SOUTH EAST LOCAL PLAN: HOUSING PAPER – (JANUARY 2017)

1 SURFLEET’S PLACE IN THE SPATIAL STRATEGY 1.1 Revised Policy 2: Spatial Strategy of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Public Consultation on Preferred Sites for Development (July 2016) identified Surfleet as a ‘Minor Service Centre’. 1.2 Comments received - The following comments were received concerning Surfleet ’s position in the Spatial Strategy: 1. Longstaff - We consider the amendment proposed to Policy 2, to include the 'Seas End Road' part of the village with the 'Church End' part the Settlement, is a very positive proposal, and this corrects the anomaly that was in existence in previous Local plan versions, to combine the previously separated parts of one village

2. Matrix Planning - SUPPORT given for SURFLEET's place in the Spatial Strategy as a Minor Service Centre. Development will now be permitted that supports its role as a service centre for the settlement itself, helps sustain existing facilities or helps meet the service needs of other local communities. We support this justification supporting Revised Policy 2. We therefore support Revised Policy 2: Spatial Strategy and do not propose any changes to the policy or its supporting text as it relates to Surfleet. In later comments on the Inset maps, we also support the combination of Surfleet and Surfleet Seas End as one identifiable settlement.

3. Matrix Planning - We SUPPORT the combination of Surfleet and Surfleet Seas End as one identifiable settlement. They were of equal status in the old adopted Local Plan (policy SG3); and the present new joint status as a Minor Service Centre (in draft Policy 2) is justified.

4. Trevor Rowbottom - I am pleased to see that a number of people have written to you stating that Surfleet and Surfleet Seas End are in fact one village as most people have always assumed and that they should not be divided. I have relatives on both sides of the village and we have always felt it to be one entity with one village council and one purpose. To join them as one will continue the community spirit that has existed for years and I trust this action will be confirmed in your final review. 5. Angela Bradbury - I would just like to register that I am very happy to see the proposed Settlement Boundary for Surfleet. I registered my views last year at the first round of consultations. Growing up in the village and still having many ties there, it is very important to me and my family for Surfleet to be recognised as the one village it has always been and am very concerned that the proposed Settlement Boundary should be approved.

6. Mrs A and Mr T Rowbottom - It is good that you are going to state that Surfleet and Surfleet Seas End are in fact one and the same village. I was born and bred in the village and have close relatives, brothers and cousins living on both sides of the . The village did have the railway line through its centre before it was turned into a road but everyone has always felt it to be one entity controlled by one village council. It will enhance the community spirit to know that we are all joined again in one village with one purpose to enhance the village life and community well being. I trust that you will take this action after the latest consultation on the local planning for Surfleet and indeed the surrounding area. 7. Mr Paul Speight - As a resident of Surfleet Seas End for 20 years and pre the 1990s ribbon building era I feel i'm a qualified layperson to comment on any further development plans. Unlike Surfleet village, Surfleet Seas End village is more remote from local services apart from Seas End Road which is closer to local services but still divided from by the A16 truck road and a staggered road junction from accessing those services. Apart from one public house it lacks the facilities needed to meet the day-to-day needs of its residents. With roads of varying width past Seas end Road any other route to access the A16 are by single track roads lacking pavement plus unkempt grass walking verges and limited street lighting. Any further development past 42 Reservoir Road lacks the utilities infrastructure of gas and main drainage in place first to support further development : There's no Street lighting, Footpaths* & Limited BT internet at peak times due to fibre broadband not reaching here. Ref: footpaths*. The grassed river verge is jointly owned and should be maintained by the Environment Agency and Council. The Environment Agency ceased maintenance to their sections 6 years or more ago, The council maintains there section maybe once a year. (If it wasn't for the householders cutting and maintaining these grassed verges without consent they would be overgrown plus I doubt any have public liability insurance should an accident occur on these verges) There is limited water bar pressure in the summer months as it’s only supplied by a 3" water main which was never intended to support the needs of the ribbon building of the late 1990s. (I for one had the expense of changing my newly installed heating boiler after the last new builds as the bar pressure became too low for instant hot water and no doubt that situation would worsen if further development is considered) Drainage past No. 42 Reservoir Road is by means of a sceptic tank and foul water soak away and the plot sizes available which might be considered for development do not have an adequate size plot to install this type of system due to the high winter water levels. The 2 new build properties to the east of mine had to have their installed sceptic tank soak away drainage removed and changing to a pumped water treatment plant and discharging into a dry dyke which is now invested with rats. Using my location as a reference point: there is no access to public transport other than close to a 3 mile walk to the nearest bus stop. The only village store and post office is a 1.25 miles walk and the village primary school is a 2 mile walk most of which has no footpath so the most likely form of transport would be by motor vehicle. Until the council can demonstrate that any further development outside Of Surfleet main village can be achieved without the relevant infrastructure first being in place and without detriment to the existing residents, then any further development should not be considered. 1.3 Responses to the above comments: 1. The support for Surfleet’s position in the Spatial Strategy is welcomed.

2. The support for Surfleet’s position in the Spatial Strategy is welcomed.

3. The support for Surfleet’s position in the Spatial Strategy is welcomed.

4. The support for Surfleet’s position in the Spatial Strategy is welcomed.

5. The support for Surfleet’s position in the Spatial Strategy is welcomed.

6. The support for Surfleet’s position in the Spatial Strategy is welcomed.

7. The infrastructure concerns expressed are acknowledged. However, infrastructure providers will be consulted by developers of plots and improvements made if required. In addition merging Surfleet Seas End and Surfleet together does not change the situation from what could have been developed in Surfleet Seas End as an ‘Other Service Centre and Settlement’. This is because the infill plots could have been developed under the emerging policy for ‘Other Service Centre and Settlement’. The settlement boundary has only been changed near Glen House, close to the A16, to include a new site. 1.4 Conclusions on Surfleet’s place in the Spatial Strategy – It is considered that Surfleet and Surfleet Seas End should remain as one settlement and its place in the Spatial Strategy should remain as a ‘Minor Service Centre’. ------

2 SURFLEET ’S HOUSING REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Revised Policy 12: Distribution of New Housing of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Public Consultation (July 2016) identified that housing allocations should be made in Surfleet to provide for 180 dwellings between April 2011 and 31st March 2036. 2.2 Comments received - The following comments were received concerning Surfleet ’s housing requirements: 1. Longstaff for 2 clients - We consider the amendment proposed to Policy 12, which provides to increase the allocation of new houses for the village, to a level of 180, for the plan period 2011-2036, is a positive proposal, and this higher allocation will provide for the greater and more satisfactory level of growth for the village with its range of services and facilities, which need supporting by new housing for households and families. 2. Longstaff - We consider the amendment proposed to Policy 12, which provides to increase the allocation of new houses for Surfleet, to a level of 180, for the plan period 2011-2036, is a positive proposal, and this higher allocation will provide for the greater and more satisfactory level of growth for the village of this category type, with its good range of services and facilities.

3. Environment Agency - We have concern regarding the increase in allocations from 150 to 180, although acknowledge that this is in part due to realignment of settlement boundary. The comments are based on the draft outputs of the updated Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, which have not yet been ratified. However, we would recommend that you use this data to review your Sequential Test evidence for the site allocations. 2.3 Responses to the above comments: 1. The support is welcomed.

2. The support is welcomed.

3. The concern is acknowledged and the new SFRA data has been used in assessing the sites. 2.4 Conclusions on Surfleet’s Housing Requirements – Given that no significant challenge has been made to Surfleet’s housing requirement, it is considered that the Local Plan should continue to seek to identify housing allocations in Surfleet to provide for 180 dwellings between 1st April 2011 and 31st March 2036. ------

3 INFRASTRUCTURE 3.1 Education – the County Education Department has commented that there is limited capacity available. One additional classroom is required to extend school to Published Admission Number 20 from Published Admission Number 15. (This will give 5 places in each of the 7 primary years totalling 35 additional primary school places) A land shortage would require additional playing field land. There is capacity currently available at Spalding secondary schools which are closest to development but it is likely that capacity will fill as children cannot attend schools at Holbeach/Bourne/Deepings. A new secondary school is required in the second phase of plan. The closest sixth form is in Spalding - Sixth form capacity echoes capacity in the secondary schools which they are part of (some capacity available). 3.2 Flood risk – owing to the Environment Agency’s previous comments in relation to Surfleet an updated SFRA has been undertaken and the results of this have been used in assessing the Preferred Housing Sites. 3.3 Welland and Deepings IDB  IDBS have target standards of protection whereby water levels within their systems are controlled to protect agricultural land and domestic and commercial property from flood damage, with various freeboards achieved for various return periods. Although the target standards are generally met, there may be low spots within the district where freeboards are not met and this should be checked on a site specific basis against modelling of the IDB system, where it has been undertaken, or against the Environment Agency’s Surface Water Flood Risk Maps.

 When considering the suitability of a site in the fenland area, one of the primary criteria must be surface water drainage. This is often overlooked, many flood risk assessments concentrating more on tidal and fluvial flood risk. An effective means of surface water drainage from a site should be demonstrated early on in the planning process.

 Where sites are adjacent to an IDB watercourses, Byelaws will apply which may restrict elements of the development. In such cases consent will be required from the IDB.

 In line with current recommendations the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be considered as a first approach to dealing with surface water run-off. Consent for the discharge of surface water to a watercourse must be obtained from the IDB. If the surface water run-off rates can be restricted to 1.4litres/sec/Ha, then there will be minimal impact on the drainage network. However, in certain circumstances, where restriction down to this rate is not possible, the IDB may consider allowing a higher rate, if it is considered appropriate. Discharging surface water to a watercourse may incur a Surface Water Development Contribution Fee, depending on the rate of discharged agreed with the IDB.

 Where SuDS are consented as the surface water drainage method, it is important that a future maintenance regime forms part of the consent. Without maintenance SuDS will not function in the long term. IDBs are prepared to take on the maintenance of certain types of SuDS on a site by site basis, and subject to payment of a commuted sum to cover future costs. If this is the preferred option, developers should consult with the IDB at an early stage to incorporate the IDB’s requirements for maintenance access etc.  Where a site relies on private watercourses to convey flow to the Board’s system, consideration should be given to the condition of the private drainage system and whether it is capable of dealing with the proposed flows. Where a development results in an increase in flow above the 1.4l/s/Ha greenfield rate then riparian owners should be consulted to see if they are willing to take the extra flow. If a private watercourse requires improvement to cater for the flow from the development then this would have to be undertaken at the developers cost with the agreement of the riparian owners downstream. 3.4 Anglian Water has commented that the surface water network capacity has major constraints and all sites should seek to reduce flood risk and incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems with connection to the sewer seen as the last option. 3.5 Sewage Treatment – Anglian Water has commented that all of the proposed housing allocations in this area are expected to require improvements to the existing foul sewerage network to enable development to come forward on these sites. 3.6 Water Supply – Anglian Water has commented that the water supply network has capacity available to serve the proposed growth. 3.7 Health - The CCG’s have commented that currently there is some capacity at the local GP surgery(ies) to accommodate additional patients, however County wide there is an increasing shortage of GP’s, nurses and other healthcare staff which could affect future capacity should demand increase.

4 PREFERRED HOUSING SITES 4.1 Inset Map 24 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Public Consultation on Preferred Sites for Development (July 2016) identified five ‘Preferred Housing Sites’, Sur003, Sur004, Sur006, Sur011 and Sur016. ------4.2 Comments received - The following comments were made on site Sur003 (Land to the north of Station Road, Surfleet): 1. Longstaff - We have studied the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan - Public Consultation on Preferred sites for development (July 2016), and would like to support the inclusion of the site Sur 003, as being one of the preferred sites in Surfleet. It is close to the village school and services and is located between developments on Station Road. We consider that the site fits into the settlement form well. Additionally, existing footway links to the Primary school and to all village services add to the suitability of the site for a housing development. As has been noted, consent has previously been granted for a development of 5 dwellings on the frontage of the site, so the inclusion of the remainder of the site would fit well with the settlement development pattern. Overall, on behalf of our clients, we very much support the identification of site Sur 003, as a 'Preferred housing site' on the SELLP Inset Map for Surfleet. 4.3 Responses to the above comments: 1. The support is welcomed. 4.4 Conclusions on site Sur003 – It is considered that site Sur003 is a suitable Preferred Housing Site in Surfleet, and that it should be taken forward as a Housing Allocation because:

 The revised SFRA shows the site as No Hazard and it partly has planning permission. ------4.5 Comments received - The following comments were made on site Sur004 (Land to the south of Station Road, Surfleet): 1. Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust. - Sur004 (preferred housing site) - adjacent to River Glen Corridor Local Wildlife Site (LWS) It is important that existing and candidate designated sites of nature conservation interest are protected and enhanced. Sites of nature conservation interest and other areas of natural greenspace should be buffered, extended and linked across the landscape to enable species and habitats to adapt to climate change. This would need to be taken into account in the design and development of the above sites should they be allocated for housing or employment in the Local Plan. As we commented in February, there is an error on this map as Surfleet Lows Site of Special Scientific Interest has been incorrectly shown as National Nature Reserve. This should be amended to show the site as a SSSI. 2. The GLNP - highlights that a number of sites identified as preferred sites for housing or employment are adjacent to sites of designated nature conservation value: Surfleet (Inset Map No 24) Sur004 (preferred housing site) adjacent to River Glen Corridor LWS. All LWS's are a material consideration in planning as described in the NPPF. Furthermore the NPPF states that planning should seek not just to protect but to enhance the natural environment, where possible.

3. Environment Agency - The draft Strategic Flood Risk Assessment outputs show that Sur004 could be subject to depths of up to 1m and therefore will need to demonstrate that the NPPF Sequential and Exception Tests can be passed. The Surfleet Water Recycling Centre and sewerage network does not appear to have any spare capacity to accommodate the proposed site allocation numbers. Based on the information the Environment Agency holds regarding discharge flows and permitted headroom at the Water Recycling Centre serving this settlement, we would advise you to consult with Anglian Water Services regarding capacity to accommodate effluent from the number of dwellings to be allocated. Phasing of development to ensure that adequate capacity is available to deal with foul water drainage before new dwellings are occupied may be required in order to avoid environmental harm. 4.6 Responses to the above comments: 1. The comment is acknowledged but individually it does not justify not allocating the site. The impact on the LWS is a matter for the planning application. The map will be corrected.

2. The comment is acknowledged but individually it does not justify not allocating the site. The impact on the LWS is a matter for the planning application. 3. The site is shown in the revised SFRA to have a range of potential flood depths up to 1m, which covers most of the agricultural land. The site dips in the centre of the field and rises against the road and the river. There is a house to the west which is about 5m from the boundary, which is marked by individual conifers, trees and shrubs, with a 3 barred post and rail fence that follows the current land levels. Raising the land would bring it towards the top rail of the fence in the centre of the site. This will have an effect on the dwelling which is lessened by its distance to the boundary and its screening as well as how the development could be laid out and the choice of dwellings. However, the main problem is preventing water draining into that property. There is another house to the east, most likely the farm house for the field, which would be less affected owing to it being over 10m from the site and the land needing less filling.

4. The revised SFRA has only recently identified this issue. The relevant drainage body is unable to confirm whether there is a solution, owing to their role as assessing the developer’s FRA for any submitted scheme. It is therefore considered that this site should not be allocated because of its possible flood impact on the adjoining dwelling and not knowing whether there is a viable solution. However, owing to the site being bordered on three sides with development and being within the village it should continue to be within the settlement boundary for the village. As a result a scheme to develop the site could come forward if a suitable, viable drainage solution can be designed. 4.7 Conclusions on site Sur004 – It is considered that site Sur004 is not a suitable Preferred Housing Site in Surfleet, and it should not be taken forward as a Housing Allocation because of uncertainty whether the site can be suitably and viably drained so that the adjoining dwelling is not affected by water from the site, owing to being lower than this site when raised. ------4.8 Comments received - The following comments were made on site Sur006 (Land to the south of Park Lane, Surfleet): 1. Longstaff - We have studied the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan - Public Consultation on Preferred sites for development (July 2016), and would like to support the inclusion of part of the site Sur 006, as being one of the preferred Housing sites in Surfleet. It is understood that the site is being considered suitable to be taken forward as a Preferred Housing site for the village, but only in accordance with the area presently for which a planning consent has been granted - i.e 26 dwellings. We note the comments made in Housing Paper in the conclusion statements to this proposal. We wish to advise that when the original estate road to Sunningdale Close was built, it was built to a specification agreed with highways to allow it to serve future extensions of development of the land now proposed. We therefore wish to state that the existing estate road and access should be suitable to serve the whole of the identified site. Furthermore, the existing development, already provides to prevent visual harm to the setting of the church, which unless looking towards it from a South East direction, does not fall in a sight line of the Church. Careful design of any proposed development would be able to address any such concerns if the whole of the identified site is selected as a Preferred site. We consider the amendment proposed to Policy 12, which provides to increase the allocation of new houses for the village, to a level of 180 new dwellings for the plan period 2011-2036, is a positive proposal, and this higher allocation will provide for the greater and more satisfactory level of growth for the village with its very good range of services and facilities, which need supporting by new housing for households and families. We support the allocation at this location, and being within 200m of the centre of the village, it is a logical and appropriate location for residential development, but we ask that the whole of the identified site be included as a Preferred site, and taken forward within the Local Plan review process. 4.9 Responses to the above comments: 1. This site did not score well in the SA and was allocated in accordance with the planning permission. Also sequentially it is the second worst site for flood risk with areas shown in the revised SFRA of up to 0.5m. Owing to this it is not considered appropriate to extend the allocation to the area submitted to the SHLAA. 4.10 Conclusions on site Sur006 – It is considered that site Sur006 is a suitable Housing Site in Surfleet because it has planning permission. ------4.11 Comments received - The following comments were made on site Sur008 (Land to the south of Seas End Road, Surfleet): 1. Longstaff - We have studied the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan - Public Consultation on Preferred sites for development (July 2016), and would like to support the inclusion of the site Sur 008, as being one of the preferred sites in Surfleet. It is close to the centre of the village, and provides to form development to complete frontage development of the road in the location. Overall, on behalf of our clients, we very much support the identification of site Sur 008, as a 'Preferred housing site' on the SELLP Inset Map for Surfleet. 4.12 Responses to the above comments: 1. The support is welcomed. The revised SFRA shows the site has a potential flood depth of 0.25m. 4.13 Conclusions on site Sur008 – It is considered that site Sur008 is a suitable Housing Site in Surfleet and that it should be taken forward because it is a suitable infill of frontage development. It will not be shown as an allocation because it has a capacity of less than 10. ------4.14 Comments received - No comments were made on site Sur011 (Land off Station Road, Surfleet): 4.15 Conclusions on site Sur011 – It is considered that site Sur011 is a suitable Housing Site in Surfleet and it should be taken forward because it is a suitable extension to the existing depth development on Glen Gardens and Kingfisher Drive. It is also screened from the A16 by the Surfleet Reed bed. The revised SFRA shows the site is partly No Hazard and partly potentially flooded to a depth of 0.25m. The site also has planning permission for 30 dwellings. ------4.16 Comments received - The following comments were made on site Sur016 (Land to the west of Coalbeach Lane South, Surfleet): 1. Mr D J Roberts I am opposed to the inclusion of this site for development because:

 Surfleet is a small rural village & the development of this site would irrevocably erode the rural character of this part of the village.

 Coalbeach Lane South has a pleasant rural character with frontage hedgerows and mature trees, but the established hedgerows would be lost for estate road access and mature trees (preserved) would be threatened by development and adversely affected by estate road and associated buildings and infrastructure.

 Loss of important wildlife habitat - trees are an important roosting site and frontage hedge used by smaller birds for food and nesting.  Para 3 of the Housing Paper simply states that it "appears possible" to develop the site without loss of trees. This gives no confidence and ignores long-term threat to trees by building works/road layout and future residential use.

 I disagree that the Lane is capable of safely accommodating extra traffic - only one footpath on the opposite side of the road - not safe for pedestrians to cross. The road is narrow, regularly used by agricultural vehicles towing trailers, with vehicle parking on the highway visiting frontage houses.

 Extra traffic would exacerbate problems with vehicles joining A16 from Station Road - long queues often form, resulting in drivers taking risks when joining the A16.

 Any development would seriously impact on amenities and outlook of existing frontage properties - some of which have a small depth of rear garden.

 Cannot see how the site could possibly accommodate 44 dwellings in an appropriate and satisfactory manner.

 Existing character is that of frontage dwellings off pleasant village lanes - a single development of a back land site of this size would completely destroy this character.

 The inclusion of this site was not part of the original consultation draft, and residents may have seen this and been reassured. Those residents would have had no reason to re-visit the latest round of consultation events and may be unaware that the site has been included at this later date. In order that those residents bordering the site and opposite the access point are afforded the opportunity of commenting, I would ask that they be notified of the changes and the deadline for consultation responses be extended so that any further comments can be taken into account. 2. Robert Doughty - As you will recall, we are instructed by Mrs Tunnard and Mrs Asprey the owners of land in Surfleet, including Sur016 which, in the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan: Housing Paper - Surfleet (July 2016) forming part of the Public Consultation on Preferred Sites for Development (July 2016), has been recommended to be taken forward as a Preferred Options Housing Allocation. We write to support the identification of Sur016 as a Preferred Options Housing Allocation in the July Housing Paper referred to above. In addition to the conclusions of the July SHLAA, that it will not have adverse impacts on historical assets and although it contains three mature trees which contribute significantly to the area's character, we agree that it is possible to develop the site without their loss. In our view also, the site can be developed without undue harm to the character and appearance of the area, as its relationship to the existing built-up area is good. We note that the Highway Authority considers that the carriageway of Coalbeach Lane is sufficiently wide to accommodate the traffic generated by the 44 dwellings proposed and that the frontage to Coalbeach Lane is able to accommodate an adoptable estate road junction, and that although there is no footway on the site side, the road is sufficiently lightly trafficked for it to be safe for residents and other pedestrians to cross to the opposite side. We would also point out that services and facilities are potentially accessible from Sur016 on foot, by bicycle or public transport. Our clients are able to make the land available in accordance with the suggested Trajectory. We are also pleased to note that it is proposed that Surfleet and Surfleet Seas End are again to be considered as single entity, and not split into two settlements as was previously proposed. 4.17 Responses to the above comments: 1. Surfleet is a linear village mostly comprising frontage development. However, there are examples of depth development and as a result it is not considered this site will be out of character with the village. The two frontage trees are sufficiently far apart to be not affected by development and this, along with impact on neighbouring dwellings, is dependent on the design of the development and its assessment during the planning application. The capacity of 44 dwellings is calculated at a density of 20 to the hectare, which is quite low. The revised SFRA shows the site mostly has a potential flood depth of 0.25m, although there are small areas of No Hazard. The County Council Highways have commented that the carriageway of Coalbeach Lane is not especially narrow, it is wide enough for two-way vehicle movements. There is a footway on the side opposite the site and the provision of a frontage footway could be conditioned. Most roads in the county are used by agricultural vehicles and visiting drivers parking on the highway are a frequent occurrence. The additional traffic movements accruing from a residential development of the size proposed would not overwhelm the capacity of the Station Road junction with the A16.

2. The support is welcomed. 4.18 Conclusions on site Sur016 – It is considered that site Sur016 is a suitable Preferred Housing Site in Surfleet and that it should be taken forward as a Housing Allocation because it fits in with the character of the village, has a suitable means of access and a reasonable flood risk.

5 ALTERNATIVE HOUSING SITES 5.1 Three alternative sites were put forward. 5.2 Comment Received The following comment was made, promoting site Sur013 (Land to the rear of St Laurence Close, Surfleet) : 1. Mr G R Merchant - Last year, an affordable housing development was completed off Main Road, Surfleet by the Surfleet United Charities. During the negotiations, provision was made for further development to the rear. The proposed Local Plan development boundary includes the completed site, but excludes any further development to the rear. This land is still in the ownership of the Surfleet United Charities. My response to the Local Plan consultation is that Surfleet United Charities are able to make the land available for a further affordable housing scheme for the benefit of local people in the Parish and create funds for the Charity to use in village projects. 5.3 Response to the above comment: 1. The local plan has an affordable housing policy which would allow this site to be developed for this purpose without it being designated for housing. 5.4 Conclusions on site Sur013 - The above objection does not raise any issues that suggest that the previous approach taken to this site was inappropriate. It is therefore considered that site Sur013 should not be taken forward as a Housing Allocation. ------5.5 Comment Received The following comment was made, promoting site Sur018 (Land between Station Road and the A152, Surfleet): 1. Mr G R Merchant - The proposed Local plan residential development boundary for Surfleet (as indicated on Inset Map 25) abuts the land owned by Surfleet United Charities - part of this land is registered in the emerging South East Lincolnshire Local Plan as Sur011. Including this site for future open-market and affordable housing schemes will enable a much more comprehensive development to be created and assist in sustaining the existing facilities in this rural village. Access to the site could be off Station Road to the south and Coalbeach Lane South to the north. This response to the Local Plan consultation is that the Charity owners of the land are making the land available for development for a 'windfall' housing site to help satisfy the future housing needs of South Holland. From the sale of the land, Surfleet United Charities will be able to fund local projects in the Surfleet area. 5.6 Response to the above comment: 1. The site extends to the A152 link road and its roundabout with the A16. It is considered the site is unsuitable because it would make the village far more visible from these roads and harm the character of the village and the countryside. The development of Sur011 could make provision for development of this site, if appropriate, in the future because it is not considered that Coalbeach Lane is suitable as an access to this large site because it is too narrow and access onto the A152 or A16 is not acceptable. In addition the local plan has an affordable housing policy which would allow this site to be developed for this purpose without it being designated for housing. 5.7 Conclusions on site Sur018 - The above objection does not raise any issues that suggest that the previous approach taken to this site was inappropriate. It is therefore considered that site Sur018 should not be taken forward as a Housing Allocation. 5.8 Comment Received The following comment was made, about site Sur020 (Land to the north of Station Road, and east of Road, Surfleet: 1. LCC - SSSI Impact. 5.9 Response to the above comment: 1. This site has been promoted by the County Council and SSSI impact has been highlighted by them. The site is between frontage property on Station Road and Surfleet Lows SSSI. The site has not been put forward as an option in the July consultation. The SHLAA says: ... it will have adverse impacts on a natural asset - it abuts a SSSI & advice from the LWT indicates that the site's development may cause drying of the SSSI, which would harm its interest as wet meadow land. In addition there is concern that recreational use from new residents will harm the habitat. 5.10 Conclusions on site Sur020 – It is agreed that the site could have an impact on the Surfleet Lows SSSI and it is therefore considered that site Sur020 should not be taken forward as a Housing Allocation. ------

6 NEW SITES 6.1 No new sites were submitted.

7 HOUSING ALLOCATIONS AND TRAJECTORY 7.1 The following sites are taken forward as Preferred Options Housing Allocations: Sur003, Sur006 and Sur016. These sites have a combined capacity of 90 dwellings, which is below the residual requirement of 114 dwellings. In addition Sur008 and Sur014 contain a further 13 dwellings. These allocations and other development opportunities provide the following trajectory for Surfleet.

Years Years Years Years Years TOTAL Years 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26+ Completions 12 1 0 0 0 13 0 Commitments 0 25 28 0 0 53 0 Sur003 0 16 4 0 0 20 0 Sur006 0 16 10 0 0 26 0 Sur008 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 Sur014 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 Sur016 0 16 28 0 0 44 0 TOTAL 12 87 70 0 0 169 0

Note: Sur003 has planning permission for 5 dwellings on part of the site and are in the commitments. 20+5 =25 in the SHLAA.