PROPOSAL FOR ONE DWELLING at Smithy's Yard ()

1. Originally The Smithy, Workshops & Yard consisted of 14 industrial workshops plus yard - industrial storage land OS part 52 (see VOA & ELDC Business rates PDF). The Smithy, Workshops & Yard now consists of 5 industrial workshops A,B,C,D & K (See VOA Plan of Industrial workshops in attachments page 4). The Western part of Smithy's yard has planning permission implemented for one dwelling (see existing block plan).

2. This proposal is for a Modern 4 bed Dormer Bungalow with impressive full-height entrance hallway that includes existing workshop (K) being turned into a single garage using the same external materials in keeping to the dwelling (timber cladding with red corrugated Modern bitumen roofing sheets), using original existing shared access. The external materials to the dwelling will be a red face brick with red/brown Double Roman tile, fully insulated, with grey UPVC double glazed windows, with medium brown timber cladding to frontage (south facing). The timber clad frontage of the dwelling reflects the local distinctiveness of the adjacent Smithy/workshops and the visual affinity of the design of the dwelling implemented on the western part of Smithy's yard. There are no windows East or West over-looking neighbours. Fowl water system Kingspan BioDisc domestic (see Leaflet PDF) position to be decided on. Wheelie Bin storage area by the garage (workshop K). Surface water to soak-a-ways. The house will be run on electric only no gas or fossil fuels with an electrical charging point for vehicles within the garage. The site has existing laurel hedging interspersed with trees and a wooden fence separating the dwelling implemented on the western side of Smithy's yard, North has mature native hedging, East has a wooden fence 5ft high with native hedging site side and Native hedging behind fence to the Forge dwelling side. South roadside has mature trees (see existing block plan). Electricity is already on site, and faster fibre broadband is available.

3. It has been agreed on numerous occasions by the council & planning inspectors that the land status of The Smithy's yard & workshops is Industrial Brownfield/Previously developed land, including the last appeal at Smithy's yard in 2018 dealt with under the old local plan 17/3192596 to be read in conjunction with the factual correction letter from the planning inspectorate (attachments page 1-3). The old local plan (1999) dealt with villages differently to that within the new local plan 2018.

4. Strategic Policy 1 (SP1) A sustainable pattern of places states the Settlement Pattern shall guide the distribution, scale and nature of future development. - Toynton St peter is a small village. The Council categorised villages having regard to the services/facilities they offer, this

1 was achieved by attributing point scores for the number & type of facilities/services, this was then used to decide the hierarchy of villages. Toynton St Peter is a village of two parts/settlements/clusters/developed footprint. The Smithy, Workshops & Yard is on the main roadway (Eastville Road) that links both parts/settlement/clusters/developed footprint of the village and is therefore within the village. The village services/facilities are in both parts/settlements/clusters/developed footprint of the village East & West of Smithy's yard.

5. The Assistant Director of planning recently confirmed in a communication that the West end of Toynton St Peter village part/settlement/cluster/ developed footprint (as per the location map) all but a few dwellings not being shown (this includes the village hall & Toynton Hill garage), is part of Toynton St peter village; But then claims that for planning purposes this part/settlement/cluster/developed footprint is being taken and added to village as this fits spatially better (See email attachment page 5). However Toynton St Peter’s village facilities/ services are in both parts/settlements/clusters/developed footprint East & West of the village, so when the process of the new 2018 local plan was being written/consulted on, made sound/adopted, the village had already been dealt with for planning purposes. There are no spatial villages or taking of one village and adding this to another in the local plan. But had there been such a scenario then Toynton St Peter would be a Hamlet and Toynton All Saints a large village accordingly to the points system that determined the village hierarchy.

6. The planning policy manager Simon Milson in July 2019 has already confirmed that the new local plan does not define Towns or Villages Spatially, that this was how the old local plan was defined (See e-mail attachment page 5). Simon Milson also confirms that two clusters of development can be classed as two developed footprints of a village and the roadway that joins the two clusters are part of the village. Therefore the council and the local plan confirms Smithy's Yard is within the village of Toynton St peter.

7. The Assistant Director of planning agrees in another communication that Smithy's yard is on the roadway that links the two settlements of Toynton St Peter allowing access to the services in both, albeit he then claims the settlement west is being added to Toynton All saints spatially for planning purposes. The Director of planning also agrees Smithy's yard status as Industrial Brownfield/previously developed land.

8. Toynton St peter village is much the same as small village, where the village has two parts/settlements/cluster/developed footprint with a dispersed pattern on the main road linking the two parts. Application passed in Little Steeping S/104/01676/18 although this application for a Greenfield infill site under clause 2, the planning officer

2 states: the site was in the village of Little Steeping but recommended refusal as this Greenfield Infill site was not within the developed footprint as clause 2 requires. It was also passed at committee as being within the village, a village of two parts. And again much the same as a more recent application N/161/01687/20 small village for a Greenfield infill site stated by officer in the report: “it is considered that the defining village form is that of two distinct loose knit groupings/ clusters straddling the A157, but with notable greenfield separation over a 500m distance. The application site lies within a distinct southern most grouping, of more dense, tighter grained character than the built cluster to the north. It is also noted that the village pub facility is close to the site” (200m) This was passed as appropriate location within the village.

9. Smithy's yard is a minutes walk to the Village Hall (Westend) Toynton St Peter and 5 minutes walk to the primary & pre-school in Toynton All Saints, in walking distance to the commuter bus stop at the top of Main Road (Toynton All Saints) on the A16 for , Boston and other main towns & villages. Toynton St Peter also has Call connect bus services and a weekly shoppers bus service to Boston. Local employment at the school/pre-school and Toynton All Saints Special Needs Educational college, the market town of Spilsby 2 miles away providing the main facilities/services for work/health or social, which is within walking and cycling distance. The School Buses operate in the area for access to secondary schools with various collection points in the village. All major supermarkets operate deliveries to Toynton St Peter village.

10. The proposal complies with:- paragraph 78 of the Framework (NPPF): To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.

11. As per the NPPF paragraph 78, the core policy of the local plan identifies opportunities for small & medium villages to grow in the form of policy SP4. SP4 primarily seeks to develop Brownfield sites Clause 1, and then Clause 2 permits small scale infill Greenfield sites that conform to specific criteria, (see attachments page 6-7).

12. The Assistant Director of planning claims that Developed footprint & village are the same, (See e-mail attachments page 5), But Simon Milson the policy Manager states and confirms the terms Village & developed footprint are two different things (See e-mail attachment page 5). In Policy SP4 both clauses 1 & 2 have to be within the village, But only clause 2 Greenfield infill has to be in the developed footprint, (See core strategy policy SP4 in attachments page 6-7). If village &

3 developed footprint were the same thing as the assistant Director contends, then there wouldnot of been the need to define clause 2 to be within the developed footprint.

13. The Smithy's yard is industrial Brownfield/Previously developed land and therefore comes under SP4 Clause 1 for Brownfield: Policy SP4 also makes clear that Brownfield definition is as per the definition of the NPPF. The NPPF makes clear Brownfield is the same as per Previously Developed land definition.

Strategic Policy 4 (SP4) - Housing in Inland Medium and Small Villages. Clause 1. Within the medium and small villages, the conversion and redevelopment of sites for housing will be supported, where those sites are Brownfield or have agricultural buildings on them that have become disused. The following criteria will need to be complied with:

• It must be demonstrated that the site has been actively marketed for either a community, economic or leisure use at an appropriate price for a period of 12 months; and • Only that part of the site considered as brownfield should be reused or redeveloped and should not include areas of open countryside or adjacent open space. • Consideration should first be given to the conversion of any buildings on site where they do or could enhance the character of the area. If demolition is to be supported it would need to be clearly demonstrated that the existing building does not contribute to the character of the area, that the building was unsafe or that it was not structurally possible to convert.

14. The first bullet point of clause 1 has already been disregarded on several occasions within planning applications by ELDC, one reason given that the building is not suitable for the purpose of community, economic or leisure use in relation to their location to other residential properties, and most recently in application S/186/02066/18 land at church farm, Toynton St Peter it was stated: Whilst the proposal is contrary to one criteria of the policy a proposal of this nature would not be a departure of the local plan as such although maybe contrary to criteria within the said policy. Legal clarification has been sought as to what constitutes a departure of the local plan. Here it was stated that non-compliance with a policy is not necessarily a departure and as long as a decision can be justified it will not be found to be “Wednesbury unreasonable”. A departure from a policy is a proposal that seeks development that is different to the overall aims of the policy as a whole.

15. In relation to the proposal at Smithy's yard and this first bullet point of SP4 clause 1, the workshop would not be suitable for

4 community, economic or leisure use due to the dwelling implemented on the Western side of Smithy's yard, and the entrance a shared entrance with the residential. The workshop would however be suitable to be converted into a double garage for the proposed dwelling as stated.

16. Recently the government have implemented new permitted development rights to allow vacant & redundant free-standing commercial and light industrial premises to be demolished and rebuilt as a dwelling without the need for planning permission, effective date Aug 31st 2020 under prior approval and on the original footprint, allowing the right of 2 storeys to be added above the original. This is mitigation in itself that the site is sustainable for development and that the government aspire to see industrial redeveloped for housing. The legislation also makes clear that keeping the old building vacant does not of itself count as action or inaction. There is also no distinction between development in urban areas to that in rural areas for the new permitted rights. This allows for a 3 storey dwelling, as against the proposed development that is for a 1½ storey dwelling.

17. In relation to the 2nd bullet point of SP4 clause 1, this proposal is for one dwelling positioned near to the existing workshop K to be converted to a single garage and is for far less area then the former buildings originally covered (see VOA plan of Industrial workshops L,M,N attachments page 4). Whilst the whole site is industrial Brownfield/ Previously developed land only one dwelling is being proposed in this area allowing a large generous garden area.

18. The council are in agreement the whole of Smithy's Yard is Industrial Brownfield/Previously developed land, and Smithy's Yard is within the village of Toynton St peter therefore complies with Policy SP4 clause 1 for Brownfield/Previously developed land redevelopment.

The following is some of the evidence where the council agree Smithy's Yard is Industrial Brownfield/Previously developed land and the buildings commercial/light industrial: This is all evidence in the councils own control most of which is their own headed paperwork.

2018 – in the last appeal to Smithy's Yard APP/D2510/W/17/3192596 dealt under the old local plan, this needs to be read in conjunction with the factual correction letter of the planning inspectorate attached and at paragraph 17 :-

“There is conflicting evidence before me pertaining to the status of the appeal site in land use terms. The appellant contests that the site is previously developed land, a matter disputed by the Council. There is some detailed evidence to support the appellant’s case. Amongst other things, this includes the Council’s historic stance on enforcement matters, previous appeal decisions on it being an agreed matter and the fact that there is evidence of the

5 foundations of a larger building or buildings on the site. At present, and as a result of changes to the site’s appearance over the course of time, it is the Council’s view that the appeal site is not previously developed land. Whilst the appellant’s case seems strong and their evidence extensive, the conflicting nature of the case in each respect means I am unable to draw a definitive conclusion either way. “

However factual errors were made by the planning inspector and these have now been corrected by the planning inspectorate and confirmed in a letter the council in the appeal had agreed the site status as Previously developed land. The letter dated 29th November 2018 from the Planning Inspectorate acknowledged these factual errors see attached document, and in the Inspectors decision notice at paragraph 17 in that where it is said the council disputes the site as previously developed land, this should read, the council are in agreement the appeal site Smithy's yard is previously developed land. This factual error acknowledged & corrected by the planning inspectorate. This of course then changes the whole context of paragraph 17.

2015 – change of use of Industrial to residential dwelling - implemented.

2013 - Appeal and costs decision APP/D2510/A/12/2185754 again agreement to Smithy's Yard as Previously developed Brownfield land. The inspector in the costs letter point 11 states:

“Finally, the applicants submit that the Council has ignored the status of the site as determined in a 2006 enforcement appeal decision. I take this to refer to the status of the site as previously developed land, but there appears to be no dispute between the parties regarding this status. Indeed the Council’s email to the applicants dated 21 March 2012 (in relation to another matter on the land) confirms the Authority’s view that the site is “industrial brownfield land”. In these circumstances, no unreasonable behaviour is evident.”

2012 – email from Jo Parker Principal Enforcement states:

“I can confirm that the land referred to in the letter as a paddock is considered by the Council to be Industrial Brownfield land, and this is the current lawful use of the land. I apologise that the letter refers to the land as a paddock, this simply refers to the description of the complaint received. I can confirm that I have now amended the description accordingly to rectify this”.

2006 – Enforcement Appeal APP/D2510/C/06/2013718 & 2016979 states:

“It is agreed between the parties that the south-western part of the land owned by the appellants (which contains the caravan) was previously used in association with the former Forge. It is agreed that the Forge operated until 1986 as a blacksmith's and agricultural engineering works. The appellants

6 maintain that between 1986 and 2001 the same land and buildings were used as an agricultural engineering works. Both parties agree that since the land was purchased by the appellants in 2001 no commercial use has been made of the land or buildings.”

“The Council accepts that at 1 July 1948 the site had an accrued use as a working forge and that the land to the west of the forge buildings formed an integral part of the site.”

“It was not argued that a new planning unit has been formed or that there has been a material change of use of the land (apart from the storage of a caravan).”

1948-2008 – VOA information on Industrial site and ELDC business rates for industrial Smithy, workshops and storage land see VOA & ELDC rates for industrial buildings and land (Empty industrial).

2001 – Letter from ELDC Senior planning officer Eve Sanderson prior to us owning the property confirming the Smithy & workshops are commercial buildings.

Sept 2017 - The windfall analysis for small & medium villages included the Industrial site in Toynton St Peter as Brownfield complying to policy SP4 under TOY305. Regardless whether this document is now used or not it was stated to the inspectorate by the council during the consultation of the local plan that the site complied to policy SP4 for Brownfield redevelopment and this was accepted evidence. (See attachment page 12) It complied then, so it complies now.

CONSULTEES Consultation from Highways during the application passed on Western side of Smithy's Yard, only requires a condition for a turning circle (see attachment page 11)

The area is not in a waterboard area as confirmed by Witham fourth drainage board (see attachment page 9)

Consultation for contamination Mr Arshad Bhat confirms the site is suitable for development as is low risk (see attachment page 8).

Consultation for archaeology in the garden at Forge dwelling, Louise Jennings confirms that a condition of a watching brief-archaeological monitoring is suitable for land that is Previously developed (see attachment page 10) therefore this is the same for The Smithy, workshops and yard as this is Industrial Brownfield/Previously developed land, this part of the site area

7 originally having been covered in buildings (See VOA Plan of Industrial workshops in attachments page 4). However the planning permission implemented on the western side although had archaeology conditions, the area to the south of that site area was not dug due to the site found to be previously developed land as the report shows (Modern).

It has since been found that the claims from Jan Allen & archaeology were incorrect as she had presumed that the site lies within a plot of land that was referred to as Bacon Hall Manor, suggesting the possibility of a manorial centre at the site with a surrounding moat. However, documentary sources indicate that Bacon Hall lay to the Northwest beyond our whole land ownership; Historically our land ownership Smithy, workshops & yard, The Forge dwelling & gardens comprised of four plots of land surrounded by roads or tracks, of which only Eastville Road remains in use today (LAO 5-ANC/4/A/14 map page 7 of attachments). And therefore the Smithy's yard site did not serve a manorial function as claimed and was not moated as claimed, the field pattern relating to a former encircling trackway. (See attachment page 7 & 10). So whilst a watching brief-archaeological monitoring is suitable for land that is Previously developed land, the dwelling on the western side of Smithy's yard is mitigation in that the southern part was not dug due to this being previously developed land and is shown as modern. The proposed dwelling will have strip foundations.

8