B/14/0329
BOSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL
Planning Committee – 10th November 2015
Reference Number: B/14/0329 Application Expiry Date 25 December 2014 Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Proposal Description Erection of 76 dwellings, new vehicular access and estate road plus associated garages and infrastructure
At: Land off Sibsey Road/Wainfleet Road, Boston, Lincolnshire
For: Mrs Alison Lea, Larkfleet Homes
Third Party Reps: Parish Fishtoft 66 letters plus a 305 Signature petition Ward Fishtoft
Author of Report: Trevor Thompson Date of Report: 29th October 2015
MAIN RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE
1.0 REASON FOR REPORT
1.1 This application has been presented to the Planning Committee because objections have been raised by local residents and from Fishtoft Parish Council. The application has been with us since last year and discussions have taken place with the applicant regarding affordable housing, vehicular access and impact on the setting of the nearby listed buildings. Amended details have been submitted following these discussions. The Committee will undertake a visit to the site on the morning of your meeting.
2.0 PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND
2.1 The site is of irregular shape, covers approximately 3.75 hectares and fronts onto both Sibsey Road and Wainfleet Road, close to the A52/A16 roundabout. The site is divided into 2 pieces of land by an existing hedge that runs partly along the northern boundary and through the central part of the site. The Pilgrim Hospital at Sibsey Road lies opposite the site to the west and the Burton Inn Public House and Premier Inn at Wainfleet Road lie opposite to the south. The main part of the site is within the open countryside for plan purposes, outside of settlement development limits and approximately 140m from the Boston (Spilsby Road) Conservation Area. The site boundary does however include part of Sibsey Road which lies within the development limits of Boston. There are residential properties fronting both Sibsey Road and Wainfleet Road located within close proximity to the site.
2.2 There are Grade II* and II listed buildings off Wainfleet Road which are close to the application site. These listed structures are the ‘Burton Hall with attached wall’ and ‘stables’. There is also an Anglian Water pumping station along the west corner of the site.
7
B/14/0329
2.3 The application site is located within Flood Zone 3 (High Probability) as defined in the Environment Agency’s Flood Maps and also within a ‘danger for some/danger for most’ flood hazard category with the majority of the site within low probability of tidal or fluvial flooding as identified on this Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. A small part of the south east corner of the site lies within a medium risk of tidal flooding. A number of trees within the site fronting Wainfleet Road are protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
2.4 This application is for full planning permission for the erection of 76 dwellings including affordable homes plus associated infrastructure including estate roads, sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and public open space. The application was originally for 82 dwellings. The proposed residential development will be accessed via a new priority controlled T junction on the A16 Sibsey Road. The new site access junction will include a protected right turn (harbourage) and central refuges on the A16, to allow pedestrian flows. The site also has a frontage onto Wainfleet Road which is marked by a wall approximately 1.5m high with a gated access which serves the field to the rear. It is not proposed to construct a new vehicular access onto Wainfleet Road, only a pedestrian access. The existing brick wall is to remain.
2.5 The application is accompanied by:
. Planning, Design and Access Statement . Phase 1 and 2 Geo-environmental Assessment report . Residential Travel Plan . Ecological Scoping Survey . Transport Assessment (as amended) . Heritage Impact Assessment . Significance Assessment . Geophysical Survey . Tree Survey . Flood Risk Assessment
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 There have been no recent planning applications for development on this site though in 1977 two applications to develop different parts of the site for housing were refused (ref B9/0153/77 and B9/0160/77). These applications were refused on the grounds of prematurity, access, (Sibsey Road at that time being a trunk road) and because the site being located outside the area scheduled for development within the approved ‘Boston Town Map’.
3.2 Also, in 2003 an application for residential development (one plot) at the rear of 17 Sibsey Road (abutting the application site to the north) was refused on the grounds that the development did not reflect the character or density of the site and the immediate locality, contrary to Local Plan policies G1 and H2. (Ref B/03/0112). The subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Secretary of State. The Planning Inspector considered that the proposed development to the rear of this property would change the whole character of the locality, not least through the significant increase in density. Furthermore the Inspector considered that the proposal would cause substantial harm to the general character of the area, contrary to Policy G1 and the resultant curtilages would not reflect the current density of development in the area, contrary to Policy H2 (3).
8
B/14/0329
3.3 It should be noted that this decision was made before the NPPF and the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ (as discussed below) which was issued in 2012.
3.4 This application was the subject of pre-application enquiries and correspondence during October/November 2012 and, as a result of the perceived threat to the Wainfleet Road frontage trees, the Planning Committee in February 2013 agreed the service of a Tree Preservation Order.
Development Plan
3.5 The statutory development plan for Boston Borough comprises the saved policies of the Boston Borough Local Plan April 1999. S.38 (6) of the Act ‘requires that determination (of planning applications) must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise’.
RELEVANT POLICY BACKGROUND
3.6 The majority of the site lies within countryside, in an area where new development is strictly controlled unless the proposed development is supported by other development plan policies. A small part of the site includes part of Sibsey Road which lies within the settlement limits. There are no specific policies which support this application and therefore this development is not in accordance with the development plan. Relevant Local Plan policies are as follows:
. Policy G1 – Amenity (This policy seeks to resist development that will harm the amenity of nearby residents or the general character of the area).
. Policy G2- Wildlife and landscape resources ( This policy resists development that will have a significant adverse impact upon existing landscape, wildlife and vegetation resources)
. Policy G3 – surface and foul water disposal (This policy seeks to resist developments that do not provide satisfactory drainage provision).
. Policy G4- safeguarding the water environment (This policy indicates that permission will not be granted for developments which will have an adverse effect on the water environment or the quality of surface or ground water).
. Policy G6 – Vehicular and pedestrian access (This policy seeks to resist development that would harm highway safety). . Policy CO1- Development in the Countryside. (This would not permit development in the open countryside unless it is supported by other local plan policies.) . Policy T1- New accesses onto major roads (This policy indicates that on all class A roads in the built up area of Boston, a new access or junction will not be permitted unless it is a replacement of an existing one to be closed or it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse effects on the safety and the capacity of the road)
9
B/14/0329
. Policy T2 –Roads and footpaths in new developments (This policy would not allow the construction of new roads and footpaths unless the scheme meets the requirements of all users including those in public transport, car, cyclists and pedestrians).
Housing policies
. Policy H2 – windfall housing development (This policy allows new housing schemes within urban areas subject to certain criteria being met relating to density, layout etc). Note: As indicated above, the majority of the site lies within countryside and not within an ‘urban area’
. Policy H3 – Quality of housing developments (The objective of this policy is to improve the design of quality of new housing schemes)
. Policy H4 – Open space on housing estates (This policy requires 7.5% of the site area to be devoted to suitably located public open space and children’s play areas).
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
3.7 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 indicates that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF seeks the speedy approval of proposals that accord with the development plan and, where the plan is “absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date”, to grant permission unless the adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or that policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
3.8 The NPPF also states that ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up-to-date if a five year supply cannot be demonstrated’ (NPPF, para 49). Thus, if there is no five year supply, relevant housing policies are considered out of date and therefore developments would be subject to paragraph 14 of the NPPF which provides a presumption in favour of such development, subject to criteria.
3.9 The weight to be afforded to development plan policies relies to a great extent on whether a five –year supply of deliverable housing sites can be demonstrated. The Borough does not have a five year housing land supply and therefore the ‘presumption in favour of such developments’ as contained within the NPPF replaces the housing supply policies in the Development Plan.
3.10 The Framework emphasises the primacy of the development plan and states that it (the Framework) does not change the status afforded to the plan as the starting point for decision making (para 12). In effect there is a presumption to determine sustainable development in accordance with an up to date development plan.
10
B/14/0329
3.11 The core planning principles in the Framework include, of relevance here, to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Paragraph 34 of the NPPF requires developments which generate significant movements be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes are maximised. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF indicates that the Government attached great importance to the design of the built environment and adds that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 60 indicates that decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It also says that ‘it is however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness’
3.12 With regard to the setting of nearby listed buildings, paras 126-135 of the NPPF are relevant. It indicates that a proposal which fails to adhere to the historic environment policies contained within this document cannot be viewed as being sustainable and therefore contrary to the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ which lies at the heart of this document. All harm to the setting of a designated asset is says, requires clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 133 adds that where a proposed development would lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, Local Planning Authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, subject to conditions.
Other relevant Boston Borough Council documents
3.13 The Boston Borough Council Adopted Affordable Housing Policy – November 2006 (Non statutory Interim Policy) requires that where there is an identified need, the Council will negotiate with applicants/agents to seek that 30% of dwellings provided are affordable homes on eligible sites.
3.14 The Boston Borough Council- Supplementary Planning Guidance : Open Space in new residential development (revised 2012) addresses the quality and quantity of play space within developments.
DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3.15 The application has been publicised as a departure from the development plan in accordance with regulations since it does not have any allocation or policies in the Adopted Boston Borough Local Plan (1999) which would appear to support it. A ministerial Direction requires a planning authority to consult the Secretary of State before granting planning permission for certain categories of development (whilst Circular 02/2009 has been cancelled under the National Planning Policy Guidance, the Direction remains in force). This gives the Minister the opportunity to ‘call-it-in’ for his own determination.
3.16 Although this application is for ‘development outside of town centres’ and is not in accordance with the prevailing development plan, the size of the development is not large enough to require referral to the Secretary of State. It is concluded therefore that provided the application has been publicised correctly (as a departure) there is no further requirement to refer it to the Minister if you are proposing to approve this application. The requirement for referral does not apply in any event if you wish to refuse it. 11
B/14/0329
4.0 REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 53 letters of objection were received plus a petition containing 305 signatures relating to the scheme as originally submitted. The petition states:
‘We, the undersigned, object to the planning application B/14/0329 on the grounds that if the development went ahead, it would result in more traffic congestion, affect ambulance’s response time, access to the hospital and make the area unsafe for pedestrians and cyclist as the pavement is too narrow’
4.2 The signatures of this petition are principally from residents within Boston but they are also from residents of other surrounding villages both within the district of Boston including Benington, Wrangle, Old Leake and Bicker and also from other villages such as Heckington, Donington, Stickney, Sibsey and Spilsby.
4.3 The Committee is requested to receive the petition and take it into account in the determination of this application.
4.4 The letters of objection are from the following addresses: One letter has provided no address.
Wainfleet Road Burton Hall, Son Amar, Ingle Lodge, Burton Ridge, Lutterworth House (x2), Pottergate, Petersfield Lodge, Otterburn
Pilleys Lane 29
Sibsey Road 17,19,21, 23, 27, 31, 33, 37, 39, 41 (x2), 43, 43a (Stonehaven) , 45, 47, 51 (Mendip Lodge) and 55 (Westbury), Broadlands, Rose Cottage, Skirbeck Grange and Burcott
Seedlands Close 17, 25 and 34.
Burton Corner/Sibsey Road 160
Somersby Green 20
Burton Close 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13 and 15
Spilsby Road 87
Linden Way 74
Ralphs Lane Ashtree Villa
Treepenny Way 2
The Green, Revesby The Old Vicarage
12
B/14/0329
4.5 Objections have been raised on the following grounds:
Development does not comply with Local Plan policies or the NPPF
. Development fails to deliver sustainability and is not sustainable. There are no large supermarkets near the site and walking and cycling into town would not occur because the site is too far out of town. People would use their cars . Development fails to: deliver the core planning principles, good design, to promote healthy communities, to preserve and enhance historic environments, to preserve natural environments, to promote sustainable transport, to protect green belt land, to meet the challenge of flooding, it increases the risks and hazards in the access area, will have a negative effect on traffic . Development is contrary to Local Plan policies H2 ,H3, G1, G7, T1 and H8
Development is contrary to policies in the Interim Plan
. Development is contrary to policies G1, G2, G5, G6 G8, G9, G10, H1, H2, H3, H6, H8, H9, C6, CO1, C02, T1, T2 and T4.
Development is out of character with the area
. Densely packed development will not be compatible with the scale or character of the area . is ‘out of place’ and will result in a loss of open space which contributes significantly to the area and is thus contrary to Local Plan policy H2. . Proposed dwellings and curtilages are not of a size or character which reflects current density or character of the area and thus contrary to Local Plan policy H2. There are large individually designed substantial properties on large plots along Sibsey Road. These have a unique place in Boston’s landscape. The proposed standard house design and estate development do not assimilate within the area and will harm street-scene
Safety concerns
. Safety of the site could be compromised in the case of a fire
Development will harm residential amenity
. Loss of privacy caused by overlooking of property to the north with direct views to neighbours bedrooms, lounge and garden . will cause noise disturbance and traffic pollution, will harm day to day safety and amenity of the local community . Additional traffic generation will have a harmful effect on health . Enjoyment of property will be undermined
13
B/14/0329
Development will harm the setting of Burton Hall and other listed buildings
. Significant detrimental effect on the historic value and views of Burton Hall. Adjoining lands shares a significant relationship with the hall. Burton Hall is of a major significance within the local landscape. . Development will engulf the listed building and upset the view of the hall and the balance between the scale of Burton Hall and the historical context. Burton Hall will be irreparably undermined due to the proximity of the new houses, site unavoidably noticeable from the windows and the gardens of the listed building. New housing will be viewable from Wainfleet Road, over the listed wall, further diminishing the view of the hall and the aesthetics of the local area . Development will affect water table around Burton Hall. Large areas of land being hard surfaced will jeopardise the historical hall . Additional traffic will destabilise Burton Hall caused by vibration causing irreversible damage.
Development will have a negative impact on the local environment
. Development will increase contamination causing unavoidable noise, air and light pollution, will affect the area’s natural beauty- site should be left as green land to enhance the entrance into the town. It will be within countryside, will involve the loss of agricultural land and will be within ‘green belt’ contrary to ‘green belt’ policy, will provide no net environmental gain
Development will increase flood risk
. Development involves raising land to meet flood risk requirements and very large areas of hard-surfacing. Concerns regarding drainage of the site and that the development will cause third party flooding, proposed attenuation ponds will be a safety hazard
Development will harm highway safety
. Vast majority of all travel from the proposed development will be south into the town causing additional traffic congestion on an already busy stretch of road and at the roundabout. Traffic generation caused by this development will have a ‘knock on’ effect on the safety on other roads including Wainfleet Road, Spilsby Road and Burton Close causing queues, delays and further traffic congestion. . It is considered unsafe to allow this type of development with only one access point . Entrance and exit of the Pilgrim Hospital is very busy especially at peak times- access to the hospital is already difficult for patients and ambulances and will affect response times, concerns over traffic speeds . Roundabout has insufficient capacity to accommodate further traffic . Development will harm pedestrian safety- there are no natural crossing routes. Children will take their life in their hands to cross at any point into the new estate. Existing pavement along Sibsey Road is open and narrow. 14
B/14/0329
. There will be conflicts between ambulances from the local hospital and the additional cars and pedestrians generated by the proposed development. Traffic turning into and coming out of the access directly opposite the hospital will be dangerous and will have to cross a fast section of the A16. Stationary traffic waiting to enter the new access would hinder emergency vehicles accessing the hospital and will cause delays. The proposed ghost island will not guarantee absence of disruption and will increase the risks of accidents . Visibility of vehicles turning right in to the site will be affected by vehicles turning to their right into the hospital, vehicles turning right into the application site will not be readily visible to traffic travelling south along the A16 if another vehicle is turning right into the hospital . Residential Travel Plan is unlikely to be a reflection on the realities of the traffic generated by 82 dwellings and 198 car parking spaces- additional volumes of traffic which may be between 320-600 trips per day will have a greater impact on local traffic than proposed . There will be accidents with fatalities if this development goes through . Even now there are tailbacks as far as Pilleys Lane and it is difficult to join flowing traffic and the junction of Spilsby Road is a ‘nightmare’ at times . Proximity of the site to Pilgrim Hospital would encourage visitors and staff to use the new development as a free car park rather than pay for parking when visiting the hospital causing harm to the area. Roads on the development will not be adopted so it would not be possible to enforce parking. . Sibsey Road does not have enough width to safety accommodate this development including the proposed harbourage . Some neighbours already have difficulty in exiting drives because of the amount of traffic on Sibsey Road . There will not allow enough space for cyclists lanes. Proposed estate roads will not be accessible for public transport vehicles. . Needs of people with restricted mobility not catered for, need for a by-pass . Development provides no sustainable opportunities for pedestrian travel and cycling . Suggestions have been made for the site to be served by an additional vehicular access off Wainfleet Road
Development will affect wildlife and wildlife habitat
. Development would result in the loss of natural habitat – site is a haven for wildlife including bats. Local biodiversity will be harmed. . The site is not of low ecological value as indicated within the ecology report. This report says that ‘no species of bird were recorded’ and that there is ‘low probability of bat interest’ Neighbours dispute these findings.
15
B/14/0329
Submitted details contain flaws, inaccuracies and mis-information
. Site is not a vacant paddock- it is occupied and used as agricultural land . Traffic studies which have been carried out are ‘useless’ and ‘unreliable’. Study needs to be over a longer period and should take into account market days and ‘holiday’ traffic. . No reference is made in the traffic assessment of the exit from and egress to the Pilgrim Hospital nor is any reference made to increased farm related traffic during cultivation and harvesting periods, deliveries, trade vehicles, family visits etc . There is a likelihood that the traffic generated by 82 dwellings will generate more than 37 journeys as indicated in the assessment. Efforts to reduce the significance of the impact of traffic generation at the mini roundabout are flawed . Development is titled as ‘off Wainfleet Road ‘which is incorrect. New vehicular access is off Sibsey Road with pedestrian access off Wainfleet Road
Housing for keyworkers and affordable housing
. Reference in the submitted statement to keyworkers is irrelevant. There is no established need for such accommodation and a previous perceived need in respect of such properties being built at Pilgrim Hospital initially for keyworkers has been shown to be non–existent or at best exaggerated. Development does not provide 30% affordable houses and is contrary to policy, no need for high quality affordable housing
Layout and design
. Development does not make full use of energy conservation techniques and does not accord with small scale renewable energy generation policies . Insufficient functional open space within the development –many plots have very small gardens . does not provide high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupiers as required by the NPPF, makes no provision for people wishing to buy their own homes . Development does not respect the building line . does not address to meet the needs of the different groups in the community as required by the NPPF- Development will not integrate with the existing residents
Use of brownfield land instead of greenfield land
. There are brownfield sites in an around Boston which should be developed before this green field site
Consideration of the Human Rights Act, in particular protocol 1, Article 1 and Article 8
. Right to peaceful enjoyment of all processions including home and garden and right to respect for private and family life.
16
B/14/0329
4.6 Following the submission of amended details a further 13 letters objection have been received. The letters of objection are from the following addresses; one letter did not include an address.
. Rose Cottage, ~Sibsey Lane/Road . 17 Sibsey Road (x2) . Burton Hall, Wainfleet Road . ‘Orlando’ Wainfleet Road . 45 Sibsey Road . 23 Sibsey Road . No address . 55 Sibsey Road . 27 Sibsey Road . 43a Sibsey Road
4.7 The neighbours have raised objections on similar grounds as indicated above under the following headings:
. Impact on highway and pedestrian safety . Development is not sustainable . No need for the development . Site is ‘green land’- impact on wildlife habitat, protected species and natural environment . Developers have not engaged with local community . Number and design of houses out of keeping with area . Flood risk and third party flooding . Scale and density . Noise disturbance and light pollution . Impact on residential amenity . Provision of social housing should not be at the expense of poor quality housing . Impact on existing services, including discharge of effluent . Adverse impact on character of the area . If land were to be developed, it would lend itself to build 4 or 5 homes with one shared access onto A16 which would be in keeping with area . Development is contrary to Local Plan policies T1 and H2 and Interim Plan policies G1, G2, G5, G6, G8, G9, H1, H8 and T1.
5.0 PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS
5.1 Fishtoft Parish Council made the following comments on the scheme as originally submitted:
‘Area around Burton Hall is a green field site being protected land of open character in Boston Borough Council adopted Local Plan 1999 and the new Interim Plan 2006; it is outside the Boston Settlement Plan. It is a visual amenity for the local community
Serious concerns that road safety will be compromised with the exit junction of the proposed site; these concerns include the A16 being too narrow at proposed exit point to allow for the central right turning opening as proposed.
17
B/14/0329
Concerns for pedestrian safety, the path either side of the A16 being too narrow; it is insufficient for wheelchairs, pushchairs and visually impaired with guide dogs to pass one another.
Concerns as drivers to and from Pilgrim Hospital are often distracted by their visit to hospital, extra vigilance already required from other road users at this point.
Previous development in the close vicinity at Seedlands was not allowed an exit onto the ‘A’ roads yet that development is only one third of the size of that now proposed
The new road in the development and Wainfleet Road with the new walkway through could potentially be used as a ‘free’ Pilgrim Hospital car park, as Spilsby Road and the Seedlands are at present.
Have Highways any outstanding concerns not catered for in this proposal?
Proposed housing is of a much higher density that those existing along Sibsey Road and Wainfleet Road. The design of the houses is not in keeping with the substantial individuality of the existing properties, or those facing on the conservation area of Spilsby Road
Proposed houses along Sibsey Road are forward of the building line.
Although the development includes 20% social housing, Boston Borough Council Interim Local Plan seeks 30%, it does not include any bungalows so elderly are not catered for.
Very serious concerns in relation to flood awareness and the plan to raise the whole site by one metre, this will make it higher that the existing properties; what will happen to the run-off water?
The designated green space is too small on the proposed plan.
Grade II* Listed Burton Hall is 3 storey so its upper outlook will be adversely affected by the proposed development.
Have English Heritage any outstanding concerns not catered for in this proposal?
In response to some of the statements in the report supplied-
. It states the site is vacant paddock, it has always been in agricultural use. . It states the hospital has two entrances; there is only one with one exit close by . It states it is suitable for expert cyclists; Lincolnshire County Council identified this area unsuitable being a main arterial road with no cycle facility, so should be avoided.
Bats have regularly been sighted in this area, have their location been identified in the ecology report?
In reference to the tree survey- there are 12 substantial trees that may be vulnerable to felling. 18
B/14/0329
5.2 There are other concerns which include:
. Local Tower Road School already over-subscribed; other schools are outside the preferred 2000m maximum walking distance. Additional pressures already expected at Hawthorn Tree School due to the Toot Lane developments . Exit road at Wainfleet Road removed from the plan but ‘site’ brought nearer to historic buildings. . Why are roads not being adopted? They and open space being managed by company. Also, proposed A16 pedestrian crossing, who would provide and maintain these. Would they all be taken over by LCC highways? . Coach house on plan is a first floor flat over 4 garages, no flats are listed or identified on the descriptions.
5.3 These concerns /comments have been brought to the attention of the Parish Council by local residents who oppose the development, the Parish Council share their concerns and are also opposed to the development.
5.4 A transport survey was undertaken in October 2013, a vehicle count between Burton Corner and Pilgrim Hospital entrance showed the following:
Between 7.00am to 10.00am-3066 vehicles
Between 4.00pm to 7.00pm -2892 vehicles
Between 13,500 and 14,000 in a 24 hour period, equating to one vehicle every 3.5 seconds
‘These figures give some cause for alarm and any additional traffic movement would exacerbate an already potential volatile situation’
5.5 Fishtoft Parish Council has now commented on the amended proposals:
‘With regard to BWB Transport Assessment Addendum dated 20 August 2015;
Page 2, 2.2 – It is unrealistic to state only 1 vehicle (ie refuse vehicle) would frequently travel in the right turn lane; there is a need to consider home deliveries, removal vehicles, furniture delivery vehicles, weekly shopping deliveries.
Page 4, 2.10- the requirement for 95 metres worth of visibility would only just be missed from a 4.5 metres visibility set back to the centre of the oncoming traffic, by 10m – this is a grave concern given the amount of traffic that travels along that route daily.
We note the traffic survey was carried out during school holiday time; the High School is only yards away from the site and there are 3 other schools in the vicinity which creates a larger volume of traffic.
We believe there would be issues for emergency ambulances, at the present time vehicles can manoeuvre around traffic using the whole width of the A16, response times could be compromised with the addition of a middle lane.
19
B/14/0329
The width of the footpath is already difficult for wheelchair and pushchair users and pedestrians with walking aids, the grass verge between the path and road has to be used on occasions, the loss of this is unacceptable’
6.0 RELEVANT CONSULTATIONS
6.1 The following bodies have been consulted on the scheme as originally submitted and on the revised details.
6.2 The County Highway Authority recommends that the application is REFUSED. This matter is discussed in the Planning Issues and Discussion section below. The full report prepared by the County Highways Authority is attached as Appendix 1.
6.3 The Environment Agency has raised no objections subject to two conditions
6.4 The Environmental Health Manager has no objections in principle to this application and has made the following comments:
‘Whilst the site appears to be greenfield it is major in size (82 dwellings) and incorporates a large area of land. Whilst it is unlikely the site would be subject to any former uses that could have resulted in land contamination it is possible former ponds or ditches on the site may have been infilled. It would therefore be prudent to have at least a phase 1 contaminated land assessment carried out. I would therefore request that the standard contaminated land suite of conditions are attached to any consent.’
6.5 Lincolnshire County Council’s Strategic Planning and Major Developments Manager has not requested an education contribution.
6.6 Boston Borough Council Local Housing Authority did not support this application as originally submitted because the proposal does not accord with this Council’s affordable housing policy. The applicant has submitted a viability assessment which has been forwarded to the District Valuer which sets out the rationale why the level of affordable housing is lower than policy requirements. The Local Housing Authority has made revised suggestion as to how a revised contribution could meet local need.
6.7 Anglian Water Services state that the foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Fishtoft Recycling Centre that will have capacity for these flows; the sewerage system at present has available capacity to accommodate this development. However AWS point out that there is a surface water rising main on site and no flows will be permitted to discharge into this main. AWS also considers that the submitted flood risk assessment /surface water strategy is unacceptable and has recommended that a condition is imposed which requires the submission of a drainage strategy.
6.8 Lincolnshire Police’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor has no objections and considers that in general, the proposed development is a good design that would contribute to the sense of community and safety. However he has made a number of advisory comments regarding to matters of detailed design and crime prevention.
20
B/14/0329
6.9 Natural England advises that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutory protected sites or landscapes and has raised no objections
6.10 Witham Fourth District Internal Drainage Board has made comment with regard to the discharge of surface water and have raised no objections to the application
6.11 Historic England (formerly English Heritage) originally considered that the proposed scheme consisting of 82 dwellings would be very harmful to the setting and significance of Burton Hall and its stables. Historic England has now made the following comments on the amended scheme:
‘Removing the housing along the Wainfleet Road frontage would be an improvement but the new development would still largely wrap around Burton Hall and views from Wainfleet Road would still have the character of views towards a housing estate rather than towards open fields and the countryside. We remain of the view that the character of that part of the rural setting of Burton Hall would be lost.
As advised in our letter of 16th October 2014, we consider that development in the open field immediately adjacent to Sibsey Road opposite the entrance to the hospital would be appreciably less harmful than the proposed development in the open field to the east and north – east of Burton Hall’
6.12 The Council’s Consultant Architect considers that ‘there is a risk that this crucial setting element which plays a part in defining the character of the house will be compromised if the housing scheme is approved’ .This matter is further discussed below.
7.0 PLANNING ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
7.1 The main considerations in the determination of this application include:
. Principle of development and the 5 year land supply . Transport statement and impact on highway safety . Design and layout . Sustainablity . Impact on the setting of Burton Hall . Affordable housing . loss of agricultural land . developer’s contributions . Impact on residential amenity . Impact on wildlife and loss of wildlife habitat. . Flood risk . Density . Impact on character of countryside . Provision of affordable housing . Impact on protected trees . Loss of agricultural land . Development of brownfield sites before greenfield sites . Archaeology 21
B/14/0329
Principle of development and the 5 year land supply
7.2 The main part of the site is within the open countryside in an area where Local Plan Policy C01 would resist new residential development unless the development is supported by other Local Plan policies. As indicated above, the Borough does not have a five year housing land supply and therefore the ‘presumption in favour of such developments’ as contained within the Framework replaces the housing supply policies in the development plan. The NPPF states that: ‘to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the viability of rural communities….’. Thus, any development which does not meet this objective is not sustainable and is not in accordance with the NPPF.
7.3 Balanced against this ‘presumption in favour’, i.e. that in principle the land at the present time would make a significant contribution towards meeting a five year supply, must be, amongst other things, the countryside location of the site, the potential impact on infrastructure, residential amenity, highway safety, character of the area, setting of the listed buildings and wildlife habitat. These are issues which are discussed below, but the lack of the five year supply and the NPPF’s ‘presumption in favour’ effectively means that the principle of sustainable housing development could be acceptable in this location subject to general development control criteria.
7.4 The applicant’s say in the submitted Planning, Design and Access Statement that ‘the adopted Local Plan was adopted in 1999, 15 years ago and was expected to expire in 2000. The settlement frameworks are therefore no longer fit for purpose and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in so far as housing is concerned, clearly applies’.
7.5 Whilst the hierarchy of settlements within the Local Plan may be out of date and not NPPF compliant, the Council does not accept that the plan, as a whole is out of date for this proposal. I say this since our experiences at appeal have proved that the general development control policies are robust despite the passage of time. In addition, the Planning Committee did consider a Compatibility Assessment in April 2013 in the light of the ’12 month period of grace’ which concluded 4 policies were not in accordance with the Framework. None of these four policies are relevant to this application.
7.6 What can be concluded is that the application does not accord with the development plan as a whole since the majority of the site is within countryside where new housing is normally resisted. Therefore the s.38(6) assessment of ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’ having regard to this Council’s lack of 5 year supply of housing and the Framework’s para 14 presumptions and adverse impacts judgements are required.
7.7 However, Committee will recall that Inspectors at appeal have questioned the conformity of Policy C01 with the NPPF and given that this Council does not have a 5 year supply, this Council, in the light of recent appeal decisions accepts that saved Local Plan Policy CO1 is out of date. Such applications are now assessed more generally in relation to the objectives of the Framework and Local Plan Policy G1 which relates to the character of an area and impact on amenity. Consequently the fact that the proposed development would be within countryside does not by itself make it unacceptable in principle (my underlining). However, the aims of the NPPF include the protection of the countryside so it still has some weight to be attached to it. 22
B/14/0329
Assessment of the 5 year housing land supply as at 30th September 2015 – Boston Borough Council
7.8 This report assesses whether there is sufficient deliverable housing sites in the Boston Borough to meet requirements between 1st October 2015 and 30th September 2020. It says that a Strategic Housing Market Assessment for Boston Borough was completed in July 2015 and identified a requirement for 7550 new homes to be built between 2011 and 2036 (302 per annum). Over a 5 year period, it says, this equates to 1510 homes.
7.9 The report indicates that over the last four and a half years, the number of new homes has fallen considerably short of this requirement and that over the whole period, this shortfall amounts to 826 homes. If this historic shortfall is to be tackled in the next 5 years, Boston Borough’s five year requirement would increase to 2336.
7.10 It should be noted that although this shortfall has worsened since the previous report dated 31st March 2015, case law would indicate that the scale of any shortfall is immaterial but also that the absence of meeting the five year housing supply does not give a ‘green light’ for all forms of housing development.
Transport statement and impact on highway safety
7.11 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF indicates that ‘ developent should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’. In addition Local Plan Policy G6 seeks to resist development that would harm highway safety and Local Plan Policy T1 indicates that on all class A roads in the built up area of Boston, a new access or junction will not be permitted unless, inter alia, it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse effects on the safety and the capacity of the road.
7.12 The proposed residential development will be accessed via a new priority controlled T junction on the A16 Sibsey Road. The A16 is a former trunk road and this section of road is presently subject to a 40mph speed limit. The new site access junction will include a protected right turn (harbourage) and two central refuges. This harbourage- right turn ‘ghost lane’ is approximately 40m long and would be able to accommodate approximately 8 right turning vehicles entering the proposed development. The proposed new junction will be around 120m north of the A16/A52 roundabout and about 25m south of the main access (entrance only) which serves the Pilgrim Hospital. The egress which serves the Hospital is some 150m further to the north from the proposed access. It is not intended to provide any new vehicular access onto Wainfleet Road given that there are protected trees along this frontage and a historic wall. It is however intended to retain the existing field access onto Wainfleet Road to provide a pedestrain and cycle access route to serve this development. The application also includes some road widening to facilitate the proposed access arrangements and alterations to the footpath on the hospital side of the road.
23
B/14/0329
7.13 The entire internal estate roads will be privately maintained by a management company and will not be adopted by the County Council. Therefore the potential highway problems that may result by staff and visitors of the Pilgrim Hospital parking on these estate roads will be managed by the management company. The County Council Highway’s main consideration is therefore to do with whether the trafffic generated by the development would overwhelm the local highway network and whether road users can safely access and egress from the site.
7.14 Many concerns have been raised about the impact this application will have upon highway safety, the capacity of the roads to accomodate further traffic and the methodology of the transport assessment. Some residents also consider that this application will affect the junction and exit which serve the Pilgrim Hospital which lies opposite the site and the ability of ambulances in particular to access and egress from the hospital onto Sibsey Road especially during emergencies. However no objections have been received from Pilgrim Hospital.
7.15 The application has been subject to extensive discussions for over a year between the applicants, this authority and the County Highway Authority. This is because the Highway Authority initially raised objections to this application because it considered the submitted design of the proposed T junction did not accord with a number of standards contained within the ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges’ in particular, but not limited to, the width of the right turn lane and drivers’ visibility to the south of the junction. The applicants have now submitted an amended plan showing revisions to the proposed T junction and an updated Transport Assessment. The applicants consider that in their view, the Highway Authority is applying the wrong highway standards and should be using the standards contained within different documents entitled Manual for Streets (MfS) and Manual for Streets 2. The applicants contend that this development accords with the standards contained within MfS and have submitted evidence, including two appeal cases, to support this view.
7.16 For Members information, the documents entitled ‘ Manual for Streets’, the companion guide Manual for Streets 2 and ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges’ provide national highway design guidance. Manual for Streets and Manual for Streets 2 are published by the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation and provide highway standards with regard to the design, adoption, construction and maintenance of streets. This document generally focuses on urban streets and lightly trafficed routes. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges is the design standard, maintenance and operation of strategic roads eg trunk roads and motorways which is produced by the Department for Transport. Lincolnshire County Council Members have made a policy decision to apply the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges standards to the design of its highways where these highways are defined as being roads. Deciding upon which highways document is more appropriate when assessing a planning application is a matter of planning judgement and it is not always clear. Such decisions have been subject to many appeal cases. Factors which often determine which document should apply include the function of the highway, the characteristics of the area, eg whether it is within a rural area or urban area, speed limits etc.
24
B/14/0329
7.17 As part of their submitted evidence, the applicants say that the document ‘Manual for Streets’ is the most appropriate guidance and that Sibsey Road, where the proposed access is to be located is:
. within the settlement limits of Boston (as defined by the Local Plan), has street lights and is close to a roundabout to the south; . has entrances to the hospital to the north on the western side of the road, . has numerous private driveways on the eastern side of the road. . the character of this part of Sibsey Road, is that of an urban street and the most appropriate guidance to use, therefore, is Manual for Streets and; . It is this character that helps keep the speed of traffic relatively slow and this has been evidenced by the speed surveys that have been undertaken by the applicants. . Manual for Streets is considered to be the most appropriate guidance to use with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges being left to roads which are well trafficked and in areas where drivers can reasonably expect to maintain a reasonable speed, i.e. in areas where there are limited junctions etc, that may impede speed.
7.18 In addition the applicants point out that Manual for Streets 2 identifies where the principles of Manual for Streets should be used, including the following extracts:
. Most Manual for Streets advice can be applied to a highway regardless of speed limit. It is therefore recommended that as a starting point for any scheme affecting non -trunk roads (the A16 is not a trunk road) designers should start with Manual for Streets. . Design Manual for Roads and Bridges or other standards and guidance is only used where the guidance in Manual for Streets is not sufficient or where particular evidence leads a designer to conclude that Manual for Streets is not applicable . Much of the research behind Manual for Streets 1 for stopping sight distances (SSD) is limited to locations with traffic speeds of less than 40mph. ( The applicants say that the 85th percentile speeds have been recorded lower – 32mph heading northbound towards the site access) . Where a single carriageway street with on street parking and direct frontage access is subject to a 40mph speed limit, its place characteristics are more of a residential street or High Street with higher traffic flows, and may result in actual speeds below the limit. It is only where actual speeds are above 40mph for significant periods of the day that Design Manual for Roads and Bridges parameters for SSD are recommended. Where speeds are lower, Manual for Streets parameters are recommended . In rural areas many parts of the highway network are subject to the national speed limit but have traffic speeds significantly below 60mph. Again in these situations where speeds are lower than 40mph, Manual for Streets SSD parameters are recommended.
25
B/14/0329
7.19 The County Highway Authority report and recommendation is attached as Appendix 1. In summary the County Highways considers that the document Design Manual for Roads and Bridges’ is the correct document to use and points out that ‘Manual for Streets’ provides a distinction between streets and roads. It states ‘Roads are essentially highways whose main function is accommodating the movement of motor traffic. Streets are typically lined with buildings, public spaces and while movement is a key function, there are several other, of which place function is the most important’. The County Highway Authority considers that applying this test to the A16 Sibsey Road:
. The road is a former trunk road and continues to form a principal road as defined in the County Council hierachy of roads and it is one of the County’s main highway corridors . It carries a significant amount of traffic (c 8,500 vpd) . There is little in the way of urbanised housing fronting the A16. The only development east of the road consists of a band of houses set in large private grounds hidden by mature garden planting . West of the A16 is Pilgrim Hospital with large car parks. Its primary means of access is by road transport. The hospital site can be considered as one on an industrial scale . Immediately north of the hospital is a farm north of which is open farmland . To the south of the development is farmland and a major road junction between two principal roads (A16/A52) . There are very low numbers of pedestrian movements in the area . There is a lack of any sense of place . The area is dominated by traffic . The proposed development is set back from the highway and as such is disassociated from the main road. . The Highway Authority’s position on which standard that may be applied is reinforced by the fact that Manual for Streets standards are for simple T junctions only and not for ghost island right turn lanes. Ghost island right turn lanes do not feature at all in Manual for Streets.
7.20 In addition the Highway Authority says:
. The Transport Assessment has been done correctly and fairly in accordance with nationally applied best practice and Guidance. . There are not expected to be any capacity issues and the critical local junctions will operate with the added development traffic. There are no clusters of collisions that might indicate pre-existing safety deficiencies. . The pivotal issue is the degree of compliance of the submitted Ghost Island Right-turn Lane junction design with the standards prescribed in TD42/95 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. It is considered that submitted design fails to comply in significantly too many key areas with the standards contained within this document . The submitted details do not adequately demonstrate that a suitable vehicular access between the proposed development and the adjacant A16 Sibsey Road could be provided that would not pose as an unacceptable risk to the safe use of the public highway . The County Highways Authority recommends that the application is refused.
26
B/14/0329
Design and layout
7.21 It is proposed to erect 76 dwellings on this site which includes a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. It also includes flat accommodation above garage blocks. All of the proposed dwellings will be 2 storey and the development includes 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom properties. As indicated above the layout of the site has been changed in order to overcome the concerns expressed about impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings. This has meant the removal of a number of proposed houses along the south eastern boundary of the site near the protected trees fronting Wainfleet Road and the listed buildings. This has created a much larger area of open space and helps to create a ‘parkland’ setting when viewed from Wainfleet Road. It is intended to provide pedestrian access from Wainfleet Road through this open parkland and an equipped play area in order to gain access to the proposed houses further to the north of the proposed estate. The amount of open space will be 25% of the site area ( including dry ponds and buffer zones) which is well above the amount of open space required by Local Plan policy H4. This policy requires 7.5% of the site area to be devoted to public open space and children’s play areas. The proposed public open space will be managed by a private management company.
7.22 The residential properties to the north of the site along Sibsey Road are mainly large detached properties, well set back from the highway within extensive grounds with long rear gardens though one property is set well back to the rear of neighbouring properties further to the north of the site. The proposed layout shows one single vehicular access onto Sibsey Road with 6 properties fronting onto Sibsey Road, five of which being served by a private drive off the main spine road. Five dwellings which will front onto Sibsey Road will be on the northern side of the single access and one on the southern side. The proposed 6 frontage dwellings are reasonably large, detached properties which are set back a minimum distance from Sibsey Road of around 16m with extensive landscaping between these properties and Sibsey Road. There is no established ‘building line’ along this Sibsey Road frontage with neighbouring properties set back at varying distances. It may be argued that a housing scheme with a much lower density would be more in keeping with the large detached dwellings with spacious garden area which exist to the north of the site. Although some neighbours consider that the proposed houses will be out of keeping with the area, it is my view that both the siting and design of these frontage properties are both reasonable and acceptable.
7.23 The site is currently divided by an existing established hedge which runs partly through the centre of the site. It is intended to retain much of this hedge and trees though a new opening will be created to provide the estate road to create two areas. It is considered that the proposed layout of the site, its relatively low density of around 20dph and the appearance of the proposed dwellings represents a good quality housing scheme that assimilates within its surroundings, however it is acknowledged that an estate development is at odds with the large detached suburban dwellings along Sibsey Road and that a housing development of a much lower density would perhaps be more in keeping. Alternatively it may also be argued that this development fits comfortably with the design and layout of the existing housing estate to the south of the site (i.e. Seedlands Close).
27
B/14/0329
Sustainability
7.24 The NPPF indicates that there are three dimensions to sustainable development which must be considered- these are economic, social and environmental. With regard to the economic role, it is likely that the construction of new housing will create jobs and support growth in the local economy. A social role includes supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing housing to meet required to meet the needs of present and future generations. The proposed housing development which will include an element of affordable housing would contribute to the social element including the provision of open space which forms part of this development. Seventy six new dwellings will also makes a significant contribution toward the supply of housing in the area.
7.25 The development will have an impact on the local environment and I do share some of the concerns expressed by neighbouring residents that this development will harm residential amenity and in particular, the immediate views of the listed Burton Hall. This impact will count against the sustainability credentials of the proposal. The NPPF indicates that a proposal which fails to adhere to the historic environment policies contained within this document cannot be viewed as being sustainable and therefore contrary to the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ which lies at the heart of this document. All harm to the setting of a designated asset is says, requires clear and convincing justification. It is my view that whilst this application will have an effect on the setting of the listed buildings; this harm will not be substantial and would not be contrary to the environmental dimension of the NPPF.
7.26 The site is within easy walking and cycling distance from the town centre and the nearest bus stops are within 400m walking distance from the proposed site. The submitted Transport Assessment indicates that there are over 4 bus services per hour within the vicinity of the site. It is unlikely that future occupiers of the proposed houses will be dependent on the use of the motor vehicle to gain access to nearby shops and other facilities. It is thus considered that the application site is within a sustainable location.
Impact on the setting of Burton Hall and associated listed buildings
7.27 S.72 of the Act places a requirement on a local planning authority to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. The main part of the site lies approximately 140m outside of the Boston (Spilsby Road) Conservation Area and it is considered that it is unlikely that this development will cause substantial harm to the character of this conservation area.
7.28 S.66 places another requirement on local planning authorities when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest.
7.29 The proposed scheme lies within the setting of Burton Hall (grade II*) and Burton Hall stables (grade II). These buildings are located close to Wainfleet Road frontage and are prominent when viewed along this stretch of road providing significant amenity value. There is also a wall along Wainfleet Road frontage of the site which although is not listed does possess some historical value and adds to the setting of these listed buildings. It is intended to retain this wall and the current field access will be used to provide pedestrian access to the estate from Wainfleet Road. 28
B/14/0329
7.30 The setting of a heritage asset is defined in the Glossary of the NPPF. It says:
‘...The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral’
7.31 These are high tests and although there are no saved Local Plan policies in respect of listed buildings or conservation areas the NPPF advises that when considering the impact a proposed development may have on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Paragraph 133 adds that where a proposed development would lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, Local Planning Authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, subject to conditions. One of the core planning principles as contained within paragraph 17 of the NPPF indicates that planning should ‘conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations’.
7.32 Recent cases in the Court of Appeal have ruled on the effect of these statutory presumptions and the above guidance in the Framework (para 132) in that the balancing exercise in the Framework alone is not sufficient and there is ‘a strong statutory presumption against granting planning permission for development which would cause harm to the setting of listed buildings’. In Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd 2014 it was held that “considerable importance and weight” should be given to the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings.
7.33 The Council’s Consultant Architect initially raised concerns about the scheme as originally submitted, a view shared by Historic England (formerly English Heritage). Historic England considered that the proposed original scheme would be ‘very harmful to the setting and significance of Burton Hall through the introduction of a substantial new housing development into an area which forms an important surviving part of the historic rural setting of these designated assets’ adding that the ‘appearance of the development would clearly be that of a housing estate rather than an open field so the character of that part of the rural setting would be lost’.
7.34 Following these concerns amended plans were submitted which effectively removes any development along the Wainfleet Road frontage in order to provide an open parkland setting and to maintain the views and the setting of Burton Hall when approaching the town from the east. The submitted layout plan also shows surface water attenuation ponds and additional landscaping between the proposed internal estate road and the boundaries of Burton Hall to provide an extended ‘buffer’ and ‘soft edge’ between the main part of the development and the heritage asset. The nearest proposed house from the listed buildings will be over 80m away.
7.35 Historic England was re-consulted on these amended plans and, as indicated above, ‘remain of the view that the character of that part of the rural setting of Burton Hall would be lost’.
29
B/14/0329
7.36 The Council’s Consultant Architect has now made the following comments:
‘This was originally an application for a new estate of 82 houses on land on the outskirts of the main Boston town area to the north of the Grade II* listed Burton Hall. The number of houses has now been reduced to 76. Burton Hall stands in a large garden facing Wainfleet Road. It is an important early 17th century historic building and one which marks the entry into Boston from the east. Its current location is one which retains a rural character despite it being at the entrance to the town. The house sits in a large garden area with a tree lined field to the west and a ploughed field to the north of that. The existing dwellings which are beyond that field to the north, are large with large gardens to the front and rear so that the spacious rural character remains on this aspect. Although the Pilgrim Hospital and other related uses are located on the west side of side Sibsey Road, the edge of town character prevails.
This scheme has been modified since its first appearance to remove some of the proposed new houses from the site area on the eastern boundary of the grounds to listed house. This area is now shown on the layout plan as a landscaped open site with a cul de sac terminating at the northern end of the open space. To the north of the Burton Hall site there is a new roadway shown opposite to the Pilgrim Hospital with detached houses located largely in pairs with shared drives and paired garages. It is therefore quite a regularised layout. These gardens back onto the northern hedged boundary of the Hall.
The location of the Hall and its adjacent site does in effect provide a small informal ‘green belt’ on this edge of the town. Although it is not defined as such on any local plan, it does perform that function and the development of quite a large block of new housing units immediately to the north will alter the character of the approach to Boston as well as to the setting of the Hall. The NPPF makes it clear in paragraph 132 that harm to the setting of heritage assets of the highest significance, which includes ones such as Burton Hall, should be wholly exceptional. Although it could be argued in this case that the harm is not overly substantial it is none the less going to change the present relationship of the hall and its gardens to the countryside. This is one of the important features of this historic small country house on the edge of the town. It should be noted that list descriptions do not mention, and never have done, the setting of the heritage asset. The listing describes the character, form and materials of the built structure not its setting. This can make the assessment of the setting of a listed building difficult in that there are no set guidelines or criteria against which to judge the importance of the setting issue. It is however more than views and relationships; it is about the sense of form and place that the surroundings lend to the historic building. This house is not a town house, nor a suburban one. It is a small country house, set apart from the main urban and suburban dwellings which characterise the town itself. It is also an important early brick building which plays a significant role in the approach from the countryside to the Boston town centre. There is a risk that this crucial setting element which plays a part in defining the character of the house will be compromised if the housing scheme is approved.’
30
B/14/0329
7.37 It is my view that whilst this amended scheme would still to a lesser extent envelope Burton Hall and would obscure views from the hall to the north and north-east, I am not convinced that such harm would now be so substantial to warrant a refusal. In my view Burton Hall has an extensive curtilage and that the semi –rural nature and appearance of this building would not be entirely lost as a result of this development. The amended plan provides a ‘parkland setting’ to the listed building and maintains the open views and preserves the setting of both the listed hall and associated listed structures from the east (ie Wainfleet Road). However it is acknowledged that the scale of this development would mean that open views from Burton Hall to the north would be diminished and the open surroundings of the listed buildings, which is a key element to their setting, would be affected since the hall may be seen as being partly enveloped and absorbed within the built up area of the town.
7.38 As with the listed hall, the open setting of the listed stables will be affected by this development though, given the stables will be next to the proposed open space, leads me to conclude that such impact on the listed stables will be low level and less than substantial.
7.39 Listed Buildings are of national importance and although this development will cause some harm to the setting of the listed building, such harm in my view would be less than substantial when outweighed by the public benefits that this development would bring in terms of providing substantial new housing to the town.
7.40 Note: A Ministerial Direction requires a planning authority to consult the Secretary of State before granting Listed Building Consent if an objection has been received from Historic England and that Historic England specifically state that the application should be notified. This direction does not apply to applications for planning permission. There is no requirement to refer the application to the Minister if you are proposing to approve this application despite any objection from Historic England
Loss of agricultural land
7.41 The DEFRA database that the Council has access to indicates the entire site as Grade 1. It is known however that the DEFRA database is unrefined and rarely indicates variations within a site. The site is currently identified as a paddock (which falls under the definition of agriculture) and the development of the site would thus result in the loss of 3.75 ha of grade 1 agricultural land. The NPPF seeks to protect areas of higher quality land by developing areas of poorer quality where development is demonstrated to be necessary. It may be considered that the site’s attributes regarding residential development and the provision of 76 dwellings in a sustainable location can outweigh the loss of this agricultural land.
7.42 It is inevitable, given the quality of land around the town, the lack of available sites and the very limited number of brownfield sites that may become an allocation, that new housing development will use agricultural land. The site is not statutory Green Belt, there are no statutory Green Belts in Lincolnshire.
31
B/14/0329
Developer contributions
7.43 The NPPF indicates that policies for seeking obligations should be set out in a development plan document to enable fair and open testing of the policy at examination; however, given that the Adopted Local Plan is silent on issues relating to developer contributions the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Guidance Suite has been used to assist in justifying the role of the Borough requesting contributions.
7.44 The NPPF indicates that where a relevant determination is made which results in planning permission being granted for development a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is:
(a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) Directly related to the development; and (c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
7.45 Lincolnshire County Council Strategic Planning and Major Developments Manager confirms that no education contribution is requested in this instance and the NHS England has not commented on the application. On this basis, it may be concluded that this development will not have a substantial impact on local education or on health services or facilities and therefore no developer contributions are necessary.
Impact on residential amenity
7.46 Policy H3 of the Local Plan would resist new windfall housing which does not provide pleasant, secure environments for residents; are incompatible with the existing character of the area; are close to an existing use which is likely to cause environmental problems to future residents; or will cause or significantly aggravate adverse traffic conditions on the public highway. Policy G1 is the general development control policy which has some overlap with Policy H3. The test in the policy is that permission would only be granted if a proposal will not ‘substantially harm’ amenities of neighbours or the general character of the area. Policy H2 allows new housing schemes within settlements (my underlining) subject to certain criteria being met relating to density, layout etc. In particular, Local Plan policy H2 (1) resists development where the proposal results in the loss of open space or a frontage which contributes significantly to the character of the area. Although the site is not within ‘a settlement’ or ‘urban area’ the objectives of this policy can still be relevant.
7.47 There are residential properties within the immediate proximity of the site, along Sibsey Road and Wainfleet Road. The site adjoins or is close to residential properties at 17 Sibsey Road to the north, Burton Hall to the south and ‘Orlando’ off Wainfleet Road to the east. Part of the northern boundary which is shared with 17 Sibsey Road is marked by a high hedge. The boundary shared with Burton Hall is marked by both fencing and hedging. There is an agricultural track between the site and ‘Orlando’ to the east. The eastern boundary of the site which runs parallel with this track is marked by low fencing and sporadic tree planting.
32
B/14/0329
7.48 It is proposed to erect a number of dwellings along the northern boundary of the site which will have an impact on the amenity of the occupiers of 17 Sibsey Road in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy. The nearest proposed dwelling to the northern boundary will be on plot 13. This building will be about 2.5-3m away from the boundary and about 20m from the neighbours dwelling. This is not ideal. The proposed building consists of a 4 bay garage block with flat accommodation on the first floor. Originally the design of this building contained 5 windows at first floor level on the northern elevation which would overlook the neighbour’s property to the north. However an amended plan has now been received which shows a kitchen window relocated to the gable end facing Sibsey Road and the remaining 4 windows (which will serve kitchen, landing, bathroom and en-suite) will be fitted with obscure glazing to minimise overlooking.
7.49 The other proposed dwellings along the northern boundary include both detached and terraced houses which will have both gable ends and rear elevations with first floor windows facing the northern boundary. The distance between the gable ends and rear elevations of the other proposed dwellings along this northern boundary varies from between 3.5m to around 10.5m. Whilst this would result in some overlooking from these first floor windows into the rear garden of the neighbours property, I do not believe that the loss of amenity will be so substantial given any such overlooking would be over the end of the garden area and not within the private amenity space immediately surrounding the neighbours dwelling. This coupled with the fact that there is a high established hedge along this boundary will also help to mitigate any visual impact. The distance of the proposed dwellings from the northern boundary and the size of the proposed garden areas serving these properties are not unusual in an urban location.
7.50 The proposed layout shows an equipped public open space near to’ Orlando’ to the east and a surface water attenuation pond along part of the northern boundary of the site close to boundary serving Burton Hall. It is not intended to erect any houses close to these neighbouring properties but the occupiers of ‘Orlando’ may experience some noise disturbance when the play areas are being used.
7.51 It is true to say that the presence of new buildings on open land where none exists at present will be intrusive and have, to some extent, an impact on the amenity of the neighbours. It is also equally true that this development will generate both pedestrian and vehicular traffic which may have some impact on residential amenity. However both Sibsey Road and Wainfleet Road are busy roads and it is likely that any increase in traffic noise as a result of this development will be negligible compared to the noise being generated by existing traffic movements. Furthermore although there may be noise disturbance that would be caused by additional traffic during the construction of the development, it is considered that it will not cause substantial harm sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. A condition may be imposed on any permission granted which requires the submission of a traffic management statement which seeks to minimise traffic congestion and residential amenity during the construction period.
33
B/14/0329
7.52 Although this development will have an impact on amenity, I am not convinced that overall, the impact of this development will not substantial, contrary to Local Plan policies G1, H2 and H3.
Impact on wildlife and loss of wildlife habitat
7.53 An ecological survey has been submitted with this application. It concludes that overall the site is of low ecological value with low probability of bat interest and whilst no species of bird were recorded on the date of the survey, there is suitable nesting habitat in the hedgerows and trees on the site. The survey makes recommendations to include the provision of nest boxes to help compensate for the loss of habitat and that trees and hedgerows should only be removed outside of the bird breeding season.
Flood risk and land drainage
7.54 The application site is located within Flood Zone 3 (High Probability) as defined in the Environment Agency’s Flood Maps. The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which indicates that finished floor levels of the proposed houses will be raised 1m above existing ground levels with flood resilient measures employed to a height 300mm above finished floor level. The Environment Agency has no objections subject to two conditions which relate to the submission of a surface water drainage scheme and which requires the dwellings to be of two storey construction and slab levels raised 1m above ground level.
7.55 In order to meet flood risk requirements, it is proposed to raise the land to ensure slab levels are 1m above ground level. There is a residential property to the north of the site (i.e. 17 Spilsby Road) and there is some concern that in the event of heavy rainfall, the development will cause third party flooding onto the garden area of 17 Spilsby Road. In order to overcome these concerns, the applicant is investigating the possibility of installing a filter/French drain along the shared northern boundary, the details of which may be secured by condition. These circumstances are not unique in this area- the same solution was incorporated in the surface water scheme relating to phases 1 and 2 at Broadfield Lane.
7.56 It is intended to provide a surface water attenuation pond on the site. The surface water run-off will then be directed into the existing onsite drains. The submitted DAS indicates that the land drainage network would be expected to successfully deal with normal groundwater emergence and the IDB actively manages ground water levels by pumping excess water. This, the applicants say, minimises the risk posed to the site and simple mitigation in the form of raised thresholds levels and water sensitive external level design should mitigate any residual risk. As indicated above Anglian Water and the Environment Agency recommends that a condition is attached to any permission granted which requires the submission of a drainage strategy. The Witham Fourth Internal Drainage Board says that they have liaised directly with the applicant and has agreed in principle to a discharge of surface water to the dyke.
34
B/14/0329
Density
7.57 The application site covers 3.75 hectares and the application is now for 76 dwellings as opposed to 82 which was originally proposed. This equates to 20.2 dwellings per hectare (dph). The density of the surrounding area is low and varies between 3.3dph -12.5 dph. The NPPF indicates that, amongst other things, that local planning authorities should ‘....set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances’. The Local Plan does not include a policy which specifies minimum or maximum densities although Local Plan Policy H2 (sub 3) allows new housing developments where ‘the resultant dwellings and curtilage(s) are of a size and character which reflect the current density of development in the area’
7.58 In this instance, whilst the density might be high compared to other developments in the vicinity of the site, overall a density of 20.2 dph at the edge of a town is relatively low and in my view, reasonable.
Impact on character of countryside
7.59 The site is located in a semi –rural location and is mostly used for agricultural purposes. Local Plan Policy C01 seeks to resist development in the countryside and the NPPF provides both caution over isolated new homes in the countryside and a presumption in favour of new housing in sustainable locations and the effective use of previously developed land provided it is not of high environmental value. This proposal is not for an isolated new home in the countryside and the site clearly is not previously developed land but neither is it of high environmental value given it is not specifically nationally or locally designated as a protected site or having any landscape value. However the open characteristics of the site may provide substantial value to the visual amenity of residents and may be considered to provide an effective buffer between town and country. On this basis, it may be argued that the development does not accord with Local Plan policy H2 (1) which seeks to resist development which results in the loss of open space or a frontage which contributes significantly to the character of the area.
7.60 It should also be noted however that both the residential properties along Sibsey Road to the north and the residential properties to the east along Wainfleet Road are within the defined built up part of the town so it may be equally argued that visually, this development would provide a ‘rounding off’ or natural coalescence between the existing built up parts of the town and thus any adverse impact on the character of the countryside would be marginal.
Provision of affordable housing
7.61 Fifteen of the proposed total of 76 dwellings are proposed to be affordable units which equates to 20%. This is below this Council’s affordable housing policy which would seek 30% of homes on eligible sites to be affordable units. In order to justify this figure the applicant has now submitted a detailed viability assessment which has been forwarded to the District Valuer for comment. As a result of the DV’s comments about the developer’s assessment, the Housing Authority has suggested a different mix of affordable housing to greater meet local need and this has been put to the applicants. It suggests a contribution of 26% (20) and I will report further to Committee on the outcomes.
35
B/14/0329
Impact on protected trees
7.62 There are a number of trees which front onto Wainfleet Road which lie within the application site which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. None of these trees are to be removed and the proposed houses will be sited well away from these trees. In addition there are a significant number of semi and mature trees within the site. A tree assessment has been submitted with this application. It concludes that 10 trees within the site should either be ‘felled and replaced’, ‘not worthy of retention’ or ‘reduce or fell’. The submitted layout shows those trees and hedges which are to be retained or removed and also the proposed additional planting and overall the layout attempts to maximise the number of trees to be retained.
Development of Brownfield sites before Greenfield sites
7.63 Some neighbours consider that there are other brownfield sites within the town which should be developed first before this ‘greenfield’ site. The NPPF “encourages” reusing previously developed land but is not as robust on this as previous PPS’s. One of the core principles of the NPPF is to ‘encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) provided that it is not of high environmental value’ (para 17).
7.64 Thus, the argument that there may be undeveloped brownfield sites within Boston does not provide sufficient justification to refuse this application.
Archaeology
7.65 A geophysical study has been undertaken and this recommended that further work be undertaken. This additional work which includes the evacuation of trial pits is being undertaken and the results will be submitted. The Heritage Trust for Lincolnshire has not yet commented.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 The Framework indicates that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Housing applications should be approved if the authority cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole or specific policies in the Framework indicate such developments should be restricted.
8.2 Against this ‘presumption’, i.e. that in principle the land at the present time would make a significant contribution towards meeting a five year supply, are, amongst other things, the countryside location of the site, the potential impact on highway safety and the Highway Authority objection, setting of the listed buildings, the compatibility and density of the development in relation to the surrounding area, the amenity of neighbouring properties, impact in terms of flood risk, the loss of agricultural land and the impact on wildlife.
36
B/14/0329
8.3 The issues here require balancing and one of the main concerns regarding impact on highway safety, the capacity of Sibsey Road and design of the proposed junction having regard to the site’s proximity to the Pilgrim Hospital. The County Highway Authority has however raised objections to this application and has recommended that the application is refused.
8.4 It is considered that:
. The site is located within a sustainable location, accessible by sustainable transport modes, at the edge of the built up part of the town and within close proximity to existing facilities and amenities.
. The NPPF indicates that there are three dimensions to sustainable development which must be considered- these are economic, social and environmental and that these roles should not be taken in isolation. It is considered that this development will provide 76 new homes plus an element of affordable housing which will contribute to housing supply in the area. It will also generate jobs which will meet the economic requirement and it is a quality layout which accommodates many existing trees within the site and does not harm the setting of the nearby listed buildings, which meets the environmental dimension of sustainability. However the development cannot provide a ‘safe and suitable access to the site... for all people’ (para 32 of the NPPF) and therefore the development will not provide a ‘high quality built environment (para 7). The proposal does not comply with the social dimension of sustainable development.
. This development will represent a fundamental change to the open character of the site and its surroundings which currently forms a ‘green barrier’ between frontage development along Sibsey Road and Wainfleet Road. It will have an effect on the visual amenity of the nearby residents. However the site adjoins the defined line identifying the built up part of the town as identified in the Local Plan on its southern, northern and western boundaries and it could be argued that this development represents a logical and natural infill development which links these frontage developments together.
. The NPPF sets out tests associated with the degree of harm to a heritage asset. Although Historic England remains of the view that the character of that part of the rural setting of Burton Hall would be lost as a result of this development, the harm that has been identified to the setting of the listed buildings cannot now be considered, in my view to be substantial; this is a high test. Nonetheless even less than substantial harm does carry some weight and this is a material consideration.
37
B/14/0329
. An application was refused in 2003 for a single dwelling to the rear of 17 Sibsey Road and the Planning Inspector at that time considered that the proposal would cause substantial harm to the general character of the area and the resultant curtilages would not reflect the current density of development in the area. I think there is a vast difference between a development for 1 and a development for 76 and, in any event the strong ‘presumption in favour’ of sustainable new housing development now applies.
. The development will have an impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents, in particular the occupiers of 17 Sibsey Road to the north. Although an amended plan has been submitted which minimises the overlooking from the nearest proposed property, there will still be some overlooking into the rear garden of the neighbours property from the other proposed dwellings. However I do not believe that the loss of amenity will be substantial.
. The County Highway Authority considers that the design of the new junction onto Sibsey Road is unacceptable and does not accord with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF nor does it comply with the Design Manual for Road and Bridges. The NPPF makes it clear that development should only be prevented on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts are severe. The applicants however consider that the Highway Authority is using the wrong guidance because this part of Sibsey Road is that of an urban street and that the correct guidance is Manual for Streets. The applicants say that this development accords with Manual for Streets. The Highway Authority does not agree and considers that Sibsey Road is not a street but a road given the lack of development in the area and that its primary function is transportation and is a principle highway. Clearly which document should apply depends on the characteristics of the road, vehicle speeds and location which and is a matter of planning judgement. In making this judgement this Committee should assess this proposal having regard to local and national policy and consider whether the County Highways are justified in planning terms as detailed in Appendix 1 which follows this report.
8.5 It is considered that road safety will be severely harmed by this development and it is considered that this application should therefore be REFUSED on highway reasons. I will report further on the outcome of ongoing discussions with respect to affordable housing and advise on whether it should feature as an additional reason for refusal on any decision.
38
B/14/0329
9.0 RECOMMENDATION:
A. That committee receives the petition and takes it into account in the determination of this application, and
B. Subject to update and the resolution of affordable housing that this application is REFUSED, for the following reason:
1. The details submitted in support of this application do not adequately demonstrate that a suitable vehicular access between the proposed development and the adjacent A16 Sibsey Road could be provided that would not pose an unacceptable risk to the safe use of the public highway. Specifically, the submitted design on drawing NTW/2223/100-01 Rev P6 for the proposed Ghost Island Right-turn Lane on the A16 fails to comply in significantly too many key areas with the standards prescribed in 'TD42/95 Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions' within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. This application therefore does not comply with the objectives of Local Plan Policies G1, G6, H3, T1 and the NPPF (2012)
In determining this application the authority has taken account of the guidance in paras 186 – 187 of the NPPF (2012) in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the Borough.
Paul Edwards Development Control Manager
39