Development Management Committee 19 November 2018

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 19 NOVEMBER 2018

Case No: 17/01375/OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Proposal: OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 40 DWELLINGS (USE CLASS C3) INCLUDING MEANS OF ACCESS INTO SITE (NOT INTERNAL ROADS), PARKING AND ASSOCIATED HIGHWAY WORKS, WITH ALL OTHER MATTERS (RELATING TO APPEARANCE, LANDSCAPING, SCALE AND LAYOUT) RESERVED.

Location: LAND NORTH EAST OF MANDENE GARDENS, GREAT GRANSDEN

Applicant: CATESBY ESTATES LTD

Grid Ref: 527441 255918

Date of Registration: 30.06.2017

Parish: GREAT GRANSDEN

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

This application is referred to the Development Management Committee (DMC) as it is a 'departure from the Development Plan' and Great Gransden Parish Council's recommendation of refusal is contrary to the Officer's recommendation of approval.

Note: For the avoidance of doubt, this report supersedes the September DMC report and includes updated information arising from the re- consultation period. Therefore the September DMC report is not attached.

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This application relates to an irregularly shaped parcel of land (c. 1.8ha) on the eastern edge of the village of Great Gransden which is currently used as a grazing paddock for horses. The land slopes gently downwards to the south/southwest, towards Mandean Brook.

1.2 The existing housing development of Mandene Gardens is located to the southwest of the application site. A combination of post and rail fencing and established trees and hedging defines the boundaries to the northeast and southeast. Similar hedging and the highway (Sand Road) define the boundary to the northwest.

1.3 The application is for outline permission for up to 40 dwellings, with approval being sought for the means of access into the site. Details relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would be considered in a subsequent Reserved Matters application.

1.4 This planning application has been advertised as 'departure' from the Development Plan as the proposed development is contrary to 1995 Local Plan policies EN17 and H23. The application must be considered against the Development Plan as a whole and the relevant material considerations as part of the planning balance.

1.5 The application is supported by the following documents: *Affordable Housing Statement *Agricultural Impact Assessment *Agricultural Land Assessment *Air Quality Assessment *Archaeological and Heritage Assessment *Crime Reduction Statement *Design and Access Statement *Development Parameters Plan *Ecological Appraisal *Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy *Foul Drainage and Utilities Assessment *Landscape and Visual Appraisal *Lighting Impact Assessment *Noise Assessment *Open Space Considerations *Phase I Site Appraisal (Soil and Groundwater) *Planning Statement *Statement of Community Engagement *Sustainability Statement *Transport Statement

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (24th July 2018) (NPPF 2018) sets out the Government's planning policies for England and identifies three overarching objectives (economic, social and environmental) to be pursued in mutually supportive ways in order to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

2.2 Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the NPPF 2018 identify a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

2.3 NPPF 2018 replaced NPPF 2012 in July 2018. HDC submitted their Local Plan on 29 March 2018. Transitional arrangements are in place for Local Planning Authorities which submitted Local Plans for examination prior to the 29 January 2019 to ensure consistency. Accordingly, NPFF 2012 objectives and policies will continue to be relevant.

For full details visit the government website https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities- and-local-government

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) • CS8: Water • EN2: Character and Setting of Listed Buildings • EN5: Conservation Areas Character • EN6: Design Standards in Conservation Areas • EN9: Open Spaces, Trees and Street Scenes in Conservation Areas • EN12: Archaeology • EN13: Archaeology • EN17: Development in the Countryside • EN18: Protection of Countryside Features • EN20: Landscaping Scheme • EN22: Nature and Wildlife Conservation • EN23: Nature and Wildlife Conservation • EN24: Access provision for the Disabled • EN25: General Design Criteria • H23: Housing Outside of Environmental Limits • H31: Residential Privacy and Amenity Standards • H37: Housing and Environmental Pollution • H38: Housing and Noise Pollution • T18: Access Requirements for New Development • T19: Pedestrian Routes for New Development • R7: Land and Facilities • R8: Land and Facilities • R12: Land and Facilities

3.2 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002) • HL5: Quality and Density of Development • HL6: Housing Density • HL10: Housing Provision • OB2: Financial Contributions for the Maintenance of Open Space

3.3 Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2009) • CS1: Sustainable Development in Huntingdonshire • CS2: Strategic Housing Development • CS3: The Settlement Hierarchy • CS4: Affordable Housing in Development • CS10: Contributions to Infrastructure Requirements

3.4 Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 • LP1: Amount of Development • LP2: Strategy for Development • LP3: Green Infrastructure • LP4: Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery • LP6: Waste Water Management • LP10: Small Settlements • LP11: The Countryside • LP12: Design Context • LP13: Design Implementation • LP15: Amenity • LP16: Surface Water • LP17: Sustainable Travel • LP18: Parking Provision and Vehicle Movement • LP25: Affordable Housing Provision • LP26: Housing Mix • LP32: Biodiversity and Geodiversity • LP33: Trees, Woodland, Hedges and Hedgerows • LP36: Heritage Assets and their Settings

3.5 The LPA considers the Local Plan to 2036 to be a sound plan and it was submitted for examination on the 29th March 2018. Footnote 22 of NPPF 2018 states during the transitional period for emerging plans submitted for examination (set out in paragraph 214 of NPPF 2018), consistency should be tested against the previous Framework published in March 2012. The plan has therefore reached an advanced stage and is consistent with the policies set out within the NPPF 2012. Given the transitional arrangements in place it is considered that if there is any tension between emerging policies and NPPF 2018 the previous framework policies will prevail.

3.6 Supplementary Planning Documents: • Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2017 • Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD (2016) • Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (2011) • Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment 2007

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 8800258OUT - Residential development (4.3 ha.) Refused 03.05.1988 Summary reasons for refusal: Contrary to settlement policies, release of land prior to settlement plan could prejudice future development schemes, unsatisfactory arrangements regarding surface water drainage and sewerage system requires improvement

4.2 8802320OUT - Erect 90 dwellings, Sand Road, Great Gransden Refused 08.03.1989 Summary reasons for refusal: Contrary to settlement policies, release of land prior to settlement plan could prejudice Local Plan and future development schemes, insufficient need for more residential sites, negative impact upon open character of the countryside unsatisfactory arrangements regarding surface water drainage and sewerage system requires improvement

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Great Gransden Parish Council (12.10.2018): "Further to our previous correspondence regarding this application, Great Gransden Parish Council would like to raise a further objection on the basis that the proposal is contrary to Policy EN2, 'Proposals for new roads and traffic management schemes can also affect the character of an area and upset the harmony created by the presence of listed buildings.'. Since the application was updated to address concerns around safety at the junction of Sand Road with East Street and Mill Road, the changes planned to the footpaths and sightlines at this junction will now affect a neighbouring listed building within the Conservation Area. We also object on the grounds that this update to the application invalidates the statements made in the EIA Analysis and Screening Proforma under the 2011 regulations such as "it is considered unlikely that the project will have a significant effect on any cultural assets." and "The scale and nature of the project, coupled with the separation distance between the project area and the identified cultural assets is such that the project is not considered to have a significant effect for EIA purposes." .

The proposed changes to the front garden and surroundings of the listed building within the Conservation Area now require the previous statements to be revisited and reconsidered, and potentially a further full analysis undertaken in light of this change in application, possibly under the new 2017 regulations that came into force after the original application but before the amendment in question was submitted?"

Officer note: An updated EIA Screening exercise has been completed which utilises the 2017 guidance.

5.2 Great Gransden Parish Council (03.07.2018): "…councillors unanimously agreed the following comments: 1. The proposal adversely affects a listed cottage in the conservation area which would be significantly harmed by the proposed scheme; 2. The proposed new sight lines will not materially address the safety issues given the typical speed of existing traffic. 3. Children going to and from school and the village shop are still having to cross too close to the junction impacting safety. 1. In the light of these comments, councillors continue to recommend refusal of the planning application notwithstanding the submission of the footway improvement scheme.

5.3 Great Gransden Parish Council (02.08.2017): "…councillors unanimously resolved to recommend refusal to this application on the grounds:- (1) It is outside the village limit as laid down in planning policy; (2) The development is contrary to Policies STR1, STR2 from the 2002 Local Plan, Policy CS3 from the Core Strategy of 2009, and Policy LP10 in the Draft Local Plan to 2036; (3) Sustainability for this development increasing the size of Great Gransden by 10% is not proven in terms of availability of services, modes of transport and its effect on the character of what is defined consistently by HDC in all their policy documents as a Small Settlement; and (4) Considering the factual inaccuracies in the Request for an Environmental Impact Assessment statement dated 3rd May 2017 regarding bus services and traffic volumes this should be reconsidered under the new regulations which came into force on 16th May 2017 taking into account the direct and indirect significant effects of the proposed development on populations and human health.

5.4 Cambridgeshire County Council as LLFA: "No objection in principle [subject to conditions]".

5.5 Cambridgeshire County Council Highways: "…the applicant indicates that there is sufficient land that will be under their control to improve the above points of concern. The transport statement indicates than the proposed junction given the relatively low number of movements along Sand Road is well within capacity. The surrounding junctions (although seeing an intensification of use) will operate without issue in relation to capacity. The proposed junction of the development onto Sand Road is sufficient in relation to vehicle to vehicle visibility and geometry and therefore is acceptable. Sand road is of a sufficient width to cater for the proposed two way movements associated with the development, and the junction of East Street whilst it does see some large vehicles which the junction is not designed for, the development proposed will not intensify this type of vehicle movement and therefore is acceptable. The submitted internal master plan should be excluded from any permission granted…no objections to that proposed".

5.6 Cambridgeshire County Council Education: "The County Council is not requesting a contribution towards primary places in this case as there should be sufficient capacity for the 16 primary-aged pupils expected from the proposed development of 40 dwellings".

Officer note: Contributions toward the provision of education will be captured under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). It must be noted that the scale of the proposed development falls below the threshold identified in the Developer Contributions SPD (2007) which would trigger contributions toward education and school provision.

5.7 Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology: "do not object to development from proceeding in this location but consider that the site should be subject to a programme of archaeological investigation secured through the inclusion of a negative condition".

5.8 Wildlife Trust (28.07.2018): "…the mitigation measures recommended in the ecological report (including e.g. retention of existing features, sensitive lighting design, planting of native species, and production of a long-term ecological management plan) would be sufficient to ensure no net loss in biodiversity. Should permission be granted, these should be required by way of a suitably worded planning condition. However, I have concerns about indirect impacts off-site on Waresley Wood SSSI. While the ecological assessment concluded there would be no direct impacts on the SSSI, it has not addressed indirect impacts. Therefore I request that further information is provided with respect to potential indirect impacts on the nature reserve/SSSI, and appropriate mitigation required to address these impacts. I suggest you also consult Natural England regarding this matter".

5.9 Wildlife Trust (30.10.2018): "Following discussions with the applicant we have come up with a mitigation package […] that will enable us to maintain the site as a strategic natural greenspace. We therefore request that Catesby Estates pay a sum of £12,780+VAT [£15,336] through a section 106 planning agreement to contribute towards site management costs of Waresley & Gransden Woods SSSI. Further, we request that this payment is made prior to first occupation of the site to enable us to implement phase 1 of the mitigation package before the new residents start to use the site. The Wildlife Trust is willing to remove our objection to this application subject to Huntingdonshire DC legally securing the above contribution.

Officer Comment: The Wildlife Trust comments, in particular their request for a S106 financial contribution and whether it complies with the S106 tests, are further considered in the main body of the report.

5.10 Natural England: Comments from Natural England are awaited and will be added to the Late Representations document.

5.11 Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue: No objection subject to condition.

5.12 Anglian Water: No objection subject to condition

5.13 NHS England Midlands and East (East): "…due to the size of this proposed development and the capped (five) number of capital contribution requests we can obtain for each infrastructure project; there is not an intention to seek Primary Healthcare mitigation on this occasion. NHS England would therefore not wish to raise an objection to the proposed development".

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 94 representations have been received which object to the proposed development. Concerns include: *Inappropriate location and a greenfield site outside of village development area - precedent may be set *Great Gransden is a 'Small Settlement' - development would expand village by 10% *Overdevelopment of site - too many houses for size of the site and out of character with the village *Increased strain on local infrastructure/services - school, healthcare, roads/traffic, sewerage/waste water treatment, water supply, electricity supply and broadband services *Increased traffic and congestion - particular concern of the impact on junctions (Sand Road/East Street and East Street/Mill Road/Church Street/Sand Road crossroads *Impact on safety - pedestrian and other highway users *Absence of footpath adjacent to/in the vicinity of the site *Improvements to footpaths are insufficient to have a meaningful impact on pedestrian/highway safety in the vicinity *Sand Road is unsuitable for a development of this scale - width of road and surface condition *Inadequate street lighting on Sand Road *Construction traffic presenting further difficulties *Poor accessibility and employment opportunities *Loss of privacy and views *Overbearing impact of proposed units *Inaccuracies in supporting information - library, school places numbers, bus services *Public recreational facilities for children are limited *Other developments in nearby locations are more appropriate with better amenities/facilities *Detrimental impact on heritage assets - listed buildings, Conservation Area and character of village *Environmental/Ecological/Hydrological impacts *Impact on wildlife *Drainage/flooding - surface water run off impacting on Gransden Brook *Loss of agricultural land - land could be used for farming in the future *Design of dwellings - imposition of 'urban' arrangement/style into a village context *Insufficient space available on site for vehicle parking *Fire safety concerns from cul-de-sac layout *Increased light and noise pollution *Operational activities of businesses located on nearby Industrial Estate - noise, odour and traffic *No great demand for houses in Great Gransden *No benefit to the village *Cannot see the necessity for additional social housing provision *Previous proposals for development of this site have been refused *Amount of/lack of information included in proposal *Village has no natural gas supply - reliance on oil will lead to more deliveries *Visual impact of removal of street lamp and hedge at 17 East Street *Decision should be postponed until the Gt Gransden Neighbourhood Plan is adopted by HDC (anticipated 2020) *Village is already overrun by crime

6.2 Officer response: Inappropriate location: The proposed development is located on the edge of the village, outside the built up area, and has been advertised as a 'departure from the development plan' on that basis.

6.3 Small Settlement: Emerging policy LP10 identifies Great Gransden as a Small Settlement. The supporting text to LP10 notes that "a proposal for development on land well-related to the built-up area may be supported where it accords with the specific opportunities allowed for through other policies of [the emerging plan]'.

6.4 Reference has been made to previous development proposals on this site. It must be noted that two previous applications for Outline Planning Permission were refused in May 1988 and March 1989.

6.5 This application seeks outline planning permission. This is reflected in the absence of detailed elevations/site plans etc. Further consideration will be given to these details at Reserved Matters stage.

6.6 Overdevelopment/loss of privacy/overbearing impact on existing residents: design issues are addressed in the relevant section below. It must be noted that a loss of view is not a material planning consideration.

6.7 Postponing a decision on this application until the Neighbourhood Plan process is completed would conflict with the government's 'planning guarantee' policy. In any event, the applicant could exercise the right to appeal to the Secretary of State against non- determination.

6.8 The introduction of 40 additional dwellings does not give rise to concerns regarding increased criminality in Great Gransden.

6.9 All other material planning considerations (Environmental, Accessibility, Highway Safety etc. are addressed in the relevant sections of this report.

7. ASSESSMENT

7.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Section 38(6)) identifies that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is reiterated within paragraphs 2, 11 and 47 of the NPPF 2018.

7.2 Under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 when dealing with planning applications, the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.

7.3 The development plan is defined in Section 28(3)(b) of the 2004 Act as "the development plan documents (taken as a whole) that have been adopted or approved in that area".

7.4 In Huntingdonshire the development plan consists of: *Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 (Parts 1 and 2) *Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration 2002 *Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2009) *Huntingdonshire West Area Action Plan 2011 *Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan Core Strategy 2011 *St Neots Neighbourhood Plan *Godmanchester Neighbourhood Plan *Houghton and Wyton Neighbourhood Plan

7.5 The statutory term 'material considerations' has been broadly construed to include any consideration relevant in the circumstances which bears on the use or development of land; Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin); [2011] 1 P. & C.R. 22, per Lindblom J. Whilst accepting that the NPPF does not change the statutory status of the Development Plan, paragraph 2 confirms that it is a material consideration and significant weight is given to it in determining applications.

Housing Supply Policies:

7.6 In order to satisfy the requirements of the NPPF to boost housing supply the Council must demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable housing sites to meet its objectively assessed need, with an additional buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; this requirement is set out in paragraph 73 of the NPPF 2018.

7.7 Due to under delivery in recent years the buffer to be applied for the District is 20%. The December 2017 Annual Monitoring Review applies the 20% buffer and demonstrates that the Council has a five year supply of housing land.

7.8 The Development Plan policies relevant to the supply of housing (EN17 and H23 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) and CS2 and CS3 of the Huntingdonshire Core Strategy (2009)) were set against a lower Objectively Assessed Need figure such that strict application of these policies would result in failure to achieve the objectively assessed housing need figure that the Council currently has identified as part of the emerging Local Plan to 2036.

7.9 These policies are therefore no longer fully up-to-date or consistent with the NPPF and, at this time and until the Council adopts the Local Plan to 2036 with up-to-date policies, the 'tilted balance' as set out within the 4th bullet point of paragraph 11 is engaged.

7.10 For decision-taking this means granting permission in instances where the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (having regard to the Framework policies taken as a whole), or specific polices of the Framework indicate development should be restricted.

7.11 This report assesses the following principal, important and controversial issues:

• The principle of development; • The design of the proposal and visual impact; • Accessibility and the impact on highway safety; and • The impact on the amenity of neighbours.

7.12 The fundamental assessments to be made: *Whether the proposed development conflicts with the policies outlined in the Development Plan; *If a conflict is identified, whether the application can be considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan when taken as a whole; *If the proposed development is not in accordance with the Development Plan, whether there are any material considerations, including emerging policies in the Local Plan to 2036 and the NPPF, which indicate that planning permission should be granted.

Policy Weighting:

7.13 Paragraph 215 of the NPPF 2018 advises that due weight should be given to Development Plan policies which pre-date the NPPF according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. Paragraph 48 of the NPPF 2018 identifies the weight to be given to emerging plans. The LPA consider the Local Plan to 2036 to be a sound plan and it was submitted for examination on the 29th March 2018. The plan has therefore reached an advanced stage and is consistent with the policies set out within the NPPF.

7.14 The LPA considers that the NPPF 2018 has a slightly more positive approach to development in the countryside than the restrictive development plan policies which have a specific countryside focus (H23, EN17 and CS3), and this partial inconsistency requires a reduction in the weight afforded to those policies (from 'full' to 'significant' when assessing development proposals.

7.15 Policy En25 of the Local Plan 1995; HL5 and HL6 of the Local Plan Alteration 2002; CS1 of the Core Strategy (2009) are all broadly consistent with the NPPF and these policies can therefore be afforded full weight.

7.16 Emerging policies LP2, LP11, LP12 and LP13 follow a similar vein and are also considered to be broadly consistent with the NPPF. As the emerging policies are yet to be subjected to Examination, the LPA considers that moderate weight can be afforded.

7.17 Saved policy OB2 of the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations (2002) is considered to be consistent with the social dimension of the NPPF and as such is afforded significant weight.

7.18 Policy CS1 of the adopted Core Strategy (2009) sets out the criteria for sustainable development and is broadly consistent with the NPPF. Having regard to the NPPF paragraph 215, this policy is considered to have full weight, given the NPPF requirement for development to be sustainable and jointly and simultaneously achieve economic, social and environmental gains.

7.19 CS4 of the Core Strategy (2009) seeks to secure a target of 40% affordable housing provision for residential development (of above 15 or more homes) subject to, amongst other considerations, viability. CS4 is based upon identified need and it is therefore considered that policy CS4 can be given significant weight given the consistency with section 5 of the NPPF 2018. Emerging Policy LP25 also identifies a 40% target of affordable homes, but with a lower threshold for qualifying development (11 homes/over 1000m2 of residential floor space). Both policies are therefore afforded significant weight.

7.20 Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy (2009) is the relevant policy for securing contributions to infrastructure requirements, This policy, along with the Developer Contributions SPD (2011) and emerging policy LP4 are considered to be consistent with paragraphs 54 and 56 of the NPPF 2018 and are afforded significant weight.

The Principle of Development:

Development Plan policies with specific relevance to the proposed development:

7.21 Policy EN17 of the Local Plan (1995) generally restricts development to "that which is essential to the efficient operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services". Policy H23 identifies a 'general presumption against housing development outside environmental limits' with some exceptions (e.g. dwellings for farm workers etc).

7.22 Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy (2009) promotes sustainable development and details a range of considerations for new development. Within the supporting text of CS1 it is recognised that "due to the limited supply of brownfield land, it is also necessary to use greenfield land in order to accommodate the growth required".

7.23 Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy (2009) identifies Great Gransden as a 'Smaller Settlement' and indicates that development over and above residential 'infilling' (up to three dwellings within the built-up area) may be acceptable where the proposal demonstrates that the most sustainable option for the site is secured.

Identified policy conflict:

7.24 The proposed development conflicts with policy EN17 of the Local Plan (1995) as the development is not listed in the policy wording and with policy H23 of the Local Plan (1995) as the development is not required for the efficient management of agriculture, forestry or horticulture.

7.25 The restriction of development (other than the expressly stated forms) in the countryside through the provisions of EN17 and H23 requires an assessment as to the extent to which this policy accords with the NPPF.

7.26 The LPA considers that both EN17 and H23 do not reflect the more nuanced approach to development in rural areas identified in the NPPF. Accordingly, EN17 and H23 are considered, to a moderate degree, to conflict with the NPPF.

7.27 Therefore, whilst the proposed development conflicts with policies EN17/H23 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), this degree of conflict does not carry a significant amount of weight, given the inconsistencies between these policies and the NPPF.

Emerging local plan position:

7.28 The recognition of the conflict between EN17/H23 and the NPPF is reflected in the policy direction of the emerging local plan.

7.29 Emerging policy LP10 identifies Great Gransden as a Small Settlement. The supporting text to LP10 notes that "a proposal for development on land well-related to the built-up area may be supported where it accords with the specific opportunities allowed for through other policies of [the emerging plan]'.

7.30 There is considered to be no conflict between the proposed development and emerging policies LP2 and LP10. Emerging policies LP2 and LP10 have unresolved objections and are yet to be subjected for Examination, however when taking account of paragraph 48 of the NPPF, it is considered they can be afforded moderate weight.

NPPF position:

7.31 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is clearly outlined within the NPPF. Section 5 (paragraphs 59 - 80) focuses upon the objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes.

7.32 Paragraph 78 states that "…housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities…where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby".

Affordable Housing (AH) provision:

7.33 Paragraph 4.6.9 of the Design and Access Statement states that "40% of the total number of homes provided will be affordable homes […] to suit local need".

7.34 The proposal includes a 40% affordable housing offer. Although the 40% affordable housing provision is welcomed, it is highlighted that it is a policy compliant provision and therefore accords with what should be expected on all qualifying sites. Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that the LPA has not achieved target levels of affordable housing in the past and there is a substantial backlog of need. Therefore, whilst this development is only seeking to provide policy complaint levels of affordable housing, this does equate to up to 14 units (as the development seeks up to 40 dwellings) and would contribute towards the annual target for the District. This therefore adds significant weight in favour of the proposal.

7.35 The affordable housing contribution will be secured through a legal agreement and planning condition. In light of the above the proposed development is considered to accord with policy CS4 of the Core Strategy (2009), emerging policy LP25 and paragraph 77 of NPPF 2018. HDC Housing noted that of the AH units, 70% should be for rent and 30% shared ownership. This detail can also be secured through a S106.

Education:

7.36 Paragraph G.6 of the Developer Contributions SPD (2011) identifies that only large scale major (200+) residential developments would trigger a developer contribution toward Education and Schools, with smaller scale developments (i.e. up to 199 units) liable to make appropriate contributions through the Community Infrastructure Levy system. CCC Education confirmed that a contribution towards primary school places would not be requested.

7.37 The CCC Education 2018 general multiplier is 0.4 (i.e. 40 children per 100 dwellings). This represents an increase from 0.35 in 2017. Using the 2018 multiplier, the proposed development could be expected to 'yield' 16 children. The applicant has provided correspondence from the Head Teacher of St Barnabas Oley CofE Primary School, which outlines that from September 2018 there are 15 spaces available at the school.

7.38 Accordingly, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in this regard as it would have no adverse impact on the associated education infrastructure.

Loss of agricultural land:

7.39 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF 2018 advises that the wider benefits of the best and most versatile (BMV) land must be recognised. Emerging policy LP11 states that all development in the countryside must seek to use land of lower agricultural value in preference to land of higher value and avoid irreversible loss where possible.

7.40 The Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report which supported the emerging local plan identified that 98% of all agricultural land in the district is classified as grade 1, 2 or 3. As the proposal seeks to permanently change the use of the land, the development would represent a loss of approximately 1.81 ha of grade 2 agricultural land.

7.41 The LPA's considers that it is largely inevitable that agricultural land will be lost through the provision of housing in a fundamentally rural district, particularly as approximately 79% of brownfield land within the district is located at the former RAF bases Alconbury and Upwood. As such, the proposed development is not considered to conflict with emerging policy LP11 (a). The remainder of the report will address emerging policy LP11 (b) and (c).

Conclusion:

7.42 Notwithstanding the identified conflict with EN17/H23 of the 1995 Local Plan, for the reasons set out above and having regard to the provisions in paragraph 8 and section 5 of the NPPF (Delivering a sufficient supply of homes), along with emerging policies LP1 and LP2, it is considered that the proposed development is capable of being acceptable in principle, subject to assessment of other material planning considerations (below).

The design of the proposal and visual impact

7.43 Whilst the application is in outline only, a Sketch Masterplan (4002 rev 01) has been provided to demonstrate a potential layout of the proposed built form, parking, circulatory routes and open spaces within the site, in order to ensure a full evaluation of whether the proposed development can be satisfactorily undertaken.

7.44 Although indicative, the Sketch Masterplan depicts how the quantum of development could be achieved through a combination of two storey and 2.5 storey properties with the proposed 40 units equating to 34dph (dwellings per hectare) based on the 1.15ha net residential area and 22dph based on the gross site area. This ratio would conform to policy HL6 of the Local Plan Alterations (2002) and sit comfortably with paragraph 122 of NPPF 2018. Notwithstanding this, the scale would be carefully considered in detail as part of a reserved matters application.

7.45 The Sketch Masterplan indicates that the required open space provision (HDC Operations identified approximately 1900m2, including 720m2 of continuous green space is required by the development) could also be included within the application site. Both HDC Urban Design and HDC Landscaping raised concerns regarding the limited surveillance afforded to the southernmost area of open space. Whilst the indicative layout of the Sketch Masterplan is not fully supported, it is considered that it has been adequately demonstrated that, subject to landscaping conditions, the quantum of development and necessary supporting green space infrastructure can be achieved within the confines of the site.

7.46 'Appearance', 'landscaping', 'layout' and 'scale' and would be considered in detail as part of reserved matters should outline permission be granted.

The impact in relation to the street scene and the character/appearance of the area as a whole

7.47 The importance of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is outlined in paragraph 170 of NPPF 2018 and echoed in emerging policy LP11. It is noted that none of the trees within the application site are protected by Tree Preservation Orders.

7.48 The supporting Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Marlow Consulting Ltd) notes that two trees and a section of hedging will be removed to facilitate the required visibility splay at the entrance to the application site. All other perimeter trees could be retained unless sound Arboricultural reasons demonstrate that removal is required.

7.49 Subject to the imposition of conditions relating to a schedule and timing of works, details of tree/hedge protection, methods of construction close to trees and the location of service trenches, HDC Landscape raised no objection to the proposed development.

7.50 HDC Operations advised that approximately 1900m2 of open space, including 720m2 of continuous green space would be required to be provided to accord with the Developer Contributions SPD (2011). The precise details of the open space would be secured through a S106 agreement and reserved matters details. In accordance with the Developers Contributions SPD (2011), it is not necessary for an on- site equipped play area to be provided for this scale of development.

Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA)

7.51 The application is supported by a LVA (EDP Ltd: June 2017). This document has been assessed by HDC Landscape and the overall conclusions of the LVA at paras 7.7 - 7.10 are not disputed. In summary:

7.52 7.7: "…the site represents a logically and easily assimilated development into this part of the countryside".

7.53 7.8: "…no anticipated material adverse effects upon landscape designations or the underlying character…Public rights of Way, minor roads or residential receptors in the wider area. There may be some intervisibility experienced by residents adjacent to the site…" The impact upon the amenity of neighbours is assessed in the relevant section below.

7.54 7.9: "The loss of a single agricultural field parcel…would create a minor and localised effect. Accordingly, whilst the proposed development will certainly yield change to the character of the site itself, this appraisal finds no reason why the change of land use should be found so harmful as to be unacceptable…"

7.55 7.10: "…the proposed residential development…is entirely in keeping with the landscape character and would not therefore result in an material landscape or visual effects or policy contraventions.

Ecology:

7.56 The Wildlife Trust offered no objection to the proposed development, subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure the mitigation measures outlined in the Ecological Report (EDP Ltd: June 2017) are implemented and a financial contribution toward site management costs being secured through a S106 agreement.

7.57 This contribution is considered to accord with the statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and paragraph 56 of the NPPF (i.e. it is considered that this contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, it is directly related to the development and it is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development).

7.58 Formal comments from the Natural England are awaited and will be added to the Late Representations document.

7.59 Both the LLFA and Anglian Water offered no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions.

Heritage Assets:

7.60 HDC Conservation advised that the main development site is outside of the Great Gransden Conservation Area and the erection of 40 dwellings in this location would not adversely affect the setting/significance of any heritage assets.

7.61 The off-site highways works (proposed to be delivered by a Section 278 agreement) are located within the Great Gransden Conservation Area and affect the front garden of 1 Mill Road, a Grade II listed building and the setting of an adjacent listed building (3-5 Mill Road). The proposed development was publicised on this basis in accordance with the national requirements.

7.62 HDC Conservation advised that the proposed installation of a dropped kerb and the insertion of a small area of footpath is not considered to harm the setting of the listed buildings or the Conservation Area. Should further boundary treatments be pursued, a separate application for planning permission would be required and determined on its own merit.

7.63 CCC Archaeology raised no objection to the proposed development, subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure an appropriate programme of archaeological investigation is submitted.

Conclusion:

7.64 The proposed development is considered to comply with NPPF 2018, CS1 of the Core Strategy (2009), policies EN2, EN5, EN6, EN9, EN12 and EN13 of the 1995 Local Plan and emerging policy LP36, subject to the imposition of the conditions suggested by consultees. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regard to the impact on heritage assets.

7.65 The site is located on the eastern edge of the village of Great Gransden, adjacent to residential development to the southwest and northwest (albeit separated by the highway).

7.66 Due in part to the location and topography of the main development site, coupled with the screening provided by the perimeter planting (the majority of which is to be retained) and the impact of the proposed planting along the southwest boundary of the site, the proposed development is considered to comply with NPPF 2018, CS1 of the Core Strategy (2009), policies EN18, EN20, EN22 and EN23 of the 1995 Local Plan and emerging policies LP11 (b), LP32 and LP33, subject to the imposition of the conditions suggested by consultees. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regard to visual impact.

The impact on the amenity of neighbours

7.67 The Development Plan, emerging policies and the NPPF seek to ensure that developments do not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact upon residential amenity for both existing and future occupiers.

Future occupants:

7.68 The application is supported by a Noise Assessment (RSK: June 2017). This document identifies that noise measurements were "dominated by consistent road traffic from Mill Road and Sand Road. During the site visit occasional light aircraft were also observed, which contributed to the noise environment". Properties along the north-western boundary of the site would likely experience the highest noise levels, given the proximity to the highway.

7.69 The Noise Assessment suggests that "once a final site layout has been agreed, the building fabric should also be constructed to ensure that a 19 dB reduction is achieved" and that the proposed outdoor living areas would fall within the 55 dB(A) criteria stated in BS 8233 - no additional mitigation would be required. In summary: "The proposed development site is therefore considered to be suitable for the intended development".

7.70 The application is supported by an Air Quality Assessment (RSK: June 2017). The assessment notes that "If appropriate mitigation, such as those recommended in this report and in any DMP or CEMP, are implemented, the residual impact of construction phase air quality impacts should be viewed as 'not significant'" and " The development is therefore unlikely to have a significant effect on local air quality once the development is complete and operational".

7.71 Concerns regarding odour emanating from the Sand Road Industrial Estate are not considered to represent a constraint to the development of the site.

7.72 The application is supported by a Phase I Site Appraisal (GRM Development Solutions Ltd: May 2017) which concluded that the site is suitable for the proposed development (subject to compliance with the recommendations made in the report) and that a Phase II Ground Investigation would more accurately determine the effect of the identified hazards (including ground gas, asbestos, pesticides).

7.73 HDC Environmental Health reviewed the supporting documents and advised that the conclusions were not disputed. With the imposition of conditions to secure the mitigation measures described in the three documents, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

Existing residents to the southwest and northwest

7.74 Although indicative, the Sketch Masterplan indicates to the satisfaction of HDC Urban Design that the site can accommodate the proposed 40 dwellings in an arrangement which avoids an unacceptable detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbours with regard to overshadowing or by way of being overbearing.

7.75 Should outline permission be granted, details of the appearance of the dwellings (i.e. the position, scale and orientation of fenestration) would be considered at the Reserved Matters stage. Should the proposed development incorporate an appropriate arrangement of fenestration, the development would avoid an unacceptable detrimental impact in terms of overlooking/a loss of privacy.

7.76 Air Quality Assessment (RSK: June 2017) describes the two sources of emissions which should be controlled: exhaust emissions from site plant, equipment and vehicles and fugitive dust/particulate emissions from site activities.

7.77 Should the development be carried out in accordance with an appropriate construction environmental management plan (CEMP) which incorporates mitigation measures outlined in Appendix C of the Air Quality Assessment, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

7.78 Accordingly, the proposed development is considered to comply with NPPF 2018, CS1 of the Core Strategy (2009), policies EN25 and H31 of the 1995 Local Plan and emerging policies LP13, LP13 and LP15, subject to the imposition of the conditions suggested by consultees. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regard to the impact upon the amenity of neighbours.

Accessibility, parking and the impact on highway safety

7.79 Concerns regarding the potential impact of the proposed development upon the safety of the highway within the vicinity of the application site are consistent themes throughout the representations from neighbours and Great Gransden Parish Council.

7.80 The width/condition of Sand Road along with the complexities of the crossroad junction (approximately 155m to the southwest of the application site) are recognised and understood. However, CCC Highways did not raise an objection to the proposed development with regard to highway safety, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to: *Full details of the internal layout of the site *Details of future management/maintenance of the internal roads *Minimum access width *Construction specification *Temporary facilities clear of the highway for construction period *Visibility splays *Kerb specification for junctions *Drainage measures *Wheel washing facilities *Site traffic management plan *Off site improvement works completed.

7.81 The above conditions are considered to meet the 6 tests in the NPPF in that they are: 1. Necessary; 2. Relevant to planning and; 3. To the development to be permitted; 4. Enforceable; 5. Precise and; 6. Reasonable in all other respects

7.82 Concerns relating to footpath provision within the immediate vicinity are understood, however the proposed development incorporates additional areas of footpath to tie the site into the existing network.

7.83 Alterations to pedestrian routes at the East Street/Mill Road/Church Street/Sand Road crossroads have been identified as necessary to improve visibility at the junction.

7.84 It is considered that the necessary alterations are achievable. Although Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) confirmed that they do not own any land around the area of the East Street/Sand Road junction, this area forms part of the 'highway maintainable at public expense' and is therefore subject to highway rights (i.e. the right to pass and re-pass).

7.85 An exercise to establish the approximate width of the highway indicated that the hedge planted on the boundary of 17 East Street has increased in width over the years and now encroaches into the 'highway maintainable at public expense'.

7.86 Section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 places a duty on CCC to prevent obstruction of the highway. It is understood that a notice issued under Section 154 (of the same Act) requires vegetation to be lopped/cut to remove an obstruction and that the cost of these works will be borne by the owner of the vegetation.

Accessibility:

7.87 The availability of services/facilities in Great Gransden is noted.

7.88 It is accepted that the proposed development would lead to an increase in traffic generation, as it is anticipated that the majority of the future occupants of the proposed development would use private means of transport to access amenities located outside of Great Gransden.

7.89 However, CCC Highways referenced the submitted Transport Statement (Mode Transport Planning: June 2017) which identified that the proposed junction (access into the site) and the surrounding junctions (including the aforementioned crossroads) would continue to operate without issue in relation to capacity. With the imposition of the planning conditions mentioned above and at the end of this report, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

7.90 Given the availability of services/facilities and employment opportunities in Great Gransden, coupled with the proximity of the services/facilities in St Neots (approximately 11.25 km to the northwest) and the status of the highway network in the vicinity, the proposed development, from an accessibility perspective is, on balance, considered to be acceptable with reference to NPPF 2018, policies T18 and T19 of the 1995 Local Plan and emerging policies LP17 and LP18 subject to the imposition of the conditions suggested by consultees.

Infrastructure Requirements and Planning Obligations

7.91 The Infrastructure Business Plan 2013/2014 (2013) was developed by the Growth and Infrastructure Group of the Huntingdonshire Local Strategic Partnership. It helps to identify the infrastructure needs arising from the development proposed to 2036 through the Core Strategy

7.92 Statutory tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (Regulation 122) require that S106 planning obligations must be: - Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; - Directly related to the development; and - Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

7.93 S106 Obligations are intended to make development acceptable which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL):

7.94 A this planning application is for a small-scale major development (under 200 dwellings), the development will be CIL liable in accordance with the Council's adopted charging schedule; CIL payments will cover footpaths and access, health, community facilities, libraries and lifelong learning and education.

7.95 A S106 Agreement would cover the following contribution requirements: -Affordable Housing -Green Space -Residential Wheeled Bins -Waresley & Gransden Woods SSSI mitigation

Affordable Housing

7.96 The supporting Design and Access Statement states that "40% of the total number of homes provided will be affordable homes […] to suit local need", which accords with policy CS4 of the Core Strategy (2009), emerging policy LP25 and paragraph 77 of NPPF 2018. Of the proposed 40 dwellings, 16 dwellings would be AH units with types and tenure mix to be confirmed in consultation with HDC Housing.

Green Space

7.97 HDC Operations have confirmed that the necessary supporting green space infrastructure can be accommodated within the site. HDC Active Lifestyles confirmed that a contribution may be required. Any further comments will be included in the Late Representations document.

Residential Wheeled Bins

7.98 Each dwelling will require the provision of one black, blue and green wheeled bin. 2017/2018 cost: £73.65.

Waresley & Gransden Woods SSSI Mitigation

7.99 The Wildlife Trust identified that a contribution of £15,336 towards site management costs would be required.

Conclusion and Planning Balance:

7.100 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, that is, development which strikes a satisfactory balance between economic, environmental and social considerations.

7.101 Economic: The proposed development would contribute towards economic growth, including job creation during the construction phase and in the longer term through the additional population assisting the local economy through spending on services / facilities.

7.102 Environmental: The proposal will result in minor and localised environmental (landscape) harm, however the visual impacts of the proposed development can be adequately mitigated through a sympathetic landscaping scheme and adherence to appropriate design principles. With regard to accessibility, whilst the limitations of the application site are noted (Great Gransden being classified as a 'small settlement' with limited services and job opportunities, and the inevitable reliance on private motor journeys to job opportunities and more services further away), there are no objections from the Highway Authority with reference to the safety or capacity of the local highway network.

7.103 The proposal would also result in the permanent loss of Grade 2 agricultural land but this loss is not considered to be significant. Environmental harm is limited to minor and localised landscape impact, the loss of Grade 2 agricultural land and the impacts associated with the accessibility of the application site.

7.104 Social: The proposed development would increase the supply of both market and affordable housing. There is an identified need for both private and affordable housing and whilst the weight this need can be given is lessened given the NPPF compliant five year supply of housing, there would be a net benefit in social terms. Whilst the Council can demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, the provision of market housing on the application site would amount to a benefit in terms of providing a greater flexibility to the supply of housing.

7.105 With regard to the aforementioned 'tilted balance' as set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF, the adverse impacts of the proposed development (as identified directly above and in the main body of report) are not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, subject to the imposition of conditions (outlined below) which are considered to provide adequate mitigation.

7.106 As such, whilst the proposal represents a departure from the development plan, the LPA considers that relevant emerging policies and both the NPPF 2012 and 2018 indicate that planning permission should be granted.

8. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 obligation relating to affordable housing, provision of open space and maintenance contribution, wheeled bins, Waresley & Gransden Woods SSSI mitigation and subject to conditions to include those listed below:

• Reserved Matters submitted prior to commencement of development • Time Limit for Reserved Matters to be submitted • Surface Water Drainage Scheme/Management Strategy • Provision for Fire Hydrants • Ecological mitigation measures as per Ecological Report • Programme of archaeological investigation • Full details of the internal layout of the site • Details of future management/maintenance of the internal roads • Minimum access width • Construction specification • Temporary facilities clear of the highway for construction period • Visibility splays • Kerb specification for junctions • Drainage measures • Construction Environmental Management Plan to include wheel washing facilities • Site traffic management plan • Off site improvement works completed • Schedule and timing of landscaping works • Details of tree/hedge protection • Methods of construction close to trees • Location of service trenches • Noise mitigation as per Acoustic Report • Land Contamination Assessment • 40% Affordable Housing

REFUSAL in the event that the obligation referred to above has not been completed and the applicant is unwilling to agree to an extended period for determination, or on the grounds that the applicant is unwilling to complete the obligation necessary to make the development acceptable.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to James Lloyd Senior Development Management Officer 01480 388389

Huntingdonshire DC Public Access

From: Diane Taylor Sent: 12 October 2018 17:13 To: Lloyd, James (Planning); DevelopmentControl Cc: West, Richard (Cllr.) Subject: 17/01375/OUT - Land NW of Mandene Gardens

Hello James,

Case No: 17/01375/OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION), Sand Road, Great Gransden. Further to our previous correspondence regarding this application, Great Gransden Parish Council would like to raise a further objection on the basis that the proposal is contrary to Policy EN2, ‘Proposals for new roads and traffic management schemes can also affect the character of an area and upset the harmony created by the presence of listed buildings.’.

Since the application was updated to address concerns around safety at the junction of Sand Road with East Street and Mill Road, the changes planned to the footpaths and sightlines at this junction will now affect a neighbouring listed building within the Conservation Area.

We also object on the grounds that this update to the application invalidates the statements made in the EIA Analysis and Screening Proforma under the 2011 regulations such as “it is considered unlikely that the project will have a significant effect on any cultural assets.” and “The scale and nature of the project, coupled with the separation distance between the project area and the identified cultural assets is such that the project is not considered to have a significant effect for EIA purposes.” .

Regards Diane Taylor Clerk to Great Gransden Parish Council

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1 HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

Head of Planning Services Pathfinder House St Mary’s Street Huntingdon Cambridgeshire PE29 3TN

Application Number: 17/01375/OUT Case Officer James Lloyd Proposal: Outline planning permission for residential development of up to 40 dwellings (Use Class C3) including means of access into site (not internal roads), parking and associated works, with all other matters (relating to appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) reserved. Location: Land North East Of Mandene Gardens Great Gransden Observations of Great Gransden Parish Council

Recommend Refusal

At their meeting on 2nd August 2017, Parish Councillors unanimously resolved to recommend refusal to this application on the grounds:- (1) it is outside the village limit as laid down in planning policy; (2) the development is contrary to Policies STR1, STR2 from the 2002 Local Plan, Policy CS3 from the Core Strategy of 2009, and Policy LP10 in the Draft Local Plan to 2036; (3) sustainability for this development increasing the size of Great Gransden by 10% is not proven in terms of availability of services, modes of transport and its effect on the character of what is defined consistently by HDC in all their policy documents as a Small Settlement; and (4) considering the factual inaccuracies in the Request for an Environmental Impact Assessment statement dated 3rd May 2017 regarding bus services and traffic volumes this should be reconsidered under the new regulations which came into force on 16th May 2017 taking into account the direct and indirect significant effects of the proposed development on populations and human health.

Diane Taylor Clerk to Great Gransden Parish Council Elm Cottage 33 Meadow Road Great Gransden SG19 3BD

Date: 2nd August 2017

Development Management Committee

Scale =1 :2,500 Application Ref:17/01375/OUT

L T w El Sub Sta r s Tennis Court

Mill Weir 3 Sand Road

1 0 Industrial a 64.1m Estate

2 1 1 b

2 a in 1 1 3 !

6 Sand House 4 1

2 3 3

E 3 S O L

C 9

8 1 D 7

1 2 7 T r

Brambles a 4 1 c 8 1 k

6 1 23

5 4

7 21

La ve 1 nd e 3 r B 7 ar 1 ns W I LL IA M S CL

Pond 1

5 1

D A

O 1

R 6

1 N 4 A S 11

9 ok ro B n

3 ea 1 d

2 Man 1

7 5 M A N D EN

E 18 8 G A R D

E 2 N

3 1

Pr ov 1 i B de ap n C ti ce 3 h st 2 S 5 ur

u ch r 3 g 2 Brinkley er

y 11 Play Area

GP b a

l S

1 ub 3

2 t

1 a

4 2

2 6

Mandean

Bridge

6 2

M I LL R Pumping O AD Station Key

Co The Site C on st , C P & Listed Building ED B dy 43 Conservation Area 1.2 2m

Pond Mi k ll H oo il Br l le Do me Ho AUDLEY

WILLIAMSWilliams CloseCL

SAND ROAD Sand Road The Site

EAST STREET

MANDENE GARDENS

Mandene Gardens

Play Area

El Sub Sta

Mandene Brook

client: job number: drawing number: Catesby Estates Limited CAT108 1001 project: scale drawn Sand Road, Great Gransden 1:1250@A3 jvs date: status: drawing title: April 2017 planning_01 Site Location Plan 1:1,250 Development Boundary - 1.8ha urbandesignbox.co.uk Copyright of Urban Design Box. This drawing is for illustrative purposes only and should not be used for any construction or estimation purposes. No liability or responsibility is accepted arising from reliance upon the information contained within this 0 50m drawing. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. 1. Main access from Sand Road

2. Access leads to a focal space with village style cottages surrounding it.

3. Informal street structure with buildings defining the space. Opportunity for informal on-street parking and street trees, further defining the space.

4. Existing hedges and trees retained within green edge corridor to soften the development to the north east, add character and provide ecological links north south along the existing boundary hedgerow.

5. Large usable area of open space to the south provides informal open space and opportunities for 01 ecological enhancement combined with a SUDS attenuation area. 04 Williams Close 6. Buildings address POS; all green spaces have frontages overlooking them to provide natural surveillance.

7. A mix of cottages and courtyard development which 02 provides a series of well-overlooked spaces whilst enjoying a village feel. 09 8. Additional new boundary fencing or planting to strengthen existing boundary to homes along 03 Mandene Gardens - subject to public consultation. 07 Sand Road 9. Opportunity for new tree and incidental planting within the public realm.

10. Potential Foul Water Pumping Station location.

Schedule of Masterplan areas: 08 Gross site area: 1.8ha Net Residential Area 1.15ha Public Open Space 0.37ha Strategic Open Space 06 (Balancing Pond TBC, FPS, trees / hedges) 0.28ha Mandene Gardens 05 Number of dwellings: up to 40 homes

Concept Masterplan Legend

fps Development Boundary 10 Indicative buildings (up to 2 storey) 04

Indicative buildings (up to 2.5 storey)

Private Gardens

Public Open Space

Mandene Brook Roads / Pavements

Shared Surface

Focal Buildings (contrasting building materials / details)

client: job number: drawing number: Catesby Estates Limited CAT108 4002 rev 01 project: scale drawn Sand Road, Great Gransden 1:1250@A3 jvs date: status: drawing title: April 2017 planning Sketch Masterplan 1:1,250 urbandesignbox.co.uk Copyright of Urban Design Box. This drawing is for illustrative purposes only and should not be used for any construction or estimation purposes. No liability or responsibility is accepted arising from reliance upon the information contained within this 0 50m drawing. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. This drawing has been produced by mode transport planning. No responsibility will be accepted for the use of this drawing in any other project. DO NOT SCALE OFF THIS DRAWING. WILLIAMS CL 21 25 17

ICU PInv

St Tp Post GH1

ICU

Gy 2.4m x 50m (33.3 mph MfS) GH2

TCL: GH4 2.4m x 57m (36.6mph67.97 MfS) TCL: 67.46

Lp Tp Fh Mkr

Footway to tie into R6m existing provision R6m

5,5m 2m 2m

drawing title client scale D 20-06-17 Issued mode transport planning 1:250@A3 Catesby Estates Limited Lombard House C 15-06-17 Issued Proposed Access Drawing 145 Great Charles Street drawn B 01-06-17 Issued Birmingham B3 3LP lcw A 25-04-17 Issued job title checked Highway Boundary mode rev date remarks Land at Sand Road, bdf t 0121 794 8390 drawing no. transport planning created /Users/adrianforte/Dropbox/Projects File: folder/ProjectShareteamManchester/Sand Gransden/2.Road,Sheets/170601Great J32-2975-PS-001,002,003 RevD.dwg Great Gransden e [email protected] J32-2975-PS-001 w www.modetransport.co.uk Jun '17 This drawing has been produced by mode transport planning. No responsibility will be accepted for the use of this drawing in any other project. St DO NOT SCALE OFF THIS DRAWING. Ep St St

St Tp

Sv Sv

Sp Mkr

St Sp

Sv Sv

Mkr Mkr

drawing title client scale E 05-06-18 Amended Catesby Estates Limited mode transport planning 1:250@A3 D 29-03-18 Amended Footway Improvement Scheme C 07-03-18 Amended drawn jwm B 06-03-18 Amended mode A 01-03-18 Issued job title checked rev date remarks Visibility Splays Land at Sand Road, alf Area to be Adopted drawing no. t 0121 794 8390 transport planning created Great Gransden e [email protected] Jun '18 J32-2975-PS-014 File: \\Mac\Home\Dropbox (mode)\Project\Birmingham\2. Projects\J322975_Sand Road, Great Gransden\5. Graphics\2. CAD\2. Sheets\180605 J32-2975-PS-14,16,17.dwg w www.modetransport.co.uk This drawing has been produced by mode transport planning. No responsibility will be accepted for the useICU of this drawing in any other project. DO NOT SCALE OFF THIS DRAWING. ICU St Tp

GH1 St Tp Post GH1

TCL: 67.97 TCL: 67.46 TCL: 67.97

ICU

St Tp Post GH1 11.643

5.079

0.816 3.035 1.85 3.75 1.35 1.35 TCL: 67.97 Large Car (2006) Ref 11.643 Overall Length 5.079m Overall Length 11.643m Overall Width 1.872m Overall Width 2.500m Overall Body Height 1.525m Overall Body Height 3.751m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.310m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.304m Max Track Width 1.831m Track Width 2.500m Lock to lock time 4.00s Lock to lock time 4.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 5.900m Wall to Wall Turning Radius 11.250m

drawing title client scale D Issued Catesby Estates Limited mode transport planning 1:250@A3 20-06-17 Swept Path Analysis Lombard House C 15-06-17 Issued 145 Great Charles Street drawn B 01-06-17 Issued Birmingham B3 3LP lcw A 25-04-17 Issued job title mode checked rev date remarks Land at Sand Road, bdf t 0121 794 8390 drawing no. transport planning created /Users/adrianforte/Dropbox/Projects File: folder/ProjectShareteamManchester/Sand Gransden/2.Road,Sheets/170601Great J32-2975-PS-001,002,003 RevD.dwg Great Gransden e [email protected] J32-2975-PS-002 w www.modetransport.co.uk Jun '17