B/11/0457

BOSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

Planning Committee 7 February 2012

Reference Number: B/11/0457 Application Expiry Date 2 February 2012 Application Type: Full Planning Permission

Proposal Description Construction of a 61km underground drinking water pipeline (of which 3.7km is within the Boston Borough) between Covenham Water Treatment Works and Boston Ring Main and erection of pump station (and associated works) on operational land at Covenham Water Treatment Works.

The proposed development will also include construction of temporary site compounds and temporary commissioning lagoons along the route of the pipeline (this application is for Enivronmental Impact Assessment development by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011)

At: Land east of A16 and north of the A52, Through Boston Long Hedges To Willoughby Hills/, Johnsons Nursery And Garden Centre

For: Mr Stephen Swan, Anglian Water Service Limited

Third Party Reps: 1 Parish: Fishtoft Parish Council, Freiston Parish Council Ward Name: Coastal, Fishtoft

Author of Report: Paul Edwards Date of Report: 11 January 2012

MAIN RECOMMENDATION: GRANT

1.0 REASON FOR REPORT

1.1 This application is for determination by Committee since it is an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) application and the Scheme of Delegation precludes a delegated decision by officers.

1 Planning Committee 7 February 2012 B/11/0457

2.0 PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND

2.1 This is an application by Anglian Water Services in its capacity as a statutory undertaker to lay a new drinking water underground pipeline from the Covenham Water Treatment Works (WTW) north west of Louth to Boston. The pipeline would link to the existing water ring main around Boston in the vicinity of the lay-by adjacent to the Johnsons Nursery and Garden Centre on the A52 east of the town.

2.2 The proposal is for a 61km long pipeline with a diameter of between 450 to 500mm with one new pumping station at Covenham. The majority of the works are within East Lindsey District but the 3.7km length south east of Sibsey in the vicinity of High Ferry to Boston Long Hedges and Willoughby Hills (Johnsons Garden Centre) is within Boston Borough. The applicant explains that existing infrastructure will not deliver adequate water to meet future predicted population growth in South Lincolnshire (Boston and West Pinchbeck) and this project will enable improved security of supply to customers.

2.3 Water would be pumped from Covenham to Miningsby reservoir (north of East Kirkby) in a new 500mm pipe and the flow from Miningsby to Boston would be gravity fed downstream in a 450mm diameter pipe. Some temporary infrastructure to enable construction and commissioning forms a part of the application and, for Boston Borough, this comprises only one site compound and lagoon (commissioning lagoon F) at the southern end of the pipe, to the east of the pipeline corridor, adjacent to the A52. The site compound would be used for material delivery, storage, staff welfare facilities and offices with some soil stockpiling and there are sixteen in total along the route. The temporary commissioning lagoons would be 21m x 21m (volume 265 cu m) with an embankment crest ~2.3m above ground level and the six required along the route will contain the water arising from pressure testing, rinsing the pipe with clean water to remove debris and final disinfection.

2.4 In view of the length and scale of the works, the crossing of the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and other environmental impacts along the route, the proposal was defined as one to which the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations apply and thus the application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). Case law has defined that the impacts of the development have to be considered as a whole even though the conclusions of this Committee report in respect of the development within Boston Borough are that it will not have significant environmental effects.

2.5 The decision on this application relates only to that land in Boston Borough. The East Lindsey part of the scheme - the lion’s share of the proposal, was granted consent under delegated powers on 12 January 2012. The cumulative impact of the total scheme has triggered the need for environmental assessment; but for that decision, your officers had taken the view that the works within Boston Borough would have been permitted development. Full paper copies of the whole submission are available to view in Development Control.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 This scheme has been the subject of pre-application discussions and screening since late 2010 but there is no history of planning applications for this larger project.

2 Planning Committee 7 February 2012 B/11/0457

4.0 RELEVANT POLICY

4.1 Insofar as the application raises policy issues within the Borough, the following polices are relevant:

Regional Strategy (The East Midlands Regional Plan 2009)

Policy 1: Regional Core Objectives. Amongst the objectives of securing the delivery of sustainable development, those to give access to facilities and services, protect and enhance the environment and address the decline in water quality are relevant. Policy 2: Promoting Better Design includes a measure of improving water efficiency. Policy 26: Natural and Cultural Heritage gives the highest level of protection to assets and to the best and most versatile agricultural land Policy 28: Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure addresses the management of natural resources, including water Policy 32: Approach to Water Resources and Water Quality identifies the need to ensure the timely provision of infrastructure for, amongst others, water supply

saved policies of The Boston Borough Local Plan 2009

The route of the pipe is in the open countryside to the north east of Boston. There are no countryside, local nature conservation, Coastal Zone or SSSI sites in the line of the route. The Protected Specie/Habitat survey does not identify the presence of any fauna or flora within the borough as constraints. An area of archaeological interest in the form of geophysically identified earthworks to the north of the A52 compound has been revealed by the ES.

Policy C01 would presume against development in the countryside unless supported by other Local Plan policies.

Policy G1 is the General Amenity policy which would resist development which would substantially harm, for example, the amenities of land users or residents or the general character of an area.

Policy G2: Wildlife and Landscape Resources would resist development which would have significant adverse impacts on landscape or wildlife. The explanation to this policy states that the borough is of little ecological or landscape diversity or interest (The Wash excepted).

Policy G4 safeguards the water environment, and

Policy G8 would resist development which would have an adverse effect upon the quality of air or soil.

4.2 National guidance in respect of archaeology is contained within PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment. The policy response should be proportionate to the significance of the asset in question. In this instance the archaeology is based upon field walking finds and geophysical records. The ES concludes that this could have local or regional significance but the effect upon this area, at this stage, is unknown.

3 Planning Committee 7 February 2012 B/11/0457

4.3 Development that is likely to have ‘significant effects upon the environment’ becomes an ‘EIA application’ because of European Directives that have been transposed into UK planning law. Any application for such development is required to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement provided by the applicant.

4.4 ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ refers to the whole process by which the environmental information is collected, publicised and taken into account in reaching a decision by the relevant planning authority. No planning permission may be granted for EIA development unless the environmental information contained in the ES has been taken into account. EIA applications are required to be advertised on site and in the press and they are give a 16-week determination period.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 A representation from land owners at the Round House, Wainfleet Road has been forwarded to me from East Lindsey District Council. No other ‘neighbours’ have commented.

5.2 The landowners from Wainfleet Road say that the development will have a major and lasting effect on their business and property in that the Grade 1 double cropping land will have its production capacity limited during and after the construction and they query alternative routes and that they have not given permission for such works on their land.

6.0 RELEVANT CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Fishtoft and Freiston Parish Councils have replied with No Comments and No Objections respectively.

6.2 The County Highway Authority has raised no objection to the principle of the scheme but does question the access to the compound onto the A52 and that a better layout rather than the existing schematic could be the subject of a condition on any approval.

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES AND DISCUSSION

7.1 This is a significant engineering operation but in this area, once completed, there will be little above ground retained evidence of the pipe’s presence. The effects of this proposal upon the open countryside and the amenities of people working or living in the area are clearly mostly during construction.

7.2 In the absence of any statutorily or locally designated sites, the principal issues will relate to:

• accessibility and disturbance during construction • effects upon rights of way – including the highway network • effects upon the open fen land landscape, archaeology and • the control of reinstatement / viable after use.

4 Planning Committee 7 February 2012 B/11/0457

7.3 The Environmental Statement provides the following information, summarised here as an outline:

a) Work on the Miningsby to Boston section is due to commence in 2013 and be completed by the end of that year for commissioning mid to late 2014. b) Construction working hours are expected to be 07.00 to 19.00 hrs seven days a week. 24 hour working will not be the norm other than, for example, where the pipe crosses the Boston to Skegness railway once at Sibsey to coincide with other undertakers’ requirements or when sections are being pressure tested. c) Transport routes for construction related traffic and specific access points to site compounds off the highway and diversion routes have been identified with the highway authority. d) A working corridor width of 30m is required along the full length of the pipeline route; this will be fenced as one of the first activities onsite. At road and hedgerow crossings this is reduced to 10m to minimise disruption. Access to the corridor is from where site compounds are positioned (for the Boston length one at Sibsey on the B1184 and one on the A52). Thus the working corridor is also the access route for workforce, machinery and materials; topsoil for example will be stored within the corridor for the duration of the work. e) Trenching is the primary method of construction but there will be direct drilling at major roads, major watercourses and the railway. f) Typically the trench will be 800mm wide and, at its shallowest, dependent upon ground conditions 1.5m deep. As the pipes are laid the trench is backfilled, using the excavated material where possible. g) Directional drilling beneath a roadway, watercourse and the rail crossing is launched from a 4m x 3m and 1m deep pit. h) Reinstatement includes:

• Surplus soil spread over the worked area and tine ripped to 300mm before topsoil is reinstated • Topsoil reinstated over the field from which it originated and only during dry weather to preserve soil structure - where necessary, this will be delayed until after winter • Arable land reinstatement will include harrowing and grading; grass fields will be fertilised, seeded and rolled • The exact reinstatement methodology will depend upon post construction land use and subject to agreement with landowners/occupiers

i) Once work in each section is completed, the site compounds within those sections would be removed and the land reinstated; similarly the commissioning lagoons will be removed and the land reinstated.

7.4 Initially, five different pipeline routes were modelled and determined by avoiding sensitive features. The selected route was adjusted following site visits and inputs from environmental, archaeological and ecological advice.

7.5 South of Sibsey and east of the A16 where the route is planned, the landscape is flat and the route crosses arable fields which tend to be large with ditch systems, watercourses and unmade field access tracks. The line, where it enters the Borough south east of High Ferry is in short straight lengths but from Boston Long Hedges to Johnsons it is a straight line some 2.5km long.

5 Planning Committee 7 February 2012 B/11/0457

7.6 The line does not pass through any existing areas of development nor are there any areas of woodland affected by the route. A Public Right of Way follows the south side of Cowbridge Drain from Bakers Bridge west to the Cowbridge on Horncastle Road and the method statement illustrates how this will be managed and kept accessible to the public (directional drill). The most significant road crossed by the route within the Borough is at Boston Long Hedges, close to the Long Hedges/Baker’s Lane junction which will be a trenched excavation with road closure.

7.7 There is a large detached property on the ‘Johnson’s lay-by’ – Eastgate, close to the projected A52 compound at the end of the route, which has been notified directly.

7.8 In respect of this development in the open countryside it is your officer’s conclusion that it will not have significant environmental effects and overall the pipe run itself will be in accordance with the policy guidance in terms of not affecting general amenity, wildlife and landscape, the water environment or air and soil quality subject to following the method statements as summarised above.

7.9 The proximity of the compound and lagoon at the end of the route, close to the property Eastgate and the A52 leads me to conclude that the schematic layout of the compound requires revision in terms of the location of the welfare facilities, lagoon and soil stockpile in relation to that property. This can be addressed by conditions on any approval requiring a measured and detailed compound layout to take account of these relationships – these can also address the highway authority query in terms of the best location of access to the compound, and the to-be-defined impact upon the identified archaeology. There is also a necessity to control the nature and extent of any external compound lighting, in the interests of the general and residential amenities of the area.

8.0 CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION

8.1 There is clearly a qualified need for this development, the East Lindsey component of which has already received planning approval. The lasting environmental impact within the Borough is very limited and subject to a construction and implementation in accordance with the details of the proposals and the conditions recommended below, it is RECOMMENDED that full planning permission is granted.

CONDITIONS AND REASONS;

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.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the application received 3 Novmeber 2011 and in accordance with the associated plans and documents referenced: schedule to follow 3 Reason: 1To ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details and to accord with Adopted Local Plan Policies CO1, G1, G2, G4 and G8.

6 Planning Committee 7 February 2012 B/11/0457

3. Notwithstanding the generality of Condition (2) above, no site preparation, soil stripping or development on the temporary construction compound and commissioning lagoon (F) shall commence until revised details to show an alternative point of access and positions of the lagoon, welfare facilities and their method of foul and surface water disposal, soil storage, access and circulation space together with the specification, nature and location of any external compound lighting has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The compound shall thereafter be constructed, accessed and laid out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory location and layout of the facilities and the access to it in order to protect the residential amenities of neighbours and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with saved local plan policies G1 and G6.

4. No site preparation, soil stripping or development shall take place on the land between CH 9400 and CH 9500 (Dwg no WAT-05051-COVEWW-1H-PLG-8750 P1) until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work which has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority to evaluate and assess the impacts of the development upon asset HER 13280 of local to regional significance and that programme shall include measures of mitigation or recording. The development shall thereafter only take place in accordance with the approved programme.

Reason : In order to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the investigation, retrieval and recording of any possible archaeological remains on the site in accordance with the details of the application and to accord with PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

5. The temporary construction compound and commissioning lagoon (F) must be removed from site and the land re-instated to its former condition capable of agricultural use and the access to the site shall be closed and reinstated to its former condition within one month of the pipe line becoming operational.

Reason: In accordance with the proposals in the application in that the application site lies mostly in open countryside where these facilities have been permitted in accordance with local plan polices CO1, G1, G2, G4 and G8.

REASON(S) FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

Planning permission has been granted because subject to the conditions attached the local planning authority considers, having regard to the environmental information and the policies of the development plan as set out below, that the development will not significantly harm the character or amenities of the area, landscape, wildlife or heritage assets and can be acceptable in all other respects.

The statutory development plan for Boston Borough comprises the East Midlands Regional Plan March 2009 and the saved policies of the Boston Borough Local Plan April 1999. The relevant policies in the grant of this permission are:

The Regional Strategy (The East Midlands Regional Plan 2009)

Policy 1: Regional Core Objectives. Policy 2: Promoting Better Design Policy 26: Natural and Cultural Heritage Policy 28: Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure Policy 32: Approach to Water Resources and Water Quality

7 Planning Committee 7 February 2012 B/11/0457

Boston Borough Local Plan 1999

Policy C01 Development In The Countryside Policy G1: Amenity Policy G2: Wildlife and Landscape Resources Policy G4: Safeguarding the Water Environment Policy G6: Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Policy G8: Air and Soil Resources.

Paul Edwards Interim Development Control Manager

8 Planning Committee 7 February 2012