DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED CARAVAN DEVELOPMENT AT SECOND HOLME GRAINSBY LANE TETNEY GRIMSBY LINCOLNSHIRE DN36 5JP December 2020 dmc 19564 5 Coral Drive Waltham Grimsby N E Lincolnshire DN37 0YD T: 01472 506137 INTRODUCTION The following comprises a Design and Access Statement that has been prepared in support of the application for a small scale caravan development at Second Holme, Grainsby Lane, Tetney, Grimsby, Lincolnshire, DN36 5JP. The proposal seeks to make better use of the existing under-used agricultural land as paddocks. This application is a re-submission of N/061/02062/19 that was refused panning consent on 6 February 2020. PLANNING HISTORY Application referenced N/061/01049/20 for planning permission - Change of use of land for the siting of caravans, provision of car parking, construction of internal road, construction of a vehicular access and existing vehicular access to be permanently blocked up was refused panning consent on 11 September 2020. The reasons for refusal stated: 1. East Lindsey Local Plan Policy SP15 states that the Council will support new holiday accommodation in close proximity to 'large' sized villages such as Tetney and North Thoresby providing, amongst other criteria, that the site has safe access to the relevant settlement with vehicles and pedestrians being segregated. In this case the site is a considerable distance from the villages and not considered to be in close proximity to either. Vehicular and pedestrian access between Tetney and the site is not segregated and the proposal is likely to generate pedestrian movements along Grainsby Lane and the A1031 which have no safe walking route for pedestrians segregated from vehicles. This will cause highway danger contrary to the relevant strand of Policy SP15 of the East Lindsey Local Plan and paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In the absence of a safe pedestrian access route to Tetney and the significant and unrealistic distance to North Thoresby the proposal is therefore likely to increase reliance of the motor car contrary to Policy SP2 and paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework both of which seek to support proposals which are sustainable and have an underlying objective to reduce reliance on the motor car. Addressing the reason for refusal as part of the re-submission: Numerous applications of a very similar nature and location have been approved recently. Specifically two are of particular relevance. They are:- 1. N/133/01643/20, Planning Permission - Siting of lodge to be used in association with existing commercial fishing lake. Land rear of Micklemore House, Main Road, North Thoresby, Grimsby, Lincolnshire, DN36 5SE and 2. N/100/01598/20, Planning Permission - Change of use of land to a touring caravan site with 18no. pitches. Furze Farm Estate, Manby Road, Legbourne, Louth, LN11 8HB The officers report in respect of application N/133/01643/20, amongst other statements, included the following statements that are directly relevant to this application. Local Plan policy SP15 offers support for the tourism and leisure economy. Policy requires this to be balanced against protecting the landscape, biodiversity and heritage assets. In addition, the policy specifically supports new log cabins such as this provided they are in close proximity to a town, large or medium village and if it can be demonstrated that it adds to the built and natural environment by the provision of extensive landscaping and green infrastructure, does not cause unacceptable harm to the wider landscape and have safe access to the relevant settlement with vehicles and pedestrians being segregated. In addition, paragraph 8 of the NPPF seeks sustainable development, reiterated at policy SP2 of the Local Plan. In this case North Thoresby village is the nearest settlement. By road, the proposed site entrance is approx. 600m to the first house and 800m where there are dwellings are on both sides of the road. It is approx. 1.4km to the village market place/ village shop. The first approx. 400m is along the A16 main road with the remainder being along Ludborough Road. There is no roadside path linking the site to the village and whilst there is street lighting around the junction of the A16 and Ludborough Road there isn’t any lighting either side of that junction to the village or to the site. There is a recreational footpath link near to the site. This cuts across agricultural land for approx. 720m and terminates just inside the main part of the village. The equivalent by road is approx. 820m therefore approx. 100m less, if using recreational footpath. The footpath starts approx 180m north of the site entrance. Therefore, to access the footpath from the site would require walking along a narrow sloping grass verge next to a fast free flowing and very busy former trunk road. It is not a safe environment to walk, even the 180m to the recreational path and especially 400m to Ludborough Road. The increase in potential for pedestrians to use this route as a result of the proposal would likely to increase risk for pedestrians and other road users, particularly during hours of darkness, resulting in material harm to highway safety. The proposal would also be contrary to Paragraph 109 of the NPPF which amongst other things states that development should be refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. In the absence of a safe pedestrian access route into the village, the proposal would also likely increase the reliance on the private motor car contrary to the sustainable objectives of SP2 of the Core Strategy and SP22 which supports development in or adjoining settlements and supports development that gives pedestrian and cycle movements. The proposal does not. Given it’s a rural area, it’s very clear that the use of a motor car will be the main form of transport and relied upon a great deal. At the same time, Government advice seeks to reduce the reliance on the car and encourage alternative forms of transport. It’s easier said than done and government advice also acknowledges the difficulty of achieving this in rural areas. Clearly there’s a balancing act needed between the existing reliance on the car and the need to try and reduce the reliance. To implement this balance, the Local Plan focuses growth onto the towns and villages where there is greater access to services by means other than the car. People can walk, cycle and catch buses to chosen destinations. Growth and development in these areas gives people a choice in how they travel. In relation to new holiday sites, again, the policies recognise that the car may be the main mode of transport for visitors to access attractions, shops, pubs etc and therefore it seeks to ensure that new sites are close to settlements so that these facilities are accessible and car journeys short. Likewise, the part of the policy which seeks safe pedestrian access ensures that sites are close to settlements and accessible by means other than a car. It gives people a choice insofar that some amenities are accessible by foot/bike whilst accepting that many journeys will still be made by car. This site is realistically only accessible by car and therefore no practical alternative is available. There is total reliance on the car for all journeys. Government policy through the NPPF support prosperous rural communities and advises that “planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development” (Paragraph. 28). It highlights the need to support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings; promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses and support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres. ( Para 83). Para 84 of the NPPF states that 'Planning policies and decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. In these circumstances it will be important to ensure that development is sensitive to its surroundings, does not have an unacceptable impact on local roads and exploits any opportunities to make a location more sustainable (for example by improving the scope for access on foot, by cycling or by public transport). The use of previously developed land, and sites that are physically well-related to existing settlements, should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist'. However the Local Plan identifies what sustainable development is at local level and in this case is set out in SP15. In the formulation of SP15 the economic benefits were balanced against other considerations. The links to the village and wider area by means other than car is poor. However, it is recognised that the site already attracts a number of visitors to the site to fish. The additional traffic and use generated by the proposal is therefore small and whilst North Thoresby is not easily accessible by foot/bike, it is only a short drive away where several key amenities to serve holiday makers can be found. There are two PHs, 2 shops, a post office and a takeaway which can serve users all within a short drive away (as opposed to a more remote location where longer distances to multiple destinations may be needed.) Economic benefits of the proposal are noted to the business itself but also to the wider community.