling could be secured without undue loss to the residential amenities of 48 East End. The proposed L shaped brick addition to the cattle shed includes a projecting element that would project to within 2 metres of the boundary of 50 East End. This element would have a depth of 4.7 metres, a height to the top of its hipped roof of 4.2 metres and would be sited approximately 4.7 metres back from the rear elevation of number 50 at its closest point. It is considered that the set back position of this element and its the hipped roof would avoid the creation of an overbearing feature that would cause undue harm to the residential amenities of the neighbouring property. The strong natural boundary treatment would further reduce the impact. The projecting element would have a patio door within the north elevation facing the existing building. It is considered that the off set position of this window in relation to the closest first floor opening of number 50 is sufficiently oblique to avoid an unacceptable loss of privacy.

Highways Implications: The Highways Authority has raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions which control works within the highway and require access details, the provision of turning space and the drainage details. Ecological Implications: The application was accompanied by an ecological survey which provides a written assessment of the sites wildlife. The report summary suggests that there are no badger sets on the site, there does not appear to be any bats nesting in the building and that it is unlikely that there are any reptiles using the site. The report does indicate that a great crested newt survey should be carried out prior to the commencement of the development. Natural England has objected to the proposal on the grounds that the submitted information does not allow the an adequate assessment of the potential harm to protected species with particular reference to Great Crested Newts. Additionally the circumstances of the site may have changed since the survey was undertaken on the 9th April 2009. It is therefore considered that a full up to date wildlife survey of the site should be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior any works commencing on site. This can be secured by condition.

Crime and Disorder Implications It is considered that the application will not raise any significant crime and disorder issues.

Human Rights Implications

Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation. It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

Conclusion The conversion and extension of the cattle shed to create a new dwelling is considered acceptable in principle. With the use of conditions to ensure that the information detailed above is submitted, agreed and implemented, it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly harm the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, the character and appearance of the conservation area or the ecology of the site and would not cause highways dangers. It is therefore considered that the proposed development complies with the guidance contained within PPS1, PPS3, PPS5 and PPG13 as well as Policies 2 and 27 of the East Midlands Regional Plan and Saved Policies H6 and EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL

The conversion and extension of the cattle shed to create a new dwelling is considered acceptable in principle. With the use of conditions to ensure that the information detailed above is submitted, agreed and implemented, it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly harm the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, the character and appearance of the conservation area or the ecology of the site and would not cause highways dangers. It is therefore considered that the proposed development complies with the guidance contained within PPS1, PPS3, PPS5 and PPG13 as well as Policies 2 and 27 of the East Midlands Regional Plan and Saved Policies H6 and EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

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

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

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order with or without modification), no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the building(s) shall be carried out without planning permission obtained from the local planning authority.

Reason: The local planning authority considers that further development could cause detriment to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties or to the character of the area, and for this reason would wish to control any future development with Saved Policies H6 and H7 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

3. No development shall take place until samples of the materials (including colour of render, paintwork or colourwash) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

4. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structure (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc). Soft landscape works shall include

schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; implementation programme.

Reason: Hard and soft landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings.

5. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To provide a satisfactory appearance by screening rear gardens from public view and in the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupants of the proposed dwellings.

6. Before development is commenced on site all existing trees shown on the approved plan shall be fenced off to the limit of their branch spread. No works (including removal of earth), storage of materials, vehicular movements or siting of temporary buildings shall be permitted within these protected areas.

Reason: To prevent unnecessary damage to existing trees.

7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface and foul water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetables agreed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to prevent pollution of controlled waters by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface and foul water disposal.

8. With the exception of the bedroom window all other windows and the door within the south west elevation shall not be glazed otherwise than with obscured glass. They shall be fixed shut to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level and thereafter permanently retained as such.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property in accordance with Saved Policies H6 and H7 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

9. This permission relates solely to the application as amended by Mrs Aaron received on 14 June 2010.

Reason: The earlier submitted drawings would have unduly harmed the residential amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants of 50 East End.

10. Before development commences on site further details relating to the vehicular access to the public highway, including materials, specification of work and construction method shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The approved details shall be implemented on site before the development is first brought into use and thereafter maintained at all times.

Reason: In the interests of the safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site.

11. Before the dwelling is occupied, the access and turning space shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan, drawing number RR/DA/5012/10A dated 14 June 2010, and retained for that use thereafter.

Reason: To ensure safe access to the site and the dwelling in the interests of residential amenity, convenience and safety and to allow vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

12. Prior to the commencement of the development an up to date protected species survey shall be submitted to and approved by the district planning authority and any mitigation methods outlined in the report fully implemented in accordance with the submitted details. The survey shall include a comprehensive newt survey.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development will not harm any protected species or associated habitats in accordance with the guidance contained within PPS9.

Note(s) to Applicant 1. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted you are advise to contact the Divisional Highways Manager, Lincolnshire County Council (telephone no. 01522 782070) to discuss the proposed works within highway limits.

* * * * * *

NB1 S10/0669/MJNF Target Decision Date: 16-Jun-2010

Applicant Maiden Properties Limited 8, Sheep Market, Stamford, Stamford, Lincolnshire, PE9 2QZ Agent Philip Heath, Wilson and Heath (Architects) 22, Austin Street, Stamford, PE9 2QP Proposal Variation of condition 1 of p/p S07/0021 (erection of 38 bedroom hotel) Location Former Welland Motor Factors Site, North Street, Stamford, Lincs App Type Major Full (Non-residential) Parish(es) Stamford

REPORT

Application Category

This application is categorised as a major application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application is to be determined by the Development Control Committee at the request of the local Councillor. A previous application on the site was also determined at Committee.

The Proposal

The proposal is to vary condition 1 of planning permission S07/0021 for the ‘erection of a 38 bedroom hotel’.

This procedure was brought into use in October 2009 to make it easier for developers to keep alive planning applications during the economic downturn.

The application site and its surroundings

The application site is currently empty and was formerly the Welland Motor Factors Site. The site frontage overlooks North Street and the public car park opposite. There are two buildings either side of the application site that front North Street with the Nags Head Passage to the immediate east. To the west of the application site is the rear elevation of Browne’s Hospital, part of which is two and some three-storey. To the south of the application site is the rear elevation of The Pear Tree Public House, which fronts Broad Street.

There is a change of levels across the application site with the land falling away from North Street toward Broad Street along with the land adjacent to Browne’s Hospital raised above Nags Head Passage.

The application site falls within Stamford Conservation Area and the existing town centre shopping area.

Site History

In January 2001 planning permission was granted (S00/1235/69) for a change of use to Class A1 (Retail), A2 (Financial and Professional Services), A3 (Food & Drink), C3 (Residential) and retention of the existing B1 (Business) use.

In November 2001 permission was granted (S01/1032/69) for the erection of a tyre and exhaust-fitting centre whilst retaining and converting an existing building.

In November 2002 planning permission was granted (S02/0762/69) for the entire redevelopment of the site for a tyre and exhaust centre.

Consent for the demolition of existing buildings on the site was granted in November 2002 under application (ref; LB/5860).

In 2003 an application for a 38 bedroom hotel on the site was submitted (S03/1669/69) and was refused planning permission on 6 December 2005. An appeal against the decision was dismissed.

Subsequently, application S07/0021 was granted permission for the erection of a ’38 bedroom hotel’. The application was determined at the Development Control Committee; however, it has not been implemented.

Application S09/2108 for the erection of 14 flats was due to be determined at Committee. However, it was withdrawn from Committee at the eleventh hour by the applicant following a recommendation for refusal.

Application S10/0969 for the erection of 13 flats is also under consideration at this Committee.

Representations Received

Lincolnshire police make no comment about the application.

Stamford Town Council’s comments are reproduced below.

“No objection to the variation of condition 1 to Planning Application S07/0021 for a further 3 years extension but all other conditions are to remain unchanged.

However, the Town Council Planning Committee wishes to reiterate its concern over this proposed development in context to the surrounding properties. There remains

the concern over car parking, the impact on the drainage system in the area and the additional pressure at an already very busy junction on North Street.”.

Lincolnshire County Council, as highway authority, make no observations on the application.

The Council Community Leisure Officer does not consider a contribution toward play facilities necessary with the application being for a hotel.

Representations as a result of publicity

The application has been advertised in accordance with the Councils adopted statement of Community Involvement, the closing date for representations being the 13 April 2010.

As a result of consultation no responses have been received.

Policy Considerations

PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment

PPG13: Transport

PPG16: Planning and Archaeology

PPS23: Planning and pollution control

Saved policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan (1995) – EN1, H6, S1, C2

Core Strategy – EN1

Key Issues

Whether or not there has been a material change in planning policy that would now indicate the principle of development is inappropriate.

Officer Evaluation

As noted above, this form of application was recently brought into use to allow the extension of permissions in what is considered to be an economic downturn. However, it is not a rubber stamping issue with Local Planning Authorities able to refuse applications

60 should there be alterations to the development plan or other material planning considerations that now indicate the application should be refused permission.

It should be noted that at the time of writing this report the saved policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan are relevant. However, it is anticipated that when the application is determined by Members the Core Strategy will have been adopted. Regardless, it is not considered that there has been any fundamental change in planning policy that would now indicate the application should be refused permission. A number of PPG’s, notably ‘PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment’ and ‘PPG6: Town Centres and Retail Developments’ have been superseded by ‘PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ and ‘PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment’, respectively. However, the broad content of the policy with regard to the determination of this application would remain the same in that there would be a need to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and setting of adjacent Listed Buildings. The site would still be in one of the four most sustainable settlements within the District and there would be no change in design or scale of building that already has permission.

In view of the above it is recommended that the application be granted permission subject to the same conditions attached to the original permission granted in April 2007.

Crime and Disorder Implications

The application will not raise any significant issues.

Human Rights Implications

Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL

The proposal complies with core strategy policy EN1 and guidance contained in PPS1, PPS4, PPS5, PPG13, PPG16 and PPS23. Furthermore, there has been no significant change in planning policy that would now indicate the development granted permission in April 2007 is inappropriate. Variation of condition 1 of planning permission S07/0021 is therefore deemed to comply with aforementioned planning policy; with no other material planning considerations to indicate that the application should be determined otherwise.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

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

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Only natural stone shall be used for the construction of the external walls, including the dressed stone details for elevations to North Street and Nags Head Passage.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of this important part of the Conservation Area and in accordance with Policy C9 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

3. A sample panel of proposed materials shall be constructed on site and shall be subject to the approval of the District Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. The panel shall show the proposed method of construction including the type of natural stone and its finish, the mortar mixture and the method of coursing to be used in the development. The approved development shall be constructed in accordance with the sample panel as may be approved, and the panel shall be maintained on site throughout the duration of construction works.

Reason: In order to ensure that the materials to be used harmonise with existing properties in the locality and that the development as permitted will not deleteriously affect the character of the area and in accordance with Policy C9 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

4. The applicant shall arrange for an archaeologist recognised by the District Planning Authority to monitor all stages of the development involving ground disturbance in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by that Authority before development is commenced. A report of the archaeologist's findings shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority within one month of the last day of the watching brief and shall include arrangements for the conservation of artefacts from the site.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory provision is made for the evaluation, investigation, preservation (in situ where necessary) and recording of any possible archaeological remains on the site and in accordance with Policy C2 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

5. Within seven days of the new access being brought into use, the existing access onto North Street shall be permanently closed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The Local Highway Authority so requests to reduce to a minimum the number of individual access points onto North Street, in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with PPG13.

6. There shall be no means of vehicular access or drop off/pick up to the approved hotel.

Reason: The Local Highway Authority so requests in the interests of the safety

and freedom of flow of traffic using this stretch of North Street and in accordance with PPG13.

7. The windows to all elevations shall be of timber construction.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and in accordance with Policy C9 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

8. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced large scale details to show the exact treatment of the stone features and window sections, together with external joinery details, shall be submitted to the local planning authority and only such details as may be agreed in writing shall be used on the building.

Reason: To ensure these details are appropriate to the context and in-keeping with local tradition and in accordance with Policy C9 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

9. Before the development is commenced there shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority details (including cross-sections) of the relative heights of existing and proposed ground levels of the site and existing adjoining development and roads.

Reason: In the interests of amenity, to ensure a satisfactory development and to ensure that any new development does not impose adversely upon its surroundings and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

10. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced large scale details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority showing the interface of the proposed hotel with neighbouring grade II* listed building of Brownes Hospital and only such details as may be agreed in writing shall be used in the approved development.

Reason: To ensure that the fabric of the neighbouring listed building is not adversely affected by the proposed development, in accordance with policy C6 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

11. Development shall not commence until a scheme to deal with any contamination of the site arising from its former use has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development, and to ensure the proper treatment of any contamination present on the site, in the interests of public and environmental safety and in accordance with PPG23.

Note(s) to Applicant 1. Your attention is drawn to the enclosed Planning Guidance Note No. 2 entitled 'Watching Brief' and the Community Archaeologist's assessment which may be helpful to you in complying with the condition relating to archaeology included in this approval. The South Kesteven Community Archaeologist may be contacted at Heritage Lincolnshire, The Old School, Cameron Street, Heckington, Sleaford, Lincs NG34 9RW - Tel: 01529 461499, Fax: 01529 461001. 2. You are advised that the application site falls within an area which requires protection from Radon. You are advised to contact the District Council's Building Control Services to ascertain the level of protection required, and whether geological assessment is necessary.

* * * * * *

NB2 S10/0682/MJNF Target Decision Date: 21-Jun-2010

Applicant Mr A McLoughlin, The Stamford Endowed Schools 16, St Pauls Street, Stamford, Lincs, PE9 2BE Agent Mr Paul Harkin, GSS Architecture 35, Headlands, Kettering, Northants, NN15 7ES Proposal Erection of sports hall (incorporating swimming pool, fitness suite, gym, classroom and terrace) Location Land R/o Existing Sports Hall, Conduit Road, Stamford App Type Major Full (Non-residential) Parish(es) Stamford

REPORT

Application Category

This application is categorised as a major application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application is to be determined by the Development Control Committee with it considered to be locally controversial and at the request of the Development Control Committee Chairman.

The Proposal

The proposal is to erect a new sports hall that would incorporate a swimming pool, fitness suite, gym classroom and terrace. It would be accessed from Conduit Road. The existing car park would be re-laid and spaces clearly marked out. A passing bay is also proposed along the drive between the car park and Conduit Road. 10 Silver Birch trees would be removed to facilitate the erection of the building.

The application site and its surroundings

The application site forms part of the playing field of Stamford Endowed School and lies to the east of an existing sports hall. Currently the land is laid with a mixture of grass and astro-turf for use as cricket wickets. There is a significant change of levels between the application site and land to both the immediate south and north. North of the proposed building is an Astroturf pitch raised some 3.5m above the proposed building. South of the application site is a grassed sports field, some 3m below the application site, with a line of silver birch between the two. Access to the site for pupils is primarily over a pedestrian bridge from the main school site, which is separated by North Street. There is also vehicular access to the site from Conduit Road.

There is a car park to the south of the existing sports hall. It has been indicated that the car park is capable of holding 33 vehicles, although parking spaces within it are poorly marked out.

Site History

There is limited recent planning history to the sports field site of the school beyond three applications, which were all granted permission, for the erection of floodlighting over existing sports pitches (ref; S02/0507, S05/0318 & S05/0826).

Planning permission for the existing sports hall was granted in 1983 (ref; SK.798/83)

Representations Received

Lincolnshire Heritage notes that no recognised archaeological features of interest would be affected by the proposed development.

South Kesteven Arboriculturalist does not object to the removal of the trees with them not occupying a prominent position or making any great contribution to the character of the area that would justify a preservation order.

Lincolnshire County Council, as Highway Authority, does not object to the application, subject to conditions. This is on the basis of the submitted Transport Assessment and content therein.

Sport England raises no objection to the application with the proposal likely to enhance the existing facilities on site.

Stamford Town Council’s comments are reproduced below;

“We have no objections to the erection of Sports Hall (incorporating swimming pool, fitness suite, gym, classroom and terrace). However, we have strong concerns regarding vehicular access to the proposed new development. The only access is on a narrow concrete roadway from Conduit Road. This Road is an extremely busy through route and there are always cars parked either side of the road. Most residents do not have off road parking or own a garage and park on the road or verge.

We would like to draw attention to policy number EN1 (iv) (Highway systems) and policy T3 (Parking).

There is extremely poor vision on exit from the narrow single track Road on the school site and the vision is always hampered by parked cars. We note that there is only parking on site for only 26 vehicles and with the new facility this will lead to increased traffic and a demand for more parking spaces. At the present time there are parking needs for school and squash club on the same site. As the proposed development opening hours are from 7am to 9pm this will exacerbate the traffic situation. In the short term building contractors will inevitably add to traffic congestion along Conduit Road.

We request that Highways carry out a traffic survey and a site visit is recommended”.

The Comments of the Town Council on the Transport Assessment are reproduced below;

“No objections to the erection of new sports hall. It was noted that there had been a transport assessment undertaken. The Planning Committee are disappointed with the proposed Car Parking Management Strategy which proposed to bar pupils parking and thereby achieve adequate car parking space for the new and the existing sports facilities. We also remain concerned about the poor visibility splays on exiting from the sports facilities onto Conduit Road.

Whilst we understand that the concerns have tried to be addressed; however it is still believed that the requirements of Policy EN1 (vi) in SKDC Local Plan have not been met”.

Representations as a result of publicity

The application was advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement with the closing date for representations being 23 April 2010. As a result of the initial consultation 17 letters of objection were received. A summary of the objections received is reproduced below.

• The traffic situation along conduit road is already problematic due to on street parking and the number of vehicles that access the sports centre. Granting planning permission will only exacerbate existing problems.

• Construction traffic may find it impossible to access the site as well as result in increased congestion.

• The building should not be open to the general public

• Noise and light pollution from the building is likely to increase from the building to the detriment of residential amenity.

Following the submission of a Transport Assessment, at the request of the Local Highway Authority, a further consultation was undertaken. All local residents who responded to the initial consultation were informed of the additional information, along with the Town Council. A further two weeks was allowed for the submission of observations; the closing date for representations being 16 June. Three letters of objection has been received and express concern about;

Noise and light pollution, increase in traffic and increase of use and disturbance Question the reliability of the survey and whether or not it is comprehensive enough given existing problems

Applicants submission

Believe that the design of the sports hall is sympathetic to the character of the area. Furthermore, it would enhance existing sports provision at the school.

With regard to existing use of the site it is only pupils, staff, registered Members of Stamford Squash Club and other organisations that currently rent facilities on a routine basis e.g. an indoor football club, a badminton club and indoor cricket club. The site is not open to the general public and as a result of the application there would be no increase in vehicular traffic or users to the site.

Policy Considerations

Saved policies EN1 & T3 of the South Kesteven Local Plan

Core Strategy policy EN1

Policies 1 and 2 of the East Midlands Regional Plan

Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development

Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport

Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Key Issues

Impact on character of the area, residential amenity and open space. Furthermore, whether the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety or result in congestion.

Officer Evaluation

The principle of development, which would enhance existing on-site sport provision, is supported, with PPG17, subject to certain criteria, encouraging such development.

With regard to scale of the building it is considered appropriate in that it would be similar to the existing sports hall. The design of the building would be relatively modern in terms of materials and elevation treatment. Materials proposed include a large amount of glazing on the south elevation to the swimming pool, orientated toward the grass pitch, including a balcony. The northern elevation would also have a balcony and be constructed of blended brick and limestone coloured masonry. The side elevations would primarily be constructed of limestone coloured masonry broken up by a mixture of glazing and two coloured block

68 panels, with an entrance feature on the Conduit Road frontage. Whilst the design of the building would be relatively modern it would utilise materials to assimilate it with the traditional vernacular of Stamford e.g. limestone coloured masonry, as well as be more contemporary e.g. large glazing. Being a building that stands alone the design is considered appropriate with it being more sympathetic to the character of the area than the existing sports hall, by virtue of materials proposed. The visual diversity of the building is also an improvement on the existing sports hall, which is more monolithic.

Sited some 79m from the nearest property curtilage it is not considered that the proposal would raise any significant overlooking or overbearing issues. There would be two balconies on the building that would be orientated north and south having views across the existing grass and Astroturf pitches. The distance to residential properties should ensure that privacy will not be compromised. Concern has been expressed about noise and light that may be generated from the building; however, having regard to the distance to neighbouring properties and existing building and floodlights, this is not considered to be an overriding issue.

In view of the above the primary issue with the application is considered to be highway considerations. A Transport Assessment has been completed and concludes that the proposal would not lead to an increase in vehicle movements along Conduit Road, or to the proposed sports hall and car park. When the survey was completed the majority of people using the car park appeared to be A-level students. To reduce vehicle movements the report concludes that use of the car park by students should be restricted. A larger passing place along the access route to the path should reduce any existing problems. Based on the information submitted it is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety or congestion, provided there would be no resultant increase in vehicular traffic. There would a slight reduction of available parking spaces, 2 in total; however, two specific disabled spaces would be created. With an appropriate condition to ensure the parking spaces are marked out it is likely that existing spaces would be used more effectively and the reduction in spaces have a negligible impact.

An appropriate condition that stipulates the sports hall should not be open to the general public, but just to existing users, would overcome possible concerns about increased vehicle movements and congestion. It is noted that concern has been expressed about construction traffic and how Conduit Road would cope with larger vehicles, as well as disturbance to local residents. However, this is a regular feature of all building works and it is not considered that a refusal would be justified on these grounds. It should be noted that the applicant has indicated construction traffic could utilise a temporary access point through Northfields Court. The highway authority has indicated that this would not be necessary with there being concerns about highway safety with the access point being close to the junction with Conduit and New Cross Road.

Crime and Disorder Implications

The application will not raise any significant issues.

Human Rights Implications

Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL

The principle of the development, which would enhance on-site sport provision, is supported. It is not considered that the proposal would raise any significant issues with regard to residential amenity through a dominating or overlooking impact. Having regard to the distance to residential properties it is not considered that the development would raise any significant issues with regard to noise or light pollution. The scale, design and siting of the building is considered appropriate utilising a mixture of both traditional and modern materials, making a contribution to the character of the area in its own right. Subject to conditions the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety or lead to congestion through vehicle movements that may be generated. The proposal is therefore deemed to comply with guidance contained in PPS1, PPG13 and PPG17 along with core strategy policy EN1.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

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

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

2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials (including colour of render, paintwork or colourwash) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

3. Prior to use of the building commencing the parking layout identified on drawing number (90)001 shall be laid and marked out.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate parking provision within the application site and to comply with guidance contained in PPG13.

4. The vehicle parking area shown on the approved plans shall not be used otherwise than for the parking of private vehicles and motorcycles belonging to the occupants of and visitors to the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that adequate parking provision is retained.

5. Prior to building work commencing on the sports hall the proposed passing bay shown on drawing number NTP-10018-01 rev 0, contained in the Transport Assessment, shall be completed.

Reason: To ensure that vehicles can pass one another whilst entering/leaving the site and to ensure that the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety and comply with saved policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

6. The sports hall shall not be open to the general public beyond current users identified in correspondence submitted by the agent dated 28 June 2010; unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the proposal would not generate vehicle movements over and above the existing use and to comply with saved policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface and foul water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to prevent pollution of controlled waters by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface and foul water disposal.

8. The Car Parking Management Strategy, contained in the Transport Assessment, identifying that students will be prohibited from using the Conduit Road car park, shall be implement prior the commencement of development.

Reason: To ensure that the proposal would not generate vehicle movements over and above the existing use and to comply with saved policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

Note(s) to Applicant 1. You are advised that the application site falls within an area affected by Radon. You are asked to contact the Council’s Building Control section (telephone number 01476 406187) to ascertain the level of protection required and whether a geological assessment is necessary.

* * * * * *

NB3 S10/0969/MJRF Target Decision Date: 23-Jul-2010

Applicant Mr A Pistolas, Maiden Properties Limited 8, Sheep Market, Stamford, Stamford, Lincolnshire, PE9 2QZ Agent Wilson and Heath (Architects) 22, Austin Street, Stamford, PE9 2QP Proposal Residential development (13 flats) Location Former Welland Motor Factors Site, North Street, Stamford, Lincs App Type Major Full (Residential) Parish(es) Stamford

REPORT

Application Category

This application is categorised as a major application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application is to be determined by the Development Control Committee at the request of the local Councillor. A previous application on the site was also determined at Committee.

The Proposal

The proposal is to erect a building to house 13 flats. The front elevation would be three- storey in height with parking provision on the ground floor, including two vehicular openings. Two wings would run at right angles to the main frontage building with a three- storey aspect adjacent to the Nags Head passage. The wing that would run adjacent to Browne’s Hospital, a grade ii* Listed Building, would be three-storey in height but with accommodation in the roof space, with a small internal courtyard between the two. There would a central feature to the building to house the front door with what appears a clock above.

The application site and its surroundings

The application site is currently empty and was formerly the Welland Motor Factors Site. The site frontage overlooks North Street and a public car park opposite. There are two buildings either side of the application site that front North Street with the Nags Head Passage to the immediate east. To the west of the application site is the rear elevation of Browne’s Hospital, part of which is two and some three-storey. To the south of the application site is the rear elevation of The Pear Tree Public House, which fronts Broad Street.

The application site falls within Stamford Conservation Area and the existing town centre shopping area.

Site History

In November 2001 permission was granted (S01/1032/69) for the erection of a tyre and exhaust-fitting centre whilst retaining and converting an existing building.

In November 2002 planning permission was granted (S02/0762/69) for the entire redevelopment of the site for a tyre and exhaust centre.

Consent for the demolition of existing buildings on the site was granted in November 2002 under application (ref; LB/5860).

In 2003 an application for a 38 bedroom hotel on the site was submitted (S03/1669/69) and was refused planning permission on 6 December 2005. An appeal against the decision was dismissed.

Application S10/0669 to vary condition 1 of permission S07/0021, for the erection of a 38 bedroom hotel, is also under consideration at this Committee.

Representations Received

Stamford Civic Society supports the observations of the Chairman of Browne’s hospital. Request that if Collyweston slate is ruled out on cost, consideration of an artificial material that weathers appropriately, rather than blue slate, would be preferable. Believe that the site is over-developed. Car parking is tight and light will be taken away from the adjacent alley. Believe the North Street façade lacks proper scale. It is not a historically important site and a pseudo-eighteenth century design is a mistake.

Lincolnshire police ask that due consideration be had to issues of lighting, landscaping and access to the building to discourage casual intrusion by non-residents and reduce crime.

Stamford Town Council’s comments are reproduced below.

“Strong objection is made to this application as it is considered a vast overdevelopment of the site and will have a major traffic impact on an already busy thoroughfare. The construction is along a very busy narrow public footpath and there is concern raised over the metal grilles as they may create a threatening impression, leading to a sense of fear of security and potential vandalism. It is recommended that a Traffic Assessment is conducted during peak travel periods. The architectural design is not sympathetic with buildings along North Street. It is also considered that there is insufficient car parking provision being made.

The Town Council Planning Committee support the following comments of the Chairman of the Browne’s Hospital Trust regarding the party wall being restored to the original height and that people in vehicles exiting the ‘underground’ car park will be looking right at the approaching traffic movement at this busy junction with traffic lights and may not always be aware of the residents exiting the rear exit of Browne’s Hospital.

The Town Council Planning Committee recommends that this application is determined by the Development Committee as it is considered not to comply with the following:

Policy No. EN1- Protection and Enhancement of the environment. - Developments must be located where the highway system can adequately and safely accommodate the volume and nature of traffic likely to be generated or incorporate suitable proposals for all necessary improvements”.

Anglian Water request that should the Council be minded to grant permission a number of informatives, but no conditions, be added to the decision notice.

South Kesteven District Council Archaeology request that should the Council be minded to grant permission a condition requiring an archaeological watching brief be added to the decision notice.

Environmental Health request that a condition be added about the need to submit a contaminated land survey.

English Heritage supports the principle of a back edge of pavement development; however, question whether the level of detail provided is adequate to assess the relationship with the adjacent grade ii* Listed Almshouses.

Planning policy note that there would be no objection, in principle, to the development subject to compliance with certain saved policies, most notably the detailed criteria of H6 and EN1.

Lincolnshire County Council, as highway authority, does not object to the application subject to conditions. It should be noted that, in the past, the County Council has indicated that parking provision is not necessary given the central location of the site; that said, it does not consider that the provision proposed would be detrimental to highway safety.

The Historic Buildings Advisor notes that there are a number of changes from withdrawn application S09/2108; notably, the fenestration layout on the principle elevation is more ordered and shows better symmetry and is replicated at street level; elliptical arches are now shown over the car park entrance and exit openings, and the height of the rear wing aspect has lowered adjacent to Browne’s Hospital. Considers the amended scheme acceptable, subject to the approval of conditions relating to fenestration detail and stone work.

Representations as a result of publicity

The application has been advertised in accordance with the Councils adopted statement of Community Involvement, the closing date for representations being the 02 June 2010.

Two letters have been received, one from a local resident and the other from the Chairman of Browne’s Hospital. The local resident expresses concern about the level of parking provision and whether this would reduce availability in the public car par opposite, as well as the proposed access being detrimental to highway safety. The Chairman of Browne’s expresses concern about the Party Wall Etc Act; impact on a light well; how waste will be disposed of and the proposal being detrimental to highway safety.

Policy Considerations

PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment PPG13: Transport PPG16: Planning and Archaeology

PPS23: Planning and pollution control

Saved policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan (1995) – EN1, H6, S1, C2

Core Strategy – EN1, H1

Key Issues

Impact on character of the Conservation Area and setting of adjacent Listed Buildings. Furthermore, consideration of residential amenity, highway safety and ground issues e.g. archaeology and contamination. Pertinent planning history.

Officer Evaluation

Broadly, pertinent planning policy would require applications to have consideration to the impact of development on the character of the area with particular regard to layout, siting, design and materials. Furthermore, proposals should not intrude into the setting of important buildings, landscape features or prominent views. With the application site being within a Conservation Area there would be a need to pay special attention to the need to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area. Impact on the setting of the grade ii* Listed Browne’s hospital is also important.

The principle of residential development in this location is supported in that it is within one of the districts four most sustainable settlements and in the town centre.

A key consideration for the application is also the planning history attached to the site. Permission was granted for the erection of a hotel on the site and an application to renew the permission is under consideration at this Committee. In terms of design the building is similar with a few exceptions;

The ground floor North Street elevation will not have habitable rooms within it. The fenestration on the ground floor would be sash windows but with opaque glass. Furthermore, two vehicle access points are proposed.

The scale of the rear aspect adjacent to Browne’s hospital will be the same as approved; however, two dormer windows would in the elevation orientated toward Nags Head Passage.

As a result of the use now changing to residential there would be other alterations to the fenestration layout away from the front elevation, although the scale of the building would remain the same. The internal ground floor aspect would now accommodate parking, bins and a store.

It is noted that the front elevation is similar in scale to that approved under application S07/0021, although the ground floor elevation has altered. The general fenestration layout has retained the symmetry approved under application S07/0021, with the exception that windows in the ground floor would be frosted. Two vehicular openings would be also inserted; they would retain the symmetry of the building with elliptical arches above and are considered to respect the character of the building. Having regard to the previous grant of permission it is considered that the primary front elevation is acceptable in terms of scale and design.

It is should also be noted that whilst the highway authority have indicated that they do not require parking for the scheme they raise no objection to the parking provision on highway safety grounds given the internal layout of parking and access/egress points.

In all other aspects the scale of building in terms of eave and ridge height is the same as approved under application S07/0021. The window layout has altered but it is not considered that this application raises any significant overlooking or overbearing issues given the planning history and relationship with neighbouring properties. Two dormers would be inserted in the courtyard elevation facing east, toward Nags Heads Passage;

76 however, it is not considered that this would raise any issues with regard to overlooking or overbearing. Nor would dormers be out of character with the area.

It should be noted that English Heritage has expressed concern about the lack of information when judging possible impacts on Browne’s Hospital. However, a drawing showing the relationship between Browne’s Hospital and the proposed site has been provided. It shows that parts of the roof would be visible from the courtyard of Browne’s, although the main mass and facing wall of the building would be screened by the Listed Building. It should also be noted that the scale of the building adjacent to Browne’s Hospital has reduced from application S09/2108, following concerns expressed by the Planning Officer and is now commensurate with that approved under application S07/0021. Therefore, having regard to the planning history of the site, and relationship with Browne’s hospital, it is considered that there is sufficient information to determine the application and that the proposal would not be detrimental to the setting or privacy of occupants of Browne’s Hospital.

In all other aspects the scale, siting and design of the building is considered to be acceptable and comply with relevant planning policy. It is not considered that the proposal would raise any significant overlooking or overbearing issues, or be detrimental to highway safety. Furthermore, the design of building is consistent with the planning history of the site and previous permissions attached to it.

Crime and Disorder Implications

The application will not raise any significant issues.

Human Rights Implications

Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL

It is considered that the scale and design of the building respects the character of the area having a back edge of footpath siting with a scale and front elevation that is reflective of traditional local vernacular. Furthermore, it is not considered that the proposal would be detrimental to residential amenity through a dominating or overlooking impact given the relationship with neighbouring buildings and central location of the site. Highway safety would not be compromised nor congestion created. The setting of adjacent Listed Buildings, notably the Grade ii* Listed Browne's Hospital, would not be detrimentally affected by the development, or wider character of the Conservation Area. In addition, the scale and design of the development is consistent with previous permissions on the site. The proposal is therefore deemed to comply with core strategy policies EN1 and H1 along with guidance contained in PPS1, PPS3, PPS5, PPG13, PPG16, PPS23; with no other

77 material planning considerations to indicate that the application should be determined otherwise.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

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

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

2. Only natural stone shall be used for the construction of the external walls, including the dressed stone details for elevations to North Street and Nags Head Passage.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of this important part of the Conservation Area and to comply with PPS5.

4. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced large scale details to show the exact treatment of the stone features and window sections, together with external joinery details, shall be submitted to the local planning authority and only such details as may be agreed in writing shall be used on the building.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of this important part of the Conservation Area and to comply with PPS5.

5. The windows to all elevations shall be of timber construction.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of this important part of the Conservation Area and to comply with PPS5.

6. No works pursuant to this permission shall commence, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, until there have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

(a) A desk top study documenting all the previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land;

(b) A site investigation report assessing the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desk top study; and

(c) A detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants and/or gases when the site is developed and proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Such scheme shall include nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works.

Reason: Previous activities associated with this site may have caused, or had the potential to cause, land contamination and to ensure that the proposed site investigations and remediation will not cause pollution in the interests of the amenities of the future residents and users of the development; and to comply with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan and guidance contained in PPS23 (Planning & Pollution Control).

7. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or brought into use until a verification report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall be submitted by the agreed competent person and identify that approved remedial works have been implemented. The report shall include, unless agreed in writing:

(a) A complete record of remediation activities, and data collected as identified in the remediation scheme, to support compliance with agreed remediation objectives;

(b) As built drawings of the implemented scheme;

(d) Certificates demonstrating that imported and/or material left in situ is free from contamination.

Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the approved remediation scheme.

8. No development shall take place within the application site until the applicant has secured the maintenance of an on-site watching brief by a suitably qualified and experienced archaeologist during construction work in accordance with written details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In the event of important archaeological features or remains being discovered which are beyond the scope of the watching brief to excavate and record and which require a fuller rescue excavation, then construction work

shall cease until the applicant has secured the implementation of a further programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to provide a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

9. Before the dwellings are occupied, the access and turning space shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan drawing number B11 dates 23rd April 2010 and retained for that use thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that vehicles can enter and leave in a forward gear and to comply with guidance contained in PPG13.

10. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface and foul water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to prevent pollution of controlled waters by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface and foul water disposal.

Note(s) to Applicant 1. Prior to the submission of details for any access works within the public highway you must contact the Divisional Highways Manager on 01522 782070 for application, specification and construction information. 2. Your attention is drawn to the attached letter of Anglian Water, dated 11 May 2010.

* * * * * *

PG1 S10/0898/FULL Target Decision Date: 23-Jun-2010

Applicant Mr John Baxter 11, Ermine Close, Stamford, Stamford, Lincolnshire, PE9 2XW Agent Jonathon Hartley Architectural The Old Curiosity Shop, 28, St. Peters Street, Stamford, PE9 2PF Proposal Erection of granny annexe Location 11, Ermine Close, Stamford, Lincolnshire, PE9 2XW App Type Full Planning Permission Parish(es) Stamford

REPORT

Application Category

This application is categorised as a minor application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application has been referred to the Development Control Committee as a previous application for the demolition of the existing property and erection of two dwellings was refused by the Committee in 2008.

The Proposal

The application proposes the erection of a granny annex to the north side of 11 Ermine Close. The annex would have a width of 5.1 metres, a depth of 12.786 metres, a height to the ridge of its gabled roof of 4.1 metres and be sited within 1 metre of the north boundary. It would have a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, entrance hall and lounge.

The access door and hallway window would be located on the north side of the annex close to the boundary with 7 Vence Close. A bedroom window would be sited within the west elevation facing the existing garage, the bathroom and kitchen openings would face openings within the existing property and a lounge window would face east across the garden towards the rear boundary.

The application site and its surroundings

The site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac within a residential area predominantly characterised by a mix of bungalows and chalet bungalows interspersed with two storey dwellings. The site itself is occupied by a recently extended detached bungalow which sits centrally within the plot leaving a generous space to the front. A garage is sited in the north west corner of the plot, to the west of which is a small section of the garden of 7 Vence

Close which runs between the site and 6 Ermine Close to provide a rear entrance to Ermine Close. Numbers 6 and 7 Vence Close are sited to the north of the site, 4a Vance close is positioned to the east (separated by the garden of 35 Empingham Road) and number 37 Empingham Road is sited to the south of the application site.

An attractive mature Sycamore Tree is sited in the north east corner of the site. The land gently slopes away from the site to the north and south. A 1.7 meter high fence runs along the north boundary with a six foot high hedge located to the opposite side.

Site History

S08/0183/69 – In May 2008 the Development Control Committee refused an application for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of 2 one and a half storey dwellings. The Committee considered the application would ‘not respect the character of the settlement immediately surrounding the area.’

S08/0666/69 – In July 2008 an application for the extension of the existing dwelling was approved under delegated powers. The proposal involved a single storey front/side extension to the south elevation and a single storey rear extension.

S09/0410 – A pre application enquiry was submitted with reference to a large garage and workshop to the south west corner of the site and an extension to the north side of the bungalow. The reply indicated that the side extension was considered acceptable but the garage/workshop was too large and a concern.

Representations Received

Environmental Protection: No adverse comments

Archaeology: The application does not affect any known archaeological sites and therefore no archaeological intervention is required.

Local Highway Authority: No observations – the proposed development will not be detrimental to highways safety or traffic capacity.

Arboriculturalist: No objection subject to the condition within the arboricultural report.

Town Council: No objection subject to neighbours amenities being respected.

Representations as a result of publicity

The application has been advertised in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. At the time of writing the report five letters of representation had been received. The letters raise the following concerns:

1. A business is advertised from this address – a condition should be placed on any approval which ensures that the annex remains residential in nature.

2. Direct overlooking of gardens, loss of light, outlook and privacy – entrance door within 1 metre of the boundary – window directly faces western elevation. 3. A fence should be erected along the boundaries to provide some privacy. 4. The block plan is non contextual – difficult to assess the implications. 5. No cross sectional or levels details – the details are required to assess impacts such as the noise, disturbance and overlooking issues caused by the position of the door close to the boundary. 6. It would be better to access the proposal from the existing house. 7. No dimensions on the elevations – required to determine heights. 8. The rational behind the design is not clear – difficult to assess the architectural intent. 9. The design and access statement is incorrect as it states the application is for ‘a pair of granny annexe’. 10. The granny annexe should be have been considered at the time of the previous extension – a well proportioned extension would have been a better solution. 11. The reasons for the previous refusal remain valid – particularly the statement ‘It is considered that the massing and design is inappropriate and is contrary to PPS1; Sustainable Development, PPS3: Housing, and South Kesteven Saved Local Plan Policies H6 (criteria i) and EN1 (criteria iii).’ 12. The existing bungalow sits well on its plot at a respectful distance from boundaries – the proposal would be inappropriate, overcrowd the plot and would not respect the character of the area. 13. Concern over the capacity of the sewers.

Policy Considerations

National Planning Policy:

PPS3: Housing

East Midlands Regional Plan:

Policy 2: Promoting Better Design

Saved South Kesteven Local Plan Policies:

Policy H6: Residential Development

Policy EN1: Protection and Enhancement of the Environment

Key Issues

The key issues for consideration can be summarised as follows:

• The impact of the development on the visual amenities of the surrounding area • The impact of the proposal on residential amenities • Highways, safety and parking issues

• The implications for the mature Sycamore

Officer Evaluation

The impact of the development on the visual amenities of the surrounding area:

The existing bungalow has two gable ended projections projecting forward of the main bungalow. The proposed annex would form an additional gable to the north side of the bungalow with a width approximately 0.5 metres greater than the largest of the two existing gables.

The bungalow directly faces the cul-de-sac to the east and is a visually prominent feature within the street scene with its open driveway and overall width. The siting of the proposal to the north side of the existing property would minimise the its impact on the street scene and would allow the front boundary treatments and existing garage to partially screen the development. The gable end would be visible above these elements. Whilst the proposal would increase the extent of the built form within the plot, it is not considered that it would be sufficiently visually over prominent or excessively dominant so as to unduly harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The set back and off set position of the extension would limit its impact on the street scene even if the existing screening provided by the garage and boundary treatments were to be lost.

The impact of the proposal on residential amenities

The annex would have a height of 4.1 metres which is 0.6 metres lower than the height of the existing bungalow. The closest property to the south, 7 Vence Close, is sited approximately 22 metres from the north boundary of the site. It is considered that the limited difference in levels between the two sites is not sufficient to undermine the separation distance between the single storey buildings. The potential overlooking caused by the openings in the north elevation could be mitigated by a condition requiring the glazed elements in the door and hall window to be obscure glazed and non opening. Given the limited height of the north facing boundary and the position of the front door and hall window it is considered reasonable to request that a 1.8 metre high fence is erected along this boundary to enhance the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers to the north from users accessing the annex.

Number 6 Ermine Close is the closest dwelling to the proposed extension sited approximately 12 metres away to the north east. It is orientated at 90 degrees to the application property and has flank wall openings which face the garden of 7 Vance Close. The openings would not directly face the proposal and the orientation of the two residential units in relation to the path of the sun would limit any increase in overshadowing above that of the existing dwelling. The front opening would not directly face the openings in No. 6 and would not cause an unacceptable reduction in privacy.

4a Vance Close would be positioned directly to the east of the proposal at a distance of approximately 27 metres. Such a distance is generally considered sufficient to allow dwellings with openings facing each other even at two storey level. The separation distance would avoid the single storey element having any undue loss of amenities to the neighbouring dwelling.

The existing bungalow would screen the proposed annex from the south.

For the reasons set out above it is not considered that the proposal would unduly harm the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties provided the permission included a condition which ensures that the use would remain ancillary to the existing dwelling and the provision of a landscaping scheme which considers the north boundary .

Highways, safety and parking issues:

The set back position of the dwelling and the proposed annex provides a generous drive area which would provide sufficient space for vehicle parking. The Highways Authority has raised no objections to the proposal.

The implications for the mature Sycamore

An arboricultural assessment has been submitted which assesses the impact of annex on the mature Sycamore tree sited to the north east corner of the site. The survey concludes that the east wall of the annex falls directly adjacent to the root protection area of the tree and may require temporary access to the suggested construction exclusion zone for finishing works to the wall. It recommends that a condition is placed on any approval which requires the submission and written agreement of a method statement for temporary pedestrian access to the protected area prior to any works being carried out. The Councils Arboriculturalist supports this view.

Crime and Disorder Implications

It is not considered that the proposed development would raise any significant crime and disorder implications.

Human Rights Implications

Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL

It is considered that the erection of the annex is acceptable in principle. With the use of conditions to ensure that the information detailed above is submitted, agreed and implemented, it is considered that the proposed extension would not unduly impact upon the character of the area, the residential amenities of neighbouring properties or highways safety. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would comply with PPS3, Policy 2 of the East Midlands Regional Plan as well as Saved Policies H6 and EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

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

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

2. The external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match in material, colour, style, bonding and texture those of the existing building.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

3. The extension (building) hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 11 Ermine Close.

Reason: The establishment of a further independent dwelling on this site would give rise to conditions detrimental to the amenities and privacy of both the existing dwelling and proposed accommodation.

4. The north facing window and door shall not be glazed otherwise than with obscured glass. The window shall be fixed shut up to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level and thereafter permanently retained as such.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property in accordance with Saved Policy H6 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

5. Prior the commencement of the development details of a 1.8 metre high boundary treatment to be placed along the north boundary of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The agreed details shall be implemented before the annex is occupied.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property in accordance with Saved Policy H6 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

6. A Method Statement for temporary pedestrian access to the Construction Exclusion Zone, as set out in the submitted Arboricultural Report, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development. The tree protection methods detailed in the Arboricultural Report and the Method Statement shall thereafter be implemented and retained throughout the

construction period.

Reason: To ensure the protection of a tree that makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the street scene in accordance with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

* * * * * *

IVW1 S10/0954/LB Target Decision Date: 22-Jun-2010

Applicant Mr C Baum 28-29, High Street, Stamford, PE9 2BB Agent Mr P Hand, Jefferson Sheard Architects 7 Minerva, The Forum, Minerva Business Park, Lynchwood, Peterborough, PE2 6FT Proposal Alterations to Listed Building Location 28-29, High Street, Stamford, PE9 2BB App Type Listed Building Consent Parish(es) Stamford

REPORT

Application Category

This application is categorised as an Other application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

Previous application considered by Committee.

The Proposal

This application seeks retrospective consent for alterations to the listed buildings.

The alterations are as follows :

• Removal of the render to the first floor window surrounds and its re-application following the profile of the mouldings

• Replacement of the unauthorised single-leaf entrance door to no. 28 with a double- leaf doors to match those that previously occupied the opening.

The application site and its surroundings

The application property comprises two adjoining grade II listed buildings fronting the northern side of High Street, immediately to the east of the library, nos. 28 & 29 High Street which are of one build with no. 30.

The RCHM Survey describes the buildings as having originated as a half-timbered structure of unknown date. Nos. 28 & 29 were re-fronted in ashlar in the C18 No. 30 (not included in this application is fronted in Blashfield Terracota.

The front elevation to 28/29 has a moulded plinth, platband and projecting cornice with plain frieze. Surrounds to the doorway have ovolo mouldings and keystones.

To the ground floor are C19 shopfronts that retain some original elements.

The buildings are currently vacant but were last occupied by a café on the ground floor with residential accommodation over. They have been the subject of much unauthorised and largely unsympathetic alteration and extension.

At the rear there is an unsympathetic flat-roofed, single storey addition extension into a small courtyard at the rear. The yard is wholly enclosed by the library to the west, a two storey rear projection to no. 30 to the east and to the north, the boundary wall with no. 32 Broad Street.

The property is currently vacant but was occupied for many years as a café.

The application building lies within the Stamford Conservation Area.

Site History

The recent history of applications is as follows:

S08/0378 Change of use of part of upper floors from residential to offices and storage. Approved – 19/05/08

S09/0878 Alteration of listed building. Approved – 14/07/09

S09/1506 Change of use of first floor office/retail to residential. Approved – 24/08/09

S09/1509 Internal alteration. Approved – 24/08/09

S10/0016 Alterations to listed building. Refused – 21/05/10

Representations Received

Stamford Town Council: No objections subject to Listed Building Regulations

Stamford Civic Society :

It is the view of the Stamford Civic Society that what is proposed is an improvement; probably the minimum to get if through the planning/listed building consent process.

However, we are not fully satisfied – the visual quality of the building still suffers; for example, render instead of ashlar (whether painted or not). There is a principal that works of alteration to a listed building should enhance the building and the area and not diminish them. This is definitely not the case here.

Representations as a result of publicity

The application has been advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement. The closing date for representations is the 4th June 2010.

No third party representations have been received as a result of publicity.

Applicants submission

The external lime rendered frontage has been undertaken to reflect the appearance of the existing dressed stone. When the existing paint was stripped the stone was found to be in a poor condition and not practical to leave without protecting with a more durable rendered finish.

This was undertaken to provide log term protection and to achieve a unified appearance similar to the original stone frontage.

The proposal is to retain the High Street façade render but remodel the five first floor window reveals to reflect the articulation of the original design without causing extensive damage to the original stone that would most likely occur if all the rendering were now to be removed from the whole facade.

The render finish is not out of character with the building and also reflects the appearance of a number of other buildings of a similar period in the High Street.

The proposed replacement of the entrance door to no. 28 is to reinstate the original historical double entrance doors design.

Policy Considerations

PPS 5 – Planning for the Historic Environment

Policy 27 of the East Midlands Regional Plan

Key Issues

Impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset.

Officer Evaluation

Members will recall considering an application seeking retrospective consent for the rendering of the principal elevation of this property and the replacement of the double-leaf entrance doors in May this year. That application was refused for the following reasons :

1. It is considered that the rendering of the stone to the front elevation of this grade II listed building, obscuring mouldings to the first floor window surrounds, constitutes

an inappropriate and poorly executed alteration to the detriment of its character and appearance as a building of Special Architectural or Historic Interest and contrary, therefore, to Central Government Policy Guidance contained in PPS5 (formerly PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment)).

2. The double leaf doors are an historic feature of the 19th Century shopfront and their replacement with a single leaf door would constitute an unnecessary loss of historic fabric, contrary to Central Government Policy Guidance contained in PPS5 (formerly PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment).

The current application seeks to address the above reasons for refusal by reinstating the double leaf doors and by removing the render that now obscures the mouldings so that render can be re-applied but this time in a manner that follows the outline of their ovolo profile so that the feature remains visible instead of concealed, as at present.

Whilst some parties might wish to see the render removed from the frontage in its entirety, there are potential problems with this. The actual removal itself could further damage to the underlying stonework and, once removed, the underlying stone that is not in the best of condition would be vulnerable to frost damage, as has been the case with some other listed buildings in the District with stone in better condition than that of the application property.

Crime and Disorder Implications

It is considered that the application will not raise any significant crime and disorder issues.

Human Rights Implications

Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL

It is considered that the works of alteration proposed to the grade II listed building, in order to reverse previous unauthorised works, will, subject to the conditions attached to this consent, restore features of significance to this historic asset.

The proposal complies therefore with Central Government Guidance contained in PPS5 and Policy 27 of the East Midlands Regional Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. The works hereby granted consent shall be undertaken within six months of the date of this consent.

Reason: In the interests of restoring features previously removed without authorisation, in the case of the doors, and currently obscured in the case of the mouldings, in the interests of preserving the significance of the heritage asset. PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment.

2. The works to remove the render from the mouldings to the first floor window surrounds shall be undertaken using hand tools only.

Reason: To ensure that no unnecessary damage is caused to the underlying stone mouldings whilst removing the render, in the interests of preserving features of significance to the historic asset in accordance with PPS5 - Planning for Historic Environment.

* * * * * *

KJC1 S10/0179/FULL Target Decision Date: 18-May-2010

Applicant Mr Gordon Cakebread 45, Low Road, Barrowby, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG32 1DB Agent Mrs Angela Kisby, Absolutely Architecture 15, Market Place, Waintfleet All Saints, Skegness, PE24 4BX Proposal Erection of a shop and associated car park Location Land At The Drift, Harlaxton, NG32 1AE App Type Full Planning Permission Parish(es) Harlaxton

REPORT

Members may recall that the application was considered at the previous development control committee on 22nd June 2010 at which members resolved to approve the development subject to appropriate conditions.

Following communication with the local highway authority it has been confirmed that an additional condition is required relating to the provision of a pedestrian refuge on the A607. Not as a note to applicant as previously reported.

The report is reproduced in full below, incorporating any late item information, the additional condition requested by the local highway authority and the additional conditions requested by the development control committee in relation to boundary treatments, limiting the retail floor area to the submitted plan and no part of the building to be used for residential purposes

Application Category

This is a minor application

Reasons for Referral to Committee

The application has been referred to committee as it has generated significant local interest.

The Proposal

The application relates to the construction of a village store and associated car parking at The Drift, Harlaxton. The proposal would be purpose built, and be designed with a mix of hipped and gable roof structures giving the building a rural appearance. The rear of the site would be given over to parking spaces. The frontage of the site would be grassed. The

93 development would be accessed off Strood Close which serves the adjacent housing development.

The building would have an overall ridge height of 6.6 metres at the highest point. The ground floor would be made up of a sales area, storage and staff facilities. The first floor would provide office and storage.

The building would be constructed of facing bricks and clay pantiles.

The Application Site and its Surroundings

The store would be located towards the frontage of the site adjacent to The Drift. To the south of the site is the newly constructed affordable housing development served off Strood Close. To the north of the site is open countryside and beyond that the Grantham Canal.

Representations Received

Local Highway Authority: No objection subject to parking and turning in accordance with the submitted plan.

Community Archaeologist: The application does not affect any known archaeological sites and therefore no intervention is required.

Planning Policy:

One of the objectives of Planning Policy Statement 4 is to support economic growth through provision of a range of services and choice including to those in rural areas.

Policy EC13 sets out the issues to be considered when determining applications for retail in local service centres and villages.

Policy SP2 of The Core Strategy highlights Harlaxton as a Local Service Centre and therefore support is given to proposals and activities that protect, retain or enhance existing community assets, or that lead to the provision of additional assets that improve community well-being.

Saved Policy S8 of the 1995 South Kesteven Local Plan supports proposals in villages for small-scale shopping development catering for local needs or recreation and tourism, including proposals resulting in the re-use of suitable buildings.

This development would possibly be better suited closer to the centre of the village but as demonstrated there are no alternative sites available for such development.

The information submitted does not give details of what the proposed shop will be selling, Planning Policy will only support a shop that sells day-to-day needs, the sale of any other goods would be contrary to policies as mentioned above.

Environmental Protection:

Given that this proposal is in a residential area, in order to minimize disturbance to local residents I would suggest that it would be appropriate to limit the opening hours to 07:30 to 22:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 16:00 Sundays and Bank Holidays. This could then allow deliveries to take place between 07:00 to 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:30 to 16:00 on Sundays and Bank Holiday. The proposed opening hour of 07:00 would be likely to result in a need for deliveries to take place prior to opening and early morning disturbance for local residents.

I would also request that if the application is successful, a condition be attached requiring details of any external lighting to be submitted and approved.

Harlaxton Parish Council

Harlaxton already has a village shop which has been trading for 12 years. Three years ago the villagers, through the Parish Council, contributed to the cost of setting up the transfer of the Post Office in the shop, rather than lose the post office when the original property was sold.

The shop and Post Office are the hub of the village, they are in the centre of the village (on the southern side) and anybody using the village facilities, i.e. doctor’s surgery, school, social club or village hall, Church etc has to pass the shop. There are no facilities on the northern side of the village which only has 90 of the 458 houses in Harlaxton. The remainder are on the Southern side.

We wish to draw your attention to PPS4 and make reference to the following paragraphs:

EC1.4(C) “…..supporting shops, services and other important small economic uses in local centre and villages”. By putting another village store in a village with only 600 electorate, you would not be supporting the existing shop as it could be put out of business so that the village would end up with no shop at all. That in turn would mean there would be no post office.

EC6.2 (a) “Strictly control economic development in the open countryside away from existing settlements….” The proposed site, subject of this application will be far away from the main existing settlement of the village.

EC9.1..”keep under review the need for further development and the vitality and viability of centres at local level. Two village shops in a village of 600 electorate cannot be viable.

EC12 (a) …”support development which enhances the vitality and viability of market town and other rural service centres”. A second shop will not make either shop viable and therefore this application should not be supported.

EC13.1(a) ..”take into account the importance of the shop, leisure facility or service to the local community or the economic base of the area if the proposal would result in its loss or change of use. The shop is the hub of the village and a second shop could result in the loss of one or both shops as an electorate of 600 would not sustain both.

EC13.1 (b) …”refuse planning applications which fail to protect existing facilities which provide for people’s day to day needs. By allowing this application to succeed you would failing in your duty to protect existing well used facilities which do provided for our day to day needs.

The applicant states in his Design and Access Statement that his proposed village store will be accessible by people walking, cycling or using public transport but the application includes 7 parking spaces and therefore it must be accepted that he is expecting high volume of traffic to and from the shop. The Drift is a road that is already under greater use than is acceptable and any more traffic will be disastrous for residents. In addition, we would question whether the bridge over the canal is capable of taking more traffic than if already does. We would urge you to communicate with highways on two main points (i) the viability of access into the site and (ii) whether The Drift is suitable for more traffic.

Representations as a Result of Publicity

The application has been advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement. 20 letters of objection have been received.

A summary of the main concerns raised are listed below:

1. Safety and traffic. Danger to children playing on the streets. 2. Traffic generated by the shop including deliveries. 3. Loss of privacy. Children gathering outside the shop would result in loss of privacy. 4. Excessive noise and smell and litter. 5. Making somebody homeless if the shop gets the go ahead. 6. Lounge window would face onto bins. 7. With only seven spaces it is likely that cars will park on the neighbouring cul-de-sac. 8. The shop would become a focal point for people to congregate. Concerns regarding highway safety and strangers posing a threat to children. 9. If a new shop is opened how will the existing shop in the village survive? 10. Potential for anti-social behaviour. 11. Potential eyesore if the shop fails it will leave a derelict shop. 12. Existing facilities in the village are all on the southern side and that is the hub of the village. 13. The Drift already has issues with speeding traffic and is not wide enough to accept additional traffic. 14. Opening hours of 7am to 10pm is not acceptable in a residential area. 15. As the majority of the residents of Harlaxton live on the southern side of the village. It is unlikely that they would travel to the north of the village to the new shop. 16. The village cannot sustain two shops. The additional competition may result in closure of the existing shop and loss of the post office. 17. Policy EC6.2 seeks to identify deficiencies in local shopping. But this deficiency does not exist as there is already a shop. 18. The development would not result in a reduction of carbon emissions as only a handful of villagers would access the shop without vehicles. The remainder would use the car. 19. Whilst the proposal would generate employment in the local area, if the proposed shop and the existing shop fails there will be an overall loss of employment.

20. The proposal would not protect the existing shop as the village is not large enough to sustain two shops. Therefore contrary to Policy EC13. 21. There is no evidence provided of community involvement/public consultation undertaken by the applicant. However, a survey has been signed indicating that a second shop in the village is not required. 22. Antisocial behaviour including noise, litter, traffic, light pollution and pollution from exhaust fumes. 23. The A607 is in need of a crossing place for residents to access the church, village shop and village hall. 24. The Drift is poorly lit, narrow and increased traffic will lead to accidents. 25. May impact on the public house if the shop sells alcohol. 26. Would not be safe to allow our children to visit the village store as they would need to cross the A607. 27. There is no evidence provided to support the contention that the amount of development would have no negative impacts. 28. Opening hours of 96 hours per week would not be appropriate to need or supportable by two full time staff equivalent. 29. The benefits to the community are not supported by any business case. 30. The shop is likely to attract customers from Barrowby rather than Harlaxton. 31. There is no reason or justification for being open until 22.00. 32. I am not aware that any pre-application consultation has taken place. 33. We are concerned that your enforcement officers have been unable to oust the person living illegally on the site and that the site has operated as a farm shop for 10 years, illegally. This does not bode well for the Applicant’s application as he seems to flout the rules at every opportunity and we feel that the committee should be aware of this. 34. There are not enough people to accommodate two shops therefore one would need to close. 35. If the one to close was the current shop we would loose the post office. 36. Need to cross the very busy and dangerous road to access the shop is unpractical.

A petition containing 323 names has also been received by the local planning authority. The petition states:

“We do not need unnecessary additional development in the form of a second shop and strongly object to this application”.

There has been one letter of support. A summary of the main comments are listed below:

1. It would alleviate inconsiderate parking at the existing village shop. The existing village shop although in the village does not have the capability of expansion and is a hot spot for youths to congregate. 2. The village has had until recently two shops.

Applicants Submission

The applicant has submitted a comprehensive Design and Access statement, and a PPS4 Statement Economic Regeneration Statement in support of the planning application.

The conclusions of the Design and Access Statement and Economic Regeneration Statement are summarised below:

“The Design and Access Statement , and the preceding consideration of PPS4 demonstrates that the proposed development would be consistent with national and local planning policy objectives for the consolidation of the role and function of local service centres. In particular it is relevant to note that the proposed development would be consistent with emerging policy SP2 of the Core Strategy. There are clear economic and social benefits to the provision of additional services and facilities within the village, and we can identify no material harm that would arise from this provision. The benefits to the community in this respect are self-evident”.

Goods on Sale

It would be preferred if the shop could be permitted to sell as wide a range of goods as possible. The applicant has no firm plan as to what the shop will sell, but his intention was not for the shop to be in direct and complete competition with the existing village store and post office.

Person being 'ousted'

The occupant of the site has a license to occupy the land for horticultural purposes only.

Relevant Site History

S02/1654 – Planning permission was refused for the erection of Eight dwellings and associated children’s play equipment on the Western Field, The Drift, Harlaxton, Grantham, Lincolnshire on 18th February 2003.

SK.95/0227 - Temporary office and car park at Harlaxton Nurseries, The Drift, Harlaxton, Grantham was granted planning permission on 18th April 1995. This permitted the siting of temporary office accommodation and car parking in association with the existing nursery operation on the site. The permission was temporary, and expired on 18th April 2000.

There appears to be very limited planning history on the site. The records indicate that a nursery has operated on the site for a number of years but has never been the subject of a formal planning application. Comments from local residents indicate that a farm shop operated on an ad hoc basis.

The submitted Design and Access Statement states that:

“The site is currently occupied by a small market garden/farm shop which has been in operation for many years. Whilst there has been no application for planning permission to regularise that use it is understood that the activity has been taking place for a period exceeding 10 years. Prior to that there were a number of commercial uses taking place on the site. The site must reasonably be viewed therefore as a brownfield site”.

Policy Considerations

National Guidance

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

PPG13 – Transport

Local Policies

Core Strategy – Policy SP2 – highlights Harlaxton as a Local Service Centre and therefore support is given to proposals and activities that protect, retain or enhance existing community assets, or that lead to the provision of additional assets that improve community well-being.

EN1 - Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District

EC13 - Sets out the issues to be considered when determining applications for retail in local service centres and villages.

Key Issues

The main issues for consideration in relation to the proposed development are impact of the proposed development on highway safety, compliance with relevant local plan policy and potential impact on residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Highway Safety

The proposal includes parking spaces to the rear of the site and would be accessed via a sizeable drive and turning area to accommodate delivery vehicles. The comments of the local highway authority indicate that the proposed development is acceptable from a highways perspective.

Compliance with policy

The comments of the Council’s policy section indicate that subject to the store providing goods to meet local needs the development would accord with policy. Whilst concerns have been raised regarding competition with the existing store in Harlaxton, this is not a material planning consideration in relation to the determination of this application.

Harlaxton is a village that is divided by the A607. There are a reasonable number of dwellings located to the north of the A607 which would benefit from a shop in this location as it would negate the need to travel/walk to the facilities in the main village core. As such it is considered that the proposed development accords with the sustainability aims set out in current national guidance.

Residential Amenity

The proposed would be located a significant distance from the neighbouring residential developments. The access and parking would be located to the rear of the site which when coupled with the relatively small nature of the development it is considered that the occupiers of the neighbouring would not experience any significant loss of residential amenity that would justify a refusal of planning permission on the grounds of residential amenity. The comments of the Environmental Protection section indicate that subject to control of the hours of delivery and any external lighting on the site this would minimise any disturbance to local residents.

Conclusion

The development would not be contrary to current national and local guidance. It would add to existing community facilities and thereby comply with current sustainability objectives. The comments of the local highway authority indicate that there would not be any detrimental impact to highway safety and the comments from the policy section indicate that there is policy support for a shop that sells day-to-day needs. Comments regarding competition are not material planning considerations.

Crime and Disorder Implications

It is not considered that the proposed development raises any significant crime and disorder issues.

Human Rights Implications

It should be noted that Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) will be taken into account in determining this application

It is considered that no other relevant Article will be breached.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL

The proposal is considered to accord with the objectives of national and local policies as set out in PPS1, PPS4 and PPG13, Policies EN1, EC13 and SP2 of the Core Strategy. The issues relating to highway safety, residential amenity, anti-social behaviour are material planning considerations. However, they are not considered to outweigh the policies referred to above.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

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

100

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

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

3. The arrangements shown on the approved plan 0209-02 Rev A dated 21 January 2010 for the parking/turning/manoeuvring/loading/unloading of vehicles shall be available at all times when the premises are in use.

Reason: To enable calling vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway of The Drift and to allow vehicles to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

4. Notwithstanding the generality of the Use Class A1 as defined by the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order the shop hereby permitted shall be for the sale of everyday convenience shopping goods only (i.e. food, drinks, newspapers/magazines and confectionery) and shall not be for the sale of any other goods.

Reason: The sale of any other types of goods would be detrimental to the vitality and viability of existing town centre shopping areas in accordance with PPS4.

5. The premises shall not be used for the purposes hereby permitted outside of the hours of 07:30 to 22:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 to 16:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays without the prior consent in writing of the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

6. Prior to the use hereby permitted commencing, details of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be in accordance with any such details that are approved.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved South Kesteven Local Plan.

7. Prior to the implementation of the permission hereby granted a management plan for the collection of litter shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to protect the amenity of

101

neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved South Kesteven Local Plan.

8. There shall be no deliveries to the premises outside the hours of 07:00 to 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 09.30: to 16:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays without the prior consent in writing of the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved South Kesteven Local Plan.

9. The retail sales floor area of the development hereby permitted be in accordance with the approved plan Drawing No. 0209-02-Rev A.

Reason: Any additional retail floor area would need further assessment to ensure that there would be no significant impact on the vitality and viability of nearby town centres.

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 3 Class F of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or an other order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification) no part of the building shall be not be used for residential purposes.

Reason: The use of the site for residential purposes would require further assessment.

11. Notwithstanding the submitted details the shop hereby permitted shall not operate until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building(s) are occupied, or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with approved details.

Reason: To protect the amneity of neighbouring occupiers.

12. The shop hereby permitted shall not operate until a pedestrian refuse crossing point has been constructed at a point north of the crossroads on the A607 and any other ancillary works in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to improve pedestrian permeability.

102

Note(s) to Applicant 1. No development shall commence on site until a Section 278 Agreement, Highways Act 1980 has been entered into with the Local Highway Authority, Lincolnshire County Council for the Pedestrian Refuge Crossing at a point north of crossroads along A607 including any other ancillary works. 2. You are advised that the application site falls within an area affected by Radon. You are asked to contact the Council’s Building Control section (telephone number 01476 406187) to ascertain the level of protection required and whether a geological assessment is necessary.

* * * * * *

103

KJC2 S10/1081/MJRF Target Decision Date: 24-Aug-2010

Applicant Mr T Bower & Others Lowfield Paddocks, Stragglethorpe, Grantham, Lincs Agent Mr Philip Brown, Philip Brown Associates Ltd 74, Park Road, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 2QX Proposal Change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for Gypsies and Travellers as defined by Paragraph 15 of Circular 01/2006, with 13 mobile homes and 13 touring caravans, including the laying out of hardstanding and creation of new access Location Land North Of Fallows End, Stragglethorpe Lane, Fulbeck, Grantham App Type Major Full (Residential) Parish(es) Fulbeck

REPORT

Application Category

This is a major Change of Use Application

Reasons for Referral to Committee

A controversial proposal which has been considered previously by committee.

The Proposal

The application is retrospective and relates to the change of use land to a residential caravan site for Gypsies and Travellers providing 13 mobile homes and 13 touring caravans and the creation of a new access.

Members may recall that the site has been the subject of a number of planning applications and an appeal. This application is to address the concerns raised by the Planning Inspector in relation to highway safety at the public inquiry on February 2010,

The existing access would be relocated approximately 12 metres from the northern boundary of the site to provide a visibility splay compliant with the document ‘Manual for Streets’.

104

Representations Received

Local Highway Authority

After due consideration of the application and its supporting statements, the local highway authority requests refusal of this application. The applicant has based the submission around an argument that they should be able to achieve a visibility ‘y’ distance to the north of 95.765m based on Manual For Streets, this is in accordance with the Inspectors Report dated 09 February 2010.

Visibility to the north from the proposed point of access to Stragglethorpe Lane is substantially below requirements due to geometry of the road and existing features masking visibility. It is considered that vehicles emerging from the access will be in conflict with traffic travelling north-south due to lack of visibility, in Stragglethorpe Lane contrary to the interests of highway safety.

In consideration of the recent Public Inquiry and the Inspectors Report the report states that:

“I consider Stragglethorpe Lane to be more characteristic of a ‘road’ rather than a ‘street’ having regard to the advice in MfS. Nevertheless, due to nature of the road and the recorded street, I do not consider that the LCC guide should be put aside in this appeal. It is clear from the Statement of Common Ground (SCG) that the access into the site in terms of visibility towards the north”.

The report thus contains the statements “I do not consider that the LCC guide should be put aside” and “I consider Stragglethorpe Lane to be more characteristic of a ‘road’ rather than a ‘street’ having regard to the advice in MfS” ….and it is concluded that the Inspector has accepted that MfS is not appropriate to be used on this type of road.

As the applicant has based this submission on a visibility distance applicable to MfS and thus contrary to the findings of the Inspectorate, it is requested the Application be refused.

Upper Witham Drainage Board

The site is located adjacent to land that is considered to be at risk of flooding as specified by the Environment Agency’s Indicative Flood Plain Map. The application makes no mention of this, but it is unlikely that the proposed development extends into that area.

However, it is recommended that there should be no storage of materials, including soil, caravans, any temporary or permanent structure or any change in the levels of the land within that area delineated on the Environment Agency’s Indicative Flood Plain Map as being in Zone 2 or Zone 3.

Reason: to ensure that there will be no increased risk of flooding to other land/properties due to the impedance of flood flows and/or reduction of flood storage capacity,

105

All drainage routes through the site should be maintained both during the works on site and after the completion of the works. Provisions should be made to ensure that those areas presently served by any drainage routes are not adversely affected by the development.

Reason: to prevent an increase in flood risk.

The Applicant makes no comment as to the method of surface water disposal but we assume that it may just discharge “to ground”. The Applicant should confirm this and if a formal soakaway system is proposed it is suggested that the suitability of soakaways as a method of surface water disposal, should be ascertained in accordance with BRE Digest 365 and to the satisfaction of the approving authority in conjunction with the planning authority. If the suitability is not proven the applicant should be requested to resubmit proposals showing how the site is to be drained.

The applicant's Flood Risk Assessment Report suggests that the land discharges to Sand Beck via a Land Drainage System and that the land is a clay type sub soil. This is unlikely to accept soakaways therefore surface water discharges from this site should be flow regulated so as not to exacerbate flooding problems elsewhere in the catchment. Therefore no development should be commenced until a Scheme for the provision, implementation and maintenance of a surface water regulation system has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Internal Drainage Board. Any such Scheme shall be implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority before the development is brought into use and completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed. The maximum rate of discharge would not be expected to exceed that of a "greenfield site"

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding whilst providing an adequate method of surface water disposal.

Foul discharge is stated as being to a package treatment plant. Should any overflow etc be required to be discharged to a watercourse then the Board’s prior consent will be required for all works in, over, under or within 6 metres of the bank top. The Environment Agency’s consent may also be required in relation to the quality of the discharge liquor.

Community Archaeologist

The planning application does not affect any known archaeological sites and therefore no intervention is required.

Planning Policy

The appeal in respect of the previous application was dismissed by the Inspector solely on the grounds of highway safety, having concluded that the proposal met the criteria of Circular 01/06 and other matters, such as flooding, could be satisfactorily addressed.

Since the appeal dismissal in February 2010, the Core Strategy DPD examination has been undertaken and the Inspector’s Report received. The Inspector has found the Core

106

Strategy to be sound and the adoption of the Core Strategy is due to be considered at an extraordinary meeting of Council on the 5th July.

The Core Strategy contains a policy, Policy H4, which sets out the criteria against which the allocation of sites or applications for planning permission should be assessed. The Inspector in her report on the Core Strategy examination considered that the policy, given the supporting text acknowledged sites within rural or semi-rural settings are acceptable in principle, was sufficiently flexible to address the range of needs that could arise during the plan period, consistent with national policy.

The criteria of Policy H4 reflect the guidance set out in Circular 01/06. It is considered, therefore, that in light of the planning appeal Inspector’s conclusions on sustainability and other issues, the criteria of Policy H4 on these matters have been previously considered and dealt with. However, the outstanding criteria of Policy H4 that remains to be satisfied is that which indicates that a site ‘has good access to the highway network and will not cause traffic congestion or safety problems’.

On the 27th May 2010 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (CLG) wrote to all local planning authorities outlining the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS). The letter makes reference to the intent of returning decisions on housing supply (including the provision traveller’s sites) to local planning authorities without the framework or numbers provided by regional plans. In advance of abolition, the Secretary of State indicated that the letter should be regarded as a material consideration in any decisions currently being taken by local planning authorities. However, until such time as the RSS is formally revoked or the need for it removed it does remain part of the Development Plan and prevailing policy. Circular 01/06 also remains as extant national guidance on the provision of sites for Gypsy and Travellers.

As the means by which the RSS abolition will occur have yet to be set out in detail and in the absence of any follow up policy and advice in respect of the Secretary of State’s letter, the Government Office for the East Midlands has advised that the starting point is the pre- election Open Source Planning green paper. In respect of Gypsy and Travellers, this recognises the need for adequate site provision and that local authorities have a role to ensure the provision of suitable authorised sites to tackle genuine local need for their area in consultation with local communities.

In the case of South Kesteven the local evidence of need, which should be noted also informed Policy 16 and Appendix 2 of the RSS, is provided by the Lincolnshire Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment and there remains an unmet need in the District for 11 permanent pitches.

Subject to the issue of highway safety being satisfactorily addressed there is no planning policy objection to the proposal.

Assets and Facilities (Drainage)

Based purely on local information received, I do not believe that the site will drain adequately for human habitation, being historically regarded locally as water meadow.

107

However, in the face of the FRA assessment submitted I realise that I can provide no hard evidence sufficient to refute the statements therein.

Accordingly, I must restrict my comments to starting categorically that Asset and Facilities will resist most vigorously any future application from the occupants of the site to the Authority for assistance in providing improvements to surface water drainage.

Crime Prevention Design Advisor – Lincolnshire Police

As per my previous correspondence under planning reference S09/0079 – again I do not have any comments to make in relation to crime reduction and community safety issues.

Defence Estates Safeguarding

Thank you for consulting the Ministry of Defence on the above proposed development which was received by this office on 28/05/2010. We can confirm that the Ministry of Defence has no safeguarding objections to this proposal.

Defence Estates - Estate Management

Any comments will be reported in the late items paper.

North Kesteven District Council – Neighbouring Authority consultation

North Kesteven District Council raises no objection to the proposed development as referred to above.

Environment Agency

Environment Agency Position We have no objection to the proposed development, as submitted, subject to the method of foul water disposal being secure by an appropriate condition.

Flood Risk We have assessed the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and consider that it is compliant with the requirements and general principles set out within Annex E of Planning Policy Statement 25.

Foul Drainage We request that the following condition is attached to any approval of planning permission:

Condition The foul drainage from the development hereby permitted shall only be discharged via a Package Treatment Plant into a watercourse.

108

Reason To prevent the increased risk of pollution of Controlled Waters by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of foul water disposal.

As you are aware the discharge of planning conditions rests with your Authority. It is, therefore, essential that you are satisfied that the proposed draft condition meets the requirements of Circular 11/95 'Use of Conditions in Planning Permission'. Please notify us immediately if you are unable to apply our suggested condition, as we may need to tailor our advice accordingly.

Informative Our prior written consent is normally required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into Controlled Waters. It may also be required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plant into or onto ground or into waters which are not Controlled Waters. Such consent may be withheld. (Controlled Waters include rivers, streams, underground waters, reservoirs, estuaries and coastal waters).

If granted, this Environmental Permit would give permission to discharge treated effluent within the conditions of the permit. This permission would be in respect of water quality considerations only and would not provide the right of access to any drains or watercourses. To apply for a Environmental Permit please contact our National Permitting Team on 08708 506506.

Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust

Thank you for consulting the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust on the above application which is located near to Fulbeck Airfield Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). We would not expect the proposed development to have a significant negative impact on the nature conservation interest of the site.

We note from previous consultations for this development (S09/0079/MJRF and S08/1060/34) that ecological surveys of the site were requested. It still does not appear that any ecological surveys have been carried out on the site. It is not entirely clear from the information though whether the site is already being used, in which case any ecological value of the site, or protected species which may be present, are likely to have been lost.

If the site is still unoccupied we would therefore strongly recommend that surveys are carried out prior to determination and our comments remain the same as those expressed in our letters dated 9 March 2009 and 16 October 2008 and are repeated below.

The primary concern of the Trust in connection with this scheme is to ensure that works have no adverse effects on protected species. We would recommend that a walk over survey is carried out by an ecologist to assess the potential use of the site by species such as badgers, great crested newts, reptiles and breeding birds. We would wish to ensure that any protected species present were identified and mitigation implemented if appropriate.

109

National Farmers Union

Travellers have as much right to accommodation as the settled community, but this application appears to contradict policies in the local plan dated April 1995 and the local development framework currently being drafted. These are the documents against which all development in the District should be judged.

Policy H10 of the local plan indicates that new residential development in the countryside will not normally be permitted unless there is essential need for an agricultural or forestry worker. This policy expired on 27th September 2007 and was replaced by Annex A of Planning and Policy statement 7 which states that one of the few circumstances in which isolated residential development may be allowed in the countryside is when accommodation is required for agricultural, forestry and other rural workers to live near their place of work.

Policy H4 on gypsies and travelers in the core strategy submission published in January 2009 lists six criteria against which traveller site location will be judged. We do not believe that the following criteria set out in policy H4 are met by the Fulbeck site:

- The site has good access to the highway network and will not cause traffic congestion or safety problems - The site is near or adjoining a residential area - The site is accessible to accessible to shops , schools and health facilities by public transport, on foot or by bicycle. - The site will not over dominate the residential (settled) community and not place undue pressure on the local infrastructure.

Policy EN1 on the protection and enhancement of the character of the district in the core strategy submission published in January 2009 states that development must be appropriate to the character of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration. We do not believe that the proposed development is appropriate to the character of the landscape or contribute to its conservation or enhancement. Planning applications must be decided according to the relevant polices in the local plan or local development framework. The relevant policies in the South Kesteven Local Plan and local development framework so far published indicate that planning permission should not be given to the proposal.

If the proposal is granted then the Council could face applications for other sites in the open countryside using the decision as a precedent. We would therefore oppose the application for a Travelers site in this location.

Caythorpe and Frieston Parish Council

S10/1081/MJRF/PC1 - Application by Mr T Bower and others for the change of use of land north of Fallows End, Stragglethorpe to use as a residential site caravan site for gypsies and travellers. This new planning application is based upon a new entrance to the site being created so as to negate any highway authority objection. The Caythorpe and Frieston Parish Council maintains its objection to this application on the grounds of highway safety. The road at this point is winding and there is not a clear

110 vision onto the road from the site in either direction. If consent were to be given eventually then the site layout should be required to comply with the usual standards applicable to caravan sites to be found within the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

Leadenham Parish Council

With regard to the above application, although this parish does not come under the administrative jurisdiction of South Kesteven District Council, as the adjacent parish receiving concerns voiced on several levels form our own residents regarding this proposal, we are obliged to make you aware of those concerns, particularly as this parish and this Council has recently faced the same situation.

Comments from the Parish Council as follows:

Local Plan Policy

As we understand it, the LPP in its consideration of the development of the proposed residential caravans and mobile homes, stresses that these proposals conform to those of location of permanent residential developments

The planning policy for open countryside states that no development allowed

We understand that Fulbeck Parish Council was informed that no planning permission whatsoever would be allowed for the foreseeable future as Fulbeck village is unsustainable for such development. If this is indeed stated with the LPP then this should be a major consideration of this proposal. To do a U turn for whatever motive (or lack of) makes a mockery of the Council and its policies.

Circular 01/2006 (based on the Preferred Options Policy)

The circular states that sites such as planned here, should be on the edges if established settlements, thereby offering a good range of services, resulting in them being more sustainable. Sites located in the countryside would lack appropriate access to essential services. The circular also considered such settlement developments would result in adverse visual intrusion.

We would reiterate the point made regarding your adherence to your own policies – you have lots of empowerment. Such polices are generated from meticulous research (at the taxpayers expense) involving several stages of public consultation. There should be no “rule bending” for any application.

Suitability of the Land

This is a heavy clay soil area, which has been subject to flooding in recent years. Taking into account projected changes in climate patterns, this must be a major consideration in the suitability of the site. Given the nature of the land described, soakaway system for a development of this size have the potential to create major potential health hazards, which could spread easily beyond the immediate area.

111

Highway Safety

The proposed site has access onto a narrow minor road – which is exceedingly well used, serving a rat run from A1 –A17 by light and heavy traffic. A traffic survey will verify this. The road surface is in a poor condition being badly worn, with edges crumbling and surface potholes. There is no speed restriction, other than the standard 60 mph. as a designated ‘road’ not a street there is no mechanism to place speed restrictions. There have been fatalities on this stretch of road in the past.

We feel most strongly that this development has the potential to cause serious harm to highway safety along Stragglethorpe Lane.

We draw attention to:

Appeal Decision – APP/E2530/A/09/2106646 (9th February 2010)

Regarding the impact of the proposed development on highway safety along Stragglethorpe Lane:

“It would be contrary to the objectives set out in RSS policy 43, would conflict with Local Plan policy EN1 and the advice in para 66 and Anex C of Circular 1/06. It would also fail to comply with guidance in LCC guide”.

Fulbeck Parish Council

The parish considers the proposal at a meeting on 21 June and resolved to oppose the application for the following:

Local Planning

Based on sustainability issues, the District Council’s Interim Housing Policy and Local Development Framework preferred options PO3 have effectively stopped residential development in Fulbeck. Applications have been refused on these grounds and it would be completely illogical and unfair to permit a variation of residential development i.e. a caravan site, in the village.

Preferred option PO6 of LDF sets out the required criteria for the establishment of sites for Gypsies and Travellers. The proposed site fails to meet the criteria.

Location and Access

The site is located on a dangerous section of the highway with a poor accident record. Whilst the Council notes the changed position of the proposed site access it is considered that the line of site is still inadequate due to bends in the road and the permitted speed limit of 60 mph.

112

Notwithstanding the statement in paragraph 12 of the application, local residents confirm that flooding has occurred in the past, and ‘grey’ water discharge is reported to be pooling on adjacent properties currently. The Council considers that this site is unsuitable for the proposed change of use.

Impact on the neighbourhood

The presence of 26 mobile homes/caravans on this site would materially harm the character of the landscape and would over dominate neighbouring properties. Neighbouring residents are currently complaining of noise and loss of privacy which supports this view.

Supporting Information from the Applicant

The applicant has submitted a design and access statement, letter to the highway authority and a flood risk assessment in support of the application.

A summary of its main content of the Design and Access statement is listed below:

The proposal involves the change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site, including the siting of 13 mobile homes and 13 touring caravans the laying of hardstandings and the creation of a new access.

Given the time restraint imposed by the enforcement notice, this application does not seek planning permission for day rooms/storage shed. It seeks to regularise the existing change of use, and further applications will need to be made for the retention/erection of ancillary buildings.

Paragraph 54 of Circular 01/2006 makes it clear that sites in areas of countryside not subject to special planning constraints are acceptable in principle.

The Council put forward one objection at the recent public inquiry, highway safety. The Inspector when considering the issue adopted the advice in Manual for Streets, and that an ‘x’ distance of 2.4 metres and a ‘y’ distance of 95.765 should be achieved from the site access. There was no dispute at the inquiry that the 2.4 by 96 metre visibility splay could be achieved to the south. The applicant’s highway consultant has subsequently redesigned the site access, and as demonstrated that, by moving the access about 10 metres northwards a visibility splay of 2.4 by 120 metres can be achieved to the north.

Amenity and Sustainability

The additional objections put forward on behalf of local residents at the recent public inquiry were not supported by the Council, and were not supported by the Inspector. The Inspector considered that the site is reasonably sustainable for a Gypsy site, taking into account the advice in Circular 01/2006 and that objections relating to amenity and drainage can be overcome by the imposition of planning conditions.

113

The submitted letter to the highway authority accompanying the application demonstrates how visibility splays in accordance with Manual for Streets can be achieved on the site by relocating the access.

Representations as a Result of Publicity

The application has been advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement. 14 letters of objection have been received.

A summary of the main concerns raised are listed below:

1. Vegetation along frontage of Fallows End is owned by occupiers of the property not the highway authority and will not be granting permission for them to be removed. 2. Policy states no further housing in Fulbeck as it is non-sustainable. 3. Developments should be close to urban areas. 4. A hedgerow has been removed and replaced with urban style fencing. This should be removed along with the lighting. 5. The change of use would adversely affect the character of the area. 6. The development would over dominate the small number of properties 7. Affect property prices (not a material planning consideration). 8. Pressure on existing facilities. Large number of additional residents will overwhelm these residents. 9. There are no accessible local bus services which will mean a considerable increase in vehicle traffic along a rural lane which has already had fatalities. 10. The proposed access will be even closer to the double bends making exit from the site even more hazardous to traffic from the north. 11. Apart from the relocation of the entrance the main essence of this application has been refused on tow previous occasions and an enforcement notice issued. 12. Older people on the site are not close to amenities such as hospitals, doctors and dentists 13. To have many vehicles entering and exiting the road at this point is very dangerous. 14. The caravan site with gravel roads is not in keeping with the countryside . The lights which have been erected are very imposing 15. Six families occupy the area in a small residential community to have a sudden intrusion of 13 extra families drastically increases numbers. 16. Site is already occupied thereby making an approval of planning permission much more certain. 17. The Gypsies are camped illegally. This is agricultural land not residential. 18. Infrastructure cannot cope with the influx of this number of people. 19. The site is adjacent to a bad bend on a narrow, winding lane which is not suitable for increased traffic. There have been several fatalities in recent years. 20. Not in keeping with the countryside location. Additional 26 dwellings would not be sustainable within the community. 21. The site has flooded in the past. This would cause a major environmental issue with sewage for 26 dwellings and flood water. 22. Accident black spot. Exit and enter the site so close will only prejudice road users right to safety.

114

23. Whilst the recent appeal was dismissed on highway safety matters only other matters should be taken into consideration. Government are now abolishing targets regarding residential and Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. 24. I dispute Mr Hursestone’s statement that vehicles are unlikely to overtake on a blind bend. This does happen. Also dispute that large vehicles can pass with a vehicle protruding out of the access. When slow-moving caravans leave the site turning left towards Stragglethorpe they tend to overshoot the centreline which is a danger to other road users. 25. Mr Hurlestone’s misinterpretation of the Inspector’s report is clearly for his own ends. The submitted photograph from the proposed new access is taken when there is no foliage and after the hedge had been trimmed back. 26. The tall motorway type lights are inappropriate for the countryside location. Even at the inquiry stated that less obtrusive lighting would be more suitable. 27. The large metal gates are out of keeping with the character and appearance of the countryside. 28. As each plot would have a static caravan and a touring caravan will stand out more than the existing caravans because of their size and height the windows will clearly overlook the residents of Fallows End. 29. A total of approximately 37 people are seeking to occupy the site. 15 of which are children. This road is unsafe for walking or cycling on a regular basis having narrow verges and no footpath with many vehicles doing in excess of 60 mph. 30. Older people needing regular medical attention seems an unlikely location to choose to live as it is 10 miles from a hospital or dentist. 31. The revised location is in a worse location than previously. 32. The settled group is over-dominated by two to one. 33. It is noted that the new government is going to change the law imminently, I would be happy to see all things being equal with no special status given to minority groups. 34. Hazardous location. The site is close to a sharp blind bend. 35. The application is not materially different than the previous application. 36. The Inspectors report clearly states that LCC guidance should not be put aside. That means an x distance should be 161 metres which is not achievable. MfS does not cater for higher speeds which apply here. Therefore DMRB which is the standard that LCC have used should apply in this case. 37. There is no safe entrance to Stragglethorpe Lane from the land owned by the Gypsies wherever they put it. It would also be unsafe for any number of pitches on the site just in case an application comes in for a fewer number of positions. 38. You should take account of new government’s guidelines that indicate Circular 01/2006 should no longer ne followed. Instead you should take note of the letter on 27th May 2010 from Rt Hon Eric Pickles which states that you should take the letter as a material consideration. This clearly means that a dismissal on the grounds of sustainability is back on the agenda and should be an additional reason for refusal as well as highways. 39. I believe that it would now be considered racist if you were to fail to refuse on grounds of sustainability, unless you were also to withdraw sustainability objections to other planning applications in the surrounding area. 40. The clear message from the new government is that there should be one set of planning rules which apply to all the community. 41. The revised proposal is based on the assumption that the applicable design standard is Manual for Streets. The Inspector’s report clearly states that LCC

115

guidance should not be set aside. The required visibility is 2.4m by 161m which cannot be achieved. As such the proposed access is contrary to recommended design standards and to highway safety. 42. Road is used as a rat run from the A1 and A17 and serves two Kart Racing tracks. There have been 3 fatalities within 150 metres of the site and 3 other reported accidents within a few hundred metres. 43. An accident happened immediately opposite the site entrance. 44. The pre-book ring and ride Call Connect Bus Service previously mentioned by the agent as an alternative mode of transport is no longer in operation. 45. It is clear that the emerging policy should be treated as a material consideration. 46. The new government plans to curtail the ability to apply for retrospective planning permission. 47. The Planning Green Paper indicates that the new government will ‘Scrap John Prescott’s controversial guidance on travellers’. ‘The concept of retrospective planning permission will also ensure that another route by which the planning system has been abused by those seeking to use unauthorised sites will be curtailed. As a result we will have introduced a legal framework similar to that which exists in the Irish Republic, to enable Councils to remove unauthorised dwellings. This will allow councils to tackle the problem of unauthorised sites including both those built on land which is owned by Travellers and land which is not. 48. When Circular 01/06 is gone I believe the site is in an unsustainable location. 49. Visual amenity – the tall lighting columns and fence are detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. 50. Drainage – Satisfactory removal of surface water remains a problem. The paddock has no access to a water course. The surrounding land owners will not under any circumstances allow right away across that land. 51. Land is clay and no effective soakaways will be possible. This was proven by a percolation test near to the application site. In a recent flood event the field took weeks to drain. The water table is just below the ground in some places. 52. Tolney Lane and Lazy Acres, where the applicants are believed to come from are far better served as the nearest doctors and dentist are 10 miles away. 53. Living in a rural community means you have to understand the problems faced by the emergency services. We cannot always expect the promptness as is expected in towns. As such the applicants my be putting their children and elderly members at risk. 54. The appeal inspector understood that if evicted there would be interference with the home and family life of those currently living on the site. She maintains however that highway safety is paramount. 55. Traffic queues up to allow large vehicles to reverse into the site whilst holding up traffic at the nearest bend. Near misses are often not reported. 56. The moving/re-siting of the access is merely splitting hairs. Visibility is still dependent upon a hedge being meticulously kept to a specific height and density and provide the Council cut the grass so it doesn’t get overgrown and restrict site lines. 57. The site is an eyesore. All sorts of inappropriate buildings have sprung up recently.

An objection has been received from the Fulbeck Lowfields Community Group. It is an objection on highway and safety concerns submitted by the Turvey Consultancy. A summary of the conclusions of this document are listed below:

116

“The Fulbeck Lowfields Community Group objects to the current access proposals off Stragglethorpe lane on the grounds of highway safety and the inability of the applicant to meet highway visibility requirements at any point of access from the site frontage.

At a Public Inquiry concerning an appeal by the current applicant to a previous access arrangement, the Inspector confirmed that the design standards of the Highway Authority (not the Manual for Streets) were appropriate and that access visibility of 2.4m by 161m was to be measured to the nearside carriageway edge.

The Highway Authority agrees and also objects to the current proposals on the same safety grounds. The applicant has indicated that the limited Manual for Streets visibility suggestions can be achieved. However, adjacent boundary vegetation precludes this, along with the inability to achieve the proper visibility splays required by the Highway Authority.

Design that is not able to provide for suitable visibility is unsafe. The Fulbeck Lowfields Community Group requests that the Planning Committee acknowledges these concerns and rejects the current access proposals”.

Relevant Site History

An Enforcement Notice against Mr Tim Bower was issued on 10 September 2008, and took effect on 10 October 2008. It relates to the making of a material change of use the land from use for paddock/agricultural purposes to the use as a residential caravan site. This resulted in the appellant’s submission of planning application S08/1060.

An Enforcement Hearing was held on 15 July 2009 relating to ground (g) That the time given to comply with the Notice is too short.

Ground (a) That planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the Notice was withdrawn by the appellant in correspondence to the Planning Inspectorate dated 13 July 2009.

Whilst ground (a) was withdrawn, the deemed application for planning permission still exists as the correct fee had been paid. At the Enforcement hearing both parties agreed that they did not wish the deemed application to be considered as they had attended the hearing on that basis.

The appellant’s reason for withdrawing ground (a) of the enforcement appeal was to allow the planning merits to be properly presented and considered at the planning inquiry.

S08/1060 – 13 Mobile Homes and 13 Touring Caravans for Gypsies and Travellers as defined by paragraph 15 of the ODPM Circular 01/2006 and alterations to access was refused planning on 27 November 2008. The reasons for refusal are highway safety, sustainability and drainage. A copy of the decision notice can be found at Appendix B.

S09/0079 - 13 Mobile Homes and 13 Touring Caravans for Gypsies and Travellers as defined by paragraph 15 of the ODPM Circular 01/2006 and alterations to access was refused planning on 28 April 2009 and is the subject of this appeal. The reasons for refusal

117 are highway safety and sustainability. A copy of the decision notice can be found at Appendix C.

The third reason for refusal (drainage) of planning refusal S08/1060 was addressed as part of the resubmitted application S09/0079.

Planning application S09/0079 was the subject of a public inquiry which was dismissed by the Inspector on 9th February 2010. The main reason for refusal relate to highway safety:

“I have found that the development would cause serious highway safety concerns and this could not be overcome by the imposition of conditions. On the other hand, the evidence of the need for sites for Gypsies and Travellers as identified in the RSS and the absence of any authorised alternative sites to which the appellants could move, together with the implications for their health and he children’s education are matters which weigh in the appellants’ favour.

Circular 1/06 advises that consideration should be given to granting a temporary planning permission where, as here, there is an unmet need, no available sites and a prospect that new sites will become available through the development plan process within a reasonable time period. It advises that substantial weight should be given to unmet need in these circumstances. A temporary planning permission would not set a precedent for any future applications for full planning permission. Nevertheless, I consider that the grant of planning permission, even for a temporary period of four years as suggested, would unacceptably perpetuate the dangers associated with the use of the access”.

Policy Considerations

National Policy

Circular 01/2006 – Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites

The main issue for consideration in relation to this application is the compliance with Circular 01/2006 – Planning For Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites. This circular should be seen in the context of the Government’s key objectives for planning for housing – to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home.

Its main intentions are: a) to create and support sustainable, respectful, and inclusive communities where gypsies and travellers have fair access to suitable accommodation, education, health and welfare provision; where there is mutual respect and consideration between all communities for the rights and responsibilities of each community and individual; and where there is respect between individuals and communities towards the environments in which they live and work. b) to reduce the number of unauthorised encampments and developments and the conflict and controversy they cause and to make enforcement more effective where local authorities have complied with the guidance in this Circular.

118 c) to increase significantly the number of gypsy and traveller sites in appropriate locations with planning permission in order to address under-provision over the next 3-5 years; d) to recognise, protect and facilitate and traditional travelling way of life of gypsies and travellers; whilst respecting the interests of the settled community; e) to underline the importance of assessing needs at regional and sub-regional level and for local authorities to develop strategies to ensure that needs are dealt with fairly and effectively. f) to identify and make provision for the resultant land and accommodation requirements; g) to ensure that Development Plan Documents include fair, realistic and inclusive policies to ensure identified need is dealt with fairly and effectively; h) to promote more private gypsy and traveller site provision in appropriate locations through the planning system, while recognising that there will always be those who cannot provide their own sites; and i) to help avoid gypsies and travellers becoming homeless through eviction from unauthorised sites without an alternative to move to.

Para 46 of the circular states: “..local planning authorities are expected to give substantial weight to the unmet need in considering whether a temporary planning permission is justified. The fact that temporary permission has been granted on this basis should not be regarded as setting a precedent for the determination of any future applications for full planning permission for the use of the land as a caravan site”.

The Circular goes on to give further advice in relation to sites in rural areas and the countryside.

Para 54 - “Sites on the outskirts of built up areas may be appropriate. Sites may also be found in rural or semi rural settings. Rural settings, where not subject to special planning constraints are acceptable in principle. In assessing the suitability of such sites, local authorities should be realistic about the availability, or likely availability, of alternatives to the car in accessing local services. Sites should respect the scale of, and not dominate the nearest settled community. They should also avoid placing undue pressure on the local infrastructure”.

It also gives guidance on general development control matters:

Para 62 states: “Local planning authorities should not refuse private applications solely because the applicant has no local connection. But they are entitled to refuse private applications in locations that do not comply with planning policies, especially where the authority has complied with this guidance and proceeded properly to ensure needs identified by accommodation assessments are being met”.

Para 63 states: “Local planning authorities should also have regard to whether the absence of existing provision may prejudice enforcement action, or give rise to grounds of appeal against refusal of an application for a new site”.

With regard to Sustainability, para 64, 65 and 66 gives advice:

119

“Issues of sustainability are important and should not only be considered in terms of transport mode and distances from services. Such considerations should include: a) the promotion of peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community; b) the wider benefits of easier access to GP and other health services; c) children attending school on a regular basis; d) the provision of a settled base that reduces the need for long-distance travelling and possible environmental damage caused by unauthorised encampment; and’ e) not locating sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans.

Para 65 –“In deciding where to provide for gypsy and traveller sites, local planning authorities should first consider locations in or near existing settlements with access to local services, e.g. shops, doctors and schools. All sites considered as options for a site allocations DPD must have their social, environmental and economic impacts assessed in accordance with the requirements of sustainability appraisal”.

Para 66 – “Sites, whether public or private, should be identified having regard to highways considerations. In setting their policies, local planning authorities should have regard to the potential for noise and other disturbance from the movement of vehicles to and from the site, the stationing of vehicles on the site, and on-site business activities. However, projected vehicle movements for gypsy and travellers should be assessed on an individual basis for each site. Proposals should not be rejected if they would only give rise to modest additional daily vehicle movements and/or the impact of minor roads would not be significant”.

Circular 03/99 – Planning Requirements in respect of the Use of Non-Mains Sewerage incorporating Septic Tanks in New Development.

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS 3 – Housing

PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

PPG13 - Transport

Local Development Framework for South Kesteven Core Strategy

Policy H4 – Gypsies and Travellers

Where evidence from the most up to date Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment identifies the need for additional accommodation planning permission may be granted or sites allocated to meet this need where:

• the proposed site provides an acceptable living environment for its residents; • the site has good access to the highway network and will not cause traffic congestion or safety problems;

120

• the site is near or adjoining a residential area; • the site is accessible to shops, schools and health facilities by public transport, on foot or by bicycle. • the site is not identified as an area at risk of flooding in the SFRA • the site will not over dominate the residential (settled) community and not place undue pressure on local infrastructure

The preamble to this policy outlines local issues.

The South Kesteven 2006 Gypsy and Travellers Housing Needs Survey (GTNS) revealed that in addition to the existing permanent sites in the District there was an outstanding need for 20 permanent pitches and 5 transit pitches in the District there was an outstanding need for 20 permanent pitches and 5 transit pitches, with the number of Gypsy and Traveller households expected to increase by 6% over the next five years.

A jointly funded Lincolnshire Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) has also been undertaken, using the methodology based on the latest version of central Government Good Practice Guidance (February 2006). This recommends provision of between 21-33 permanent pitches up to 2012.

To assess future provision beyond 2012, a standard rate of 3% compound growth per year for household formation is used. Over 5 years this would require an additional 5 permanent pitches giving a total of a minimum of 26 permanent pitches between 2012-2017. Since completion of the GTAA, planning consent has been given for 15 permanent (and 12 transit pitches) at a site (Lazy Acres) in Grantham. As a consequence the outstanding need identified for additional permanent pitches in the period to 2017 if 11 permanent pitches.

In light of the known need in South Kesteven, the Council will seek to identify and allocate appropriate sites through the Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD.

The proposals for sites should be in accordance with the criteria of Policy H4 and guidance on the design of sites for Gypsies and Travellers.

This approach recognises that there can be tensions between Gypsies and Travellers and the settled community and seeks to minimise this issue while meeting Gypsy and Travellers needs. Therefore, sites should be on the edge of, or within reasonable distance of, settlements which offer a range of services. However, they should not be located where the use of the site would cause nuisance to adjoining properties, nor should sites be located where existing land uses will cause nuisance to the site residents, for example through pollution (noise, smell, contamination etc). Circular 01/2006 advises that sites on the outskirts of built-up areas may be appropriate and that sites within rural and semi-rural setting are acceptable in principle.

In the absence of allocated sites the Council must include a clear criteria based policy against which speculative proposals can be assessed. It recognised that Gypsy sites may have to be located in the countryside, but decisions about the acceptability of particular locations need to take into account access to essential services, the impact on the settled community in the vicinity and need to minimise visual intrusion.

121

Key Issues

The main issues for consideration in relation to this application are whether there have been any material change in the policy circumstances since the determination of the previous application and whether or not the concerns relating to highway safety raised by the Inspector, at appeal, have been addressed.

Policy Circumstances

The comments from planning policy section clearly indicate that there has been no change in the thrust of policy since the recent appeal decision in February 2010.

The Core Strategy Development Plan Document has been found to be sound and is to be considered for adoption on 5th July by full Council. Accordingly, the relevant Core Strategy policy to assess this proposal is Policy H4. This policy and supporting text acknowledges sites in rural and semi-rural areas are acceptable in principle and consistent with national policy guidance, particularly in relation to sustainability matters.

It is considered that the criteria of Policy H4, when viewed in the light of the inspector’s decision, have been satisfied with the exception of the criteria relating to traffic congestion and highway safety.

It is clear from the comments of the Planning Policy and Partnerships Service Manger that the advice letter issued by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles does in not result in a ‘u turn’ in the way in which Gypsy and Traveller applications should be assessed particularly as Circular 01/06 still remains as extant national guidance in relation to this type of development.

In the absence of exactly how the Regional Spatial Strategy will be abolished and any further advice from the Secretary of State beyond the initial letter the Government Office for the East Midlands has advised that the starting point is the pre-election Open Source Planning green paper. This document recognises the need for adequate site provision, and that local authorities have a role to ensure the provision of suitable authorised sites to tackle genuine local need for their area in consultation with local communities. As South Kesteven has an identified unmet need, as informed by the Lincolnshire Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, there is no policy objection to the development, with the exception of highway safety.

Highway Safety

The subject of the recent public inquiry was predominantly based around discussions relating to the correct documents on which highway matters should be assessed. Principally, whether or not the visibility distances set out in Manual for Streets are applicable to this development.

It is considered that the Inspectors report is quiet explicit. It clearly indicates that Lincolnshire County Council guidance should not be set aside when determining the appeal and therefore should not be set aside in the determination of this application.

122

Paragraph 33 of the Inspectors Report reads:

“For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would cause serious harm to highway safety. It would be contrary to the objectives set out in RSS policy 43, would conflict with Local Plan policy EN1 and the advice in paragraph 66 and Annex C of Circular 1/06. It would also fail to comply with guidance in the LCC guide and MfS”.

It is clear that the Inspector does not discount LCC guidance but includes it specifically in the reason for refusal.

It is clear from the comments of the local highway authority that the relocation of the access does not improve visibility towards the north sufficiently to comply with Lincolnshire County Council Guidance. As such it is considered that visibility northwards, notwithstanding the revised location, would still be detrimental to highway safety.

Other Matters

Issues of drainage, sustainability, visual amenity, residential amenity, and domination of the settled community were fully explored by the planning inspector during the recent public inquiry and were considered to be that serious to warrant refusal.

Matters that weigh in support of the application were also considered, those of need, absence of alternative sites and access to health and education facilities by the residents on site. However, they were not considered to outweigh the serious highway safety concerns.

Temporary Permission It is considered that the overriding material planning consideration, that of public/highway safety, render the route of a temporary permission not a viable option in this instance notwithstanding the identified unmet need.

Conclusion

It is considered that the revised access location does not provide a safe means of entering and leaving the site. It is considered that the visibility to the north is substandard and would lead to conflict with other road users to the detriment of highway safety.

As members are aware, the site is currently occupied, and the planning application is retrospective. An Enforcement Notice has been served seeking removal of the applicants from the site. If members are minded to refuse the application it is recommended that members reconsider the enforcement notice in the exempt report at appendix 1.

Crime and Disorder Implications

The siting of a gypsy/traveller encampment near to residential properties can give rise to feelings of anxiety and apprehension, particularly regarding the risk of an increase in crime and antisocial behaviour in the immediate vicinity. It is therefore appropriate to highlight that crime and disorder are planning considerations when dealing with such issues from a

123 planning perspective. However, in this instance it is not considered that any evidence has been provided specifically linking the arrival of the gypsy/travellers with any increase in crime and disorder.

Possible criminality, although not strictly speaking a proper planning consideration, is sometimes raised in relation to the impact of gypsy sites. The effect of sites upon agriculture is an example of this fear. Local authority grounds for refusal may be couched in terms of the effect of a gypsy/traveller site upon the crime and disorder of an area, but such allegations are difficult to sustain. It is my considered opinion that there is no justification to refuse the application on this ground. It is not considered that the fear of crime is not sufficiently robust in this instance to justify refusal.

Human Rights Implications

It should be noted that Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) will be taken into account in determining this application

Advice in respect of Human Rights is given in paragraph 70 of the Circular:

“Local planning authorities should consider the consequences of refusing or granting planning permission, or taking enforcement action, on the rights of the individuals concerned, both gypsies and travellers and local residents, and whether the action is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances…..The obligation on public authorities to act compatibly with Convention rights does not give gypsies and travellers a right to establish sites in contravention of planning control”.

It is appreciated that a refusal of planning permission would be likely to result in the applicants having to resort to living on the roadside, other unauthorised sites, or doubling- up on sites elsewhere. This would potentially impact on health and welfare of the residents on the site and prevent attendance of school.

Whilst this would represent an interference with the home and family life on those living on the site, it is considered that the harm caused by the continued use of the site on highway safety would not be outweighed by the considerations in favour of the development.

It is considered that public safety cannot be secured by any other means less interfering on the applicant’s human rights. They are proportionate and necessary in the circumstances and would not result in a violation of their rights under Article 8.

These conclusions mirror those of the Inspector at the recent public inquiry.

Race Relations

Section 19A of the Race Relations Act 1976 prohibits racial discrimination by planning authorities in carrying out their planning functions. In addition, the majority of public authorities, including local authorities, have a general duty under the RRA 1976 as amended to actively seek to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations in all they do. The duty of local authorities to actively

124 seek to eliminate unlawful discrimination, and promote good race relations does not give Gypsies and Travellers the right to establish sites in contravention of planning control.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Refused for the following reason(s):

1. Visibility to the north of the proposed point of access to Stragglethorpe Lane is substantially below requirements due to the geometry of the road and the existing features masking visibility. It is considered that vehicles emerging from the access will be in conflict with traffic travelling north-south due to lack of visibility along Stragglethorpe Lane contrary to the interests of highway safety.

As such the proposal is considered contrary to the advice in paragraph 66 and Annex C of Circular 1/06. It would also fail to comply with the LLC guide.

* * * * * *

125

PWM1 S10/0484/MJNF Target Decision Date: 16-Aug-2010

Applicant Mr & Mrs Lyle Rose Cottage, Syston Park, Grantham, NG322DB Agent Rick Smith Design Suite 4 - Kesteven Business Centre, 2, Kesteven Street, Sleaford, NG34 7DT Proposal Erection of stable block and change of use of agricultural land to paddock Location Rose Cottage, Syston Park, Grantham, NG322DB App Type Major Full (Non-residential) Parish(es) Belton & Manthorpe Syston

REPORT

Application Category

This application is categorised as a small scale major application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

This application has been referred to the committee at the request of the Lead Professional because it is a major application.

The Proposal

The proposal involves the change of use of agricultural land to paddocks and the erection of a timber stable block, consisting of five stables, a hay store and a tack room.

The application site and its surroundings

The 1.3ha application site is associated with grade II listed Rose Cottage to the north and consists of land which slopes downwards towards the south. The northern part of the site is fairly well wooded whilst the land to the south is open former farmland currently being used as paddocks.

Site History

The application, as originally submitted, only included the northern, wooded part of the site. During a site visit it was found that the open land to the south was in use as paddocks. It was found that no previous planning application had been received for change of use of this land. The applicant subsequently submitted amended plans including this land to be subject to a change of use. Therefore the application is in part retrospective.

126

Representations Received

Local Highway Authority: Request condition – “The proposals are to be made personal to the applicant only”

Community Archaeologist: The site does not affect any known archaeological sites.

Barkston and Syston Parish Council: No objection.

South Kesteven Conservation Officer:

“I refer to your memorandum dated 25th May 2010 inviting comment on a proposal to erect an L-shaped timber stable block some 70+ metres east of a listed house with which it would be associated and change the use of approximately 1.3 Hectares of agricultural land to a paddock for horses. The site is located in an elevated position in open countryside to the north-east of Belton Park. The stables would be located amongst a stand of mature trees on sloping land to the south of the access drive to the house off Whipperstall Hall and, notwithstanding that a couple of the trees are to be removed, I consider that the proposed development would not compromise the setting of the nearby listed building nor the Historic Park and Garden to Belton House, which lies to the south. I have taken into account seasonal variations that mean the stables will be more visible in winter months than at other times. I do not wish to object, therefore, to the proposal but would suggest that the timber should not be stained or painted a colour that makes the building stand out in the landscape. Ideally it should be allowed to weather naturally to blend in within the surroundings.”

Representations as a result of publicity

None at the time of writing

Policy Considerations

National Policy Advice

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1): Sustainable Development

Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS7): Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

Planning Policy Guidance 15 (PPS5): Planning and the Historic Environment

East Midlands Regional Plan

Policy 1 (c & g): Regional Core Objectives

Policy 2: Promoting Better Design

Policy 3 (d): Distribution of New Development

127

Policy 26 - Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural heritage

Policy 27: Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment

South Kesteven Core Strategy

Policy SP1: Spatial Strategy

Policy EN1: Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District

Key Issues

Sustainability

Impact on the rural character of the surrounding area

Impact on setting of heritage assets (the adjacent grade II listed building and Belton Park & House)

Impact on the residential amenities of occupiers of the neighbouring property

Highway safety

Officer Evaluation

The proposal involves the change of use of of agricultural land to paddocks and the erection of a timber stable block, consisting of five stables, a hay store and a tack room. Part of the land is already in use as paddocks.

Sustainability

Although the site is in a remote rural location, the proposal is considered an appropriate development for the rural context and would be for private domestic use by the occupants of the adjacent dwelling. It is considered therefore that the proposal is in accordance with the sustainability aims of national and local policy.

Impact on the Surrounding Area and nearby Heritage Assets

The proposed timber stable block would modest in scale and would be located within the wooded part of the site. As a result it would be well screened by mature trees and (subject to a condition restricting the final colour) relatively inconspicuous in the wider landscape, even in the winter months. The removal of two small trees to accommodate the building would have no significant impact. The use of the land for the keeping of horses is considered to be an appropriate activity in the open countryside which respects the intrinsic qualities of the landscape. Taking the above into account, it is considered that the development would preserve the rural character and appearance of the surrounding area

128 and would not be detrimental to the setting of nearby heritage assets – Rose Cottage and Belton Park & Gardens.

Impact on Neighbours’ Amenities

There is sufficient separation distance from the application site to the neighbouring dwelling (South Lodge) to ensure that activities on the site will not be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of this property.

Highway Safety

The County Highways Authority have no objection subject to a condition: “The proposals are to be made personal to the applicant only”. It is considered that this condition is inappropriate as it would not meet the tests in Govt Circular 11/95 – The Use of Conditions. In order to ensure that the land and stables are not used for commercial purposes, an alternative condition is recommended: “The development hereby permitted shall be used for private domestic purposes associated with the adjacent dwelling (Rose Cottage) only, and shall not be used for commercial purposes.” Subject to this condition, it is considered that there will be no detrimental impact on highway safety.

Crime and Disorder Implications

The application will not raise any significant issues.

Human Rights Implications

Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL

The proposal is considered to be in accordance with national planning policy given in PPS1, PPS7, PPS5, policies 1, 2, 3, 26 & 27 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, and

129 policies SP1 & EN1 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy, and that there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise, although conditions have been attached.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

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

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall be used for private domestic purposes associated with the adjacent dwelling (Rose Cottage) only, and shall not be used for commercial purposes.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority wish to be in a position to assess the impact that commercial activities of the site may have on the surrounding area.

3. No development shall commence until final details of the materials to be used in the construction of external walls and roofs (including details of colour and type of staining/painting to be applied to the external timber) have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the agreed materials shall be used in the development.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy.

* * * * * *

130

PWM2 S10/1134/MJNF Target Decision Date: 25-Aug-2010

Applicant Mr T Hall-Wilson The Holt, Hanby, Grantham, NG33 4HH Agent Mr Mike Sibthorp, Mike Sibthorp Planning Logan House, Lime Grove, Grantham, NG319JD Proposal Change of use of land from keeping horses to keeping horses and riding lessons Location The Holt, Hanby, Grantham, NG33 4HH App Type Major Full (Non-residential) Parish(es) Lenton, Keisby & Osgodby

REPORT

Application Category

This application is categorised as a large scale major application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

This application has been referred to the committee at the request of the Lead Professional as it is a major application.

The Proposal

The proposal involves the change of use of land for keeping horses to a mixed use of keeping horses and provision of riding lessons.

The application site and its surroundings

The site is roughly L shaped and is 2.1ha in area. It consists of three paddocks enclosed with post and rail fencing, and towards the eastern end of the site, a sand manege, stable block and store, car parking and access driveway. The boundaries between the paddocks incorporate horse jumps. The application site is associated with the adjacent dwelling known as The Holt and two small wooded areas adjoining the site to the west and south east which are also in the same ownership. The site is mostly surrounded by gently undulating open countryside, however, there are several properties including a farm clustered towards the eastern end of the site.

131

Site History

Planning permission was granted for the erection of a stable block in 1989 (SK.1702/89) which was subsequently built.

A Planning Contravention Notice was served by the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team, after it was brought to the Council’s attention that a store and manege had been built without planning permission and that riding lessons were being provided at the site. The enforcement team is satisfied from aerial photographic evidence that the store and manege were built more than four years ago and that they are now immune from enforcement action. However, the applicant was asked to submit a retrospective planning application for the change of use of the land for riding lessons. The applicant asserts that the riding lessons that were being provided were incidental to the primary use of the land and that planning permission was not required and that the current planning application has been submitted on the basis of a future increase and intensification of this activity.

Representations Received

The Community Archaeologist advises that the proposed development does not affect any known archaeological sites.

Local Highway Authority:

“The Local highway Authority recommend approval of this application based on the information provided within the design and access statement dated 10 May 2010” subject to the following conditions:

The proposals within the application are to be made personal to the applicant only.

The arrangements shown on the approved plan MSP.465/101 dated 26 May 2010 for the parking/turning/loading/unloading of vehicles shall be available at all times when the premises are in use. Reason: to enable vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway of C433 Humby Road and to allow vehicles to enter and leave in forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

SKDC Environmental Protection: Awaiting response at the time of writing. Any comments received will be reported in the late background papers.

Representations as a result of publicity

One neighbour objection at the time of writing this report. Concerns raised about possible future intensification of the use, and noise and disturbance from use of the manege.

Four letters of support

132

Policy Considerations

National Policy

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) – Sustainable Development

Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) – Sustainable Economic Growth

East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS8)

Policy 1: Regional Core Objectives

Policy 3: Distribution of new development

South Kesteven Core Strategy

Policy SP1: Spatial Strategy

Policy EN1: Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District

Key Issues

Sustainability

Impact on the rural character of the surrounding area

Impact on the residential amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties

Traffic and highway safety

Officer Evaluation

The proposal involves the change of use of land for keeping horses to a mixed use of keeping horses and provision of riding lessons. Activities would be a mixture of domestic and commercial.

Sustainability

Although the site is in a relatively remote rural location, the proposal is considered an appropriate development for the rural context and would involve the reuse of existing buildings and structures. Equine related activities of this type can only reasonably be located in the countryside. It is acknowledged that the majority of customers/visitors to the site would arrive by car, however when balanced against the benefits to the rural economy through diversification, the low level of activity likely to be generated would not lead an excessive increase in traffic. It is considered therefore that the proposal is in accordance with the sustainability aims of national, regional and local policy.

133

Impact on the Rural Character Surrounding Area

The use of the land for the keeping of horses and riding lessons is considered to be appropriate for the open countryside and respects the intrinsic qualities of the landscape. There would be no physical changes to the site. Taking the above into account, it is considered that the development would preserve the rural character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Impact on Neighbours’ Amenities

Although concerns have been raised about the noise/disturbance impact on Hanby Grange from riding lessons taking place on the manege, it is considered that there is sufficient separation distance from the application site to the neighbouring dwellings (Hanby Grange - approx 35 -40m, Moat House – approx 30m, Stillwaters – approx 50m) as well as good screening from mature trees around the manege. Furthermore as the manege is unlit, activities can only take place during daylight hours. The size of the site and limited number of stables also restricts the amount of activity that could take place. Accordingly it is considered that activities on the site will not be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties.

Highway Safety

The County Highways Authority have no objection subject to conditions, one of which is: “The proposals are to be made personal to the applicant only”. It is considered that this condition is inappropriate and unnecessary as it would not meet the tests in Govt Circular 11/95 – The Use of Conditions.

Crime and Disorder Implications

The application will not raise any significant issues.

Human Rights Implications

Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL Taking into account the low level of activity and extra traffic likely to be generated, the use of existing buildings/structures and the benefits to the rural economy through diversification, it is considered that the relatively remote location is acceptable and accords with the sustainability aims of national, regional and local policy.

The proposal is considered an appropriate development for the rural context which would respect and preserve the intrinsic qualities of the landscape.

134

By virtue of the low level of activity likely to be generated and good separation distances, it is considered that there would be no detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties.

It is considered that there would be no detrimental impact on highway safety.

The proposal is considered to be in accordance with national planning policy given in PPS1, PPS4, policies 1 and 3 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, and policies SP1 & EN1 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy, and that there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise, although conditions have been attached.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

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

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

2. The arrangements shown on the approved plan MSP.465/101 dated 26 May 2010 for the parking/turning/loading/unloading of vehicles shall be available at all times when the premises are in use.

Reason: to enable vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway of C433 Humby Road and to allow vehicles to enter and leave in forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

* * * * * *

135

MJD1 S10/1140/HSH Target Decision Date: 30-Jul-2010

Applicant Mr & Mrs D Steele 5, Highcliffe Road, Grantham, NG318DS Agent Mr David Mason, Newark Glass Oak Tree House, Brunel Drive, Newark, NG24 3EG Proposal Extension to existing conservatory Location 5, Highcliffe Road, Grantham, NG318DS App Type Householder Development Parish(es) Grantham

REPORT

Application Category

This is a Householder Application.

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application is being referred to the Development Control Committee because the applicant is a member of staff.

The Proposal

The application is for an extension to an existing conservatory to the rear of the semi- detached dwelling. The extension will have a width of approximately 3.6m and would project approximately 2.7m beyond the existing rear elevation. The height of the extension would be approximately 3.1m to the ridge.

The extension would have a similar style to that of the existing conservatory and would provide additional living accommodation. Externally the extension would have double opening doors to the rear facing elevation.

The Application Site and its Surroundings

The application site is located to the west side of Highcliffe Road.

The existing property is a two storey brick built dwelling with an attached single garage to the side, similar to other properties on the road.

The immediate area is predominantly residential with neighbouring properties consisting of a two storey property to the south and the other half of the semi to the north.

136

Representations as a result of publicity

The application was advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement. The closing date for the submission of comments was the 13 July 2010.

No letters of objection have been received.

Site History

S09/1960 - In 2009 an application to convert the existing flat roofed garage to a pitched roof was approved.

Policy Considerations

National Policy

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1): Delivering Sustainable Development

Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Housing.

Local Development Framework - Core Strategy

EN1 - Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District

All development proposals and site allocations will be assessed in relation to (in this case):-

4. the layout and scale of buildings and designed spaces 5. the quality and character of the built fabric and their settings

Key Issues

Impact on the character and appearance of the area

Impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

Impact on neighbouring residential amenity

Crime and Disorder Implications

The proposal raises no significant crime and disorder implications

Human Rights Implications

It should be noted that Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) will be taken into account in determining this application

137

It is considered that no other relevant Article will be breached.

Consideration

The extension to the existing conservatory would be sited approximately 1330mm off the common side boundary with No. 3 Highcliffe Road. However, having regard to the existing boundary treatments, a fence and substantial hedge, the scale of the extension and relationship with neighbouring property, the proposal is considered acceptable in that it would not have a detrimental or overbearing impact on the occupants of that adjacent property.

The proposed extension is a significant distance away from the rear elevation of No. 7. This would ensure that existing levels of light which this neighbour currently enjoys would not be materially affected.

It is concluded that the development is acceptable and the application is recommended for approval.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL

The proposed extension to the existing conservatory is considered to be in keeping in terms of design with the host property and does not have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the host property or surrounding area. The proposal is not considered to impact on the residential amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties due to its siting, design and height. No material considerations have been raised that indicate the decision should be made otherwise. Therefore the proposal accords with Policy EN1 of the Local Development Framework for South Kesteven - Core Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

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

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

2. The external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match in material, colour, style, bonding and texture those of the existing building.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

* * * * * *

138