DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 15th FEBRUARY 2021
Case No: 19/01445/FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, ERECTION OF MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA (A SUI GENERIS USE) COMPRISING OF AN AMENITY BUILDING, FUEL STATION, PARKING AND ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT
Location: LAND BETWEEN TOLL BAR WAY AND GREAT NORTH ROAD SAWTRY
Applicant: MOTO HOSPITALITY LIMITED
Grid Ref: 517651 282511
Date of Registration: 22.07.2019
Parish: SAWTRY
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVE subject to the prior completion of a S106 Agreement relating to the following issues, and subject to conditions to include those summarised below: * Off-site biodiversity measures * £6,000 bond for future highway measures to prevent parking on local roads
OR
REFUSE in the event that the obligation referred to above has not been completed and the applicant is unwilling to agree to an extended period for determination, or on the grounds that the applicant is unwilling to complete the obligation necessary to make the development acceptable
This application is referred to the Development Management Committee (DMC) as it is a Departure from the Development Plan as it is for significant development within the countryside and does not accord with any of the specific and limited opportunities for development in the countryside as set out in Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036.
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 The application site covers an area of approximately 4.59 hectares and is located to the south of Sawtry, just off junction 15 of the A1(M). The red line boundary includes part of the highway where works are proposed and includes the landscaped boundaries to the site that are owned by Cambridgeshire County Council and Highways England. The developable site area extends to 2.56 hectares.
1.2 The site is broadly oval in shape and tapers to the south. It is accessed via the roundabout to the west of the A1(M) via Toll Bar Way. The roundabout to the north of the site has a slip road back on to the motorway running parallel to Fen Lane. The roundabout also provides access into Sawtry via Green End Road. There is a clear separation between Sawtry and the roundabout, which is approximately 75 metres beyond the edge of the village, which is identified as a Key Service Centre by Policy LP8 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036. Given the clear separation between the site and the village, the site lies within the countryside.
1.3 The application site contains a number of buildings that are located centrally on the site adjacent to the boundary with the A1(M): * A disused motel; * A vacant dwelling associated with a former fuel filling station that has been demolished; and * A former Little Chef now used as an adult shop.
1.4 Outside of this previously developed land the application site also comprises three parcels of land two of which are overgrown and the other, closer to Toll Bar Way is used for horse grazing. The periphery of the site is owned by Highways England and the County Highway Authority and so the developable site is currently well screened by a thick belt of mature shrub planting, hedges and trees.
1.5 Beyond the site there is open countryside to the east beyond the motorway, as well as to the south and west. To the north the closest dwelling is approximately 210 metres from the developable site boundary. There is a closer dwelling, but this lies on the opposite site of the motorway and on the opposite side of the Old North Road, the B1043, that runs parallel to the motorway.
1.6 The site is identified within the Environment Agency Maps for Flooding and the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2017 as lying within Flood Zone 1, land with the lowest likelihood of flooding.
1.7 The site is mostly within agricultural land classified as Grade 2 and part within Grade 3. In this instance, the percentage of previously developed land represents 30% of the developable area of the site. 70% of the developable site area, which excludes the land on the periphery of the site that is owned by Highways England and the County Highway Authority but including the three parcels of land, is either previously undeveloped and overgrown or is land that is used for grazing horses. The existing buildings on the site total 1,567 square metres of floorspace. The buildings proposed comprise 1,953 square metres of floorspace – an increase of 346 square metres or an increase of 19.76%.
1.8 There are no designated heritage assets within proximity of the site. The Aversley Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Ancient Woodland lies approximately 750 metres to the west.
1.9 The application proposes the demolition of the existing buildings and the development of a motorway service area (MSA) comprising an amenity building, fuel station, parking and ancillary development. In detail the application includes the following components: * A new amenity building on the northern part of the site comprising 1,684 square metres of floorspace. The building has a mezzanine level and measures 48.6 metres by 35.3 metres with a maximum height of 8.5 metres. It has a curved standing seam metal roof, with a lower eaves level to Toll Bar Way, and is faced with brick and Kingspan cladding. * A service yard to the north of amenity building providing HGV delivery and turning areas, site refuse provision, compactors, a biomass boiler and staff cycle parking. * A new traffic light-controlled junction located centrally on the western side of the site and closure of the three existing access points on the western boundary of the site to Toll Bar Way. * Vehicle parking on either side of a central access road. The northern part of the parking area provides 156 car parking spaces 10 of which are for disabled drivers, 8 coach spaces, 10 motorcycles spaces and 4 caravan spaces. 12 electric charging points are provided. 6 spaces for staff vehicles are provided within the gated service yard to the north of the amenity building. Secure parking for 10 staff bicycles is also provided. * The southern parking area provides 31 HGV spaces and a fuel filling station together with 88 square metres of retail floorspace providing sales and payment counters, a food and drink servery, customer toilets and storerooms and offices as well as ancillary parking including 7 further HGV spaces and 8 further car parking spaces, one of which is for disabled drivers. The fuel filling area is covered by a canopy that is 6 metres high. * Widening of Toll Bar Way to provide left and right lanes turning into the site, a traffic light controlled junction at the site access and a tactile paving crossing point to a new pedestrian access to the amenity building from Toll Bar Way. * Internal and peripheral landscaping and other works including a 3 metre tall acoustic fence to the north and east boundaries of the developable site area.
1.10 The application sets out that the proposed service area would be signed to northbound traffic on the A1(M) only. The toilet and changing facilities are free and open every hour of every day of the year (24 hours, 365 days a year) in accordance with the requirements for signed motorway service areas.
1.11 The proposed facilities within the amenity building comprise the following: * Greggs – 95 square metres * WHSmith – 92 square metres * M&S – 93 square metres * Burger King – 87 square metres * KFC – 98 square metres * Costa – 86 square metres * Toilets, changing facilities and showers * Staff facilities in a mezzanine level * General seating area of 139 square metres
1.12 The applicant’s Planning Statement states that the development would create around 121 full time equivalent jobs.
1.13 The submitted Arboricultural Survey and Impact Assessment shows that there is just one significant tree on the site that lies within the buffer land and not within the developable site area. The Survey shows a total of 11 groups of trees and 3 hedgerows within the larger site. Of these, all three hedgerows within the developable site area are removed. A section of the existing buffer planting is to be removed to facilitate access and two groups of trees within the site are lost and one further partially removed. One of the groups removed comprises Cypress Leylandii and the other are hawthorn trees within a central hedge that defines the boundary between the two fields on the site.
1.14 The application has been amended through its lifetime to improve detailed design and landscaping and to revise parking numbers in accordance with the minimum requirements set out in Department for Transport Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’.
1.15 The application is supported by the following documents and reports: * Design and Access Statement * Planning Statement * Ecology Assessment Report * Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment * Offset Site Ecological Management Plan * Noise Reports * Air Quality Assessment * Transport Assessment * Sustainability Assessment * Statement of Community Involvement * Socio and Economic Statement * Alternative Sites Assessment * Lighting Report * Ground Investigations Report * Framework Travel Plan * Drainage Strategy Report * Archaeological Desk-based Assessment * Arboricultural Survey and Impact Assessment * Rapid Health Impact Assessment * Technical Note – Staff Parking Update * Technical Note – Parking Numbers Update * Technical Note – Response to Extra Group Objections * Technical Note – Response to Cambridgeshire County Council * Technical Note – Response to Lead Local Flood Authority
1.16 With regard to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the proposed development, in a slightly different form that included the retention of the hotel on the site, was screened in October 2015 (15/70168/SCRE) as it comprised Schedule 2 development that exceeded the threshold of 0.5 hectare set out in the regulations. As the development was not considered to have significant effects on the environment, it was not considered that an Environmental Impact Assessment was required. The scheme has been assessed again in its current form, in accordance with regulations, and the same conclusion has been reached.
2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 sets out the three objectives - economic, social and environmental - of the planning system to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development – see paragraph 8. Paragraph 9 explains that these objectives should be delivered through the preparation and implementation of plans and the application of the policies in the NPPF. It explains that they are not criteria against which every decision can or should be judged. Decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should take local circumstances into account, to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area. The NPPF at paragraph 10 provides as follows: 'So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. That presumption in favour of sustainable development is contained in paragraph 11 of the NPPF. As was explained by the Court of Appeal in Barwood Strategic Land LLP v East Staffordshire Borough Council and SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 893 (when considering an earlier version of the NPPF) paragraph 14 (which has now been replaced by paragraph 11) sets out in clear and complete terms, the circumstances and way in which the presumption is intended to operate and that there is no other presumption in favour of sustainable development in the NPPF. As Lord Justice Lindblom explained at paragraph 35(3):
“When the section 38(6) duty is lawfully performed, a development which does not earn the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" – and does not, therefore, have the benefit of the "tilted balance" in its favour – may still merit the grant of planning permission. On the other hand, a development which does have the benefit of the "tilted balance" may still be found unacceptable, and planning permission for it refused […] This is the territory of planning judgment, where the court will not go except to apply the relevant principles of public law […]”
2.2 The NPPF 2019 sets out the Government's planning policies for (amongst other things): • delivering a sufficient supply of homes; • achieving well-designed places; • conserving and enhancing the natural environment; • conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
2.3 Department for Transport Circular 02/2013 sets out Government policy regarding motorways and development. Annex B deals with roadside facilities on motorways and trunk roads. At paragraph B4 is states that “motorway service areas and other roadside facilities perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break in the course of their journey. Government advice is that motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15 minutes every two hours. Drivers of many commercial and public service vehicles are subject to a regime of statutory breaks and other working time restrictions and these facilities assist in compliance with such requirements.”
Paragraph B5 states that “the network of service areas on the strategic road network has been developed on the premise that opportunities to stop are provided at intervals of approximately half an hour. However, the timing is not prescriptive as at peak hours, on congested parts of the network, travel between service areas may take longer.”
Paragraph B6 sets out that Highways England “recommends that the maximum distance between motorway service areas should be no more than 28 miles”.
Paragraph B8 states that “in determining applications for new or improved sites, local planning authorities should not need to consider the merits of the spacing of sites beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons. Nor should they seek to prevent competition between operators; rather they should determine applications on their specific planning merits.”
Paragraphs B26, B27, B28 and Schedule 1 deal with mandatory parking provision. In summary, although minimum parking levels may be adjusted to reflect local conditions, it is the responsibility of the site operator to demonstrate that any departure from the requirements of Schedule 1 is appropriate. Schedule 1 sets out that the minimum level of parking that is required for a new motorway service area should be calculated using the most recent complete year data to identify peak monthly flow, averaging that to find the daily flow and then applying the formulae in Schedule 1.
2.4 The National Design Guide (2019): * C1 - Understand and relate well to the site, its local and wider context * C2 - Value heritage, local history and culture * I1 - Respond to existing local character and identity * I2 - Well-designed, high quality and attractive * I3 - Create character and identity * B2 - Appropriate building types and forms * M3 - Well-considered parking, servicing and utilities infrastructure for all users * N3 - Support rich and varied biodiversity * H1 - Healthy, comfortable and safe internal and external environment * H2 - Well-related to external amenity and public spaces * H3 - Attention to detail: storage, waste, servicing and utilities
2.5 National Planning Practice Guidance and the Noise Policy Statement for England are also relevant and are material considerations.
For full details visit the government website National Guidance
3. PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 (Adopted 15th May 2019) • LP1: Amount of Development • LP2: Strategy for Development • LP3: Green Infrastructure • LP4: Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery • LP5: Flood Risk • LP6: Waste Water Management • LP7: Spatial Planning Areas • LP8: Key Service Centres • LP10: The Countryside • LP11: Design Context • LP12: Design Implementation • LP13: Placemaking • LP14: Amenity • LP15: Surface Water • LP16: Sustainable Travel • LP17: Parking Provision and Vehicle Movement • LP19: Rural Economy • LP21: Town Centre Vitality and Viability • LP22: Local Services and Community Facilities • LP29: Health Impact Assessment • LP30: Biodiversity and Geodiversity • LP31: Trees, Woodland, Hedges and Hedgerows • LP33: Rural Buildings • LP35: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy • LP36: Air Quality • LP37: Ground Contamination and Groundwater Pollution
3.2 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and Guidance: • Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2017) including the following chapters: 1 Introduction: 1.6 Design principles 2.1 Context and local distinctiveness 2.5 Landscape character areas 2.7 Architectural character 3.5 Parking/servicing 3.6 Landscape and Public Realm 3.7 Building Form 3.8 Building Detailing 4.1 Implementation • Developer Contributions SPD (2011) • Huntingdonshire Townscape and Landscape Assessment SPD (2007) • Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD 2017 • Huntingdonshire Tree Guidance Note 3 • Annual Monitoring Report – Part 2 (Non- Housing) 2018/2019 (December 2019) • ECAP CCC Waste Management Design Guide (CCC SPD) 2012
For full details visit the government website Local policies
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 15/00539/FUL - Proposed alterations to car parking arrangements for adjoining existing motel. Approved July 2015.
4.2 1002052FUL - Petrol filling station, sales kiosk and car parking (for adjoining former motel) and ancillary works including site access improvements and landscape planting. Approved May 2011.
4.3 0700402FUL - Construction of parking and access road for motel. Approved April 2007
4.4 9300047OUT – Erection of service area including amenity building, 40-bedroom Travelodge, petrol filling station and parking. Refused January 1994.
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Sawtry Parish Council - recommend approval – it will tidy up the site which has been neglected for several years, it will bring much needed employment for local residents, additional amenities for the village. Recommendations if this application is approved: * Need signage for southbound traffic once they have left the motorway to ensure that lorries are taken to Coppingford Road and then into Toll Bar Way, not along St Andrews Way; * Would need double yellow lines outside the site to prevent lorries using the facilities and then not paying to park; * Safety for pedestrians and cyclists accessing the site from the village needs to be improved.
Officer comment: A requirement of the MSA is that parking is free for up to two hours. As set out above, the application sets out that the proposed service area would be signed to northbound traffic on the A1(M) only. Given this and the comments received from County Highways, signage for southbound traffic is not proposed, nor considered necessary. A condition is attached regarding measures to prevent vehicles parking on highway verges and the applicant is paying a bond of £6,000 should the Highway Authority consider parking measures necessary. A tactile paving crossing on Toll Bar Way is provided to a new footpath link into the site directly adjacent to the proposed amenity building to promote pedestrian and cyclist safety.
5.2 Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust - Further to previous comments on the above application, it is considered that the revised biodiversity metric calculations (as per the Greengage report (30/09/2020) are satisfactory. These confirm there would be a net loss in biodiversity on site. As previously discussed, the Wildlife Trust has no objection to the principle of addressing net losses through off-site contributions secured through s106. It is noted that in the Feb 2020 ecological update, advice with regards to great crested newts has been revised, and there is no objection to the suggestion that this species could be protected through a condition requiring a precautionary method statement.
The applicants have identified a site to deliver their biodiversity net gain commitments. The proposed site is well located between Aversley Woods and Archers Woods. The management plan for the proposed biodiversity net gain area is acceptable. The LPA will need to ensure that both the biodiversity net gain site and its management is secured for the full term of at least 25 years. If this is done the application will meet biodiversity policy requirements.
Officer Comment: The Wildlife Trust’s comments are covered in full in the ‘Ecology and Biodiversity’ section of the report below.
Highways England – Officer comment: Highways England have provided a total of ten responses during the lifetime of the planning application. Key responses are summarised below.
5.3 First response 13 August 2019: The proposed development comprises a new motorway service area (MSA) adjacent to the A1(M) junction 15 at Sawtry. Access to the MSA is to be taken from the local road network close to the junction. Technically the MSA would be accessible from both carriageways but in practice it is the applicant’s intention to sign it for northbound A1(M) traffic only. We are reasonably happy with this approach.
We have reviewed the applicant’s Transport Assessment (TA) and are satisfied that the MSA will not result in any severe impacts. There remains one outstanding issue that will need additional time to resolve. The applicant has indicated that the site will not be capable of providing a parking space for abnormal invisible loads (AIL) as required by Annex B of Department for Transport Circular 02/2013. This of itself is not an insurmountable obstacle for us. It does mean that a policy departure is required and ideally this needs to be resolved before planning permission is granted.
5.4 Sixth response of 23 December 2019: Whilst it is noted that there is not sufficient available room within the site for an abnormal load and the routing from the motorway to the development site is not to an adequate standard to accommodate an abnormal load movement, on the basis that it is better to have a services provision that is considered sustainable and safe, Highways England are content to approve ‘in principle’ a departure from policy to require the provision for an abnormal load within the site.
5.5 Eighth response of 16 October 2020: Following our previous response where we offered no objection, there has been some revision to parking numbers. The submitted documents have been reviewed and Highways England’s position is updated. This response is based on the premise that this proposed service area will become a Motorway Service Area (MSA) and therefore accords with government policy regarding access and signage for the motorway. In particular:
-Spacing between Service Areas Whilst the spacing between facilities referenced in the Transport Assessment is misleading as it only considers MSA and ignores Trunk Road Service Areas on the A14 and A1 which are located closer to the proposed site, the proposed MSA does not contravene policy on spacing. The Department for Transport Circular 02/2013 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development does not proscribe minimum distances between services and recommends that beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons, this should not be considered a planning issue or a reason to avoid competition between operators.
-Motorway Service Area Signage For a proposed MSA to be facilitated by signage from the motorway, the circular referred to above sets out the criteria for service provision including the methodology for calculating a minimum requirement for parking. Parking numbers are calculated from the latest available traffic count data. The following points are taken into consideration:
-Northbound Facility The site has been considered as an A1(M) northbound facility only, and therefore, A1(M) southbound traffic flows have been omitted from the parking space calculations. Given that it is approximately 2.5 kilometres from the A1(M) off slip to the proposed MSA, and a further 2 kilometres to re-join the A1(M) southbound, this is considered a notable detour that motorists travelling along the A1(M) are likely to be discouraged to make, given it would represent a greater distance than what would normally be regarded as a ‘turn-in’ or ‘pass-by’ trip. Therefore, it is accepted that the site is considered as a northbound facility.
-Local Trips Given that there is a local petrol filling station and other facilities in Sawtry, it is considered that it is unlikely there would be significant residents/visitors using the proposed MSA and therefore reasonable not to include local traffic in the parking requirement calculations.
-Vehicle Parking Calculations The applicant has provided updated vehicle parking calculations to take account of more recent available 2019 traffic count data and, noting that the calculations only consider northbound traffic and discount any local trips, proposes the following parking within the site; * 164 car parking spaces * 8 coach parking spaces * 4 caravan parking spaces * 38 HGV parking spaces * 10 motorcycle parking spaces * 0 abnormal load vehicles spaces
With the exception of abnormal load vehicles, the proposed parking numbers meet the required minimum numbers for motorway service signage as set out in the circular. In respect to abnormal load vehicles, it is noted that there is insufficient available room within the site for a parking space. However, given that the routing from the motorway to the development site is not to an adequate standard to accommodate an abnormal load movement, and on the basis that it is better to have a services provision which is considered sustainable and safe, Highways England are content to approve ‘in principle’ a departure from policy to require the provision for an abnormal load within the site. Highways England has therefore, no objection in principle for the service area to be signed from the motorway.
Staff parking is a matter for the planning authority. Although it is not explicit in Circular 02/2013, the required parking calculated does not include staff parking. It is for parking to serve the travelling public.
-Highway Capacity It is typical that peak demand for MSAs occurs around lunchtime. Given that mainline A1(M) traffic flows during the lunchtime period are lower than at peak periods, even though the lunchtime turn-in rate is likely to be higher, there is unlikely to be a highway capacity issue on the Strategic Road Network.
In consideration of all the above points, Highways England offers no objections.
5.6 Final response 31 December 2020: Since Highways England’s response of 16 October in which we offered no objection further documentation has been submitted in support of the application; namely a technical note titled Proposed Staff Parking Update dated 18 November 2020. We have reviewed the note, which provides information on staff parking measures and conclude that our previous position remains unaltered. Therefore, to confirm, Highways England offers no objection to the proposed development.
5.7 Cambridgeshire County Council Highways - Development Management Team – Following the provision of the latest tracking plan 5760-SK-007 Rev P3 the tracking appears to work for the parking spaces provided. The amount of parking for the site in question would be for the District Council as the parking authority to consider. Should the Local Planning Authority be concerned that parking may not be adequate then they may consider requesting securing the funding by unilateral undertaking or a S106 agreement to secure implementation of parking, waiting and loading restrictions on the local highway network.
The proposed access has been submitted for safety audit/signals review and following amendments to the original submitted scheme in relation to forward visibility to the signal heads being provided and the provision of a dedicated cycle link from the village, has been found to be acceptable in principle. There are no objections on highway safety grounds in relation to the access proposed.
Conditions are requested regarding the completion of the off-site highway improvement works, the laying out, surfacing, and draining of the site, and the approval of construction traffic routes and signage.
5.8 Cambridgeshire County Council Highways - Transport Assessment Team – No objections. The Toll Bar Way/A1(M) diverge and merge lanes/Green End Road/Fen Road roundabout has been modelled for the ‘2021 base +committed development = development’ and ‘2031 base + committed development + development’ scenarios. The junction is anticipated to operate within capacity under all assessment scenarios.
Having reviewed the relative impacts of the development on Toll Bar Way, the implementation of a Travel Plan is considered essential to mitigate development.
The standards for designing motorway service stations are Highways England standards and the Local Planning Authority is the parking authority.
In terms of impact of this development on the Local Highway Authority’s network, the impact potentially could be parking of vehicles on the local roads. In order to deal with this potential issue we would secure via a S106 Agreement payment of £5,000 towards the implementation of parking restrictions. We would hold the monies for 10 years from first occupation and return any unspent. This would enable us to deal with any future parking issue on our network and would enable us to issue a positive recommendation.
Officer comment: The applicant has increased the bond for possible future parking restrictions to £6,000.
5.9 Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology – Records indicate that the site lies in an area of archaeological potential situated adjacent to the A1, which here follows the course of Roman Ermine Street, and at a former junction of routeways with the southern end of the course of Green End Road (reduced to a footpath by the 19th century) leading north-west to the village of Sawtry, crossing the application site. A turnpike occupied this junction in the post-medieval period and early edition Ordnance Survey mapping indicates a separate group of structures (demolished during the later 20th century) occupying the angle between the footpath and Ermine Street. Archaeological investigations adjacent to the A1/Ermine Street to the north of the development area at Black Horse Farm revealed significant evidence of Iron Age occupation dating to the 5th to 2nd centuries BC, with roundhouses, post-built structures, pit ovens and cooking debris as well as mid- to late-Iron Age inhumation burials, including one of an infant. Evidence for early Romano- British activity was also present, with a substantial ditched enclosure surrounding one of the roundhouses continuing in use as a corral until the mid-1st century AD and evidence of droveway ditches being re-cut in the early Roman period. In addition, to the north is designated Sawtry moat and shrunken medieval village and to the south west is designated Sawtry Judith Village adjoining Archers Wood.
No objections subject to a condition requiring archaeological investigation before any works take place.
5.10 Cambridgeshire Lead Local Flood Authority – Whilst we would prefer to see above-ground sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) features, we appreciate that the required amount of parking means that there is insufficient space in the current layout. It is requested that as part of any application to discharge a surface water condition, the feasibility of including some SuDS features is further explored. We are therefore able to remove our objection to the proposed development. The updated strategy now includes an allowance of 40% for climate change as requested.
A condition is required regarding surface water drainage is required.
5.11 Cambridgeshire Constabulary – No objections – we are happy with the proposed security measures.
5.12 Cambridge Fire and Rescue Service – Should the Local Planning Authority be minded to approve the development the Fire Authority would ask that adequate provision be made for fire hydrants, either via S106 agreement or by condition.
5.13 Anglian Water – No objections.
5.14 Environment Agency – No objections subject to a condition regarding surface water drainage. It is also recommended that the BREEAM ‘excellent’ standard for water consumption is met. The additional foul flows generated by the development are not expected to lead to a significant increase in the discharge rate from the Sawtry Water Recycling Centre, but due to the nature of the development it would be pertinent to consult Natural England regarding any potential effect on the Woodwalton Fen Site of Special Scientific Interest.
5.15 Natural England – No comments to make.
5.16 HDC Landscape and Tree Officer – The detailed planting proposals are acceptable and have addressed earlier concerns.
5.17 HDC Urban Design Officer – Parking spaces have been increased from 2.4 metres by 4.8 metres to 2.5 metres by 5 metres to accord with the recommendations set out in the HDC Design Guide SPD. The latest increase in parking numbers to provide six staff parking spaces, has resulted in the removal of three proposed trees from the centre of the site. Additional hedge planting should be provided to soften the edge of the main car park. The retention of existing boundary vegetation is supported and will help screen and filter views of the back of the amenity building from Toll Bar Way. Conditions are required regarding the following: * Hard surface details * Materials * Lighting * Levels * Details of the staff cycle store
Officer comment: The additional hedge planting referred to above has been provided.
5.18 HDC Environmental Health Officer – It is considered that the proposals will not lead to a breach in national objectives or an unacceptable risk from air pollution. With regard to air quality it is recommended that a condition requesting details of the biomass boiler be submitted to ensure that it meets the criteria within Appendix E of the submitted Air Quality Impact Assessment. It is also recommended that a condition is required to ensure that the wider mitigation measures set out in Appendix E are adhered to during the clearance and construction phases.
The most recent Environmental Noise Survey and Traffic Noise Impact Assessment Report dated 28 February 2020 now includes predictions of noise impacts at residential areas to the north (Fen Lane/Green End Lane) and south (Coppingford Road) of the site. It predicts that the changes in traffic noise at the residential dwellings are unlikely to be noticeable with no observed effect. No further information is required.
With regard to ground contamination a condition is required to ensure that the remedial measures outlined in section 5.3.3 of the submitted Ground Investigation Report are implemented.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 A total of 24 neighbouring properties have been notified of the application.
6.2 The application has also been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
6.3 A total of 33 representations have been received. Of these eleven are objections from local residents; ten are letters of support from local residents and nine are representations from a rival motorway service area provider, the Extra Group. Pulse and Cocktails, the operator of the adult shop on the site object to the proposed development and the Road Haulage Association supports it. One representation neither supports nor objects to the development.
6.4 The grounds for support are as follows: * The development will provide employment opportunities for local residents. * The facilities offered are a benefit to local residents and to those in rural areas of the district. * The site is an eyesore and should be renovated and brought back into use. * Nationally there is an urgent need for safe and secure HGV facilities. * The MSA will provide for the welfare needs of drivers and negate the need to use residential and commercial areas for overnight parking. * Sawtry is a desirable location for HGV drivers as it is approximately 4 hours from Dover, Folkstone and Felixstowe and is a logical place to stop when travelling north and west. * The site will supplement the existing facilities at Peterborough to the north, Cambridge to the east and Brampton Hut to the south. * The new section of the A14 that was recently opened has no lay-bys and as a consequence the reduced number of places for drivers to take statutory rest breaks is creating problems for both residents and drivers. * There should be measures to ensure lorries don’t go through the village. * Make sure that noise and lighting are not intrusive. * Can we have a McDonalds instead of a Burger King.
6.5 The grounds of objection from local residents are as follows: * Increase in noise and pollution as a result of the increase in traffic and lighting. Particularly from lorries running their refrigerated units through the night. Residents to the south on Coppingford Road need to be screened from the development and acoustic fencing should be increased around the whole of the site. * Loss of highway safety as a result of the increase in traffic. HGVs driving southbound wishing to use the services will drive through the village and so measures should be put in place to prevent access from all southbound traffic, not just discourage it. The proposed traffic lights will cause congestion getting into the village, particularly at peak times. * It is incorrect to assume that the development will not generate local trips from Sawtry village as the proposed retail outlets include M&S, Greggs and Costa Coffee, that are not on offer in the village. The submitted Transport Assessment is inconsistent regarding this point saying on the one hand there will be no trips and on the other that Sawtry is easily accessible on foot and cycle. * There will be a loss of pedestrian and highway safety, particularly at the Green End Road roundabout. No cycle lanes are proposed and the increase in vehicular traffic will make conditions dangerous. A new cycle facility is required, segregated from motor vehicle traffic, linking the proposed services to Green End Road, thereby avoiding the Green End Road roundabout. * HGVs continue to inadvertently access Coppingford Road which has no turning facilities. They destroy verges, create a danger to other road traffic and to pedestrians and disturb the peaceful environment. Allowing this development will make this happen much more often. Traffic islands could be provided to physically prevent this from happening. * There is no need for an additional service area given Peterborough services to the north and Alconbury to the south and other services at Brampton Hut, Haddon Interchange and Swavesey. * If this goes ahead and there are negative impacts on the local area there must be a mechanism whereby the applicant is forced to make changes to resolve problems caused. * There will be an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour. * Pulse and Cocktails object as they have invested heavily in their building, have operated successfully for many years without problems and the development would lead to a loss of jobs. They would like to be incorporated into the development.
The Extra MSA Group objects to the application and has submitted several objections, including a Counsel Opinion, in response to the amendments made to the application. Their objections are on the following grounds: * The main concern is that, in the absence of appropriate information from the applicant, Huntingdonshire District Council is at serious risk of misdirecting itself in its consideration of the application proposals. Consequently, it is vital that further information is sought from the applicant and that both Highways England and the County Council’s Highways Team are invited to consider suitably updated and representative baseline information to appropriately inform their views on the planning application proposals. * There is no proven need for an MSA in this location. Moto’s appeal proposals for an MSA at Junction 37 of the A1(M) at Marr in Doncaster were dismissed by the Secretary of State in July 2019. References to consideration of the appellant’s needs case for the MSA as set out in para 17 of the SoS’s letter and in paras 133 and 220 – 223 of the Inspector’s decision letter are particularly relevant since they both refer to stretches of the trunk road that contain signage to existing services. * The scheme is contrary to the Development Plan and there is no need for these additional services on the highway network. As such there are no material considerations that are of sufficient weight to justify a decision contrary to the Development Plan. * The applicant’s traffic modelling is not robust since it has neither appropriately addressed forecast flows on the A14 nor taken account of committed developments in the locality. In the absence of appropriate baseline information Highways England and the County Council’s Highways Team are unable to assess the resultant impacts that the application proposals would have on the safe operation of both the strategic and local road networks. * The applicant’s argument that no traffic (southbound or local) will use the site just because it is not signed is clearly flawed and is just not credible. Whether it results in an adverse impact or not remains to be seen. However, southbound or local traffic has not, at least as yet, been tested by either the applicant, Highways England or the County Highway Authority. Extra’s experience of operational MSA facilities suggests that around 10% of demand is local. * The scheme is overdevelopment of the site with no possibility for expansion in the future. By comparison Extra’s Peterborough MSA covers a site area of 13 hectares and built form and parking and circulation space comprises just 42% of the site area as opposed to here where most of the site is built on. * The scheme now makes no acceptable provision for dedicated staff car parking. * Vehicle parking provision is significantly inadequate and does not meet the recommended requirements set out in paras B26 – B28 and in Schedule 1 of Department for Transport Circular 02/2013. A grant of permission without adequate provision for vehicle parking within the site will be detrimental to the safe operation of both the site itself and of the local highway network. * The scheme makes no provision for AIL (Abnormal Invisible Loads) again in breach of the requirements of Circular 02/2013. Given these shortcomings and the location of the scheme the application proposals do to meet the requirements for an MSA. * 70% of the site is previously undeveloped and represents best and most versatile agricultural land. The proposal is contrary to paragraph 170 of the NPPF (that requires decisions to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment). The scheme will have an adverse impact on the landscape, character and appearance of the countryside and harm will result from the incursion of the development into the countryside. * The proposals do not provide appropriate opportunity to promote sustainable transport modes. There is no provision for employees to safely cycle or walk to the site and consequently employee journeys will be heavily reliant on the use of private motor vehicles contrary to paragraphs 102, 108 and 110 of the NPPF and to the Government’s Policy Paper ‘Gear Change: A bold vision for cycling and walking.’ * There is identified conflict with the requirements of Policy LP11 ‘Design Context’ of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan and would be obliged if this issue could also be addressed before the planning application is presented for determination. * Any weight afforded to any need case made by the applicant must be tempered by the fact that an MSA facility that can only serve northbound traffic must be afforded less weight than one that could cater for the need of both northbound and southbound traffic on the motorway. * The extensive range of services available at Brampton Hut Services diminishes any weight that can be afforded to the applicant’s case.
6.6 Cllr Bywater has also written regarding the application. He makes the following comments – I do not object in principle as I think there will be many benefits to the community like employment and additional facilities. I have also been contacted by many residents who support the application given the employment opportunities it could bring. However, I have witnessed many issues at Stibbington Service station further up the A1 as a local member. This concern centres around HGV traffic – movement and parking.
There is a concern within the community of Sawtry that southbound HGVs will attempt to use the facilities despite what is being said. This could create additional traffic over St Andrews Way bridge and into the village. I would like to see clear signs not allowing HGV traffic from the southbound exit over St Andrews Way.
There will be 38 HGV allocated parking spaces. What happens when this becomes full? Lorry drivers who are up against the clock (tachograph times) who were expecting to stop, won’t be able to – where will they park? Experience from Stibbington tells me that they park where they want on country lanes where little enforcement is brought about. This parking is not only a congestion issue. Some drivers stopping are known to urinate and defecate and leave rubbish at the roadside causing a number of heath problems including rats etc. What is going to be done to ensure adequate ‘no parking’ signs are displayed around Toll Bar way, Coppingford Road and Fen Lane?
Hence, I would urge planning officers and members of the DMC to consider these two points and perhaps place conditions on the applicant to address these two main concerns that I and the community of Sawtry have.
7. ASSESSMENT
7.1 As set out within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Section 70(2)) in dealing with planning applications the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to have provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Section 38(6)) explains that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is reiterated within paragraph 47 of the NPPF (2019). Paragraph 12 of the NPPF also states that where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan permission should not normally be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed. The development plan is defined in Section 38(3)(b) of the 2004 Act as "the development plan documents (taken as a whole) that have been adopted or approved in that area".
7.2 In Huntingdonshire the Development Plan consists of: * Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 (2019) (the Local Plan) * Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan Core Strategy (2011) * St Neots Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2029 * Godmanchester Neighbourhood Plan (2017) * Houghton and Wyton Neighbourhood Plan (2018) * Huntingdon Neighbourhood Plan (2019)
7.3 The statutory term 'material considerations' has been broadly construed to include any consideration relevant in the circumstances which bears on the use or development of the land: Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin); [2011] 1 P. & C.R. 22, per Lindblom J. Whilst accepting that the NPPF does not change the statutory status of the Development Plan, paragraph 2 of the NPPF confirms that it is a material consideration and significant weight is given to the NPPF as a matter of planning judgment in determining applications.
7.4 The main issues to consider in assessing this application are whether there is any conflict with Development Plan policies and if there is any conflict, whether the application can be considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan when taken as a whole.
7.5 The application has been advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan as it is for significant development within the countryside.
7.6 Where an application is not in accordance with the Development Plan, it must be considered whether there are any material considerations, including local and national guidance, that indicate that planning permission should be granted.
7.7 With this in mind, the report addresses the principal, important and controversial issues which are in this case: • Principle of Development • Highway Safety, Access and Parking Provision • Design, Trees and Landscaping and Character and Appearance of the Area • Ecology and Biodiversity • Residential Amenity • Flooding and Drainage • Infrastructure Requirements and Planning Obligations • Other issues
Principle of Development 7.8 Paragraph 117 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.
7.9 Paragraph 121 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should also take a positive approach to applications for alternative uses of land which is currently developed but not allocated for a specific purpose in plans, where this would help to meet identified development needs.
7.10 The Local Plan, at paragraph 4.84, defines the built-up area as being a distinct group of buildings that includes 30 or more homes. Clusters smaller than this are deemed to comprise isolated or sporadic development within the countryside. The site is located to the south of Sawtry village and is clearly separated from the village by open fields and planting. The site is outside the built-up area.
7.11 Policy LP8 of the Local Plan deals with Key Service Centres, of which Sawtry is one, states that a proposal for development on land well-related to the built-up area may be supported where it accords with the specific opportunities allowed for through other policies of the plan.
7.12 The Local Plan does not provide guidance of what defines any particular site as being well related or not to any settlement. However, in this instance where a clear separation exists between the site and the built-up area, the site is not considered to be well-related to the built-up area of Sawtry for the purposes of Policy LP8 of the Local Plan and is considered to lie within the countryside.
7.13 Policy LP10 of the Local Plan states that development in the countryside will be restricted to the limited and specific opportunities as provided for in other policies of the plan. It states that all development in the countryside must: a. Seek to use land of lower agricultural value in preference to land of higher agricultural value: i) Avoiding the irreversible loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 1 to 3a) where possible, and ii) Avoiding Grade 1 agricultural land unless there are exceptional circumstances where the benefits of the proposal significantly outweigh the loss of the land; b. Recognise the intrinsic beauty of the countryside; and c. Not give rise to noise, obstructive light or other impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside by others.
7.14 Paragraph 4.108 of the Local Plan states that for Huntingdonshire’s rural areas, the strategy seeks to support a thriving economy while protecting the character of existing settlements and recognising the intrinsic character of the surrounding countryside. It goes on to state that there are specific opportunities for sustainable development in the countryside, set out in other policies of the Local Plan, which support rural business growth. The purpose of Policy LP10 of the Local Plan is to ensure that development protects the resources and recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
7.15 Of the other policies of the Local Plan, the only one relevant to the proposed development is Policy LP19 that relates to the rural economy. It confirms that in the countryside there are limited and specific opportunities for sustainable development. Paragraph 6.19 of the Local Plan, which introduces Policy LP19, states that the purpose of the policy is, amongst other things, to promote a vibrant rural economy to support businesses with a genuine need to be in the countryside.
7.16 As Policy LP19 of the Local Plan deals specifically with farm diversification, expansion of existing businesses and new class B businesses (offices, light industry and storage premises) it does not include motorway service areas. Given their nature though as roadside services, they may be considered to be development that has a legitimate reason to be located in the countryside.
7.17 Policy LP22 of the Local Plan states that local services include fuel filling stations. Given the nature of the proposal, which is intended to meet the needs of motorists on the strategic highway network (rather than solely local needs), it is not considered that Policy LP22 offers any support for the proposed development.
7.18 Policy LP33 of the Local Plan deals with rural buildings and states that a proposal for the replacement of a building in the countryside will be supported where the building is: i) Redundant or disused; ii) Of permanent and substantial construction; iii) Not in such a state of dereliction or disrepair that significant reconstruction would be required.
7.19 The policy goes on to require that a clear and substantial enhancement of the immediate setting would be required and that a modest increase in floorspace will be supported.
7.20 As set out above, not only is one of the buildings on the site in use, but the increase in the amount of floorspace on the site is almost 20%. As such, it is not considered that Policy LP33 of the Local Plan offers support for the proposed development.
7.21 It is clear from the above that there are no specific policies within the Local Plan to 2036 that offer support for the proposed development, despite the fact that given their nature as roadside services on the strategic highway network, Motorway Service Areas may be expected to be found in rural locations adjacent, or close to the strategic highway network/motorways. Therefore, the principle of the proposed development does not accord with the Development Plan. The question is therefore whether there are any material considerations to justify the grant of planning permission contrary to the Development Plan.
The Need for a Motorway Service Area (MSA) 7.22 Footnote 42 to paragraph 104(e) of the NPPF explains that “The primary function of roadside services should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user…”
7.23 As set out above, Government guidance on the provision of roadside facilities is set out in Circular 02/2013. The Circular points out that a well-functioning strategic road network enables growth by providing for safe and reliable journeys and that motorway service areas and other roadside facilities perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break in the course of their journey.
7.24 The Circular makes it clear that in determining applications for new or improved sites, local planning authorities should not need to consider the merits of spacing of sites beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons. Nor should they seek to prevent competition between operators; rather they should determine the applications on their specific planning merits.
7.25 However, given that the proposal is not supported by any policy within the Local Plan to 2036 and is located in the countryside and as such is a departure from the Development Plan, where a scheme may only be approved if there are material circumstances that indicate that permission should be granted, it is also necessary to consider the extent of any need for a MSA in the proposed location.
7.26 The strategic highway network comprises motorways and some A roads, such as the A1 to the south of the A1(M) and the A14, and is managed by Highways England.
7.27 Given that roadside facilities on the strategic highway network are required in the interests of, and for the benefit of all road users it follows that where the gap between services is small the need for the services is likely to be less than where the gap between services is greater. The Circular sets out that the maximum distance between MSAs should be no more than 28 miles.
7.28 The applicant considers that a gap of greater than 28 miles exists on the strategic highway network and therefore the need for the proposed development is imperative. They have pointed to permissions for MSAs where gaps of just a few miles have existed between service areas.
7.29 The Extra Group, the operator of both the Baldock and Peterborough MSAs, objects to the proposed development and considers there is no need for the proposed development as there is not a gap of 28 miles between service areas (Brampton Hut to Peterborough). They have pointed to an appeal decision dated 8 July 2019 on a proposed MSA on the A1(M) at junction 37 in Doncaster (APP/F4410/W/18/3197290).
7.30 Officers have sought more advice from Highways England regarding the nature of the gap between services north and south of the site and whether or not it does represent a gap in the provision of roadside facilities serving the strategic highway network, but none has been forthcoming.
7.31 The facts though are as follows: * Peterborough MSA lies 8.2 miles to the north of the application site on the A1(M). * Beyond Alconbury, to the south, the A1(M) becomes the A1. * Brampton Hut Services lies 7.5 miles to the south of the site on the A1 and are signed from the A1 when travelling north but they are not classified as an MSA. * Beyond Brampton Hut, travelling south, the A1 does not become a motorway until junction 10 where Baldock MSA is located at junction 10 on the A1(M). * Baldock MSA lies 31.6 miles south of the site. * The gap between Baldock MSA and Peterborough MSA is approximately 39 miles * The gap between Brampton Hut Services (which is not classified as an MSA) and Peterborough MSA is approximately 15 miles.
7.32 It is considered that the correct position falls between the two extremes set out above. It is considered that there are parallels between the application site and the Doncaster appeal site (subject of appeal APP/F4410/W/18/3197290) that offer significant assistance with regard to the issue of quantifying the level of need in this instance, as both were close to sections of the A1 that were not classified as motorway and therefore did not form part of the strategic highway network.
7.33 It must be noted that the Doncaster site (subject of appeal APP/F4410/W/18/3197290) was located within the Green Belt so the circumstances and policy considerations were also very different but the Inspector, and the Secretary of State who called the decision in, provided some helpful analysis around the issue of need.
7.34 Firstly, it was found that maximum distance of 28 miles between MSAs set out in Circular 02/2013 is a recommended distance, not a mandatory one. Importantly it was also found by both the Secretary of State and the Inspector that the excessive distance between motorway service areas included sections of trunk road that included signed services, as is the case here, and that while the signed services did not provide all the services required for an MSA, they did make a positive contribution to the safety and well-being of the travelling public by providing opportunities to stop and access relevant facilities. It was found that there was no pressing need for an MSA on the appeal site despite the distance between existing MSAs exceeding the recommended maximum of 28 miles. Further, it was found that the need for an MSA at the appeal site (subject of appeal APP/F4410/W/18/3197290) carried limited weight in favour of the proposal. In coming to their conclusions, both the Secretary of State and the Inspector were mindful that the gaps between MSAs in the appeal case were just 1 and 3 miles in excess of the recommended maximum distance of 28 miles, whereas in this case the gap is 11 miles.
7.35 It is considered that the circumstances of the Doncaster appeal decision (APP/F4410/W/18/3197290), where they relate to the issue of need, are similar and relevant to those of this planning application. Brampton Hut Services are signed from the A1 and are readily accessible from the trunk road. They offer a range of services including fast food outlets, a food shop, petrol filling station, toilets, a hotel and HGV parking including parking for abnormal loads. It is noted that there are no shower facilities and the services are not classified as a Motorway Service Area.
7.36 In conclusion, it is considered that in the case of the current application, a gap between MSAs on the strategic highway network in excess of the recommended maximum of 28 miles, does exist because Brampton Hut Services is not an MSA and there is a gap of approximately 39 miles between Peterborough MSA to the north and Baldock MSA to the south. Furthermore, the distance in excess of the recommended maximum is not inconsiderable at approximately 11 miles. However, within this gap the services at Brampton Hut clearly make a positive contribution to the safety and well-being of road users. It is considered that the existing distance between MSAs, even taking into account the contribution made by the Brampton Hut Services, is such that there is a need for an MSA in the proposed location. The provision of an MSA in the proposed location would support the safety and welfare of road users and, in consequence, moderate weight should be given in support of the proposal.
Loss of Agricultural Land 7.37 The site is predominantly Grade 3 agricultural land and partly Grade 2. Insufficient detail has been submitted by the applicant to assess whether the majority of the site is Grade 3a or 3b and hence whether it falls within the definition of the best and most versatile land. Taking a precautionary approach, given that part of the site is Grade 2, it is considered that the agricultural land on the site is the best and most versatile.
7.38 Some 98% of the district of Huntingdonshire comprises land within Grades 1 to 3, with 15% being Grade 1 and an estimated 77% of land falling within the definition of best and most versatile land. The proposal would result in the irreversible loss of this land.
7.39 The undeveloped areas of the site have not been actively farmed for some time. The only use to which the greenfield areas have been put most recently are as grazing for horses and it is not considered that the site forms part of any agricultural holding. There is no evidence to suggest that the loss of the land would lead to any impact on crop or food production.
7.40 Policy LP10 of the Local Plan to 2036 clarifies that the best and most versatile land should be avoided where possible. Given the fact that sites for roadside facilities are by their nature found in rural locations, that there is a limited supply of land of lower grades in the district and that a significant number of sites allocated for development in the District in the Local Plan to 2036 are on land that is the best and most versatile, it is considered that the proposed development does not represent an unacceptable loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.
7.41 While the scheme is clearly contrary to Policy LP10 part a) of the Local Plan to 2036, it is considered that the harm that results is very limited.
Main Town Centre Retail Uses 7.42 Annex B to Circular 2/2013 at paragraph B29 states that the scope and scale of retail activities at roadside facilities is a matter for consideration by the relevant local planning authority in line with the NPPF and local planning policies. However, planning authorities should have regard to the primary function of roadside facilities which is to support the safety and welfare of the road user.
7.43 Policy LP21 of the Local Plan to 2036 states that a proposal for a retail use involving over 600 square metres of net internal floorspace outside of a primary shopping area will be supported where it is in accordance with the sequential approach from town centre to edge of centre and then out of centre as set out in the NPPF. The Policy also states that a proportionate impact assessment will be required in accordance with policy LP7 ‘Spatial Planning Areas’. LP21 is intended only to be applied to retail proposals within the spatial planning areas but in the absence of any directly relevant policy it provides appropriate context for the consideration of this proposal to ensure that it is not of such a scale as to detrimentally impact on any of the district’s designated town centres.
7.44 The application proposes a total net retail floorspace figure of 824 square metres. However, although this is above the 600 square metres threshold set out in Policy LP21 that threshold is for net internal retail floorspace and it is considered that as many of the retail units are catering units operating in effect as takeaways where customers purchase food and drink and then continue on their journeys, much of their floorspace can be discounted as it does not function as net retail floorspace. The applicant has estimated that the actual net retail sales area comprises the WHSmith and M&S units plus the fuel filling station sales area and a small amount for the Costa, Greggs, Burger King and KFC units, amounting to less than 400 square metres, and therefore a retail impact assessment has not been submitted. Even if the larger figure was considered to be the relevant figure, paragraph 6.33 of the Local Plan states that the purpose of Policy LP21 is to ensure that the town centres of Huntingdon, St Neots, St Ives and Ramsey retain their roles as the focus for local communities attracting people in for retail, entertainment, office, leisure, cultural and tourist facilities. The nearest designated town centre to the site is Huntingdon and given the scale and nature of the retail space proposed it is not considered that the proposal would have any significant detrimental impact on the vitality of viability of any town centre.
7.45 Having regard to all of the above the scheme is considered to ensure the vitality of the district’s town centres in accordance with the requirements of Local Plan policies LP2, LP7 and LP21 and of the NPPF.
7.46 In assessing the principle of the proposed development it is considered that the following conclusions can be reached: 1. The proposed development is not supported by Policy LP19 as it does not fall within any of the named categories of development that are supported in the countryside. While motorway services areas can often be found in the countryside, they are not by their nature developments that need to be located within the countryside, albeit that they are most usually found outside of settlements. 2. As the proposed development is not one specifically supported by any other policy in the Local Plan it is therefore contrary to Policy LP10 of the Local Plan. 3. 70% of the site is green field land and the proposed development would also result in the irreversible loss of 1.85 hectares of the best and most versatile agricultural land. This land is though not actively farmed, is surrounded by roads and is overgrown or used solely for the grazing of horses. The loss of agricultural land weighs against the scheme. While the scheme is clearly contrary to Policy LP10 a) it is considered that the harm that results from this loss of best and most versatile land is very limited. The assessment of parts b) and c) of Policy LP10 is considered in greater detail below. 4. 30% of the site is previously developed and contains buildings that are either vacant or underused. The redevelopment of this part of the site is supported as it represents, in principle, an effective use of land that accords with the NPPF. 5. There is a need for an MSA in this location and in this instance the provision of an additional MSA for motorists on the strategic highway network weighs moderately in favour of the scheme. 6. Given the location, scale and nature of the retail space proposed, it is not considered that the proposal would have any significant detrimental impact on the vitality or viability of any town centre.
7.47 With regard to the principle of the proposed development there is clearly conflict with the Development Plan as the site lies within the countryside and there are no policies that offer specific support for the type of development proposed. Whether or not the material considerations set out above, and assessed in the proceeding sections of this report, are sufficient to indicate that planning permission should be granted are assessed in the concluding section of this report.
Highway Safety, Access and Parking Provision 7.48 Paragraph 108 of the NPPF 2019 advises that in assessing applications for development, it should be ensured that ‘appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location’ and that ‘safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users’, and that any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.
7.49 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF 2019 goes on to state that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
7.50 As set out above, the Department for Transport Circular 2/2013 is also particularly relevant to the proposed development. At paragraph B10 the Circular states that Highways England will provide advice to local planning authorities on matters relating to the impact that such proposed developments will have upon the safety and operation of the strategic road network.
7.51 Paragraph B11 of the Circular states that in circumstances where there is potential for motorway service areas to become destinations in their own right, Highways England will only support proposals for service areas if it can be shown that there would be no overall increase in trip mileage, and always provided that there would be no significantly adverse impact on the safety and operation of the strategic road network.
7.52 Table B1 of the Circular sets out the requirements for the various types of roadside facility that may be eligible for signing from the strategic highway network. All facilities accessed from the motorway must be signed for safety reasons and as such all future sites must meet the requirements for signing.
7.53 Policy LP16 of the Local Plan states that new development will be expected to contribute to an enhanced transport network that supports an increasing proportion of journeys being undertaken by sustainable travel modes. A proposal will therefore be supported where it is demonstrated that: a) Opportunities are maximised for the use of sustainable travel modes; b) Its likely impacts have been assessed, and appropriate mitigation measures will be delivered; c) Safe physical access from the public highway can be achieved; d) Any potential impacts on the strategic road network have been addressed in line with Circular 2/2013 and advice from Highways England; e) There are no severe residual impacts.
7.54 Policy LP17 states that a proposal will be supported where it incorporates appropriate space for vehicle movements, facilitates accessibility for service and emergency vehicles and incorporates adequate parking for vehicles and cycles. A clear justification for the space for vehicle movements and level of vehicle and cycle parking proposed will need to be provided taking account of: a. Highway safety and access to and from the site b. Service arrangements; c. The accessibility of the development to a wide range of services and facilities by public transport, cycling and walking; d. The needs of potential occupiers, users and visitors, now and in the future; e. The amenity of existing and future occupiers and users of the development and nearby property; and f. Opportunities for shared provision, where locations and patterns of use allow this
7.55 The details of the application, including the off-site measures, are set out in the opening section of the report on the Description of Site and Application.
7.56 In this instance, the application proposes a motorway service area, the mandatory requirements for which are: * Open 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year * Free parking for up to two hours * Free toilets * Shower and washing facilities for HGV drivers including secure lockers * Fuel * Hot food and drink available al all opening hours for consumption on the premises * Access to a cash operated telephone
7.57 Circular 02/2013 sets out that the level of parking provision is mandatory, but paragraph B28 states that levels of provision may be adjusted to reflect local conditions through a process of site specific negotiation and that it is the responsibility of the site operator to demonstrate that any departure from the requirements of Schedule 1 is appropriate. Schedule 1 sets out the number of parking spaces required for cars, HGV, abnormal loads, coaches, caravans and motorcycles.
7.58 Based on the most recent traffic flow figures the minimum parking requirements for the proposed development are as follows: * Cars – 164 required, 164 provided, plus 6 spaces for staff located within the service yard, behind gates * HGV – 36 required, 38 provided * Coaches – 7 required, 8 provided * Caravans/motorhomes – 5 required, 4 provided * Abnormal loads – 1 required, 0 provided (as agreed with Highways England) * Motorcycles – 10 required, 10 provided
7.59 As can be seen by these figures the level of car parking proposed meets the minimum requirements set out in Circular 2/2013. Two additional HGV spaces are provided, and one additional coach space is provided while there is a deficit of one caravan/motorhome space and there is no abnormal load provision.
7.60 However, as is set out in the consultation responses from Highways England and from the County Highway Authority, the issue of parking is a matter for the Local planning Authority as opposed to being a matter for Highways England or the County Highway Authority. Nevertheless, the Applicant has been able to demonstrate that the minimum parking requirement necessary for Highway England to be able to allow for signage for the services as an MSA on the strategic highway network are met.
7.61 A number of concerns though arise with regard to the parking numbers and these are addressed in order below:
1. That the minimum numbers of parking spaces required is barely reached.
7.62 The coach and caravan/motorhome parking is located in the same area of the site and therefore the shortfall in caravan/motorhome spaces is, on balance, considered acceptable given the overprovision of coach spaces. The lack of the abnormal load space is addressed by Highways England and is considered acceptable. It is noted that the applicant justifies the lack of the abnormal load space by pointing out that such a space is available at the Brampton Hut Services and that given there is no 28 mile gap between service areas for drivers of abnormal loads there is no need to provide an additional space at this site. Given the above it is agreed that the lack of an abnormal load parking space is not an issue.
7.63 It is of concern however, that the number of car parking spaces only meets the minimum level required. Eight of the car parking spaces are located to the south of the fuel filling station. In order to access the amenity building pedestrians from cars using these parking spaces would have to cross the fuel filling area, the HGV parking area and the main car parking area – a distance of approximately 175 metres. Seven of the HGV parking spaces are located at the southern end of the site approximately 210 metres from the entrance to the amenity building. However, despite these concerns, given that parking requirements for motorway service areas are clearly defined in Circular 02/2013 and that these have been met by the Applicant, it is not considered necessary in the absence of concerns from Highways England or the County Highway Authority, to require that further parking spaces are provided.
7.64 Given that the proposed amenity building is located adjacent to Toll Bar Way and that pedestrian access is provided from the highway, it is considered that a condition is necessary to prevent motorists from stopping on the highway verge to access the facilities of the amenity building.
7.65 The related but significant issue of staff parking is dealt with below.
2. That no allowance is made for southbound traffic
7.66 As both Highways England and the County Highway Authority point out, parking numbers are a matter for the Local Planning Authority. The County Highway Authority partially addresses this point by stating that should the planning authority be concerned that parking may not be adequate then they may consider requesting securing the funding by unilateral undertaking or a S106 agreement to secure implementation of parking, waiting and loading restrictions on the local highway network. The County Highway Authority has also stated that the roundabout junction to the immediate north of the site is anticipated to operate satisfactorily under all scenarios. These scenarios include the forecast traffic levels in 2021 and 2031.
7.67 It is accepted that the amount of traffic accessing the service area from the north is unlikely to be at all significant, but to base minimum parking levels on the basis that no southbound A1(M) drivers will access the services is not considered to be credible despite the fact that there is no direct access, that the services will not be signed for southbound traffic and the detour would be at its shortest 1.8 miles, with the alternative longer route being 2.4 miles.
7.68 It is considered likely that users of the strategic highway network who pass the site in both directions on a regular basis will increasingly become aware of the new facilities and that over time the use by southbound drivers is likely to increase.
7.69 The applicants themselves state in their technical note on the parking numbers update, that “it is very unlikely” that southbound traffic would make such a detour to use the facilities. By their own admission the applicant accepts that some drivers might make that detour. Given that the parking provision provided does not exceed the minimum by a single space the lack of any allowance for southbound drivers using the service area is considered a concern.
3. That no allowance is made for local traffic
7.70 Allied to the above point is the fact that the operator has include no allowance for local traffic using the service area. This is not a requirement of Circular 2/2013 but given that parking numbers are an issue for the local planning authority it is one that must be considered.
7.71 Of the nine local residents who have written to support the application, two clearly refer to local residents using the facilities. One states that this will help the whole village enjoy the new jobs and services that are being offered. The other states that it will be nice not to have to travel to Huntingdon or Peterborough for a KFC if they build one here. Even if it is accepted that residents might be able to walk to the KFC it is considered reasonable to assume that there would be some local traffic parking requirement generated by the proposed development.
7.72 A range of food outlets are proposed including Greggs, M&S, Burger King, KFC and Costa. Of these, there is only a Costa currently located in Sawtry. The nearest Greggs is 7 miles away from Sawtry. The nearest M&S is at Brampton Hut, over 7 miles away. The nearest Burger King is also at Brampton Hut. The nearest KFC is in Huntingdon 9 miles away.
7.73 It is clear from the above that the MSA will attract some local traffic and given that no allowance has been made for local traffic in the applicant’s assessments this is an area of concern.
4. That little allowance is made for staff parking
7.74 Circular 02/2013 makes no reference to the matter of staff car parking. When the application was first submitted the drawings showed a separate area of parking for 35 staff vehicles. The latest drawing shows six dedicated staff parking spaces within the gated service yard.
7.75 There is no dispute that the car parking requirement set out in Circular 02/2013 are minimum requirements. The applicant considers that Circular 02/2013 does not differentiate between staff and customer parking and there is no additional requirement from Highways England for additional staff parking above the Circular requirements.
7.76 The LPA does not disagree with the applicant’s summary but considers that it misses two key points. Firstly, Highways England (and the County Highway Authority) have confirmed that staff parking is a matter for the planning authority. Secondly, Highways England has confirmed to the case officer that although it is not explicit in the Circular, the required parking calculated does not include staff parking. It is for parking to serve the travelling public.
7.77 These concerns have been brought to the attention of the applicant and their Technical Note on staff parking states that further work has been undertaken to provide an indication of the likely arrivals and departures at the proposed MSA and the likely parking accumulation. The following key points are made by the applicant: * A 6% turn in rate (the percentage of cars on the A1(M) visiting the proposed MSA) has been adopted. This is robust and was agreed with both Highways England and the County Highway Authority. * A comparison with other MSA shows that at peak usage, in the hour from 1pm to 2pm, it can be expected that just over half the total parking spaces are in use showing sufficient spare capacity. * Shift patterns for staff are such that the maximum number of staff on-site in the peak/busiest times would be 40 and so given the numbers of cars on site at the busiest times there would still be more than sufficient spaces even if every member of staff drove to work and parked, which is very unlikely to be the case. * Looking in more detail at how staff travel to work it is estimated that some will walk, some will cycle, some will drive, some will be dropped off and picked up and some will car share. The Travel Plan submitted with the application shows that currently the modal split for workplace destinations is 15% walk, 74% drive a car, 6% are passengers in a car, 2% cycle and 1% use a bus. * An upgraded shared footway and cycle way including a pedestrian refuge crossing on Toll bar Way are provided as part of the highway works set out above in the opening section of the report.
7.78 These detailed concerns regarding staff parking have been put to Highways England and to the County Highway Authority alongside the other concerns listed above and below. The response has been that parking is an issue for the Local Planning Authority but both consultees continue to have no objections to the proposed development as set out above. The County Highway Authority has specified that any issue of vehicles parking on roads around the site can be dealt with through parking restrictions.
5. That the submitted transport assessment forecasts an increase in traffic flows on the A1(M) of some 22% between 2018 and 2031
7.79 This concern has been put to both Highways England and the Country Highway Authority but neither organisation has altered their stance of no objection to the proposed development.
6. That the parking requirement is based on 2019 traffic flows rather than opening year 2021 forecast flows
7.80 This concern has been put to both Highways England and the Country Highway Authority but neither organisation has altered their stance of no objection to the proposed development. The Applicant has also pointed out, as set out above, that Circular 02/2013 specifically states, at Schedule 1, that parking requirements should be calculated using the most recent complete year data, which in this instance is 2019.
7. That it is impossible to expand the capacity of the site beyond its current boundaries
7.81 This concern has been put to both Highways England and the Country Highway Authority but neither organisation has altered their stance of no objection to the proposed development.
7.82 The applicant has submitted a Framework Travel Plan in support of the proposed development. This points out that the walk time from the site to the centre of Sawtry is 20 minutes (approximately 1,600 metres) and to the closest bus stops on Green End Road is 4 minutes (approximately 300 metres). The Plan considers that a significant proportion of residential catchment would be within easy walking distance and that future local employees and customers would have the opportunity to walk to the proposed MSA on footpaths that are well lit and supplemented by a new footpath into the site from Toll Bar Way.
7.83 The Design Guide SPD points out that with regard to new homes, the closest bus stop should be within a walking distance of 400 metres (5 minutes walk) and within 800 metres (10 minutes walk) of local shops.
7.84 The Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) provide guidance on desirable walk distances in their publication 'Providing for Journeys on Foot' which recommends suggested acceptable walking distances of between 500m (6 minutes, "Desirable") and 2km (25 minutes, "Preferred Maximum") for commuting and journeys to school. For non-commuter journeys the guidance suggests that a walk distance of up to 1,200 metres can be 'considered', with the 'acceptable' and 'desirable' distances being 800 and 400 metres respectively. Similarly, acceptable cycling distances vary between individuals and circumstances but trips up to 5km (3.1miles) are accepted as having the potential to substitute car trips.
7.85 With regard to bicycle access, the whole of Sawtry village is within 5 kilometres of the site. The closest bus stop on Green End Road is served by hourly buses during the morning peak and by two buses an hour during the evening peak although there are no services on Sundays. The Framework Travel Plan states that the primary aim of the Travel Plan would be to reduce the level of single occupancy car trips and promote car sharing and encourage greater use of public transport and cycling and concludes that the site offers staff with a variety of options to travel to work. It is agreed that given the relative proximity to Sawtry, the site can be accessed on foot or by bicycle, along relatively safe footpaths that link the site to Sawtry via Toll Bar Way and Green End Road, by a significant proportion of the local population, and as such the site would be accessible by sustainable modes of transport.
7.86 The Framework Travel Plan goes on to set out measures that will be taken to encourage employees to reduce their reliance on single occupancy private car travel. All employees will be provided with an induction pack containing information regarding personal journey plans, cycle maps, bus information, health benefits of walking and cycling, and car sharing. In addition targets will be set to encourage shifts away from the use of private car travel and the following measures will be put in place: * Appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator * Induction packs for all staff * Flexible hours to facilitate travel by sustainable modes * Secure cycle parking * Changing and shower facilities for staff * Secure lockers * Control of on-site staff parking * Encouragement of car sharing * Annual monitoring and review of the Travel Plan in coordination with the County Travel Plan officer.
7.87 Despite all the above, however, the Framework Travel Plan states that the aim is a 5% reduction in staff single occupancy car journeys over a 5 year period.
7.88 Officers remain concerned that there is insufficient space on site to accommodate the development that is proposed particularly given the combination of factors that are relevant, particularly the issue of how staff parking is dealt with. These concerns have been specifically put to Highways England and to Cambridgeshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority. The level of parking provided meets the minimum requirements set out in Circular 02/2013 and where there is any departure from those standards, particularly with regard to abnormal loads, this has been specifically considered to be acceptable by Highways England.
7.89 The County Highway Authority has specifically addressed concerns regarding cars parking on the local highway network through the imposition of parking restrictions should they be considered necessary.
7.90 In addition, Circular 02/2013 sets out a distinction between motorway service areas and motorway rest areas and that the parking requirements for rest areas are half those for service areas. Should the issue of parking be such that problems were caused on the strategic highway network the responsible authority, Highways England, would be able to take measures to address the problems caused.
7.91 As set out above, Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. Highways England and the County Highway Authority both consider that there would be no such unacceptable or severe impacts. In light of this, it is considered that a recommendation of refusal on parking grounds could not be robustly or appropriately justified and that, on balance, the imposition of the conditions set out above, particularly including the setting of robust targets for the use of sustainable modes of travel for staff within a future travel plan and securing of monies through a S106 Agreement for possible future parking restrictions, mean that the proposed development would not be contrary to the requirements of the NPPF, Circular 02/2013 and Policies LP16 and LP17 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036.
Design, Trees and Landscaping and Character and Appearance of the Area 7.92 Policy LP11 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 requires new development to respond positively to its context. Policy LP12 requires new development to contribute positively to the area's character and identity and to successfully integrate with adjoining buildings.
7.93 Part b) of Policy LP10 of the Local Plan states that all development in the countryside must recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and part c) goes on to state that development must not give rise to impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside by others.
7.94 Policy LP31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 requires proposals to demonstrate that the potential for adverse impacts on trees, woodland, hedges and hedgerows has been investigated and that a proposal will only be supported where it seeks to conserve and enhance any existing tree, woodland, hedge or hedgerow of value that would be affected by the proposed development.
7.95 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF 2019 states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments; a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit.
7.96 The National Design Guide 2019 addresses the question of how we recognise well-designed places, by outlining and illustrating the Government’s priorities for well-designed places in the form of ten characteristics. The Guide supports paragraph 130 of the NPPF that states permission should be refused for development of poor design.
7.97 The Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2017 sets out design principles based on recognised best practice and explains key requirements that the Council will take into consideration when assessing planning proposals. The Design Guide promotes locally distinctive design which respects and enhances the character of Huntingdonshire.
7.98 Paragraph 40 of the National Design Guide 2019 states that development should respond positively to the features of the site itself and the surrounding context, including layout, form and local character.
7.99 The Landscape and Townscape Assessment SPD sets out that the site lies on the western edge of the Fen Margin character area which forms a transition between the Fens, further to the east and the Central Claylands, closer and to the west. The key characteristics of the Fen Margin as they relate to the application site are: * Generally well vegetated, with deciduous woodland, hedgerow trees and orchards * A matrix of land uses, comprising arable farmland, pasture, airfield, orchard, deciduous woodland and settlements * Settlements situated on higher land, otherwise sparsely populated landscape * Considerable recent housing development on the edges of most settlements
7.100 To the west of the site the landscape transitions to Central Claylands which is characterised by gently undulating arable farmland, large scale fields with few hedgerows giving rise to a predominantly open landscape with some extensive cover of ancient woodland in the north west (Aversley Wood lies approximately 750 metres to the west of the site).
7.101 Although no Landscape and Visual Impact assessment has been submitted with the application, it is clear that the immediate landscape context of the site is the major transport corridor of the 8 lane A1(M). Although there is a rural landscape to the west, the site is bounded by existing vegetation on its western perimeter which effectively locates the site within the landscape corridor rather than within a countryside context.
7.102 There are no public rights of way to the west of the site between Toll Bar Way and St Judith’s Lane which runs parallel to it some 500 metres to the west. The existing tall conifers on the site are though clearly visible from St Judith’s Lane across the open farmland which features very few hedgerows. To the east, beyond the A1(M) hedgerows screen views from the B1043 which runs parallel to the motorway and which has no footway. A public right of way (197/7) runs on an east/west alignment to the north of Toll Bar House which is opposite the northern tip of the site. Views from this public right of way are well screened by intervening vegetation.
7.103 There is no existing public right of access on to the site and the existing planting adjacent to Toll Bar Way screens the site from pedestrians using Toll Bar Way. Where views into the site do exist, they are glimpsed through the small existing openings or are of buildings in poor condition.
7.104 The significant belt of planting on the western boundary of the site continues to the north and south and partially to the east. The existing buildings on the site are in generally poor condition and are visible from the A1(M) where there is no planting between the exit slip road and the existing 1.5 – 1.8 metre high fencing that lies adjacent to the buildings. The existing conifers are prominent as they have been allowed to grow and they form an alien feature within the landscape.
7.105 Although the existing fence is to be replaced by a taller 3 metre high acoustic fence, it will also now be screened by hedge planting between the fence and the motorway. The acoustic fence will continue around the north of the site to contain the service yard but will be screened by the thick existing landing belt that lies on land within the ownership of Highways England/the County Highway Authority. A total of 36 new extra heavy standard trees are to be planted within the centre of the site with 55 more planted at the perimeter of the site. In addition, there is supplementary tree and shrub planting, including 165 native trees to three sections of the existing perimeter planting to the east, south and west and extensive hedgerow planting screening parking areas from circulation routes.
7.106 The proposed amenity building has two levels of accommodation and so is taller than the existing single storey buildings on the site but is designed with a curved roof to reduce the impact of the second floor of accommodation and is sited to the north of the site where it is most effectively screened by existing planting. Although the proposals represent an increase in the amount of floorspace on the site of approximately 20%, the main amenity building is located to the north and west of the site where it is well screened by the existing perimeter planting. The proposed built development on the site will now, as a result of its relocation from the eastern boundary of the site and the proposed landscaping, be less visible than the existing buildings on the site when viewed from the motorway. The taller elements of the scheme, the amenity building and the fuel filling station canopy are considered to be well screened by existing and proposed planting.
7.107 The submitted Arboricultural Survey and Impact Assessment shows that there is just one significant tree on the site that lies within the buffer land and not within the developable site area. The Survey shows a total of 11 groups of trees and 3 hedgerows within the larger site. Of these, all three hedgerows within the developable site area are removed. A section of the existing buffer planning is removed to facilitate access and two groups of trees within the site are lost and one further partially removed. One of the groups removed comprises Cypress Leylandii and the other are hawthorn trees within a central hedge that defines the boundary between the two fields on the site.
7.108 The Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer has assessed the proposal against the landscape and visual context of the site and considers that, following several iterations of the detailed landscaping proposals and significant new tree, hedge and shrub planting, appropriate landscape and visual mitigation has been provided. A condition regarding the management of the landscaping on the site is considered necessary to ensure that the detailed planting proposals remain effective in screening the site and maintaining the quality of the appearance of the site.
7.109 With regard to detailed design and appearance of the proposed buildings, which are to be faced in brickwork and metal panels, the proposals have been assessed by the Council’s Urban Design Team and negotiations were undertaken through the lifetime of the application in response to requests from the Urban Design Team who considers that following amendments and additional information that the scheme is acceptable subject to conditions regarding a range of detailed matters that include proposed materials.
7.110 The existing site is surrounded by roads on all sides and as set out above is seen predominantly in the context of the A1(M) rather than the countryside to the west. It is particularly well- screened by existing planting and existing non-native conifers on the site will be removed and replaced by significant new native tree planting. In addition, the replacement 3 metre high fencing will be screened by new hedging and new trees will be planted to the boundary of the site with the motorway. The general appearance of the site will be improved as a result of the proposed development. Details of external lighting could be secured by condition, to recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
7.111 It is therefore considered that subject to conditions the proposed development sufficiently recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and does not give rise to impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside by others.
7.112 A Rapid Health Impact Assessment accompanies the application, pursuant to Policy LP29 of the Local Plan. Having regards to this and the design of the scheme, it is considered that the proposed development would facilitate a safe, health and inclusive development for future occupiers.
7.113 The proposed development is considered to be of an acceptable design in accordance with the NPPF, the National Design Guide and Policies LP10 parts b and c, LP11, LP12, LP29 and LP31 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036 and the Huntingdonshire Design Guide.
Ecology and Biodiversity 7.114 Local Plan Policy LP30 aims to conserve and enhance biodiversity and advises that opportunities should be taken to achieve beneficial measures within the design and layout of development and that existing features of biodiversity value should be maintained and enhanced. As a minimum, it requires that a proposal will ensure no net loss in biodiversity and achieve a gain where possible.
7.115 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment including by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.
7.116 The Applicant’s submitted Ecology Assessment Report shows that the proposed development would result in a net loss of biodiversity on the site. The report also notes the potential for great crested newts and makes recommendations for compensation and enhancement measures, that principally include the off-site conversion of arable farmland to grassland and that will be incorporated into an Ecological Management Plan secured by condition should permission be granted. If the recommendations of the Ecology Assessment Reports are implemented, including the off-site conversion of arable land to grassland to form an offset site, then it is shown that a net gain in biodiversity can be achieved. The key recommendations include: * 1.2 hectares of arable land converted to good condition neutral semi-improved grassland * Native planting * Provision of house sparrow nesting boxes * On site log piles in areas of landscaping * Minimum necessary lighting
7.117 The Applicant’s Offset Site Ecological Management Plan details that a site for the proposed mitigation scheme of converting existing arable farmland to semi-improved grassland has been found less than 1 kilometre to the south west of the application site.
7.118 The Wildlife Trust has considered the Applicant’s detailed proposals and is satisfied that on the basis that the recommendations set out are implemented and that the offset site is managed appropriately for at least 25 years, then the application will meet biodiversity policy requirements by ensuring no net loss, rather a net gain in biodiversity.
7.119 A condition is proposed to secure the implementation of on-site mitigation measures. The delivery of the off-site biodiversity mitigation would be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement which would deliver the off-site biodiversity mitigation and biodiversity enhancements, such to off-set the net loss within the application site and overall deliver a net gain in biodiversity. Policy LP30 of the Local Plan to 2036 does not preclude off-site mitigation, nor place a limit on the geographical area which should be considered. In this instance, the offset site is well located in relation to the application site.
7.120 Officers are satisfied that subject to appropriate conditions and the S106 legal agreement identified above, the application proposals will accord with the requirements of Policy LP30 of the Local Plan and the requirements of the NPPF (2019).
Residential Amenity 7.121 Policy LP14 of the Local Plan states that a proposal will be supported where a high standard of amenity is provided for all users and occupiers of the proposed development and maintained for users and occupiers of neighbouring land and buildings.
7.122 In this instance the closest neighbouring dwellings are either on the opposite side of the A1(M) or over 200 metres to the north of the site and therefore the proposal would not lead to overlooking, an overbearing impact, loss of daylight or loss of sunlight. Objections have been received from local residents regarding noise and loss of highway safety and residents have requested measures to prevent access by HGVs to Coppingford Road to the south and for the provision of improved pedestrian and cycle access.
7.123 The Environmental Health Officer has assessed the proposals and requested further information regarding noise and air quality. The Applicant’s noise survey predicts that the changes in traffic noise at the closest residential dwellings are unlikely to be noticeable with no observed effect on residents. The Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that there would be no detrimental effect on residential amenity.
7.124 The redevelopment of the site for a motorway service area is not considered to have a detrimental effect upon neighbouring residents or upon the users of neighbouring land or buildings.
7.125 It is therefore considered that the proposed development complies with the requirements of Policy LP14 of the Local Plan to 2036 and the requirements of the NPPF (2019).
Flooding and Drainage 7.126 Policy LP5 of the Local Plan states that a proposal will only be supported where all forms of flood risk, including breaches of flood defences or other defence failures, have been addressed.
7.127 The overall approach to flooding is given in paragraphs 155-164 of the NPPF and these paragraphs set out a sequential, risk- based approach to the location of development. This approach is intended to ensure that areas at little or no risk of flooding are developed in preference to areas at higher risk. It involves applying a Sequential Test to steer development away from medium and high flood risk areas (flood zones 2 and 3), to land with a low probability of flooding (flood zone 1).
7.128 The application site falls within flood zone 1 as designated within the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2017, which represents the lowest flood risk of flooding from rivers and sea.
7.129 Cambridgeshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has no objections to the application subject to a condition regarding surface water drainage. The documents submitted by the Applicant in support of the application demonstrate that surface water from the proposed development can be managed within an attenuation basin, sized to attenuate all flows up to and including the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) including a 40% allowance for climate change.
7.130 Anglian Water raise no objections to the proposed development. The Environment Agency raised no objections, subject to a condition regarding surface water drainage. The Environment Agency also recommended that the BREEAM ‘excellent’ standard for water consumption is met. The Local Plan to 2036 does not include a specific requirement for the BREEAM ‘excellent’ standard for water consumption to be met however the Applicant has agreed that the development will adhere to this standard.
7.131 The Environment Agency note additional foul flows generated by the development are not expected to lead to a significant increase in the discharge rate from the Sawtry Water Recycling Centre, but due to the nature of the development it would be pertinent to consult Natural England regarding any potential effect on the Woodwalton Fen Site of Special Scientific Interest. Accordingly, Natural England were consulted and raise no objections. Details of foul water drainage shall be secured by condition.
7.132 It is therefore considered that subject to conditions, the development can be made acceptable in flood risk terms in accordance with the requirements of Policies LP5, LP6 and LP15 of the Local Plan and the NPPF (2019).
Infrastructure Requirements and Planning Obligations 7.133 The Infrastructure Business Plan 2013/2014 was developed by the Growth and Infrastructure Group of the Huntingdonshire Local Strategic Partnership. It helps to identify the infrastructure needs arising from the development proposed to 2036 through the Core Strategy.
7.134 Statutory tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (Regulation 122) require that S106 planning obligations must be: - Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; - Directly related to the development; and - Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 7.135 The development will be CIL liable in accordance with the Council's adopted charging schedule; CIL payments will cover infrastructure relating to footpaths and access, health, community facilities, libraries and lifelong learning and education.
7.136 Section 106 obligations are intended to make development acceptable which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms.
7.137 The applicant has agreed to the provision of an off-site biodiversity enhancement scheme and to the payment of a £5,000 bond to Cambridgeshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority for future highway parking restrictions, should they be necessary. The S106 Agreement will secure the off-site biodiversity measures for a period of at least 25 years and provide the £5,000 bond for a period of 10 years.
7.138 It is considered that the application includes appropriate contributions in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Obligations SPD and Policies LP3 and LP4 of the Local Plan to 2036.
Other Issues Archaeology
7.139 The NPPF 2019 recognises the importance of preserving heritage assets and supports sustainable development. Paragraph 8 of the NPPF 2019 details the three objectives of sustainability. In relation to environmental matters, this confirms that this includes protecting our natural, built and historic environment. Section 16 of the NPPF 2019 (paragraphs 184 to 202) sets out principles and policies for conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
7.140 Paragraph 193 of the NPPF 2019 advises that ‘great weight’ should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets; and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Any harm to, or loss of significance of a designated heritage asset (including from development within its setting) should require clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 194 states that ‘any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification’ and paragraph 196 states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
7.141 The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 protects the archaeological heritage of Great Britain by making provision for the investigation, preservation and recording of matters of archaeological or historical interest.
7.142 Policy LP34 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036 states that great weight and importance is given to the conservation of heritage assets and their settings. Policy LP34 also includes archaeology and the consideration of the impact of proposals on remains.
7.143 The Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) Archaeology Team state that the site lies in an area of archaeological potential situated adjacent to the A1, which here follows the course of Roman Ermine Street, and at a former junction of routeways with the southern end of the course of Green End Road (reduced to a footpath by the 19th century) leading north-west to the village of Sawtry, crossing the application site. A turnpike occupied this junction in the post-medieval period and early edition Ordnance Survey mapping indicates a separate group of structures (demolished during the later 20th century) occupying the angle between the footpath and Ermine Street. Archaeological investigations adjacent to the A1/Ermine Street to the north of the development area at Black Horse Farm revealed significant evidence of Iron Age occupation dating to the 5th to 2nd centuries BC, with roundhouses, post-built structures, pit ovens and cooking debris as well as mid- to late-Iron Age inhumation burials, including one of an infant. Evidence for early Romano- British activity was also present, with a substantial ditched enclosure surrounding one of the roundhouses continuing in use as a corral until the mid-1st century AD and evidence of droveway ditches being re-cut in the early Roman period. In addition, to the north is designated Sawtry moat and shrunken medieval village and to the south west is designated Sawtry Judith Village adjoining Archers Wood.
7.144 CCC Archaeology confirm that they do not object to the development but recommend that if the application were to be recommended for approval a condition should be imposed to secure the archaeological investigation work required prior to development taking place.
7.145 Subject to conditions, the proposed development is therefore considered to accord with the requirements of the NPPF and of Policies LP2 and LP34 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036.
Sustainable Design and Construction and Water Efficiency
7.146 Policy LP12 states that new development is expected to be well designed and that a proposal will be supported where it makes efficient use of energy, water and other resources. Non- residential development meets the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) standard of ‘good’ as a minimum. The Environment Agency has recommended that a standard of ‘excellent’ is achieved.
7.147 The applicant has been to agree that the proposed development will meet the recommended BREEAM standard of ‘excellent’ with regard to water efficiency and has stated that the development will incorporate the following measures: * Biomass boilers for a zero-carbon renewable source of heating and hot water * Maximising natural light inside the amenity building * Full cut-off lighting outside buildings to minimise light pollution * A fully integrated sustainable drainage system (SuDS) for surface water management * Electric charging points for plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles * Energy efficient and motion sensor lighting
7.148 A condition will be attached to ensure compliance with the above agreed standard and it is considered that the proposed development accords with the requirements of part j. of Policy LP12 of the Local Plan to 2036.
Air quality
7.149 With regard to air quality the HDC Environmental Health Team recommend that a condition is imposed requiring details of the biomass boiler to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval ensure that it meets the criteria within Appendix E of the submitted Air Quality Impact Assessment. It is also recommended that a condition is required to ensure that the wider mitigation measures set out in Appendix E are adhered to during the clearance and construction phases. Subject to conditions, the proposal is therefore considered acceptable with regards to air quality and would accord with the aims of Policy LP36 of the Local Plan.
Ground Contamination
7.150 With regards to ground contamination a condition is required to ensure that the remedial measures outlined in section 5.3.3 of the submitted Ground Investigation Report are implemented. Subject to conditions, the proposal is therefore considered acceptable and would accord with Policy LP37 of the Local Plan and NPPF (2019) in this regard.
PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSIONS 7.151 This proposal seeks permission for the provision of a motorway service area on the site.
7.152 The application must be determined in accordance with the statutory tests in section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, namely, in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Policies set out above that are the most important for determining the application are considered to be up-to-date and are afforded full weight.
7.153 In this instance, the development is not supported by any specific policy within the Development Plan. The degree of separation between the site and the village of Sawtry, which is a Key Service Centre, means that the site cannot be considered as well-related to the built-up area of Sawtry. Had there been a closer relationship it is likely that given the nature of the proposal this would have caused greater problems as a result of the greater proximity to residential development.
7.154 As has been pointed out by the Applicant, it is not unusual that motorway service areas are found in rural locations. This, however, is insufficient justification in itself for the proposed development. The proposed development is contrary to the Development Plan as it is contrary to Policy LP10 which states that development in the countryside will be restricted to the limited and specific opportunities as provided for in other policies in the plan. In addition, the siting of the proposed development results in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land contrary to Policy LP10.
7.155 The identified conflict with the Development Plan would lead to permission being refused for the development, unless material considerations justify the grant of planning permission contrary to the development plan. The proposed development does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF because that presumption only exists where a development proposal accords with the Development Plan and in this instance, for the reasons set out above, the scheme does not.
7.156 Circular 02/2013 provides guidance on the need for motorway service areas to provide opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break in the course of their journey.
7.157 The amount of weight that should be afforded to any need for an MSA has been the subject of two very different interpretations by the applicant and by the Extra Group, which operates the MSAs to the south and north of the site. The Applicant invites the Local Planning Authority to consider that the need for the MSA is imperative as there is a gap on the strategic highway network in excess of 28 miles. The objector, the Extra Group, invites the Local Planning Authority to consider that there is no need for the MSA as the existing services at Brampton Hut, plus other smaller services on the A1, cater for the needs of the travelling public between Peterborough MSA and Baldock MSA.
7.158 As set out above, it is considered that the appropriate weight to give the need for the MSA lies somewhere between these two opposing views. It is considered that a gap on the strategic highway network in excess of the recommended maximum of 28 miles does exist. Furthermore, the distance in excess of the recommended maximum is not inconsiderable at approximately 11 miles. However, the services at Brampton Hut, although not an MSA, do clearly make a significant positive contribution to the safety and well-being of road users. As a result, it is considered that the existing distance between services areas, even taking into account the contribution made by the Brampton Hut services, is such that there is a need for an MSA in the proposed location. The provision of an MSA in the proposed location would support the safety and welfare of road users and, in consequence, moderate weight should be given in support of the proposal.
7.159 Officers have raised concerns that the site is too small for the size of development proposed. The minimum parking requirements set out in Circular 02/2013 are barely met, but met they are. Highways England and Cambridgeshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority have been asked to consider the concerns, as set out above, and have been unequivocal in their stance; that there are no highway safety concerns with regard to the proposed development.
7.160 These concerns had been increased as a result of the initial lack of clarity regarding staff car parking. Both Highways England and the Applicant indicated during the processing of the application that the minimum parking requirements set out in circular 02/2013 included an element for staff vehicles – indeed this remains the view of the applicant. Highways England though have clarified that the minimum parking requirements are to meet the needs of vehicles on the strategic highway network.
7.161 In light of the clear consultation responses received from Highways England and Cambridgeshire County Council Highways, the Officer concerns do not amount to any sufficiently robust or justified reasons that would warrant refusal of the scheme on highway grounds. After careful consideration it is the opinion of Officers that the robust implementation of an effective travel plan is sufficient to deal with the issue of staff parking.
7.162 The County Highway Authority has offered a solution to any possible future problems arising from a lack of parking causing vehicles to park on roads in the vicinity of the site, which can be secured by means of S106 Agreement and conditions. As such, it is considered that there is no identified harm that results from the fact that there is no parking provision over the minimum level required by Circular 02/2013. The proposal would therefore have an acceptable impact upon highway safety and make adequate provision for vehicle and cycle parking. The proposal would also promote healthy, active lifestyle through implementation of a Travel Plan and maximise the available opportunities for use of public transport, walking and cycling.
7.163 The proposal would contribute towards economic growth, including significant job creation, during both the construction and operational phases. Combined, these are matters to which moderate weight in support of the proposal should be attached.
7.164 Although the site is clearly in the countryside, the site itself appears to have no significant physical constraints and is deliverable.
7.165 The site is considered to be well contained and given its location it is considered to relate more to the motorway than to the countryside to the west. Whilst the Applicant has demonstrated that a net gain in terms of biodiversity would only be achieved by off-site works, it is considered that the character and appearance of the site, in particular when viewed from the A1(M) would be improved as a result of the proposed development.
7.166 Subject to an appropriately worded S106 Agreement and planning conditions, the scheme is considered to be acceptable with regard to design, trees and landscaping, the character of the area, biodiversity, residential amenity, archaeology, flooding and drainage and infrastructure requirements.
7.167 Taking all matters together in the planning balance and applying s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, it is considered that, in this instance, material considerations are such as to outweigh the conflict with the development plan and therefore planning permission should be granted.
8. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE subject to the prior completion of a S106 Agreement relating to the following issues and to conditions to include those set out below: * Off-site biodiversity mitigation (provision of site and management for a minimum of 25 years) * A £6,000 bond for future possible parking restriction measures OR
REFUSE in the event that the obligation referred to above has not been completed and the applicant is unwilling to agree to an extended period for determination, or on the grounds that the applicant is unwilling to complete the obligation necessary to make the development acceptable
• Time limits • Approved plans • Materials • Hard and Soft Landscaping details including boundary treatments and implementation • Lighting scheme • Travel plan • Cycle storage details • On-site biodiversity enhancements • Precautionary Method Statement Newts • Surface Water drainage • Foul Water drainage • Construction and Environmental Management Plan (including construction traffic routes and signage) • Contamination • Off-site highway improvements • Measures to prevent parking on highway verges • Access construction • Surfacing and drainage measures • Temporary parking facilities during construction • Archaeology • Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan • Biomass boiler details • Tree protection measures • Fire Hydrants • Levels • Water efficiency • Road signage addressing the issue of inappropriate HGV movements and parking
If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs
CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Tim Hartley, Senior Development Management Officer [email protected]
From: Diane Davis - Sawtry Parish Council
Sawtry Parish Council comments on the following applications:
19/01445/FUL – Land between Toll Bar Way and Great North Road – demolition of existing buildings, erection of motorway service area comprising an amenity building, fuel station, parking and ancillary development – recommend approval – it will tidy up the site which has been neglected for several years, it will bring much needed employment for local residents, additional amenities for the village. Recommendations if this application is approved: Need signage for southbound traffic once they have left the motorway to ensure that lorries are taken to Coppingford Road and then into Toll Bar Way, not along St Andrews Way Would need double yellow lines outside the site to prevent lorries using the facilities and then not paying to park Safety for pedestrians and cyclists accessing the site from the village needs to be improved
19/01487/FUL – Willow Cottage, Chapel End – application for change of use of annexe to dwelling house – recommend approval. There will be no impact on neighbours.
19/01541/FUL – 6 Hatfield Road – proposed single storey rear and side extension and conversion of garage – recommend approval – the site is large enough to accommodate the extension. This will tidy up a house that until recently had been neglected.
19/00462/REM – Land south west of Mill Cottage, Gidding Road – application for reserved matters pursuant to application 17/00077/OUT – erection of up to 295 dwellings, parking, landscaping, open space and associated works – revised plans have been received by the District Council - revised drainage design report, detailing planting proposals, detailed LEAP (play area), and revised housing designs – recommend approval. It is noted that Anglian Water approved the amendments to the foul water drainage.
19/00460/FUL – Land south west of the Coach House, Coppingford Road – erection of 5 dwelling houses with associated garages, parking, gardens and hard and soft landscaping – amended plans have been received by the District Council – recommend approval. The amendments have improved the application with the addition of a second entrance/exit.
Sawtry Parish Council
Tel: 01487 831771 Office Open: 9.00 – 1.00 Monday to Friday
In accordance with the law, Sawtry Parish Council (SPC) only collect a limited amount of information. The personal information you provide (name, address, email address, phone number), will be processed and stored so that it is possible to contact you and respond to your correspondence and provide information. SPC do not use your data for purposes other than those specified. SPC do not use profiling, sell or pass on your data to third parties. SPC ensure your data is stored securely and delete all information deemed to be no longer necessary. SPC constantly review Privacy Policies-copy available on request.
1 Development Management Committee
Scale = 1 :5,000 Application Ref: 19/01445/FUL o Date Created: 28/01/2021 © Crown copyright and database rights 2021 Location: Sawtry Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322
!
Key Conservation Area Listed Building The Site Copyright Moto Hospitality Ltd.
Do Not Scale This Drawing For Construction Purposes
CDM - Significant Design Hazards
Hazard Control Toll Bar House
3 Ranch Cadillac Toll Bar
A1M Southbound
A1M Northbound
A 18.06.19 Application area expanded. DH -
Rev Date Description Drawn Checked
El Sub Sta Amendments
Drawing Status Planning
TOLL BAR WAY Pond
Fen Lane Drain Ordnance Survey, (c) Crown Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. Licence number 100022432 Quantity Surveying Architecture Project Management Construction Safety
PROJECT Sawtry
Green End Road NORTH
CLIENT 0m 50m Moto Hospitality Ltd
TITLE Site Location Plan
Redline Area : 45,928M2 / 4.59Ha / 11.349 Acres SCALE DATE 1:2000 @ A3 April 2019
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DRAWING No. REV DH ..... SAW01 A
St Luke's Chapel, Buxton Road, Stockport, Manchester, SK2 6NB t: 0161 477 7709 e: [email protected]
Hotel 0m
NORTH 50m Shop Hotel 0m
NORTH 50m Shop B Hazard CDM - Significant Design Hazards A Rev Do Not Scale This Drawing For Construction Purposes Drawing Status Amendments DRAWN BY SCALE TITLE CLIENT PROJECT 1:500 @ A1 DH Existing Site Plan Moto Hospitality Ltd Sawtry 10.05.19 St Luke's Chapel, Buxton Road, Stockport, Manchester, SK2 6NB 24.06.19 Date CHECKED BY Copyright Moto Hospitality Ltd. Project Management Quantity Surveying ..... Application Area : 45,928m2 / 4.59Ha 11.349Acres t: 0161 477 7709 e: [email protected] Planning Rescaled Red line amended Description DRAWING No. SAW02 Control Construction Safety Architecture DATE April 2019 DH DH Drawn - - Checked REV B 8510 Kingspan Horizontal insulated cladding & trim in 'Cosmic Metallic' silver or similar approved. Flat roof and canopy in dark grey resin. Kalzip standing seam metal curved roof with 'AluPlusPatina' natural milled aluminium finish, or similar approved. Ibstock 'Anglian Buff Multi Rustic' facing brickwork or similar approved. Materials: Self coloured windows and doors in RAL 7016 Self coloured aluminium downpipes in RAL 7016 Self coloured aluminium fascia & soffit in RAL 7016 Vent panel to mezzanine plant room in 'Cosmic Metallic' silver. Service Side Elevation Side Car Park Elevation 48600
8510 Hazard CDM - Significant Design Hazards Do Not Scale This Drawing For Construction Purposes Drawing Status Amendments DRAWN BY SCALE TITLE CLIENT PROJECT 1:100 @ A1 DH Moto Hospitality Ltd Sheet 1 Sawtry Amenity Building - Elevations St Luke's Chapel, Buxton Road, Stockport, Manchester, SK2 6NB CHECKED BY Project Management Quantity Surveying .... t: 0161 477 7709 e: [email protected] Planning Copyright KMB Ltd. DRAWING No. SAW06 Control Construction Safety Architecture DATE April 2019 REV - Copyright Moto Hospitality Ltd
Do Not Scale This Drawing For Construction Purposes
CDM - Significant Design Hazards
Hazard Control
Car Park Elevation
- - - - -
Rev Date Description Drawn Checked
35270 Amendments
Drawing Status Planning
Construction Consultants Service Yard Elevation PROJECT Sawtry
Materials: CLIENT Moto Hospitality Ltd
Kalzip standing seam metal curved roof with 'AluPlusPatina' natural milled aluminium finish, or similar approved. TITLE Flat roof and canopy roof in dark grey resin. Amenity Building - Elevations Sheet 2 Self coloured aluminium fascia & soffit in RAL 7016 Self coloured aluminium downpipes in RAL 7016 SCALE DATE Self coloured windows and doors in RAL 7016 1:100 @ A1 April 2019
Ibstock 'Anglian Buff Multi Rustic' facing brickwork or similar approved. DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DRAWING No. REV Kingspan Horizontal insulated cladding & trim in 'Cosmic Metallic' silver or similar approved. DH ..... SAW07 - Vent panel to mezzanine plant room in 'Cosmic Metallic' silver.
St Luke's Chapel, Buxton Road, Stockport, Manchester, SK2 6NB t: 0161 477 7709 e: [email protected] Copyright KMB Ltd.
Do Not Scale This Drawing For Construction Purposes
CDM - Significant Design Hazards
Hazard Control F.E. F.E. F.E. C/C
Electrics / Plant Dis WC Female Staff Plant
KFC 98m2
BK Freezer KFC Freezer 7.8m2 10m2 Bench F.E.
12475 AGM Office
WC Family Room BK Chiller KFC Chiller Male Male Staff Room 6.8m2 6.8m2 Changing Shower WCs Places Male Staff
BK Store Office F.E. Services Office
Office Dis WC Burger King LIFT 87m2 4630
AGC 48m2
Costa Store COSTA SEATING AREA 86m2 - 62 Covers F.E. Store 22m2
Costa Coffee
Office 46000
M & S Retail Mezzanine: 262m2 / 2820sq.ft. Coldroom 93m2 19m2
HAT
Costa Coffee Seating Area A 10.05.19 Rescaled DH -
Amendments
Drawing Status General Seating Area F.E. 137m2 - 109 Covers ( 171 Total ) Planning WHSmiths Retail 92m2
Costa Costa Coffee Coffee ATM
Office Store Coldroom F.E. 32m2. 8m2 Dis WC
0 5 10m F.E. F.E. MAIN ENTRANCE Quantity Surveying Architecture Greggs Project Management Construction Safety 95m2 Gross Internal Area: 1684m2 / 18126sq.ft. PROJECT Sawtry F.E. GF: 1422m2 / 15306sq.ft.
F.E. Mezzanine: 262m2 / 2820sq.ft.
CLIENT Moto Hospitality Ltd
TITLE Amenity Building - Ground Floor Plan
29164 SCALE DATE 1:100 @ A1 April 2019
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DRAWING No. REV Ground Floor: 1,422m2 / 15,306sq.ft. DH .... SAW03 A 30000 St Luke's Chapel, Buxton Road, Stockport, Manchester, SK2 6NB t: 0161 477 7709 e: [email protected] Copyright KMB Ltd.
Do Not Scale This Drawing For Construction Purposes
CDM - Significant Design Hazards
Hazard Control
Amenity Building - View 1 Amenity Building - View 2
Amendments
Drawing Status Planning
Quantity Surveying Architecture Project Management Construction Safety
PROJECT Sawtry
CLIENT Forecourt Building Site Access Moto Hospitality Ltd TITLE Artists Impressions
SCALE DATE NTS @ A1 June 2019
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DRAWING No. REV DH .... SAW14 -
St Luke's Chapel, Buxton Road, Stockport, Manchester, SK2 6NB t: 0161 477 7709 e: [email protected]
Copyright Moto Hospitality Ltd
Do Not Scale This Drawing For Construction Purposes
CDM - Significant Design Hazards
Hazard Control
5340
10300 15285 Elevation onto HGV pumps Elevation onto private pumps
Amendments
Drawing Status
4050 Planning
Rear Elevation Side Elevation
Construction Consultants
PROJECT Sawtry
Materials:
Kalzip standing seam metal roof with 'AluPlusPatina' natural milled aluminium finish, or similar approved.
Self coloured aluminium fascia & soffit in RAL 7016 CLIENT Self coloured aluminium downpipes in RAL 7016 Moto Hospitality Ltd
Self coloured windows and doors in RAL 7016 TITLE Ibstock 'Anglian Buff Multi Rustic' facing brickwork or similar approved. FFS - Elevations Kingspan Horizontal insulated cladding & trim in 'Cosmic Metallic' silver or similar approved.
SCALE DATE 1:50 @ A1 April 2019
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DRAWING No. REV DH - SAW10 -
St Luke's Chapel, Buxton Road, Stockport, Manchester, SK2 6NB t: 0161 477 7709 e: [email protected] A REV - DH April 2019 DATE Control SAW08 DRAWING No. Updated to external layout Planning t: 0161 477 7709 e: [email protected] - CHECKED BY Copyright Moto Hospitality Ltd Hospitality Moto Copyright Construction Consultants 13.06.19 St Luke's Chapel, Buxton Road, Stockport, Manchester, SK2 6NB Sawtry Moto Hospitality Ltd FFS - Ground Floor Plan DH 1:50 @ A1 PROJECT CLIENT TITLE SCALE DRAWN BY Amendments Drawing Status A Do Not Scale This Drawing For Construction Purposes This Drawing For Construction Do Not Scale CDM - Significant Design Hazards CDM - Significant Hazard
Air/water
Air/water 10300 Sliding Door STOCKROOM & OFFICE 24.5M2 15285 SALES AREA 88M2 ELECTRICS WC
Dishwasher
COUNTER 4 TRAY SAVOURIES TRAY 4
AMBIENT
SLIM CUSTOM SLIM
14 Tray 14
UNDERCOUNTER FRIDGE Tray 14
14 Tray 14
Mono Fridge
Trays Breakfast
600 x 400 x 600 Fridge
Fridge
Single
B&W 3 Rack Coffee M/C Oven
night hatch
Single Cooling Single
Single
Fosters
boiler
Water 7 Tray 1138mm Foster Prep bench
Fosters Tobacco LANDSCAPE Fosters
c 2019 RPS Group NOTES 1. This drawing has been prepared in accordance with the scope of RPS’s appointment with its client and is subject to the terms and conditions of that appointment. RPS accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. 2. If received electronically it is the recipients responsibility to print to correct scale. Only written dimensions should be used. N 3. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant scheme drawings.
A1(M) Junction 15 A1(M) Junction 15
Old North Road Old North Road A1(M) A1(M)
St Andrews Way
Old North Road
Fen Lane
A1(M) A1(M)
B1043 Site Site
Distance from A1(M) Distance from A1(M) junction 15 to site 2.9km junction 15 to site 3.85km
A1(M) A1(M)
Rev Description By CB Date
MAKING Client Moto Hospitality Ltd Status Drawn By PM/Checked by COMPLEX EASY PLANNING AJ JC
Project Number Scale @ A3 Date Created Project Moto Sawtry JNY10040 1:10,000 23.05.19
RPS Drawing/Figure Number Rev 140 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5DN SAW43 JNY10040-15 T: +44(0)20 7280 3300 E: [email protected] Title Potential A1(M) South Bound Access Routes
rpsgroup.com
Drawing Ref: P:\JNY10040 - Moto Sawtry\Highways\Drawings\JNY10040-15 South Bound Routes.dwg Copyright Moto Hospitality Ltd.
Do Not Scale This Drawing For Construction Purposes
CDM - Significant Design Hazards
Hazard Control
Extra Peterborough Services
Sawtry Site
- - - - -
Rev Date Description Drawn Checked
Amendments
Drawing Status Planning
Extra Cambridge Services
Quantity Surveying Architecture Project Management Construction Safety
PROJECT Sawtry
CLIENT Moto Hospitality Ltd
TITLE Regional Site Location Plan
SCALE DATE Extra Baldock Services NTS @ A3 April 2019 DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DRAWING No. REV DH ..... SAW12 -
St Luke's Chapel, Buxton Road, Stockport, Manchester, SK2 6NB t: 0161 477 7709 e: [email protected] Copyright KMB Ltd.
Do Not Scale This Drawing For Construction Purposes
CDM - Significant Design Hazards
Hazard Control C/C
Electrics / Plant Dis WC Female Staff Plant
KFC
BK Freezer KFC Freezer Bench AGM Office
WC Family Room BK Chiller KFC Chiller Male Male Staff Room Changing Shower WCs Places Male Staff
BK Store Office Services Office
Office Dis WC Burger King LIFT
AGC
Costa Store
COSTA SEATING AREA Store
Costa Coffee
Office
M & S Retail Coldroom Illustrative Amenity Building Mezzanine Floor Plan
HAT
Costa Coffee Seating Area B 10.05.19 Areas recalculated for Greggs DH -
A 10.05.19 Rescaled DH - Note: Amendments Drawing Status General Seating Area Hatch indicates areas designated for retail. WHSmiths Planning Retail
Costa Costa Amenity Building Retail Area : 278.6m2 Coffee Coffee ATM Fuel Filling Station Retail Area : 76.2m2 Office Store Coldroom Dis WC Total Retail Area : 354.8m2
Illustrative Fuel Filling Station Ground Floor Plan
Greggs Quantity Surveying Architecture Sliding Door Sliding
night Project Management Construction Safety hatch
PROJECT MAIN ENTRANCE Sawtry Tobacco
SALES AREA 88M2 UNDERCOUNTER FRIDGE boiler Water
B&W 3 B&W CLIENT Coffee M/C Coffee LANDSCAPE AMBIENT COUNTER SLIM CUSTOM Mono 7 Tray Single Oven Moto Hospitality Ltd 4 TRAY SAVOURIES TITLE 6x4
C/Rack Retail Areas Plan Fosters
Double Fridge DishwasherHobart
Illustrative Amenity Building Ground Floor Plan 1138mm Foster Prep bench WC
SCALE DATE
STOCKROOM & OFFICE 24.5M2
Fosters 1:125 @ A1 April 2019
0 5 10m Double Fridge DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DRAWING No. REV Fosters ELECTRICS Double Fridge DH .... SAW13 B
St Luke's Chapel, Buxton Road, Stockport, Manchester, SK2 6NB t: 0161 477 7709 e: [email protected]