<p> B/07/0127</p><p>BOSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL</p><p>PLANNING COMMITTEE 24 JULY 2007</p><p>Reference Number: B/07/0127 Application Expiry 30 May 2007 Date Application Type: Full Planning Permission</p><p>Proposal Description Construction of industrial building for general industrial (Use Class B2), storage and distribution (Use Class B8) At: Main Road (A17), Fosdyke Bridge, Boston, Lincs, PE20 2DB</p><p>For: D & M Parkinson</p><p>Third Party Reps: 9 Parish: Fosdyke Parish Council Ward Name: Five Village</p><p>Author of Report: Nick Harding Date of Report: 5 July 2007</p><p>MAIN RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE</p><p>Planning Committee Agenda - 24 July 2007 1 B/07/0127</p><p>1.0 REASON FOR REPORT</p><p>1.1The application has been presented to the planning committee at the request of Councillor Witts and also because of the level of objection to the proposal.</p><p>2.0 PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND</p><p>2.1 The proposal is to redevelop what was mostly a former haulage yard (with a licence for approx 20 vehicles) and construct an industrial building for office/light industrial use (B1) and warehousing and distribution (B8). The building measures approx 30m wide, 46m long with an eaves height of 10m and a ridge height of 11.5m. The site is to be accessed via the existing access with the A17 (south of the public house) which also serves as a bridleway. The site is proposed to be set out in four zones. Firstly, adjacent to the access is a parking and manoeuvring area. Then there is a formally set out car parking area followed by the building. Lastly to the rear is the (un)loading and manoeuvring area and the main doors to the building. Landscaping is proposed to the edges of the site.</p><p>2.2 A previous application for the site was withdrawn (B/06/0173) due to officer concerns with the proposal. Planning permission was recently granted for a change of use for a building opposite the site for the purposes of boatbuilding.</p><p>2.3 It should be noted that a significant portion of the application site lies outside of the land identified as an existing industrial area in the Adopted and Interim Plans. Thus part of the application is in the ‘open countryside’.</p><p>3.0 RELEVANT POLICY BACKGROUND</p><p>3.1 The relevant policies are:</p><p>Adopted Local Plan  Policy G1 - Amenity (This policy seeks to resist developments that will harm the amenity of nearby residents or the general character of the area).  Policy G3 - Foul and surface water disposal (To ensure that it is disposed of properly).  Policy G6 - Vehicular and pedestrian access (This policy seeks to resist development that would harm highway safety).  Policy ED1 – Development in industrial/commercial areas (This policy allocates identifies existing land for employment development and seeks to seek the development of land subject to criteria).  Policy ED6 – Development next to settlements (in some circumstances such development could be acceptable.  Policy ED7 – Development in the countryside (industrial development in such location is generally not supported).</p><p>Interim Plan Planning Committee Agenda - 24 July 2007 2 B/07/0127</p><p> Policy G1 - Amenity (This policy seeks to resist developments that will harm the amenity of nearby residents or the general character of the area, that are unsafe in highway terms where foul and surface water disposal arrangements are unsatisfactory, that are unsatisfactory quality in design terms and that impact to an unsatisfactory degree on the landscape or wildlife).  Policy F2 – Flood risk (This policy seeks to ensure that appropriate development takes place with regard to flood risk)  Policy ED1 - Development in industrial/commercial areas (This policy identifies existing land for employment development and seeks the development of land subject to criteria).  Policy CO1 - Development in the countryside (This policy restricts development in the countryside).  Policy R8 – Public Rights of Way (This policy safeguards the public rights of way).</p><p>4.0 REPRESENTATIONS</p><p>4.1 Nine letters of objection have been received. The reasons given for objections are as follows:  Proposals will increase the amounts traffic passing/crossing the bridleway over and above those generated by the previous use and therefore the bridleway will be made more unsafe.  Greater number of vehicles entering/leaving the site increases the potential for clashes with other vehicles/bridleway users at the junction of the access with the A17, which is narrow.  Layout of the site is not compliant with Health and Safety at work requirements.  There is a Section 106 (a planning legal agreement associated with the previous use) that stops the application site from being developed (Note – this is not correct).  Impact of proposal on the building which represents an important recreational resource which is being prompted and enhanced.  Horses could get ‘spooked’ by the traffic or activities on the site risking the rider/horse/people on the site and vehicles on the A17.  Proposal to mark the bridleway on the ground will not be workable/safe and it is not shown correctly on the plans.  An International League for the Protection of Horses risk assessment has identified significant risks with the A17 bridleway crossing and concluded that it would be made worse by development.  Additional traffic will make the A17 more difficult to cross for bridleway users.  Access to the A17 is via a steep incline and visibility is restricted, to put more traffic on this junction would be unsafe.  Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have concerns regarding the development (Note – the Council has no requirements to consult with the HSE and no comments have been received from the HSE following the objectors contact with it). Planning Committee Agenda - 24 July 2007 3 B/07/0127</p><p> Errors in application e.g. not all of the site was previously haulage, some of it is agricultural, bridleway not shown in correct place.  Use of gravel for surfacing is ‘horse unfriendly’.  Requests that a Health and Safety assessment be commissioned.  Increase chance of bridleway being blocked.</p><p>5.0 RELEVANT CONSULTATIONS</p><p>5.1 Borough Council, Economic Development – Generally supportive of the proposal subject to it being contained within the identified in the Interim Plan as a existing industrial area, the bridleway being properly considered and there not being a trade counter at the site (this element has been deleted from the proposal).</p><p>5.2 Borough Council, Environmental Health – No objection. The main doors to the buildings face south and, there is the potential for night-time disturbance to the nearest dwelling. Therefore any approval should have suitable conditions to control hours of operation and/or noise levels.</p><p>5.3 County Council, Highways – Objects. The scale of the proposal could generate more traffic than the previous use and given the poor design of the access (limited width, incline and visibility) and the bridleway, the development is considered unsafe in highway terms. </p><p>5.4 British Horse Society – Objects. Increase in traffic in and out of the site and between the existing and proposed developments will make the bridleway more unsafe to use. There is also more potential for the bridleway to be blocked by vehicles. If permission is granted then the car parking area should be fenced with a clear exit/entrance point in order to establish a predictable route across the site. Also noted that a number of errors in the application e.g. width and route of bridleway incorrectly shown. Lack of a waiting area where bridleway users can wait safely until traffic leaving/entering the site have passed. Also raises concerns over the existing A17 crossing arrangements that are not relevant to the consideration of the application.</p><p>5.5 South Holland, Internal Drainage Board – No objection as landscaping is sited in compliance with the Boards byelaw No.10. Request standard conditions relating to surface/foul water disposal.</p><p>5.6 The Ramblers Association – Objects. Increase in traffic will be a danger to bridleway users. This will constitute a ‘statutory nuisance’. There is little bridleway provision in the Borough (14.5miles) and it is important to protect as a resource which brings significant economic benefits.</p><p>6.0 PLANNING ISSUES AND DISCUSSION: </p><p>Junction Safety</p><p>Planning Committee Agenda - 24 July 2007 4 B/07/0127</p><p>6.1 The proposal is considered to have the potential to generate more traffic than the previous use. The access (at the A17) is relatively narrow making it impossible for two HGVs to pass and slopes up from the site to the A17. In addition, although there is a ‘ghost island’ on the A17 at the access point that could be used by north bound A17 traffic turning into the site, there is no ‘slowing down’ facility in the ghost island. The proposal is therefore considered unsafe, in access terms. Consequently the proposal is not in accordance with Interim Plan Policy ED8, G1 and Adopted Local Plan Policy G6, ED6 and ED7.</p><p>Bridleway Safety 6.2 The proposal is considered to have the potential to generate more traffic and on site activity than the previous use to the detriment of the safety of bridleway users. The proposal includes a parking and manouvering area adjacent to the bridleway and although this situation could arise with the previous use, nothing has been proposed to reduce the potential for conflict between the users of the site and bridleway users.</p><p>Disibility Access 6.3 The use of gravel in the car parking area is unsuitable for use by persons with restricted mobility. This could be resolved by way of a planning condition.</p><p>Local Plan – Area identified as an Industrial Area 6.4 A significant portion of the application site is outside of the land in the Interim Plan as an existing industrial area and therefore in principle the development is contrary to plan policy. There could possibly be a case for allowing a variation to policy if there were not the issues with traffic generation and the suitability of the access and if the proposal were creating improvements to the safety of bridleway users, but this is not the case. Whilst Interim Plan Policy ED7 does not allow small scale developments next to existing settlements, this policy is not considered to be applicable in this case as the development is not considered to be small in scale (it should be noted that in any event the proposal would also have to accord with other planning policies).</p><p>Noise 6.5 The siting of the main service doors to the building on the south elevation could result in noise impacting on the amenity of residents to the south of the proposal. This could be dealt with by way of an “operating hours” and/or noise limitation condition.</p><p>Flood Risk 6.6 The site is in a medium flood risk area, but is (mostly) in a location that is an existing industrial area so the principle of development is, in flood risk terms, accepted.</p><p>Other Matters</p><p>Planning Committee Agenda - 24 July 2007 5 B/07/0127</p><p>6.7Matters relating to landscaping, surface and foul water disposal could be satisfactorily resolved by way of condition and are not of concern.</p><p>7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION</p><p>7.1 There are the following concerns with the development: a) It is thought that it would generate more traffic than the previous use which, given the poor quality of the access design and the presence of the bridleway, would be detrimental to highway safety. b) It is a substantial development part of which is not within the allocated area identified in the Adopted/Interim plans and there is no justification for this being outweighed as there are no significant mitigation proposals to reduce the impact of the development on bridleway users. c) The location of a parking manouvering area adjacent to the car park with no mitigation would be detrimental to the safety of bridleway users.</p><p>8.0 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE</p><p>1. It is considered that the application does not provide sufficient certainty that the nature and number of vehicle movements associated with the wide variety of users that could operate from the site under a general B2 and B8 consent could be accommodated at the existing access onto the heavily used and unrestricted A17 without causing significant harm to the safety of those using both the adjacent Public Bridleway and the A17. In particular, it is considered that drivers turning left into the access have only limited visibility of those using the Bridleway and vehicles departing both the application site and the adjacent boat repair yard and join the A17. Furthermore, the steep upward incline of the egress onto the A17 reduces significantly the ability of (in particular) Heavy Goods Vehicles to join the fast moving stream of traffic on the A17. The intensification in the number of vehicle movements that could potentially occur as a result of the grant of consent for this application, over and above that which the last use of the site could generate, would represent an unacceptable increase in the risk of conflict and accordingly approval of this application would be contrary to the interests of public safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policies G6, ED1, ED6 and Interim Plan Policy G1.</p><p>2. The proposal involves the development of land in the countryside as identified in the Adopted Local Plan and the Interim Plan and is therefore contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policy ED6 and ED7 and Interim Plan Policy CO1.</p><p>3. The siting and layout of the parking and manoeuvring area adjacent to the bridleway makes no provision for mitigation to reduce the potential for conflict between the users of the area or the bridleway. The proposal is therefore contrary to Adopted Plan Policy G1 and Interim Plan Policy R8 and G1.</p><p>Planning Committee Agenda - 24 July 2007 6 B/07/0127</p><p>Nick Harding Planning Services Manager</p><p>Planning Committee Agenda - 24 July 2007 7</p>