1

AGENDA ITEM

Development Control Committee 23 June 2009

PWM1 S09/0456/MJNF Target Decision Date: 17-Jun-2009

Applicant Colsterworth Trust Estate The Estate Office, Cringle Road, Stoke Rochford, Grantham, NG33 5EF

Agent Mr S T D Allam, Shouler & Son The Estate Office, Cringle Road, Stoke Rochford, Grantham, NG33 5EF

Proposal Change of use of disused pig farm to Class B8 (storage & distribution)

Location Cotswold Farm, Crabtree Road, Colsterworth, Grantham

App Type Major Full (Non-residential)

Parish(es) Skillington

REPORT Application Category This application is categorised as a major change of use application. Reason for Referral to Committee This application has been referred to the committee at the request of the Lead Professional and is a major application. The Proposal The proposal involves the change of use of a disused pig farm to B8 (storage and distribution). Approximately two thirds of the existing buildings would be demolished to create an open storage area. The remaining buildings would be retained. An area of hardstanding enclosed by security fencing is proposed towards the west of the site. The application site and its surroundings The application site is a former pig farm set in open countryside. There are a number of low rise disused piggery buildings on the western part of the site and a dirty water lagoon on the eastern part of the site. The site is 2.37 ha in area and is located approximately 1.5 km (approximately 1 mile) from the villages of Woolsthorpe by Colsterworth and Skillington. Access is from a C class road which joins the A1 at 1.4 km (0.8 mile) to the north east.

2

There are two dwellings which were formally occupied by employees of the pig farm immediately adjacent to the site. These dwellings are not part of the application site itself and are the subject of a separate application (S09/0463) which seeks to remove a condition requiring occupiers to be employed by the pig farm. The application site and the dwellings have a shared access to the highway. Site History WK.6504 – erection of pig breeding unit and two dwelling houses – approved 15 January 1973 SK.195/74 – reserved matters, erection of pig breeding unit - approved 04 July 1974 SK.460/74 – reserved matters, erection of two dwellinghouses – approved 06 August 1974 SK.991/74 – reserved matters, erection of two dwellinghouses and garages – approved 17 January 1975 SK.70/77 – additional pig housing – approved 20 Feb 1977 SK.524/77 – extension to pig house – approved 28 June 1977 SK.1053/77 – new access and lorry washdown facility – approved 18 December 1977 SK.1213/78 – siting of mobile home – refused 17 December 1978 SK.524/79 – siting of temporary mobile home – approved 21 June 1979 SK.416/82 – extension to farrowing house – approved 24 June 1982 SK.93/0364 – erection of piggery building – approved 04 June 1996 SK.96/1135 – dirty water lagoon – approved 07 January 1997 Representations Received Local Highway Authority: The County Highway Authority have stated that they require more information from the applicant before a formal response can be given. The information required is:

• Type of storage proposed

• Number of vehicles/HGV movements – estimated

• Where is the traffic proposed to go?

• An indication of the proposed route to be used for deliveries etc. The Highways Authority have indicated that if this information is not provided they would recommend refusal on the following grounds:

“All relevant information has not been provided to enable the highway authority to provide a substantive response”

The applicant was informed on 11 May 2009 of the Highways Authority’s requirement for more information. At the time of writing this report no further information had been received Community Archaeologist: The site does not affect any known archaeological sites.

3

Colsterworth & District Parish Council: Object on the following basis:

“The parish council has serious objections to this proposition, on safety and traffic impact issues which are contrary to national policy: i. The main problem is access to and from the site which is on a very minor road.

Access is via a lesser junction with the A1 or through village roads which are already stretched to cope with the extra traffic generated by the Stainby Landfill site.

ii. The design is out of character with the surrounding area and is obtrusive”. Representations as a result of publicity None at the time of writing. Policy Considerations

National Policy Advice Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) – Sustainable Development Planning Policy Guidance 4 (PPG4) – Industrial, commercial development and small firms Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7)– Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) – Transport East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 1 (criteria f & i): Regional Core Objectives Policy 3: Distribution of Development Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan Policy EN1: Protection and Enhancement of the Environment Policy EN2: Development in the countryside Policy E8: New Employment in open countryside Policy AG2: Reuse and adaptation of agricultural and other rural buildings

4

Key Issues Sustainability Visual impact on surrounding area Highway safety and increase in traffic on minor roads Impact on the residential amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties Officer Evaluation Sustainability

National Planning policy contained in PPS1, PPG4, PPS7 & PG13 as well as policies 1 & 3 of The East Midland Regional Plan, state that new employment development should wherever possible be located in sustainable locations i.e. easily accessible locations within or adjacent to settlements which are well served by public transport and other services, thereby reducing reliance on the motor car. The application site is currently agricultural (and therefore greenfield). Although PPS7 is generally supportive of farm diversification and reuse of existing rural buildings, where these are compatible with sustainability aims, the buildings are considered to be of no particular historic/architectural merit. Furthermore, the site is in a remote unsustainable location set in open countryside which is not close to any existing settlement and no special circumstances have been demonstrated which show that the proposal could not reasonably be located in a more sustainable location. There is no public transport, therefore employees would be dependent on the use of the motor car to access the site

Visual Impact Although the proposal involves the removal of some of the pig breeding buildings, it is considered that the proposed hardstanding, security fencing and storage of (unspecified) items in the open would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the surrounding open countryside. Highway Safety and Increase in Traffic At the time of writing this report, the applicant had not supplied any information on the level or type of traffic that the proposed use is likely to generate. However it is considered that the proposal is likely to result in a significant increase in traffic. The site’s remote location and the fact that there is no public transport means that employees would be dependent on the use of the motor car. This together with deliveries to and from the site would lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic to and from the site using inadequate narrow roads which are already heavily used by lorries accessing the Stainby landfill site to and from the A1. It is considered that the roads in the vicinity are inadequate to deal with the amount of extra traffic likely to be generated. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the sustainability aims of PPG13.

5

Neighbours’ Amenities It is considered that the proposal would lead to an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance to occupiers of the adjacent properties from traffic and activities within the site, who by virtue of the remote location, can reasonably expect to benefit from peace and quiet. Crime and Disorder Implications The application will not raise any significant issues. Human Rights Implications Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation. It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached. CASE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Refused for the following reason(s):

1. The proposed development is located on a greenfield site within open countryside which is accessed by minor roads, remote from any existing settlement and is not served by public transport. It is therefore considered that the development would be in an unsustainable location with all users of the site being dependent on private motor vehicles to access the site contrary to the sustainability aims of PPG 13 (Transport), PPS 1 (Sustainable Development), PPS 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas), PPG 4 (Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms, and policies 1 (criteria f, g & i), 2 and 3 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, and contrary to policies AG2, E8, and EN1(criteria iii, vi & vii) in the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

2. It is considered that the proposal would lead to an unacceptable increase in vehicle movements using inadequate roads to and from the site which would be detrimental to highway safety contrary to PPG 13 (Transport) and policies AG2, E8, and EN1(criterion vi) in the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

3. It is considered that the proposed security fencing, hardstanding and storage of items in the open would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding open countryside contrary to PPS 1 (Sustainable Development), PPS 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas), policy 2 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, and policies AG2, E8 (criterion iii), and EN1 in the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan

6

4. It is considered that the proposed use would result in an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance to nearby residents caused by vehicular movements to and from the site and activities within the site contrary to policies AG2, E8, and EN1(criterion vii) in the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

* * * * * *

7

RV1 S09/0826/FULL Target Decision Date: 04-Jun-2009

Applicant Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd c/o agent

Agent Mr A Astin, Indigo Planning Ltd 36, Park Row, Leeds, LS1 5JL

Proposal Variation of Condition 10 of planning permission S02/1188 to continue delivery hours as temporarily approved under S08/0709 :- 0600hrs - 23.30 hrs Monday-Saturday and 0830hrs - 1800 hrs on Sundays.

Location J Sainsbury Plc, Exeter Street, Bourne, PE109NJ

App Type Full Planning Permission

Parish(es) Bourne

REPORT

Application Category This application is categorised as a minor application. Reason for Referral to Committee This application was reported to the Development Control Committee on 2 June 2009. At the meeting Members were minded to refuse the application. In line with the Council’s procedures the application was deferred at 2 June 2009 meeting to enable Members time to put forward the reasons for refusal to the Council’s Lead Professional. The reasons put forward are outlined below: Cllr M Jalilli, Cllr S Jalilli, Cllr Williams, Cllr Higgs and Cllr Exton have put forward the following comments:

In relation to planning application RV1 (S09/0826/FULL) we confirm that we are minded to refuse this application on the following grounds:-

a. Previous applications S07/1338 allowed a temporary trial of extended opening hours for an increase in delivery times. The reasons for the temporary permission was to assess the impact on adjoining residential properties.

I believe that the surrounding residential units have worked with the supermarket and, in good faith, accepted their neighbour's original delivery hours. However, it has come to light that the extension of these hours would lead to an unacceptable level of noise and nuisance and a subsequent loss of residential amenity.

This would be contrary to Policy EN1 which believes that development proposals (vii) should avoid pollution of their surroundings by noise, toxic or offensive odour or by release of waste products.

b The argument that the requested extension would lead to only a marginal increase in loss of amenity is unacceptable. Residents are already suffering from a loss of amenity in the form of noise disturbance and nuisance which is adversely

8

affecting their life and that of their children, an increase in this is simply not acceptable.

c. We would also argue that there in an increased need for supermarkets to streamline supply and deliveries in order to reduce the burden on the environment by increasing delivery times.

d. In terms of the Human Rights Act we would say:

Article 8: guarantees the right of everyone to respect for private and family life, their home and their correspondence. Agreement for further increase in delivery hours would detract from this.

Under the Human Rights Act - Children's Section, the First Protocol, Article 1:

Article 1: Protection of Property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No-one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The proceeding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

We would contend that this covers the rights of the children living in the adjoining residential properties whose sleep and school-work would be adversely affected by the proposed extension.

The Proposal This is an application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the continuation of use of the Sainsbury’s food store without compliance with condition 10 of planning permission Ref: S02/1188, which states: ‘The delivery hours of the extended store shall be restricted to 06.30 hours to 22.30 hours Mondays to Saturdays, and 08.30 hours to 16.30 hours Sundays’. This current application seeks to change the store delivery times by an additional one and half hours each day. Mondays to Saturdays 06.00 to 23.30 and 08.30 to 18.00 hours on Sundays. These hours have been operating since January 2008 under a temporary permission S07/1338/12 which expired on the 15th July 2008 and renewed in August of last year under a temporary permission S08/0709/12 granted on the 14th August 2008 to enable the authority to revue the situation before considering making the extended hours permanent.

9

The application site and its surroundings The application site comprises a large food supermarket within a residential area to the west of Bourne Town Centre. The supermarket fronts Exeter Street and backs onto properties within Tarragon Way, Thyme Avenue, Aveland Close and Tin Lane. A customer car parking area lies to the south of the supermarket building with access off Exeter Street. The service area is located on the north side with access also off Exeter Street via a short service lane in shared use with a veterinary surgery. The service yard is gated, and enclosed with high brick walls. Residential properties lie close to the service yard boundary and directly opposite the service lane junction with Exeter Street. Site History 96/1069 - Outline application for erection of food store Approved. Condition 15 established delivery times as follows ‘Deliveries to and from the store shall not take place outside the hours of 06.30 to 22.30 Monday to Saturday and 08.30 to 16.30 on Sundays - Reason ‘In the Interests of the residential amenity of nearby residents’. S02/1188 - Extension to food-store Approved conditionally 19/03/2002. Condition No 10 required: ‘Deliveries to and from the store as extended shall not take place outside the hours of 0630 to 22.30 hours on Mondays to Saturdays, and 08.30 hours to 16.30 hours on Sundays’. S07/1338 - Variation of condition No 10 of S02/188 (Hours of delivery) Approved (temporary) 08/01/2008 expiring 15/07/2008 (06.00 to 23.30 hrs Monday to Saturday & 08.30 to 18.00 hrs Sunday). The reason for granting permission on a temporary basis was to enable an assessment of the impact of the earlier/later opening times upon the neighbouring residential community. S08/0709 - Variation of condition No 10 of S02/1188/12 (Hours of delivery)(Extension of temporary permission) Approved 14/08/2008 (06.00 to 23.30 hrs Monday to Saturday & 08.30 to 18.00 hrs Sunday). This permission expired on the 17th February 2009. S09/0152 - Variation of condition 9 of planning permission S02/1188/12 Approved conditionally 17th February 2009 to extend the opening hours by 1 hour, Mondays - Saturdays only. S09/0295 - Variation of condition 10 of planning permission S02/1188 to continue the delivery hours as temporarily approved under planning permission S08/0709 06.00 hrs to 23.30 hrs. Monday to Saturday and 08.30 hrs to 1800 hrs on Sundays. Not determined therefore deemed refused and is now subject of an appeal. The Inspector has been advised of Members resolution on the 21 April 2009 that if they did have jurisdiction over the application they would have been minded to refuse the application for the following reason: “It is considered that the delivery vehicles will create noise pollution that would have a significant adverse impact on amenity for an additional 20% of the time on a Sunday and approximately 10% during the week day hours. These additional hours would be during

10

the considered quite hours when the majority of residents would be asleep and that this is contrary to Saved Policy EN1 (vii) of the South Kesteven Local Plan.” Representations Received Lincolnshire County Council Highways Division do not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to condition regarding Service Yard Management Plan. The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has commented as follows :-

1. BS4142 is a method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas and is used to assess the likelihood of complaints from local residents. The revised report has shown that noise levels over background in the garden of 3 Tarragon Way when the lorry is positioned in the loading area on a Sunday between 16.30 and 18.00 it can be considered under BS4142 that “complaints are likely” taking a worst case noise levels. This relates to the garden only and not inside the house where “reasonable levels” are achieved with the windows open.

2. It is understood that there are currently 8 deliveries over the course of a Sunday and that this number is not an increase, but gives the ability for deliveries to spread further throughout the day. There have been no complaints from householders during the trial period even though the likelihood of complaints according to the assessment showed that complaints would be likely from this particular address.

3. The applicant has also now submitted a Service Yard Management Plan, with a delivery schedule which includes no more then 2 deliveries between the hours of 16:30 to 18:00 on Sundays. This additional control will assist in mitigating any disturbance, which maybe experienced during these hours in the garden of 3 Tarragon Way when the lorry is positioned in the loading bay area.

Community Archaeologist: No known affect. Bourne Town Council: Objects as the proposal could cause excessive noise nuisance to local residents. Although SKDC were monitoring sound levels no report has been received by Bourne Town Council and the Committee feels that Sainsbury’s should keep to condition 10 of planning permission S02/1188. Representations as a result of publicity The application has been advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement. Three letters of objection have being received and the comments are summarised below: 1. Noise nuisance beyond the hours of restriction as work continues in the yard after

the last delivery vehicle has gone. 2. Trucks arrive early and leave engines running as well as ringing bell to be let in. 3. Disturbance in summer months to peaceful enjoyment of garden including loud and

abusive language.

11

4. Tesco’s in Market Deeping are only 7am to 9pm for deliveries why can’t this be applied to this application?

5. Better organisation would lead to greater harmony between residents and the store. 6. Not convinced the Service Management Plan will work as it would be difficult to

implement.

Policy Considerations National Policy PPS1 Sustainable Development PPS6 Town Centres PPG13 Transport PPG24 Noise Saved Policies of South Kesteven Local Plan Policy EN1 Policy EN1 states that: The visual quality and amenity of the built and countryside environments of the plan area will be conserved and enhanced, development proposals should (vii) avoid pollution of their surroundings by noise, toxic or offensive odour or by release of waste products. Key Issues The key issue is whether the proposed extension of the current hours of delivery would be acceptable or whether this would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring residential property arising from noise and disturbance and an increase in issues relating to highway. Officer Evaluation Permission was granted on the 8th January 2008 and further extended on the 14th August 2008 for a temporary period in order to enable the LPA to monitor and assess the impact of the extended opening hours upon the amenity of residents throughout the surrounding area. The key issue is whether the proposed permanent retention of the approved temporary hours for deliveries would be acceptable or whether this would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring residential property arising from noise and disturbance. Issues relating to highway safety and light pollution were fully considered in the context of 07/1338 and were considered neither to compromise road safety nor to result in unacceptable levels of light pollution as might arise from vehicular activity.

12

From the date of grant of the original temporary permission on the 8th January 2008 and throughout the monitoring period until registration of the current application, the Council received representations from two residential addresses in Exeter Street concerning food store operations, although it is understood that some other representations may have been made to the store directly. One instance was recorded of disturbance arising from early morning delivery and a separate instance of breach of condition in respect of the hours of operation was reported. Concerns were expressed generally in respect of the potential for nuisance to arise from vehicles waiting outside the site entrance with secondary engines running to maintain refrigeration. However this would seem to be an ongoing issue irrespective of delivery times. Representations received during the determination of this application relate substantially to noise and disturbance. The noise survey submitted with the application, which uses appropriate noise modelling methodology demonstrates that noise generation resulting from delivery vehicles and associated loading and unloading operations does not breach environmental health standards in respect of noise pollution and consequently should not unacceptably compromise neighbour amenity. Notwithstanding this submission it is considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring submission of and adherence to a Delivery Management Plan that would seek to manage delivery times and encourage low impact delivery routing in order to dilute disturbance. The proposed extended delivery times are only marginally different to those imposed by the LPA in respect of the original grant of consent in 1996 for re-development of the site. Furthermore, the issues surrounding this application were considered in the context of Ref: 07/1338 and 08/0709 and the delivery times agreed by the Council, albeit on a temporary basis. During both the 1 year monitoring period and the publicity period for this application, there has been one complaint to the Council’s Environmental Health Department and representations received have raised issues outside of the scope of this application such as problems associated with vehicles parking, reversing or causing traffic congestion during the course of the working day or to side issues such as litter associated with the day to day running of the store. The previous application S09/0295 was deferred at the meeting of the 31st March 2009 as Committee were minded to refuse the application and therefore a draft reason was required. In the intervening period an appeal against none determination was lodged by the applicants, the application was therefore deemed refused and the authority could take no further action. This was reported to the meeting held on the 21st April where it was agreed that the Inspector be informed that had a formal decision been taken Committee would have been minded to refuse the application. The applicants in there current applications have added further information regarding management of the delivery yard in an attempt to address the concerns of the Committee and following further discussions with the Environmental Protection Officer is felt that in this instance grant of permission to extend the delivery times would enable the Local Planning Authority to address local residents concerns through the imposition of appropriate conditions. It is considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the application would accord with the provisions of the development plan. The applicants have also suggested the following two conditions:

13

1. There shall be no more than one delivery to the store between the hours of 0600 and 0630 Monday to Saturday, and no more than two deliveries between the hours of 2230 and 2330 Monday to Saturday, and 1630 and 1800 on Sundays.

2. Outside of the store delivery hours hereby approved, there shall be no movement of roll cages or pallet trucks within the service yard in accordance with the Service Yard Management Plan received 1 June 2009.

Given the concern expressed by local residents and Members of the Development Control Committee at the meeting on 2 June 2009 it is recommended that the 2nd of the additional conditions be attached to any consent to provide the Council with further control over the use of the service yard to the store in the interests of protecting residential amenity. The 1st condition proposed is not considered necessary as this would be controlled under proposed condition 5 which requires the development to be operated in strict accordance with the submitted service yard management plan. Crime and Disorder Implications It is considered that the proposed development will not have any significant or detrimental crime and disorder implications. Human Rights Implications Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation. It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached. Conclusion That subject to a satisfactory noise assessment report being received the development is considered acceptable. Recommendation That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL The proposal is in accordance with National Policy PPS1, PPS6, PPG13 and PPG24 and Saved Policy EN1 (vii) of the South Kesteven Local Plan. The issues relating to impact upon the character of the area, residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers and road safety as considered as follows: The proposed extended delivery hours are only marginally different from those imposed by the local planning authority in respect of the original grant of consent in 1996 for re-

14

development of the site and imposed on the approval for the extension to the store in 2003. There should be no further highway implications as the existing car parking for the store is adequate and requirements for parking are reduced at the time of day the additional delivery hours are requested. The noise and disturbance to existing neighbouring residential property would only be marginally different to that which exists under the originally approved delivery hours. In view of the limited number of complaints during the temporary trial period for the proposed extended delivery times it would appear that the overall impact on the amenities on residential properties around the site will be minimal. In this instance grant of permission to extend the delivery times would appear acceptable. It is considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the application would accord with the provisions of the development plan. Therefore the considerations are not sufficient to indicate against the proposals and outweigh the policies referred to above.

CASE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The area shown on the plan accompanying the original application (S02/1188), to which this application relates shall be reserved for the parking of vehicles or be available for vehicle parking at all times when the premises are in use. Reason: The local highway authority so requests in the interests of safety and convenience of traffic using the adjacent road.

3. The opening hours shall be restricted to 0800 hours to 2100 hours Mondays to Saturdays, and 1000 hours to 1600 hours on Sundays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential property.

4. Deliveries to and from the store as extended shall not take place outside the hours of 0600 to 2330 hours on Mondays to Saturdays, and 0830 hours to 1800 hours on Sundays. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential property.

15

5. Delivery and service yard activities at the store shall be operated in strict accordance with the Service Yard Management Plan received on the 1 June 2009, in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the district planning authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential property.

6. Outside of the store delivery hours hereby approved, there shall be no movement of roll cages or pallet trucks within the service yard in accordance with the Service Yard Management Plan received 1 June 2009.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential property.

* * * * * *

16

RV2 S09/0828/FULL Target Decision Date: 04-Jun-2009

Applicant Sainsbury's Supermarket c/o agent

Agent Mr A Astin, Indigo Planning Ltd 36, Park Row, Leeds, LS1 5JL

Proposal Continue delivery hours without compliance with condition 16 of planning permission SK96/1069 . Change hours from 06.30 - 22.30 Mondays to Saturdays and 08.30 - 16.30 hours on Sundays to 06.00 - 23.30 Monday to Saturday and 08.30 - 18.00 on Sundays.

Location J Sainsbury Plc, Exeter Street, Bourne, PE109NJ

App Type Full Planning Permission

Parish(es) Bourne

REPORT Application Category This application is categorised as a minor application. Reason for Referral to Committee This application has been referred to the development Control Committee as the site has been subject to previous committee consideration. The Proposal This is an application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the continuation of use of the Sainsbury’s food store without compliance with condition 16 of planning permission Ref: SK.96/1069, which states: ‘The delivery hours of the store shall be restricted to 06.30 hours to 22.30 hours Mondays to Saturdays, and 08.30 hours to 16.30 hours Sundays’. This current application seeks to change the store delivery times by an additional one and half hours each day. Mondays to Saturdays 06.00 to 23.30 and 08.30 to 18.00 hours on Sundays. These hours have been operating since January 2008 under a temporary permission S07/1338/12 which expired on the 15th July 2008 and renewed in August of last year under a temporary permission S08/0709/12 granted on the 14th August 2008 to enable the authority to revue the situation before considering making the extended hours permanent. The application site and its surroundings The application site comprises a large food supermarket within a residential area to the west of Bourne Town Centre. The supermarket fronts Exeter Street and backs onto

17

properties within Tarragon Way, Thyme Avenue, Aveland Close and Tin Lane. A customer car parking area lies to the south of the supermarket building with access off Exeter Street. The service area is located on the north side with access also off Exeter Street via a short service lane in shared use with a veterinary surgery. The service yard is gated, and enclosed with high brick walls. Residential properties lie close to the service yard boundary and directly opposite the service lane junction with Exeter Street. Site History 96/1069 - Outline application for erection of food store Approved. Condition 15 established delivery times as follows ‘Deliveries to and from the store shall not take place outside the hours of 06.30 to 22.30 Monday to Saturday and 08.30 to 16.30 on Sundays - Reason ‘In the Interests of the residential amenity of nearby residents’. S02/1188 - Extension to food-store Approved conditionally 19/03/2002. Condition No 10 required: ‘Deliveries to and from the store as extended shall not take place outside the hours of 0630 to 22.30 hours on Mondays to Saturdays, and 08.30 hours to 16.30 hours on Sundays’. S07/1338 - Variation of condition No 10 of S02/188 (Hours of delivery) Approved (temporary) 08/01/2008 expiring 15/07/2008 (06.00 to 23.30 hrs Monday to Saturday & 08.30 to 18.00 hrs Sunday). The reason for granting permission on a temporary basis was to enable an assessment of the impact of the earlier/later opening times upon the neighbouring residential community. S08/0709 - Variation of condition No10 of S02/1188/12 (Hours of delivery)(Extension of temporary permission) Approved 14/08/2008 (06.00 to 23.30 hrs Monday to Saturday & 08.30 to 18.00 hrs Sunday). This permission expired on the 17th February 2009. S09/0152 - Variation of condition 9 of planning permission S02/1188/12 Approved conditionally 17th February 2009 to extend the opening hours by 1 hour, Mondays - Saturdays only. S09/0295 - Variation of condition 10 of planning permission S02/1188 to continue the delivery hours as temporarily approved under planning permission S08/0709 06.00 hrs to 23.30 hrs. Monday to Saturday and 08.30 hrs to 1800 hrs on Sundays. Not determined therefore deemed refused and is now subject of an appeal. The Inspector has been advised of Members resolution on the 21 April 2009 that if they did have jurisdiction over the application they would have been minded to refuse the application for the following reason: “It is considered that the delivery vehicles will create noise pollution that would have a significant adverse impact on amenity for an additional 20% of the time on a Sunday and approximately 10% during the week day hours. These additional hours would be during the considered quite hours when the majority of residents would be asleep and that this is contrary to Saved Policy EN1 (vii) of the South Kesteven Local Plan.”

18

Representations Received Lincolnshire County Council Highways Division do not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to condition regarding Service Yard Management Plan. The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has commented as follows :- 1. BS4142 is a method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas and is used to assess the likelihood of complaints from local residents. The revised report has shown that noise levels over background in the garden of 3 Tarragon Way when the lorry is positioned in the loading area on a Sunday between 16.30 and 18.00 it can be considered under BS4142 that “complaints are likely” taking a worst case noise levels. This relates to the garden only and not inside the house where “ reasonable levels” are achieved with the windows open. 2. It is understood that there are currently 8 deliveries over the course of a Sunday and that this number is not an increase, but gives the ability for deliveries to spread further throughout the day. There have been no complaints from householders during the trial period even though the likelihood of complaints according to the assessment showed that complaints would be likely from this particular address. 3. The applicant has also now submitted a Service Yard Management Plan, with a delivery schedule which includes no more then 2 deliveries between the hours of 16:30 to 18:00 on Sundays. This additional control will assist in mitigating any disturbance, which maybe experienced during these hours in the garden of 3 Tarragon Way when the lorry is positioned in the loading bay area. Community Archaeologist: No known affect. Bourne Town Council - Objects as the proposal could cause excessive noise nuisance to local residents. Although SKDC were monitoring sound levels no report has been received by Bourne Town Council and the Committee feels that Sainsbury’s should keep to condition 16 of planning permission SK96/1069. Representations as a result of publicity The application has been advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement. The application has had to be re-advertised due to an inaccurate description on the original site notice. The revised consultation period ends on 23 June 2009. Three letters of objection have currently being received any additional comments will be reported in the late background papers document. The comments received are summarised below: 1. Noise nuisance beyond the hours of restriction as work continues in the yard after

the last delivery vehicle has gone. 2. Trucks arrive early and leave engines running as well as ringing bell to be let in. 3. Disturbance in summer months to peaceful enjoyment of garden including loud and

abusive language. 4. Tescos in Market Deeping are only 7am to 9pm for deliveries why can’t this be

applied to this application?

19

5. Better organisation would lead to greater harmony between residents and the store. 6. Not convinced the Service Management Plan will work as it would be difficult to

implement. Policy Considerations National Policy PPS1 Sustainable Development PPS6 Town Centres PPG13 Transport PPG24 Noise Saved Policies of South Kesteven Local Plan Policy EN1 Policy EN1 states that: The visual quality and amenity of the built and countryside environments of the plan area will be conserved and enhanced, development proposals should (vii) avoid pollution of their surroundings by noise, toxic or offensive odour or by release of waste products. Key Issues The key issue is whether the proposed extension of the current hours of delivery would be acceptable or whether this would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring residential property arising from noise and disturbance and an increase in issues relating to highway. Officer Evaluation Permission was granted on the 8th January 2008 and further extended on the 14th August 2008 for a temporary period in order to enable the LPA to monitor and assess the impact of the extended opening hours upon the amenity of residents throughout the surrounding area. The key issue is whether the proposed permanent retention of the approved temporary hours for deliveries would be acceptable or whether this would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring residential property arising from noise and disturbance. Issues relating to highway safety and light pollution were fully considered in the context of 07/1338 and were considered neither to compromise road safety nor to result in unacceptable levels of light pollution as might arise from vehicular activity.

20

From the date of grant of the original temporary permission on the 8th January 2008 and throughout the monitoring period until registration of the current application, the Council received representations from two residential addresses in Exeter Street concerning food store operations, although it is understood that some other representations may have been made to the store directly. One instance was recorded of disturbance arising from early morning delivery and a separate instance of breach of condition in respect of the hours of operation was reported. Concerns were expressed generally in respect of the potential for nuisance to arise from vehicles waiting outside the site entrance with secondary engines running to maintain refrigeration. However this would seem to be an ongoing issue irrespective of delivery times. Representations received during the determination of this application relate substantially to noise and disturbance. The noise survey submitted with the application, which uses appropriate noise modelling methodology demonstrates that noise generation resulting from delivery vehicles and associated loading and unloading operations does not breach environmental health standards in respect of noise pollution and consequently should not unacceptably compromise neighbour amenity. Notwithstanding this submission it is considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring submission of and adherence to a Delivery Management Plan that would seek to manage delivery times and encourage low impact delivery routing in order to dilute disturbance. The proposed extended delivery times are only marginally different to those imposed by the LPA in respect of the original grant of consent in 1996 for re-development of the site. Furthermore, the issues surrounding this application were considered in the context of Ref: 07/1338 and 08/0709 and the delivery times agreed by the Council, albeit on a temporary basis. During both the 1 year monitoring period and the publicity period for this application, there has been one complaint to the Council’s Environmental Health Department and representations received have raised issues outside of the scope of this application such as problems associated with vehicles parking, reversing or causing traffic congestion during the course of the working day or to side issues such as litter associated with the day to day running of the store. The previous application S09/0295 was deferred at the meeting of the 31st March 2009 as Committee were minded to refuse the application and therefore a draft reason was required. In the intervening period an appeal against none determination was lodged by the applicants, the application was therefore deemed refused and the authority could take no further action. This was reported to the meeting held on the 21st April where it was agreed that the Inspector be informed that had a formal decision been taken Committee would have been minded to refuse the application. The applicants in there current applications have added further information regarding management of the delivery yard in an attempt to address the concerns of the Committee and following further discussions with the Environmental Protection Officer is felt that in this instance grant of permission to extend the delivery times would enable the Local Planning Authority to address local residents concerns through the imposition of appropriate conditions. It is considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the application would accord with the provisions of the development plan. The applicants have also suggested the following two conditions:

21

There shall be no more than one delivery to the store between the hours of 0600 and 0630 Monday to Saturday, and no more than two deliveries between the hours of 2230 and 2330 Monday to Saturday, and 1630 and 1800 on Sundays. Outside of the store delivery hours hereby approved, there shall be no movement of roll cages or pallet trucks within the service yard in accordance with the Service Yard Management Plan received 1 June 2009.

Given the concern expressed by local residents and Members of the Development Control Committee at the meeting on 2 June 2009 it is recommended that the 2nd of the additional conditions be attached to any consent to provide the Council with further control over the use of the service yard to the store in the interests of protecting residential amenity. The 1st condition proposed is not considered necessary as this would be controlled under proposed condition 5 which requires the development to be operated in strict accordance with the submitted service yard management plan.

Crime and Disorder Implications It is considered that the proposed development will not have any significant or detrimental crime and disorder implications. Human Rights Implications Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation. It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached. Conclusion That subject to a satisfactory noise assessment report being received the development is considered acceptable.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL The proposal is in accordance with National Policy PPS1, PPS6, PPG13 and PPG24 and Saved Policy EN1 (vii) of the South Kesteven Local Plan. The issues relating to impact upon the character of the area, residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers and road safety was considered as follows: The proposed extended delivery hours are only marginally different from those imposed by the local planning authority in respect of the original grant of consent in 1996 for re-development of the site and imposed on the approval for the extension to the store in 2003. There should be no further highway implications as the existing car parking for the store is

22

adequate and requirements for parking are reduced at the time of day the additional delivery hours are requested. The noise and disturbance to existing neighbouring residential property would only be marginally different to that which exists under the originally approved delivery hours. In view of the limited number of complaints during the temporary trail period for the proposed extended delivery times it would appear that the overall impact on the amenities on residential properties around the site will be minimal. In this instance grant of permission to extend the delivery times would appear acceptable. It is considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the application would accord with the provisions of the development plan. Therefore the considerations are not sufficient to indicate against the proposals and outweigh the policies referred to above.

CASE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The area shown on the plan accompanying the original application (S02/1188), to which this application relates shall be reserved for the parking of vehicles or be available for vehicle parking at all times when the premises are in use.

Reason: The local highway authority so requests in the interests of safety and convenience of traffic using the adjacent road.

3. The opening hours shall be restricted to 0800 hours to 2100 hours Mondays to Saturdays, and 1000 hours to 1600 hours on Sundays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential property.

4. Deliveries to and from the store as extended shall not take place outside the hours of 0600 to 2330 hours on Mondays to Saturdays, and 0830 hours to 1800 hours on Sundays. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential property.

5. Delivery and service yard activities at the store shall be operated in strict accordance with the Service Yard Management Plan received on the 1 June 2009, in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the district planning authority.

23

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential property.

6. Outside of the store delivery hours hereby approved, there shall be no movement of roll cages or pallet trucks within the service yard in accordance with the Service Yard Management Plan received 1 June 2009.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential property.

Note(s) to Applicant:

1. This site is within 50m of a Land Contamination Concern. Please contact Environmental Protection Services on 01476 406300 for further information.

* * * * * *

24

KJC1 S09/0429/MJRR Target Decision Date: 17-Jun-2009

Applicant Mr Stephen Fisher, William Davis Ltd Forest Field, Forest Road, Loughborough, Leics, LE11 3NS

Agent Mr Colin Smith, Stephen George & Partners 55, Maid Marion Way, Nottingham, NG1 6GE

Proposal Approval of Reserved Matters in relation to Outline Planning Permission S06/0552 Residential Development

Location Former Kwiksave Site, East Street, Grantham

App Type Major RM (Residential)

Parish(es) Grantham

REPORT Application Category The application is a Major Approval of Reserved Matters Reasons for Referral to Committee Wider Impact on this area of Grantham The Proposal This application relates to the erection of 53 residential units pursuant to outline planning permission S06/0552. The development comprises a mix of house types constructed using a variety of materials and is designed to match the scale and massing of the existing neighbouring properties. The entire site is to be provided for affordable housing. All plots are being developed with the assistance of the Homes and Community Agency funding and the construction and management of the units would comply with their funding requirements. The scheme was amended in line with comments received from the conservation officer and street cleansing section (in relation to the bin storage and access for refuse lorries). The application site and its Surroundings This large rectangular site is located to the east side of Castlegate, north side of East Street and the west side of Agnes Street and adjoins the Grantham Conservation Area. The site area is approximately 0.71 hectares. The site formerly contained the Kwiksave supermarket and associated car park which has now been cleared.

25

The site is now vacant and fenced-off. There is a significant change in level between Castlegate and East Street which is expressed on site as a 2.5 metre retaining wall running north-south down the site in line with the garages adjacent to 7, East Street.. The site is surrounded by a variety of uses, as follows:

• North – Agnes Street and the Grantham College.

• East – Agnes Street small scale residential properties.

• South – East Street which gently slopes from Castlegate to Agnes Street and contains a mix of residential properties, vehicle garage uses and offices.

• West – Castlegate a mix of retail units and offices with some residential uses above. In addition to these there remains a public house and some residential properties to the southwest corner of the site, fronting Castlegate and East Street. The north-eastern corner of the site has an electricity sub-station. The site is within easy walking distance of the town centre. Representations Received Planning Policy:

The principle of residential development on the site has already been established through the grant of outline planning permission S06/0522. There is therefore no policy objection to a purely affordable housing scheme on this site, which falls within the built up area of Grantham and would make use of a derelict/vacant area of land (saved local plan policy EN1 (v) subject to the remaining requirements of the policy EN1 being met.

Grantham Civic Society

We feel that a very important opportunity is being missed here to create a flagship development of high architectural quality on the first site to be developed under the Grantham Growth Point proposals. We do not feel that these proposals have sufficient strength of character and set a low standard of architectural design for subsequent schemes to follow. Whilst we accept that the scale of the proposed Castlegate elevations are probably appropriate at the south (town centre) end they are a storey too high at the other end where they abut the relatively low Victorian two-storey scale of Elysian Terrace and we feel that the proposed buildings should be reduced by a storey in height at that end. We feel that the three storey blocks on East Street will mostly dominate the smaller scale existing buildings on the other side of the road. We also feel that the attempt to produce a mock Georgian elevation for the new block facing Castlegate is a mistake. It will look a bad pastiche and have none of the simple quality and grace of the Georgian architecture of its neighbours because

26

of, for example, the coarseness of glazing bars usually required in modern double glazed windows. The use of artificial slate for the roofs on this elevation also seems unfortunate when the existing buildings in the adjacent Conservation Area are mostly roofed with natural slate or clay pantiles. The idea of introducing an elaborate “Victorian” metal arch into the opening through to the parking area behind seems bizarre when the elevation is trying to look Georgian anyway. We feel that a simple brick arch would be far preferable, as for example on the George Centre on High Street. We also feel that the introduction of the separating lower staircase blocks between the main blocks on the Castlegate front is regrettable and gives the elevation a choppy, restless feel at odds with the calm simplicity of the existing Georgian terrace opposite. We note that the proposal wishes to pick up on the surrounding Victorian architecture. However the architectural quality of the rest of the development is bland in our view and could easily be mistaken for any of the large soulless housing developments of thirty or more years ago such as The Meadows or St Annes in Nottingham. The porches on the fronts of most dwellings have an inconsequential look. The Victorians would have given them some character by adding a pitched roof rather than a lean-to one. We also feel that positioning parking spaces in front of some of the East Street dwellings, rather than concealed to the rear, is unfortunate. In general we feel that the gaps between the buildings on the East Street frontage are too wide. A fuller street frontage at the expense of reducing the height of some of the three storey blocks would be preferable in our view. Drawing 8648/PA01 shows much tree planting on the site (we counted 70 or so trees) but the landscape drawing (GR/LS/01) seems to reduce these down to only about twenty trees. The site would benefit from planting as many trees as possible. Finally, although we note the use of solar panels on the roofs there seems to have been little else done to improve the ecological credentials of this development with no mention made of grey water collection and rainwater harvesting. This latter is not expensive and is widely used in several European countries. The Government has, after all, set standards for ecological improvement and carbon reduction and SKDC should be leading the way in achieving these standards. Forward looking developments in other countries make use of automatic disposal and single point collection of rubbish. If these methods, by disposal chutes, were designed into the blocks of apartments at least then residents would not have to cart their rubbish down flights of stairs and there would be less need for bin stores for each household. There would appear to be plenty of room near the substation for combined waste collection from the East Street dwellings. In short this development, close to the heart of the medieval town and on the edge of the Conservation Area could represent an exciting flagship project to bring national notice to the aspirations of Grantham in pursuing our Grantham Growth Point agenda. This scheme completely misses the opportunity to do this.

27

Acting Principal Conservation Officer:

Whilst the application site does not lie within the Grantham Conservation Area the boundary does run down the middle of Castlegate so it is adjacent and will have an impact on its character and appearance. Furthermore, several notable listed buildings are located on the eastern side of Castlegate, opposite the site and their setting will be affected by the proposed development on plots 36-59. The remainder of the site is at a much lower level than Castlegate and development there will not, in my opinion, impact significantly on the Conservation Area, although it is acknowledged that some views of St Wulfram’s that were created by clearance of the site will again be lost but these were non-existent with the building that previously occupied the site and with this scheme at least some glimpsed views will remain. The submitted drawings show three blocks of three-storey elements with accommodation in the roofspace and linked by three-storey enclosed staircases. Each element is set back from that adjoining as one progresses northwards. The elevational treatments of the southernmost and central block appear to be attempting a Neo-Georgian appearance but the proportions are all wrong and I suspect the windows will not be genuine wooden, vertical sliding sashes. If we are to have Georgian pastiche here it needs to be done correctly. If they are to be the usual top-hung UPVC type they would be best avoided. Whilst dormers are preferable to rooflights, as proposed for the rear, those shown have mean flat roofs. Aesthetically, they would be improved by having pitched roofs, either gabled or hipped (or both), in accordance with the prevailing style for this area. The archway through to the car park at the rear is excessively high and, unless absolutely necessary to meet highway authority requirements, it should be reduced to a height more appropriate for such openings. The siting of the bin and cycle store for these plots is unfortunate as they will be prominent in views through the opening. Consideration should be given to these being repositioned to allow an uninterrupted view through the opening and across the lower part of the site and beyond. Whilst a benefit of the set back means 62 Castlegate, the distinctive house immediately to the north with its angled projecting two-storey bay, remains prominent in the streetscene, it does result in a disjointed plan form that does not reflect the prevailing back-edge-of-the-footpath positioning of the type of buildings the development purports to reflect. When the 1960’s Fine Fare, latterly Kwiksave, store was demolished it presented a welcome opportunity to improve the streetscene of Castlegate and provide an attractive visual-stop at the eastern end of Finkin Street, a direct, narrow thoroughfare lined by several important listed buildings that connects Castlegate with High Street.

28

In views west along Finkin Street the George Hotel provides the visual stop and it is important, in my opinion, that something of similar architectural merit is provided for eastward views. However, what is proposed at present is blank and uninteresting and improves little on the unfortunate supermarket that previously occupied the site. An opportunity to enhance views and the setting of the listed buildings will have been lost if the scheme is approved in its current form. Chimneys are no longer a necessity for new housing but they remain important townscape features and dwellings appear unfinished without them. I would advise that all the buildings fronting Castlegate, and some of those on the remainder of the site, should incorporate chimneys. In conclusion, I would recommend that that part of the development fronting Castlegate needs to be reconsidered with a view to achieving a design that enhances the streetscene of this edge of Conservation Area location and also enhances the setting of nearby listed buildings.

The conservation officer has verbally confirmed that the amended plans address the concerns previously made. Formal comments will be reported in the late items paper. Architectural Liaison Officer:

I refer to your recent correspondence relating to the above. I have studies the said plans and as this application is being developed to Code 3 Sustainable Homes I would request that due regard be given to the following points in the interest of crime reduction and community safety – standard required for ‘Secured by Design’ accreditation. Perimeter The proposed perimeter fencing detail of all plots should be of an 1800 mm close-boarded construction with the rails of the fence facing the properties. Sub divisional boundaries should be secured and at the same time enable interaction between neighbours. A suitable means to achieve this will be: for the first section of the boundary starting from the building provide a 1800 mm timber privacy screen. From the privacy screen to the end of the garden provide a 1200 mm timber fence topped with 600 mm of timber trellis. Nb the trellis will help to deter climbing and all of the boundary can be made more secure by using it as a framework to carry deterrent planting e.g. (thorny shrubs) which if required can be planted by the occupier. This will prevent through criminal access. All gates to be erected should have anti-lift hinges and will need to be erected as close to the front elevation of the properties or garages as possible. A surface mounted rim latch lock latch should be fitted to all such gates. Landscaping

29

Any landscaping should be kept to a maximum growth height of 1 metre. Whilst any trees should be pruned up to a minimum height of 2 metres, thereby maintaining a clear field of vision around the development. Trees when fully grown should not mask any lighting columns or become climbing aids. Lighting Lighting should be designed to cover all external doors and be controlled by photoelectric cell, a time switch or passive infrared detector. The use of low consumption lamps is recommended with units positioned to reduce glare, light pollution and possible attack. There is also a requirement to erect lighting units in the parking areas – plots 1-13 off Castlegate, 32-35 off East Street, 1-4 off Agnes Street details of which should be submitted to and approved by the local authority prior to the occupation of the development. Physical Security External doors The secured by design requirement for external doors of the single dwellings is PAS 24.1 (doors of an enhanced Security). This will also be the required standard for the communal entrance doors to the apartments and the apartment doors on the ground level. A door chain or limiter together with a door viewer at a maximum height of 1500 mm, although a door viewer will not be required if adjacent glazing is non-obscured laminated glass. If a letterbox is to be fitted it should comply with BS 2911 and be fitted a minimum of 400 mm from the door locks. Access Control Where a common entrance serves four or more apartments the doors must incorporate an access control system, with an electronic lock release and entry phone linked to the apartments. Windows All windows at ground floor and those that are easily accessible above ground floor must conform to improved security standard BS7950. Intruder Alarms A 13 amp non-switched fused spur should be installed in a central position (hall) to provide the facility for the resident to have installed an intruder alarm system.

30

Public Open Space Careful consideration should be given to reduce the opportunities for any criminal activity within this area. This may be achieved by selective planting especially in the area that has little or no natural surveillance from any habitable rooms. Crime prevention advice is given free without the intention of creating a contract. Neither the Home Officer nor the Police Service takes any legal responsibility for the advice given. However, if the advice is implemented it will reduce the opportunity for crimes to be committed.

Community Archaeologist: The submitted details are acceptable in relation to archaeological considerations. Partnership and Projects Officer:

I can confirm that Messrs William Davies and Derwent Living Housing Association are working in partnership to develop the site with 100% affordable housing. Fordhams Housing Needs Survey published February 2006 highlights the need for 646 affordable units to be developed within the South Kesteven area, and for Grantham 240 units. The proposal is to provide a mix of apartments and houses to match local housing needs. Discussions have also included the potential to adapt the ground floor apartments for people with special needs who will be able to access the town centre and support services within easy reach. Derwent Living Housing Association are one of the district councils preferred Registered Social Landlord partners.

Lincolnshire County Council:

Thank you for your letter dated 20 April, together with associated plans. As this submission is concurrent with the Planning Application reference S09/0429 I am keeping them informed of progress. Since last we discussed the proposals, the Lincolnshire County Council’s Development Road Specification and Construction (LCCDRS) has been updated, and reference should be made to that document. Your scheme drawings however, are acceptable in principle subject to the following observations and/or comments. At submission of formal detail for Section 38 purposes, I shall need to see copies of Anglian Water and if applicable, Environment Agency approvals of sewers and storage detail.

31

A Ground Investigation Report in accordance with the LCCDRS will need to be provided. I note you have provided a typical section for the road construction. This may be subject to confirmation and/or change based upon the report. You are already taking steps to procure a street lighting design. Gary Fereday, the County Council’s street lighting engineer for the area can advise. He can be contacted on 01522 782070. The Council do offer a design service. However, you may use your own consultant for such design and this will ultimately be checked by Gary and his team. The footway on East Street I note is proposed to be realigned and kerbed. The footway, not shown hatched will require widening to 1.8m and resurfacing although I appreciate there will remain a narrow point in the locale of 5/7 East Street. All footways around the development will require planning/resurfacing to provide a uniform surface. On the subject of the footway on Castlegate I remain concerned at the potential conflict with vehicles exiting the development. The ‘tight’ radius of the kerb/footway to the south is likely to force drivers to take a line that would bring them into conflict with parked vehicles on the west side of the road. Perhaps a compound radius incorporating a short taper may overcome this issue, I recall I referred to this previously. I would too, reiterate some concern with the parking for plot numbers 17 and 18 due to their proximity to the junction with East Street and the potential conflict due to reversing and turning movements at these points. If the two (or three) lots could be ‘turned’?

Throughout the life of this application there have been discussions between the highway authority and the applicants regarding the scheme and the associated Section 38 agreement. This has resulted in minor alterations to footways and radii. Final comments from the local highway authority indicate that the scheme is acceptable subject to conditions relating to parking, turning etc,. (Conditions requested). Building Control:

From the information provided the drainage layout, levels and gradients are satisfactory for both the foul and storm water drainage systems. I also note that the storm drains are on a separate system from the foul drains. I have informed the architect of the problems with the existing foul drains being overloaded after a heavy downpour of rain. I have suggested that it may be prudent to do some site investigation on this matter and, where necessary, to reconnect storm drains that have been connected to the foul drain system.

32

Urban Designer Planning Policy:

A building for life assessment has been undertaken in relation to the proposed development and a poor score has been achieved. The principal reasons for the low score are lack of urban design analysis to support and frame the design solution, insufficient evidence, inadequate use of sustainable technologies and a poor response to context.

English Heritage: Any comments will be reported in the late items paper in relation to impact on the conservation area and nearby listed buildings. Representations as a result of publicity The application has been advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement. One letter of objection have been received. A summary of the main concerns are listed below: 1. Issues of flooding during heavy rains storms and the ability of the existing network to

accommodate the proposal. 2. Traffic problems during the construction phase. 3. Dust and debris during the construction phase (as was evident during the demolition

of the previous building). Can the roads be cleaned on a regular basis. 4. Parking. 5. Loss of the view of the church. 6. Loss of light to our working environment. 7. It is difficult to visualise how the development would look/affect us without details of

the brick type, colour, size, windows, roof tiles etc. Applicants Submissions In support of the planning application the applicants have provided a design and access statement, specification for an archaeological intervention during groundwork’s, conditional report on boundary and internal walls and hard and soft landscaping schemes. The summary of the design and access statement states:

The proposed development of apartments and housing will make efficient use of a previously developed site within the existing built up area and assist in providing for a balanced community. It will utilise a major vacant site, which presently has an adverse effect on surrounding residential amenity. The development will provide beneficial accommodation in a highly sustainable location within comfortable walking distance of local facilities and services, we believe this proposal is therefore entirely consistent with national and local plan policies towards the location of development.

33

The design and layout of the scheme has responded positively to the character and pattern of development in the local area and to establish principles of good design and access. It is considered that as such the scheme will positively enhance rather than detract from the character of the area of Grantham whilst respecting planning policy requirements.

Site History S98/0683/35 - New Signage to Supermarket, approved on 17 August 1998 S02/1417/35 - Change of Use of Supermarket to Public Car Park (Ground Floor), approved on 10 December 2002 S03/0312/35 - Conversion of Supermarket to Car Park, approved on 15 May 2003 S06/0552 - Outline Planning Permission was granted for residential development of the site on 21 March 2007. Policy Considerations National Policy PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing PPG 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment Regional Policy East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 3 – Distribution of New Development Policy 26 – Protecting and Enhancing the Regions Natural and Cultural Heritage Policy 27 – Regional Priorities doe the Historic Environment South Kesteven Local Plan Policy H6 – Allows for development that (inter alia) has no resultant impact on the form,

character and appearance of the settlement.

34

Policy H9 – Allows for a reasonable mix and balance of house types and sizes to cater for

a range of housing needs.

Policy EN1 – Allows for development that (inter alia) reflects the general character of the area through layout, siting, design and materials.

Key Issues The principle of residential development is established by the grant of outline planning permission (S06/0552). The main issues for consideration in relation to the application are visual amenity and impact on the adjacent conservation area, highway safety, drainage and current network capacity and residential amenity. Visual Amenity and Impact on the Conservation Area/Listed Buildings It is accepted that the site is located in a prominent location within the town adjacent to the conservation area. The amended plans seek to address the concerns raised by the conservation officer in relation to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, street scene and the adjacent conservation area. The conservation officer has confirmed that the amendments address his concerns, but at the time of drafting this report no formal comments have been received. Any comments will be incorporated into the late items paper. The comments from our urban designer suggest that the scheme is ambiguous in terms of architectural style and does not make a strong and bold commitment to the enhancement of Grantham’s character and identity. The conservation area is worthy of a high quality respectful street design treatment and new development which has the courage to make a strong, bold and coherent architectural design statement that not only unifies the Castlegate area but unequivocally re-energises its ‘sense of place’ and character. Assessment of this application must take into account the fact that this is a submission of reserved matters following the grant of outline planning permission. As such there is a limit to what information can be requested to accompany and evidence an application. It is considered that sufficient information and supporting information has been provided to assess the application. Impact on the street scene, conservation area and visual amenity is a very subjective matter open to individual interpretation. Notwithstanding the concerns of the urban designer it is considered that the proposed scheme is a significant improvement over the previous use of the site. It is considered that the scheme gives continuity to the Castlegate frontage and helps to preserve and enhance the conservation area. The development provides a mix of house types constructed of materials sympathetic to the surrounding area to meet an identified affordable housing need. It is accepted that there is limited public open space within the development. However the site is located

35

within walking distance of Wyndham Park and is in close proximity to Grantham town centre. As such the site is considered to be a sustainable location providing future residents with good accessibility to all the essential facilities. Whilst the application is not within the conservation area it is immediately adjacent and there are a number of listed building directly opposite plots 36-53 that would front Castlegate. Plots 36-59 have been amended to address the concerns of the conservation officer and as such are considered to preserve and enhance the conservation area and nearby listed buildings. It is accepted that since the clearance of the site there are views of St Wulfram’s church that would be lost following the development. However, there would still be glimpses of the church through the proposed development. It is therefore considered that there would be no adverse impact on the setting of the church especially when the development is considered against the Kwiksave building that previously occupied the site. Highway Safety The application is a reserved matters submission. As such issues relating to the capacity of the highway network and general highway safety issues were discussed at outline stage and formed part of the approved Transport assessment (TA) that formed part of the outline application. The TA took a worse case scenario from a traffic generation perspective of 100 flats being constructed on the site. This proposal for 53 units is significantly less than assessed by the TA. It can therefore be assumed that the scheme would have no significant detrimental impact on the surrounding road network. The local highway authority has confirmed that subject to minor alterations to the scheme to comply with the Section 38 agreement the scheme is acceptable. Accordingly, they are requesting appropriately worded conditions. Drainage Concern has been raised regarding the impact the proposal would have on the existing surface and foul drainage network. Comments from our Building Control Section indicate that the proposal would not have any significant adverse impact on the existing network. What also must be taken into consideration is the previous use of the site. As a supermarket and car park the site would generate significant surface water runoff from the large areas of hard surfacing. This scheme includes an area of open space and a large part of the site being private garden areas. This will undoubtedly allow rainfall to percolate into the ground and reduce surface water runoff than compared to the previous use. It is accepted that the proposal would produce more foul waste than the previous use. However, the drainage scheme has not raised any concerns in principle from our building control section. All drainage and sewer construction would require Anglian Water approval. (plans have been submitted to Anglian Water for Section 10 agreement) It is therefore considered that a satisfactory means of surface and foul drainage can be achieved without any significant adverse impact on the existing network and as such would not be a legitimate reason for refusal.

36

Residential Amenity The development of the site has been designed to utilise the change in levels on the site and respect neighbouring properties. It is considered that there is sufficient separation between the various blocks of the development and the neighbouring properties to ensure there would be no significant overshadowing or loss of daylight/sunlight that could justify refusal on this ground. The disposition of the units coupled with the location of windows to front and rear elevations is such that there would be no significant overlooking or loss of privacy of neighbouring properties and their associated private rear garden area. Impact of the Construction Phase The site is surrounded by a mix of residential and commercial properties all of which are in fairly close proximity to the site. It is likely that the construction phase will extend over a significant period of time. It is considered reasonable in this instance to require the submission of details for approval by the local planning authority indicating how the construction phase would be managed in accordance with best practice to minimise noise and disturbance etc. This matter can be addressed by a suitably worded condition giving details of plant and machinery, hours of operation etc. Conclusions The principle of the development of this site is entirely in accordance with national planning

guidance and the current development plan. The residential development of the site would

be in-keeping with the surrounding development and would allow for a good, sustainable

mix of housing and meet an identified affordable housing need in a sustainable location.

Crime and Disorder Implications It is not considered that the proposed development raises any significant crime and disorder issues. Human Rights Implications It should be noted that Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) will be taken into account in determining this application It is considered that no other relevant Article will be breached.

37

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL The proposal has been considered against national and local policies as set out in PPS1, PPS3 and PPG15, Policy 3, Policy 26 and Policy 27 of the East Midlands Regional Plan and Policies H6 (i), (ii), (iii), H9 and EN1 (i), (iii), (vi) of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan. Issues relating to flooding and drainage capacity, highway safety, loss of light/overshadowing and visual amenity are material considerations but they are not considered sufficient to indicate against the proposal though condition(s) have been attached. CASE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That subject to the expiration of the site notice the application be deferred to the Chairman and Vice Chairman for approval subject to no new material planning considerations being raised and subject to condition(s):

1. Before the development commences on site further details relating to the vehicular access to the public highway and improved pedestrian provision, including materials, specification of works and construction method shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The approved details shall be implemented on site before the development is first brought into use and thereafter retained at all times. Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and safety of the users on the site in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

2. The arrangements shown the approved plan E2309:1D dated 19 May 2009 for the parking/turning of vehicles shall be available at all times when the premises are in use. Reason: To enable calling vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway of East Street and Castlegate to allow vehicles to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

3. No development shall take place before the detailed design of the arrangements for surface water drainage has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority and no building shall be occupied before it is connected to the agreed drainage system. Reason: To ensure that surface water run-off from the development will not adversely affect, by reason of flooding, the safety, amenity and commerce of the residents of this site in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

4. No dwellings (or other development as specified) shall be commenced before the first 25 metres of estate road from its junction with the public highway, including visibility splays, as shown on drawing no. E2309:1D dated 19 May has been completed.

38

Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site and to enable calling vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway of East Street and Castlegate in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

5. Before any dwelling is commenced, all of the part of the estate road and associated footways that form the junction with the main road and which will be constructed within the limits of the existing highway, shall be laid out and constructed to finished surface levels in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

6. Prior to the commencement of work on site a method statement regarding the proposed construction works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall cover the following points: a) hours of operation;

b) type of machinery and equipment to be used on site; and c) details of how noise, vibration and dust are to be controlled, using best practicable means.

The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is carried out according to best practice to minimise disruption of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

7. The dwellings hereby permitted shall be constructed of the approved materials schedule unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

8. This permission shall be read in conjunction with the submitted application and the amended plans received by the local planning authority from the applicant's agent on 27 April and 22 May 2009 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extension, enlargement or other alteration of

39

the building(s) shall be carried out without Planning Permission obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority considers that further development could cause detriment to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties or to the character of the area, and for this reason would wish to control any future development in accordance with Saved Policies H6 and H7 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Note(s) to Applicant:

1. You are advised that the application site falls within an area affected by Radon. You are asked to contact the Council’s Building Control section (telephone number 01476 406187) to ascertain the level of protection required and whether a geological assessment is necessary.

2. You are advised to contact Lincolnshire County Council as the local highway authority for approval on the road construction specification and programme before carrying out any works on the site. Prior to the submission of details for any access works within the public highway you must contact the Divisional Highways Manager on 01522 782070 for application, specification and construction information.

* * * * * *

40

KJC2 S09/0431/MJNF Target Decision Date: 09-Jul-2009

Applicant Mr Leslie Ancaster Leisure Enterprises WOOD LODGE, Pitts Hill Farm, Ermine Street, Ancaster, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG32 3PY

Agent

Proposal Change of Use to outdoor tournament paintball facility including grassed and artificial playing surfaces, car park, landscaping toilet and (low profile building)

Location Pitts Hill Farm, Ancaster

App Type Major Full (Non-residential)

Parish(es) Ancaster

REPORT Application Category This application is a major change of use Reasons for Referral to Committee The application may generate local interest and is a major scheme. The Proposal The proposed development of a tournament paintball facility and associated facilities. It is intended to link the existing paintball and karting facilities together with the proposed tournament facility. The plan is based on 10 fields each of 56 by 36 metres surrounded by 6 metre high netting. The netting would be of fabric construction suspended by galvanised wire held in place by poles erected at 8 metre intervals. The netting is to be attached to the wire such that it can be folded shut and tied against poles when not in use. There would be 8 floodlights per pitch (two per corner) mounted on 6 metre high poles. Each light would be angled to be downward facing. It is proposed that 2 of the pitches would be astro turf. The scheme is designed to have a central ‘safe area’ and a players pavilion. The pavilion would be 32 metres by 10.7 metres. It would contain toilets, changing room, refreshments and have open sided viewing on each side. It would be constructed of green profile cladding. The site would be surrounded by an earth bund which would be grassed. The bund would follow the same bund as the bund surrounding the kart circuit. It is intended to further to reinforce the bund with tree planting in line with the scheme at the kart circuit. To the east of the playing pitches would be the car parking area.

41

The site would be accessed by using the road and track used by visitors to the kart circuit and paintball site from Kings Road. It is not proposed to make any alterations to the access. It is located approximately 200m metes from the junction of Kings Road with Ermine Street. The project is expected to provide employment for one permanent ground keeper and six part time staff at tournament weekends. The application site and its surroundings The application site is adjacent to the Pitts Hill plantation. The area is characterised by a relatively simple large scale open arable landscape. Barkston Heath remains an active airfield nearby the site. The application site is adjacent to the existing paintball and go kart operation. Representations Received Local Highway Authority: Requests that any permission given by the local planning authority shall include the conditions relating to car parking facilities and the submission of a traffic management plan prior to any major events. Environmental Protection: It would appear that no one is affected by statutory noise nuisance from the lighting. I would seek clarification to ascertain if persons would be staying over at the site. If so what facilities would be available for them. North Kesteven District Council (neighbouring authority): I have no objections to the proposal provided that the amenity of existing residential properties to the south and east are not significantly harmed by the proposed operation until 10pm. Planning Policy: The principle of the use in this location has already been established through the granting of a three year conditional planning permission in January 2006. As there has not been any change in circumstance since this permission was granted, with the exception that Policy REC8 is no longer a relevant consideration as it was not saved, there are no planning policy objections to the proposal. Environment Agency: The EA has no objection to the proposed development. We note that foul drainage for the proposed development is to be via a septic tank. Your authority should ensure that the proposed drainage method accords with Circular 03/99: Planning requirement in respect of the Use of Non-Mains sewerage incorporating Septic Tanks in New Development.

42

Ancaster Parish Council: The parish council have considered the application for planning permission and are unanimous in supporting the application put forward subject to there being a condition imposed on the times when floodlighting can be used in the evenings in this predominantly rural area. Representations as a result of publicity The application has been advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement. No letters of objection have been received. Applicants Submission Recreational Paintball has been played at Ancaster for the previous 19 years. The site used for this has been Pitts Hill plantation, a 20 acre woodland area with playing areas throughout the wood. The business has grown, and continues to attreact a large number of players. The siting of the proposal allows for the use of the existing car parking area, plus an additional overflow area of 150 spaces, capable of facilitating larger events. It is calculated that approximately 26000 cubic metres of inert earth will be needed to construct the bund profile. The applicant’s supporting information states that the proposal would be an ideal opportunity to promote paintballing nationally: “The tournament sites around the UK at the moment are all temporary venues, and the sport fails to have a designated purpose built centre to build the sport further. Paintball in the UK as a sport is failing to be able to attract the larger international events which is due to this lack of a continuous facility. Various paintball tournament leagues are being held at Ancaster, on an area of temporary grass. A number of events have been held successfully, with teams from all around the UK being entered. These events are held at the weekends, with some being one day events others being two day events. The proposed site is next to our existing recreational paintball venue and kart circuit. Following the construction of the bund and tree screen, the site would be invisible from all angles. The aim is to produce a facility that UK tournament paintball can be used as a central venue from which to promote the sport of paintball to a wider cross section of the population”.

43

Site History SK 42/88 – Pitts Hill Plantation – Change of Use to Combat games area was granted planning permission on 18/03/88. SK 267/91 – Pitts Hill Farm, Ancaster - Change of Use of agricultural land to Kart Racing Track was granted planning permission on 6/08/1991. S05/0513 – Change of use to Outdoor Tournament Paintball Facility incorporating playing field – application withdrawn. S05/1484 – Change of Use to Outdoor Paintball Facility – Planning Permission was granted on 19th January 2006 for a limited 3 year period.

Policy Considerations National Policy PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPG13 – Transport Circular 03/99: Planning requirement in respect of the Use of Non-Mains Sewerage incorporating Septic Tanks in New Development. Regional Planning Policy East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 41 – Regional Priorities for Culture Sport and Recreation Saved Policies of South Kesteven Local Plan Policy EN1 – Protection and Enhancement of the Environment Policy EN2 – Development in the Countryside South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment

Key Issues The main issues for consideration in relation to this application are visual amenity, highway safety and residential amenity. Visual amenity

The application site is located in the Southern Lincolnshire Edge Character Area as defined by the South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment. This document indicates that

44

the area has a medium to high sensitivity to employment and residential proposals. The document does not give guidance in relation to recreational uses. However, it is considered that there are similar material planning consideration in relation to employment uses and recreational uses. The landscape in this area contains relatively few landscape features and is remote and rural in character. Whilst not amenable to large scale new build development it is considered that a paint ball facility would not have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area as there is no significant buildings and significant landscaping and screen bunds are proposed as part of the scheme. It is considered that the proposal is a logical extension to the existing recreational activities in the area and would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the District. Highway Safety The proposal would potentially generate significant traffic movements when a major event is held. The issue is therefore whether or not the local highway network can accommodate the potential increase in traffic. The local highway authority have assessed the application and have not objected subject to appropriate conditions regarding car parking and a traffic management plan. It is considered appropriate in this instance to attach a condition requiring the operators to notify the local planning authority prior to any major events taking place. This would enable consultation with the local highway authority to ensure that the traffic management scheme would operate without any significant impact on the highway network or other road users. As such it is considered that the proposal would not have any significant impact on highway safety and the surrounding highway network.

Residential Amenity The proposed development is located in a remote rural location as such there is significant separation distances between the proposal and neighbouring residential properties. The land immediately surrounding the application site is land within the control of the applicant (edged blue). Comments from the Environmental Protection Officer indicate that the proposed floodlights would be unlikely to have any detrimental impact on the residential amenity due to the separation distances involved. Confirmation has been sought from the applicant regarding whether or not there would be any persons staying overnight at the site. Any information relating to this matter will be reported in the late items paper. The previous application S05/1484 that was granted a limited period permission is a material consideration in relation to the determination application, in that the principle of a paintball facility in this location has been accepted. It is considered that there would be significant expenditure in relation to the proposed development and as such it is unreasonable to expect this significant level of investment without a permanent permission in place. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate that a permanent permission be considered rather than a trial, temporary permission.

45

Conclusion The proposal is considered to be an appropriate use for the countryside location. The design of the proposal coupled with the proposed screen bunds and landscaping would aid in assimilation of the proposal in the rural landscape. The location and disposition with neighbouring properties is such that there would be no significant impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers from comings and goings to the site, the actual activity or the proposed floodlighting. The local highway authority has not raised any concern regarding the proposed development subject to the submission and approval of a traffic management plan prior to any major events. Crime and Disorder Implications It is not considered that the proposed development raises any significant crime and disorder issues. Human Rights Implications It should be noted that Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) will be taken into account in determining this application It is considered that no other relevant Article will be breached.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL The proposal is regarded as an appropriate recreational use that could not reasonably be located within the confines of a settlement. Subject to appropriate screen bunds and landscaping it is considered that the proposal would not have any significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. The rural location is sufficiently separated from neighbouring properties to ensure that there would be no significant loss of residential amenity to neighbouring occupiers from noise and disturbance or light pollution. The proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety or have a detrimental impact on other road users. In light of the above comments the proposed development is considered to accord with the thrust of current national guidance contained in PPS1, PPG13 Transport, East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 41 and objectives of the saved South Kesteven Local Plan policies EN1 (i) and (vi), EN2 (ii) and the South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment and there are no material planning considerations that indicate a decision should be taken otherwise.

46

CASE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface and foul water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to prevent pollution of controlled waters by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface and foul water disposal.

3. The arrangements shown on the car park facilities plan dated 24 March 2009 for the parking/turning/manoeuvring shall be available at all times when the premises are in use. Reason: To enable calling vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway.

4. A minimum of 21 days prior to the commencement of any major event (250 people or more attending) a traffic management plan for highway safety to and from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To enable calling vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway.

5. Notwithstanding the submitted details, before any development is commenced the approval of the District Planning Authority is required to a scheme of landscaping and tree planting for the site (indicating inter alia, the number, species, heights on planting and positions of all the trees). Such scheme as may be approved by the District Planning Authority shall be undertaken in the first planting season following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the District Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to assist in the assimilation of the development in its surroundings in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

6. Any floodlighting erected at the site shall be in accordance with the letter and additional information received by the local planning authority from Nik Johnson on 9 April 2009 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

47

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to reduce the potential for light pollution.

7. Any floodlighting on the site shall not be illuminated outside the submitted opening hours of 10am to 10pm Monday to Friday, 8am to 10pm Saturday and Sunday unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to reduce the potential for light pollution.

8. The pavilion hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted details contained on the approved pavilion elevation plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

Note(s) to Applicant:

1. You are advised that the application site falls within an area affected by Radon. You are asked to contact the Council’s Building Control section (telephone number 01476 406187) to ascertain the level of protection required and whether a geological assessment is necessary.

* * * * * *

48

PJM1 S09/0944/OUT Target Decision Date: 26-Jun-2009

Applicant Mrs D Streets Fern Cottage, Main Street, Fenton, Newark, NG235DE

Agent JHG Planning Consultancy Orchard House, Main Road, Welbourn, Lincoln, LN5 0PA

Proposal Residential development (outline) with all matters reserved

Location Fairfield House, Main Street, Claypole, Newark, Notts, NG23 5BA

App Type Outline Planning Consent

Parish(es) Claypole

REPORT Application Category This application is categorised as a minor application. Reason for Referral to Committee The application is before the development control committee at the request of the lead professional. The Proposal This is an outline application for residential development with all matters reserved for further consideration. An indicative layout has been submitted showing the dwellings laid out in pairs of semi detached and detached dwellings, set off a private drive and offering off street parking for residents. Scale parameters have been indicated, showing a dwelling to be a maximum height of 7.2m to ridge and 4.85m to eaves. The application site and its surroundings The site is situated centrally within the village of Claypole and is surrounded predominantly by residential development. As well as the residential properties sited along Main Street, there are further residential properties to the west along Chapel Lane and to the east along Barnby Lane. The application site currently forms the garden area of Fairfield House. The land is mainly laid with grass and vegetation which has recently been cleared with the exception of fruit trees located close to the boundaries. There is an existing access to the site which comes off Main Street which served Fairfield House and a previous shop/bakehouse.

49

Representations Received Highway Authority: The Highway Authority has no objection and requests that any permission granted shall include conditions in relation to the removal of all obstacles at the point of access above 0.6m in height to allow acceptable visibility and the completion of the private drive in accordance with the submitted details. Planning Policy: Comments were received from the Planning Policy section as follows:

As this application involves the proposed development of market housing outside one of the Districts four urban areas, it should be considered against the adopted Interim Housing Policy (IHP). In summary, the IHP enables market housing developments to come forward within those settlements identified as Local Service Centres where they involve the development of previously developed land. Whilst the application involves the development of previously developed land, Claypole is not one of the identified Local Service Centres and, therefore, the proposal is contrary to the adopted IHP. However, it is acknowledged that the approval of a previous planning application for residential development in Claypole is a material planning consideration and it will therefore, need to be determined what weight to give this previous decision compared to the adopted IHP. Should it be considered that the previous decision should be given greater weight than the adopted IHP, then the criteria of saved Local Plan Policy EN1 will need to be satisfied, in particular criteria (i), (ii) and (vi).

Parish Council The Parish Council still has concerns about the safety and visibility of vehicles accessing / egressing the site onto Main Street. Upper Witham Drainage Board:

The applicant suggests that the surface water is to be discharged to a soakaway. The suitability of soakaways, as a means of surface water disposal, should be ascertained in accordance with BRE Digest 365 and to the satisfaction of the approving authority in conjunction with the Local Planning Authority. If the suitability is not proven the applicant should be required to re-submit amended proposals showing how the site is to be drained without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

50

Arboriculturalist: The site plan on drawing no. F1929-01-E shows that the position of the tree, included in the TPO, has been taken into account and has influenced the proposed layout. Representations as a result of publicity The application was advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement with the closing date for representations being 2nd June. Representations have been received raising the following issues: 1. Concerned about the land drainage. 2. Proposal will increase flood risk. 3. Soakaways are not adequate to prevent flooding and will aggravate the situation. 4. Dangerous access. 5. Will give rise to traffic problems and compromise highway safety. 6. Noise and disturbance. 7. Claypole is an unsustainable village. 8. Serious consideration should be given to number and type of properties. 9. Precedent has been set by previous refusal on adjacent site. (S05/0370 – r/o 37,

Main Street. Claypole) Site History S06/1118 Conversion of shop / bakehouse to form 2no. dwellings – Approved October

11th 2006. S09/0026 Residential Development with all matters reserved – Withdrawn 4th February

2009. S09/0954 Conversion of former shop / bakehouse to 2no. dwellings – Current

application Policy Considerations National Policy PPS 1 –Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 3 - Housing PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. PPG 13 – Transport Saved Policies of South Kesteven Local Plan

51

Policy H6

In determining proposals for such development, consideration will be given to; i) The impact of the proposal on the form, character and setting of the settlement

and on the community and its local environment. iii) The provision of satisfactory access.

Policy EN 1

The visual quality and amenity of the built and countryside environments of the plan area will be conserved and enhanced. Development proposals should ( amongst other matters); iii) In respect of buildings, reflect the general character of the area through layout,

siting, design and materials.

vi) Be located where the highway system can adequately and safely accommodate the volume and nature of traffic likely to be generated or incorporate suitable proposals for all necessary improvements.

Key Issues History Sustainability Layout Highway safety Drainage Conclusion History The access to this site also formed the access to an existing permission to convert the shop / bakehouse to 2 no. dwellings (S06/1118). A current application (S09/0954) is being considered which amends this permission. The main change is the removal of a section of the building to its front elevation. The removal of this section of the building will improve the visibility at the point of access to accord with highway requirements. Sustainability Claypole is not one of the identified Local Service Centres and, therefore, any development which proposes the erection of marketable housing is considered contrary to the adopted Interim Housing Policy. However, the approval of a previous planning application for residential development in Claypole is a material planning consideration. Planning application S08/0287 proposed the erection of a single dwelling on land adjacent The Nook, Chapel Lane. Claypole. Although

52

there was conflict with the Interim Housing Policy, it was considered that the facilities were adequate, particularly due to Claypole being located within 5 miles of the town of Newark, and the application was approved subject to various conditions. Scale / Layout As stated this is an outline application for residential development with all matters being reserved for further consideration. The application site constitutes a previously developed site as defined by PPS 3. Scale is not a consideration at this stage though scale parameters have been indicated which reflect the scale of existing dwellings in the vicinity. Having regard to layout as shown on the submitted drawing, it is considered that the siting of the proposed dwellings and the relationship with adjacent development is acceptable and there is unlikely to be any adverse impact on the residential amenities of surrounding properties in terms of overlooking, loss of light or the creation of a dominant and oppressive environment. These issues can be further considered, along with the reduction of noise and disturbance, at the detailed submission stage of the reserved matters application. It is considered that the layout submitted conforms with the surrounding development containing a mixture of semi detached and detached dwellings, whilst maintaining an acceptable level of separation from neighbouring properties. A condition has been attached which limits the numbers of dwellings that can be built on the site to a maximum of seven. Impacts on Highway Safety Concern has been raised with regard to the creation of a dangerous access point adjacent an existing shop where parking problems currently exist. Comments have also been received expressing concerns over available visibility for vehicles accessing and egressing onto Main Street. The Local Highway Authority has been consulted about the proposed development and raised objection. It is therefore considered that the proposed development will be detrimental to highway safety. Drainage The applicant has maintained that the use of soakaways will be a satisfactory form of drainage for the development. The Upper Witham Drainage Board has asked for the suitability of soakaways to be proven before development is commenced. At the time of writing the report the authority, in conjunction with the Building Regulations Department, are awaiting further information of the design of the soakaways together with soakage graphs and soil infiltration rates. This information will have to be in accordance with the requirements of BRE Digest 365. It is considered that this issue can be dealt with by the attachment of a suitable condition requiring the submission of a scheme of drainage to the satisfaction of the authority before development is commenced.

53

Other Issues Comments have been received that a previous refusal to the rear of 37, Main Street. Claypole has set a precedent. Each planning application is considered on its own merits and has differing site constraints. The applications differed mainly in that there were dual access points for application S05/0370 and the development was considered to extend into the open countryside. This current application has only one access point and extends into the existing built form of the village. Crime and Disorder Implications It is considered that the proposed development will not have any detrimental crime and disorder implications. Human Rights Implications It should be noted that Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) will be taken into account in determining this application It is considered that no other relevant Article will be breached. SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL The proposal is in accordance with national and local policies as set out in Planning Policy Guidance notes PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS3 - Housing, PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, PPG13 - Transport and Policies H6 (i) and EN1 (iii) and (vi) of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan. The issues relating to scale, layout, loss of privacy, sustainability, flood risk, access and highway safety are material planning considerations but, subject to the conditions attached to this permission, are not sufficient in this case to indicate against the proposal and to outweigh the policies referred to above. Although it would constitute a departure from the main provisions of the Interim Housing Policy, on this occasion it is considered that any such conflict is not a bar to the development proposed. CASE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or two years from the approval of the last of the reserved matters, whichever is the later.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

54

2. Details of the reserved matters set out below shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval within three years from the date of this permission: (a) layout; (b) scale; (c) appearance; (d) access; and (e) landscaping. Approval of all reserved matters shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3. The number of units that can be built on the site cannot exceed 7 no. in total. Reason: The construction of a greater number of dwellings on the site may impact adversely on the form and character of the area and neighbouring private residential amenity.

4. No development shall take place until samples of the materials (including colour of render, paintwork or colourwash) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

5. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface and foul water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to prevent pollution of controlled waters by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface and foul water disposal.

6. No development shall take place until a scheme for the storage of refuse and recycling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in full as approved prior to the first occupation of any part and the refuse and recycling storage facilities shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory facilities for the storage of refuse in accordance with Saved Policies H6 and H7 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

55

7. Before development is commenced details of the existing (including land immediately adjacent the application site) and proposed ground level (Ordnance Datum) and the proposed ground floor level. the submitted details must include spot levels in addition to cross sections.

Reason: In the interests of amenity, to ensure a satisfactory development and to ensure that any new development does not impose adversely upon its surroundings.

8. Before the access is brought into use, all obstructions exceeding 0.6 metres high shall be cleared from the land between the highway boundary and the vision splays indicated on drawing number F1929-01-E dated 27 April 2009, and thereafter the visibility splay shall be kept free of obstacles exceeding 0.6 metres in height.

9. Prior to any of the buildings being occupied, the private drive shall be completed in accordance with the details shown on drawing number F1929-01-E dated 27 April 2009. (Please note that this road is a private road and will not be adopted as a highway maintainable at the public expense (under the Highways Act 1980) and as such the liability for maintenance rests with the frontagers.)

Note(s) to Applicant:

1. This site is within 50m of a Land Contamination Concern. Please contact Environmental Protection Services on 01476 406300 for further information.

2. You are advised that the application site falls within an area affected by Radon. You are asked to contact the Council’s Building Control section (telephone number 01476 406187) to ascertain the level of protection required and whether a geological assessment is necessary.

* * * * * *

56

PJM2 S09/0954/FULL Target Decision Date: 30-Jun-2009

Applicant Mrs D Streets Fern Cottage, Main Street, Fenton, Newark, NG235DE

Agent JHG Planning Consultancy Orchard House, Main Road, Welbourn, Lincoln, LN5 0PA

Proposal Conversion of former shop to two dwellings

Location Adjacent Fairfield House, Main Street, Claypole

App Type Full Planning Permission

Parish(es) Claypole

REPORT Application Category This application is categorised as a minor application. Reason for Referral to Committee The application is before the development control committee at the request of the lead professional. The Proposal This is a full application for the conversion of a former shop / bakehouse to form 2 no. dwellings upon land adjacent Fairfield House, Main Street. Claypole. This application is an amended scheme from one that was previously approved under S06/1118. The alteration involves the demolition and reconstruction of the south gable to the main façade of the building. The proposal seeks the reduction of the existing gable by 1.0m to create an improved level of visibility for access to the site and the rear parking area and a site which is currently being considered for residential development under application S09/0944. The scheme has an identical internal layout to the extant permission, with each unit having three bedrooms and an open plan living / kitchen area to ground floor. It is proposed that a 1.8m high brick wall will extend a short distance from the rear elevation before merging into a Beech Hedgerow, the combination of which will serve to form two private garden areas. A parking area will be formed adjacent to the site’s northern boundary.

57

The application site and its surroundings The site is situated centrally within the village of Claypole and is surrounded predominantly by residential development. As well as the residential properties sited along Main Street, there are further residential properties to the west along Chapel Lane and to the east along Barnby Lane. Directly opposite the site is an existing village store. The site was formerly a shop / bakehouse and comprises a two storey red brick and slate roof building set against the highway. The building has remained vacant for many years and is in need of repair. Access to the site is via a private driveway that runs adjacent to the western boundary to an area of garden. A mature hedgerow delineates the eastern boundary and acts to screen the site from Fairfield House. The western boundary comprises a mixture of brick wall, hedgerow and fencing. Representations Received Highway Authority: The Highway Authority has no objection and requests that any permission granted shall include conditions in relation to the access, turning space and parking being retained and available at all times in accordance with the submitted details. Planning Policy: Comments were received from the Planning Policy section as follows:

“The conversion of buildings to residential use in non Service Centre Villages is permitted by the adopted Interim Housing Policy provided certain criteria are met. As planning permission was granted in October 2006 for conversion of this building to two dwellings, I assume it was considered that the proposal adequately met the IHP conversion criteria. Subject to the modification to the front elevation gable being considered acceptable against policy EN1 (iii), there is no planning policy objection”

Parish Council: No objection. Arboriculturalist: The proposed Beech hedges at the rear of the development will define the boundaries and give privacy to the gardens.

58

Representations as a result of publicity The application was advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement with the closing date for representations being 2nd June. Representations have been received raising the following issues: 1. Existing permission for conversion is to be commended. 2. Unlikely that the building can be re-constructed as it stands. 3. Un-matching mortar and bonding styles will destroy character of the building. 4. Overhead mains electricity line within half a metre of the façade. 5. Will create a risk for vehicles and people. Site History S06/1118 Conversion of shop / bakehouse to form 2no. dwellings – Approved October 11th 2006. S09/0026 Residential Development with all matters reserved – Withdrawn 4th February 2009. S09/0944 Residential Development with all matters reserved – Current application

Policy Considerations National Policy PPS 1 –Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 3 - Housing PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. PPG 13 – Transport Saved Policies of South Kesteven Local Plan Policy H6 In determining proposals for such development, consideration will be given to; The impact of the proposal on the form, character and setting of the settlement and on the community and its local environment. The provision of satisfactory access.

59

Policy EN 1 The visual quality and amenity of the built and countryside environments of the plan area will be conserved and enhanced. Development proposals should ( amongst other matters); iii) In respect of buildings, reflect the general character of the area through layout, siting, design and materials. vi) Be located where the highway system can adequately and safely accommodate the volume and nature of traffic likely to be generated or incorporate suitable proposals for all necessary improvements. Applicants Submission Though Claypole is not identified as a Local Service Centre by the Interim Housing Policy, by virtue of the range of available services, the Council have recently granted planning permission for residential development within the village. This precedent would suggest that Claypole is deemed to be of service village status. Regardless, the Interim Housing Policy States that the conversion of buildings to form new dwellings is strategically acceptable subject to a proposal satisfactorily addressing five criteria. These are discussed below: The former shop / bakehouse is considered to be of some architectural and historic merit. The building occupies a prominent position within the street scene and arguably makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. However, it is readily apparent that the building has been vacant for some time. The proposed conversion will put it back to beneficial use and serve to dispel the current image of decline exhibited by the structure. The building is structurally sound. As detailed on the proposed drawings, the building is readily capable of conversion without significant alterations. As noted before, in order to improve visibility at the access’s point of juncture with Main Street, a section of the front gable will need to be demolished, truncated and reconstructed. The works necessary to achieve the change of use will not significantly alter the character or appearance of the building. The shop / bakehouse has been vacant for many yeas because it proved to be commercially unviable. It can be noted that a general store is located directly opposite the application site. The strategic acceptability of the buildings residential use has already been affirmed through extant planning consent S06/1118.

60

Key Issues History Sustainability Impact on the character of the building Highway safety Conclusion History There is an existing permission to convert the shop / bakehouse to 2no. dwellings (S06/1118). This current application amends this permission with the main change being the removal of a section of the building to its front elevation. The removal of this section of the building will improve the visibility at the point of access for an additional application that is being considered on land to the rear of Fairfield House for residential development (S09/0954) to accord with highway requirements. Sustainability Claypole is not one of the identified Local Service Centres and, therefore, any development which proposes the erection of marketable housing is considered contrary to the adopted Interim Housing Policy. However, the approval of a previous planning application for residential development on the site is a material planning consideration. Planning application S06/1118 proposed the conversion of the former shop / bakehouse to 2 dwellings on at land adjacent Fairfield House. Main Street. Claypole. It was considered that the scheme met the conversion criteria as set out within the Interim Housing Policy and the application was approved subject to various conditions. Due to only minor alterations to this scheme it is still considered that the proposal accords with the conversion criteria as set out in the Interim Housing Policy. Impact on the character of the building Comments have been received expressing concerns over how the alteration to the façade will impact on the character of the building. The design incorporates windows, ornamental brickwork and dimensions which replicate the existing structure. These factors, together with suitable conditions requiring the final submission of joinery details and the re-structuring work having matching brick bonding and mortar, will lead to the character of the existing building being maintained Impacts on Highway Safety Concern has been raised with regard to the creation of a dangerous access point. The Local Highway Authority has been consulted about the proposed development and raised objection. It is therefore considered that the proposed development will be detrimental to highway safety.

61

Crime and Disorder Implications It is considered that the proposed development will not have any detrimental crime and disorder implications. Human Rights Implications It should be noted that Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) will be taken into account in determining this application It is considered that no other relevant Article will be breached. SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL The proposal is in accordance with national and local policies as set out in Planning Policy Guidance note(s) PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS3 - Housing, PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, PPG13 - Transport and Policies H6 (i) and EN1 (iii) & (vi) of the saved policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan. The issues relating to impact on the character of the building, sustainability, access and highway safety are material planning considerations but, subject to the conditions attached to this permission, are not sufficient in this case to indicate against the proposal and to outweigh the policies referred to above. Although it would constitute a departure from the main provisions of the Interim Housing Policy, on this occasion it is considered that any such conflict is not a bar to the development proposed. CASE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials (including colour of render, paintwork or colourwash) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

3. The gable which is to be rebuilt to the front elevation shall be reconstructed with brick bonding and mortar to match that the original building.

62

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

4. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface and foul water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to prevent pollution of controlled waters by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface and foul water disposal.

5. No works shall take place until full details of the all proposed joinery works including 1:20 sample elevations and 1:1 joinery profiles have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed details and maintained as such thereafter. Reason: As insufficient information has been submitted the condition is imposed to ensure the satisfactory preservation of the building.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the building(s) shall be carried out without Planning Permission obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority considers that further development could cause detriment to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties or to the character of the area, and for this reason would wish to control any future development in accordance with Saved Policies H6 and H7 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no window, dormer window or rooflight other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed without planning permission having first been obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties in accordance with Saved Policies H6 and H7 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

8. Before the dwelling(s) is/are occupied, the access and turning space shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan, drawing number F1588-03-C dated 5 May 2009, and retained for that use thereafter.

63

9. The arrangements shown on the approved plan F1588-03-C dated 5 May 2009 for the parking/turning/manoeuvring/loading/unloading of vehicles shall be available at all times when the premises are in use.

Reason: To enable calling vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway of Main Street and to allow vehicles to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear in the intrests of highway safety.

Note(s) to Applicant:

1. This site is within 50m of a Land Contamination Concern. Please contact Environmental Protection Services on 01476 406300 for further information.

2. You are advised that the application site falls within an area affected by Radon. You are asked to contact the Council’s Building Control section (telephone number 01476 406187) to ascertain the level of protection required and whether a geological assessment is necessary.

* * * * * *

64

PJM3 S09/1068/FULL Target Decision Date: 06-Jul-2009

Applicant Mr C Mell 8, Bowmans Way, Sedgebrook, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG32 2HF

Agent Clive Wicks Associates Old School House, 36, Boston Road, Sleaford, Lincs, NG34 7EZ

Proposal Erection of 2 detached houses & a pair of single garages.

Location Land Adjacent Lambert House Farm, Bottom Street, Allington

App Type Full Planning Permission

Parish(es) Allington

REPORT This is a minor Application The Proposal The application is for the erection of two dwellings and a pair of garages in a single block. The dwellings are both two storey with a north-west facing orientation set in proximity to the carriageway edge. This re-submission of a recently refused application (S09/0124) has attempted to address concerns that were previously raised. One change is the siting of the dwellings further back from the highway and secondly, the incorporation of revised Highway requirements. Previously Plot 1 was 2.0m away from the highway at its closest point. The revised siting now takes Plot 1 2.6m away from the highway edge. Plot 2 was previously angled to follow the line of the highway but has now been sited directly in line with Plot 1 taking the southern end of the house further away from the highway. The dwelling on Plot 1, set to the north of the site, is a 4 bedroom property and has three small dormer widows to the front, two further dormers to the rear roof slope and a rear protrusion with a feature gable end. The dwelling on Plot 2 to the south of the site also has 4 bedrooms and three small dormers to the rear and has a large gabled protrusion to the front with an extended roof over the main entrance. To the side will be a single storey element housing a utility room and study together with a conservatory to the rear. Materials to be used include brick and clay pantile in order to match those of nearby developments. Each property has similar sized rear gardens, laid with lawn and separated by a 1.8m close boarded fence.

65

Access to the site will via an existing access to the southerly corner of the site that also serves the neighbouring property, Wellington House. This existing tarmac drive will lead into an area of gravel and will provide a turning area and a staggered single block of 2 garages for vehicles. This has seen the removal of a 5 bar gate and the widening of the turning area to the front of the garages from the previous application. A pedestrian access will run from the rear of Plot 1, adjacent to the rear boundary of Plot 2, in order to gain access to the garage block. The application site and its surroundings The application site is located to the eastern side of the village of Allington, towards the northern end of Bottom Street. The site which is relatively level is vacant and overgrown. To the north of the site is a pair of two storey semi detached dwellings set immediately against the carriageway edge. These properties are constructed from red brick and ironstone with pantile roofs. To the east of the site are the rear elevations of the semi detached residential properties situated on Lambert Road. To the south of the site is Wellington House, a large detached dwelling constructed from dark red brick .Access to this property is gained via an access in the south-western corner of the application site. This existing access runs 10m into the application site before entering into the grounds of Wellington House. To the west of the site is an open paddock, while to the north-west of the site on the opposite side of the road is a large detached property set in substantial grounds. Reason for Referral to Committee The application has been referred to committee at the request of the Lead Professional. Representations Received Local Highway Authority: Requests that any permission given shall include conditions relating to the removal of all obstacles above 0.6m at the point of access, the completion and retention of the turning area and a satisfactory form of drainage. Parish Council:

“As the Parish Council stated previously on all submissions relating to the two properties on this plot, the car parking and access situation is not good. The access off of Bottom Street is shared with Wellington House, therefore 3 dwellings would all

66

share the same access. As stated before, this could mean up to 6 vehicles, leaving and entering, plus any visitors that they might each have. Although in the last two sets of drawings there is now a recess for turning the drive is fairly narrow and a vehicle parked on the drive would limit the turning space and other vehicles would have no option other than reversing out onto the highway. To repeat, the access to plot 1’s garage is along the back of plot 2’s garden. This could lead to residents of plot 1 parking on the road outside their front door especially when loading or unloading, this would be very hazardous, the area is already dangerous for pedestrians and traffic as there is a tight bend and visibility is poor. On the landscaping drawing number 51581/12 & 13 there is an area to the right of the boundary marked in blue. The Parish Council questions why this area is highlighted, it is not explained on the drawings. The Parish Council also recalls that on the original set of drawings for this plot there was a hatched area along the front of the plot which was a service strip. It is noted that there is no service strip marked on these drawings. The Parish Council has commented on this case on numerous occasions and it has been consistent with its comments regarding access and egress. It asks that its comments are once again considered, and hopes that there will be no need for further applications with similar drawings. “

Planning Policy:

Applications for residential development in the village of Allington should be assessed in the light of the adopted Interim Housing Policy. This application is for market housing. The Interim Housing Policy permits new residential development for market housing, on previously developed land, within those settlements which have been identified as Local Service Centres. The village of Allington has not been identified as a Local Service Centre. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the Interim Housing Policy.

Community Archaeologist: The proposed development does not affect any known archaeological sites. Arboriculturalist: No objection to the application. The proposed development of this site will not impact on the tree. Any alterations to soil levels to accommodate the new drive-way should be kept to a minimum to avoid disturbing tree roots. . English Heritage: Comments awaited. Any comments received will be reported to the Development Control Committee.

67

Representations as a result of publicity The application was advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement. One letter of objection has been received to date. The comments contained within can be bullet pointed as follows:

• Contrary to Government policy

• Design out of keeping

• Detrimental to highway safety

• Boundary has been drawn on common land

At the time of writing the committee report the public consultation period had not expired. Any further comments that raise material planning considerations received before the end of the consultation period will be reported to the Development Control Committee

Applicants Submission

The application includes a Design and Access Statement and a further appendix which contain information on previous planning approvals that are considered to set a precedent and additional information on the services that exist within Allington with particular reference to the issue of sustainability. In addition, the applicant considers that a further essential criteria, as set within the Interim Housing Policy, has been met by the provision of a Doctors Surgery and prescription dispensary which is held twice a week in the village hall, staffed by three local doctors. Also the Parish Council observed that previous applications included a hatched area to the front of the site. The applicant has submitted evidence which confirms full ownership of the land all the way to the footpath edge.

Site History S98/0559: Erection of 1 dwelling – Approved July 14th 1998. S01/0812: Renewal of Outline permission for Residential Development – Approved

August 21st 2001 S04/0907: Outline for Erection of 1 dwelling – Approved August 4th 2004. S04/1758: Erection of dwelling – Withdrawn.

68

S06/1668: Erection of dwelling and triple garage (Reserved Matters) – Approved January 29th 2007.

S07/1642: Erection of 2 detached dwellings and garages – Withdrawn. S08/0763: Erection of 2 dwellings – Refused August 18th 2008. S09/0124: Erection of 2 detached houses & a pair of single garages. – Refused 23rd

April 2009. Policy Considerations National Policy PPS 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 - Housing Regional Policy East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS8) Policy 1 - Regional and Core Objectives Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development Policy 4 - Development in the Eastern Sub Area Policy 13a - Regional Housing Provision Saved Policies of South Kesteven Local Plan Policy H6 - Residential Development. Policy EN 1 - Protection and Enhancement of the Environment Interim Housing Policy Key Issues History Outline application was granted consent under S04/0907 for the erection of a single dwelling then subsequent Reserved Matters under S06/1668.

69

Interim Housing Policy As the policy illustrates, the limited facilities available within Allington are such that it does not qualify as one of the 15 settlements identified as Local Service Centres in the policy. Under the provisions of the Interim Housing Policy, outside of the Local Service Centres, housing proposals will only be considered acceptable if they comprise rural exception sites for affordable housing (as articulated in PPG3 and Circular 06/98), replacement dwellings (one for one) or appropriate conversions (in line with PPS7). In relation to this application, the proposal for the erection of two dwellings, an additional one to the existing approval for one dwelling, does not accord with the Interim Housing Policy, and accordingly planning permission shoud not be granted. To permit developments at odds with the Policy, in locations that are demonstrably not-sustainable will give rise to an unsustainable pattern of development, and result in the District’s strategic housing requirements being exceeded. Development in such circumstances would be contrary to the planning interests of the area. Applicants Submission Sustainability Supporting information has been submitted suggesting that Allington does not lack key services, making particular reference to existing facilities, the proximity of Employment sites and the existence of suitable infrastructure for walking, bicycling and bus transport. For the purposes of the Interim Housing Policy Local Service Centres have been identified through a standard assessment process. This involved identifying essential and desirable and other facilities, which need to be available within a settlement in order that the residents of the village have the opportunity to meet their daily needs without having to travel by private motor car. For example, facilities such as a local shop; post office; primary school; full time doctors; and access to a regular bus service (hourly or more often). Villages within the district were surveyed and the facilities within them identified. The decision on which settlements classified as local service centres was made based upon the presence of at least 7 of the 8 essential criteria. One of the essential criteria which Allington does not meet is the existence of a full time doctors surgery. The applicant has submitted details of the existence of a doctors surgery and dispensary which runs from the village hall twice a week. The authority has been in contact with both the Primary Care Trust and Long Bennington Practise who provide the service to Allington. The service runs from the village hall on a Tuesday 11.00am till 12.30pm and Thursday 11.30am till 12.30pm. No appointments are available as it is a walk in service staffed by 1 doctor. Prescriptions are delivered twice a week, once on a Monday and again on a Thursday.

70

It is not considered that this service is sufficient to be able to meet a further essential criteria of the village having a full time doctors surgery. The lack of the full time Doctors means Allington does not meet 7 out of the eight essential criteria and has not been classified as a local service centre. As such an objection to the proposal has been received from the authority’s Planning Policy Section due to it being contrary to the Interim Housing Policy. Precedent Supporting information has also been submitted arguing that other decisions in the district set a precedent for the approval of this application. All applications should be assessed on their individual merits and it is in any event considered that the sites put forward are significantly different and had other prevailing material considerations which lead to those decisions being made. With regard to application S05/1320 (Erection of 2 Dwellings) this site is located within Claypole which has since been accepted by Members as being Sustainable given the amount of local services and its close proximity to Newark. The village of Allington does not have the amount of key services that exist in Claypole and is not in such proximity to a town. Furthermore, the policy advice on the Claypole application was consistent with the advice given for this proposal, in that it is contrary to the Interim Housing Policy. With regards to S05/0859 – this application looked to amend a scheme so as to replace a large single dwelling with 2 small semi detached dwellings at Main Street, Dry Doddington. The officer concluded in this particular case that although contrary to the IHP the erection of two smaller lower cost dwellings would be more beneficial to the community and provide a wider mix of housing provision in the area. Furthermore, these two dwellings were part of a larger site where the original outline approval on the site was for 15 dwellings. The subsequent Reserved Matters application only applied for 10. Even though S05/0859 saw an increase of 1 unit it still only made a total of 11 for the whole site, four less than the original outline approval. S04/1731 (Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 5 Dwellings. Manor Farm. Fenton) – This application was allowed on appeal and although contrary to the IHP the Inspector placed significant weight on the benefits of removing an industrial building which had a detrimental impact on the setting of adjacent listed buildings. There were therefore overriding material considerations. As the Inspector had already considered the application for 5 dwellings on the site and approved it, the authority did not feel any greater harm would result in the additional dwelling approved under application S07/0516 (Erection of 5 Dwellings and garages). At the time of application S03/1307 (Erection of 4 Dwellings. Main Street. Fenton) being refused and subsequently approved on appeal, the Interim Housing Policy was not in place and therefore not a material consideration in relation to this application. Application S05/0337 involved the erection of a 3 bedroom bungalow in the garden of Carlton View, 17 Main Street. Normanton on Cliffe. The application was refused by the Local Authority with one of the reasons sited being the fact the proposal was contrary to the Interim Housing Policy. The applicants subsequently appealed the decision of which

71

was dismissed with the Inspector giving substantial weight to the Interim Housing Policy, commenting as follows: “The site is previously developed land, as defined in PPG 3, however, such land is not automatically suitable for building on. I believe that the Council’s Interim Housing Policy of May 2005 should be supported because it directs new housing to more sustainable locations in line with up to date national and strategic policies.” Visual Impact The locality consists of a mix of house types ranging from detached to semi-detached properties. It is considered that the proposed dwellings assimilate with their surroundings in terms of mass and form whilst continuing the wide ranging design types that are prevalent in the area. The suggested materials that are to be used include red brick and pantile roof tiles. A condition could be attached that requested samples of these materials for final approval in order that they match those of nearby developments. Due to the dwellings being sited in close proximity to the road frontage it is considered that the proposal will conform with the siting of the closest property to the north so integrating with their surroundings whilst having no visual impact on the street scene. With regards to the impact on the Conservation Area, no objection has been received form the Conservation Area Officer. The comments of English Heritage had not been received at the time of writing the report and will be reported to the Development Control Committee. Impact on neighbouring private residential amenity With regard to the size and siting of the dwellings and their impact on neighbours, it is considered that the overall bulk and form of the dwellings will not have an adverse impact to these neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light and the creation of a dominant and oppressive environment. The dwelling on Plot 1 is adjacent to the blank side gable of the neighbouring property to the north. As the north elevation of the new house does not have any window openings to this side it is considered that unacceptable levels of overlooking would not result. Although the dwelling has been set back further into the site it is considered that this will not increase the impact on the private residential amenity of the neighbouring dwelling. The dwelling on Plot 2 is a considerable distance from Wellington House to the south and will be separated by the proposed access and partially screened by an existing Sycamore Tree. The eaves of the double garage block adjacent to the rear boundary of properties on Lambert Road will only be slightly higher than the existing hedge and will have a roof sloping away from the neighbours so reducing any potential impacts on their residential amenity.

72

All other surrounding properties along Bottom Street are considered to be such a distance away from the application site that their residential amenity will not be compromised. Highway safety Concerns have been expressed regarding the use of the existing drive for access and issues of on street parking. On site parking is provided in the form of two garages within a single block together with an area of turning to allow vehicles to leave the site in forward gear. A condition has been recommended by the highway authority which requires the clearance of all obstructions exceeding 0.6m in height to be cleared from the land between the highway boundary and the vision splays indicated on the submitted drawings. This will ensure that suitable levels of visibility can be achieved for vehicles exiting the site onto Bottom Street. The highway authority have not objected to the scheme in terms of the inadequate level of parking that is being provided so leaving the planning authority to conclude that the proposal will not impact adversely on highway safety. Other Issues Comments have been received that part of the boundary is on common land. The application has been submitted with signed ownership certificates and the authority has not received any evidence that proves that these have been filled in incorrectly. Issues of rights of way and access are not material planning considerations and are dealt with through Civil Law. Any planning application that may be granted would not override an individual’s rights of way or access. Crime and Disorder Implications It is considered that the proposed development will not have any detrimental crime and disorder implications. Human Rights Implications It should be noted that Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) will be taken into account in determining this application It is considered that no other relevant Article will be breached. Conclusion The designs of the dwellings are considered to assimilate with their surroundings and not impact adversely on the character of the area. Due to the design and siting of the dwellings and the careful positioning of fenestration it is not considered that an unacceptable level of overlooking or loss of privacy will be created as a result of the development.

73

The suitable mass and form of the dwellings coupled with satisfactory levels of separation will not lead to the creation of a dominant or oppressive environment or loss of light to neighbouring properties. There will be no loss of protected trees with comments being received from the Arboriculturalist recommending the submission of details of the construction method of the proposed driveway. With the attachment of suitable conditions the Highway Department do not object leading the authority to conclude that the proposals will impact adversely on highway safety. The development will though be contrary with the requirements of national and regional policy and the locally adopted Interim Housing Policy, with the proposed dwellings being sited within a less sustainable location and it is recommended therefore that planning permission should not be granted. CASE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Refused for the following reason(s):

1. Notwithstanding the existing permission for the erection of a single dwelling, the authority considers that the erection of an additional dwelling is not acceptable in this location. Allington is lacking services to meet everyday needs and employment opportunity and where, therefore, residents are dependent upon the private motor car to access such services. The settlement is not considered, therefore, to be a sustainable location for further development and the proposal is contrary to national and local planning policy contained in the East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS8) policies 1, 3, 4 and 13a, PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), PPS7 (Sustainable Development in rural Areas), PPS3 (Housing), PPG13 (Transport) and the South Kesteven District Council Interim Housing Policy (June 2005).

* * * * * *

74

PL1 S09/0733/FULL Target Decision Date: 22-May-2009

Applicant Mr R Coldham 16, Peascliffe Drive, Grantham, NG318EN

Agent Mr D Todd, David Todd Architecture The Chestnuts, 27, New Beacon Road, Grantham, NG31 9JS

Proposal Two storey extension to dwelling & conservatory

Location 16, Peascliffe Drive, Grantham, NG318EN

App Type Full Planning Permission

Parish(es) Grantham

REPORT Members Information Members may recall that this application was put before the development control committee on 2 June 2009. However, due to problems with neighbour notifications about committee dates it has been decided to return the application to committee for consideration. Previously this application was deferred from the Planning Committee meeting on 12 May 2009 as amended drawings had been submitted following the receipt of comments from Anglian Water. The following report has been amended to incorporate the amended drawings, the late items paper from the 2 June 2009 committee and any neighbour comments not included in the report. Application Category This application is categorised as a minor application. Reason for Referral to Committee The application has been referred to the Development Control Committee at the request of a locally elected Member. Issues raised by the Member are:

1. Mass and design which is inappropriate to the general character of the area. 2. Loss of privacy.

The Proposal This is an application for the erection of a two storey extension that wraps around the north corner of the dwelling and a conservatory to the rear of the house on the south west side. The two storey extension provides a study, utility room and WC on the ground floor with an extension to a bedroom with dressing room and en-suite on the first floor. The conservatory is to be sited on an area currently used as a raised ground level deck.

75

The application site and its surroundings The application site is located at the western end of a small cul de sac off the west side of the main section of Peascliffe Drive, within a wholly residential area of Grantham. The dwelling is a detached house which is currently having works undertaken to the southern side to provide a garage and pitched roof to the outbuildings to the rear. To the north west and north east of the dwelling there are pedestrian footpaths with a brick wall and fencing identifying the site boundaries. To the north west boundary there is a conifer hedge that is to be removed. All the immediately adjacent properties are houses and in the vicinity there are a variety of dwelling types and styles. Site History In February 2004 full planning permission was granted for extension to the dwelling, single storey to the south, two storey to the north. In April 2007 full planning permission was granted for the erection of a garage and pitched roofs to the outbuildings to the south side of the dwelling. This is currently being implemented. Representations Received Anglian Water: No objection to the amended proposal subject to the depth of the foundations. Local Highway Authority: No objection to the proposal. Representations as a result of publicity The application has been advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement and at the time of drafting the report one reply has been received but the period of consultation had not expired. Any further responses will be reported to the committee.

The points raised in the letter already received can be summarised as follows:

1. The 2 storey extension would be visually intrusive.

2. The house is taking on the appearance of a large house on a small plot of land.

3. The development will create an oppressive environment for the footpath and a dominant environment to the neighbouring properties.

76

4. The design is out of keeping with the area.

5. Concern over highway safety as the occupants continually park on the road or across the footpath.

6. The proposed development will result in less room for onsite parking leading to blocking of rights of way on a long term basis.

7. There are plans to build a 2 metre wall across the site frontage.

Since the drafting of the original report 5 letters of objections have been received. A summary of the main concerns are listed below:

1. Unattractive building and outlook.

2. Dominating/imposing environment.

3. Severe overdevelopment of the plot

4. Out of character with other properties in Peascliffe Drive.

5. Loss of value of property (not a planning consideration).

6. The front of the extended house would have four different planes, four different roof lines and four different finished to the front elevation.

7. It would result in an unattractive house out of character with the surroundings

8. No objection subject to no first floor windows overlooking my property.

Applicants Submission

A written submission from the applicant’s agent has been received making the following comments:

1. The design has been carefully considered to reflect the existing property.

2. None of the first floor windows overlook any private amenity area of the adjacent properties.

3. This proposal is an amendment to two previously approved schemes

4. It would not result in a large house that is overbearing to adjacent properties.

5. When completed there will be sufficient off road car parking.

Planning Considerations National Policy Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1)

77

Saved Policies of South Kesteven Local Plan Policy H6 – Housing (criteria d,(i)) This policy refers to improvement and extension to existing dwellings where in determining the proposal consideration will be given to the impact of the proposal on the form, character and setting of the settlement and on the community and its local environment. Policy EN1 – Protection and Enhancement of the Environment (criteria iii).This is a general policy containing a list of criteria which seeks to preserve and enhance the visual quality and amenity of the built and countryside environments and criteria iii refers specifically siting, layout, design and materials. Key Issues The key issues to be considered as part of the determination of this application relate to the following: Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area / Visual amenity of the street scene, The impact on the residential amenities of adjacent properties, Officer Evaluation The surrounding area contains a mixture of dwelling types and styles and it is considered that having regard to the style and design of the proposed extension, there will be no adverse affect upon the appearance of the dwelling itself or on its appearance within the street scene having regard to its location, both on the site and in relation to its surroundings. Due to the relationship between the application property and surrounding dwellings and the location of the proposed first floor windows, it is considered that there will be no loss of privacy to any private amenity areas, the windows facing the front gardens of adjacent properties. Regarding the comments on a proposed wall, this is currently the subject of a Lawful Development application for a 1 metre high wall and gates. It is considered that the additional comments received from neighbours do not contain any new material considerations not already discussed in the main body of the report. As the scheme has been amended, an additional condition is required relating to the amended plans in order to define the permission.

78

Crime and Disorder Implications It is considered that the proposed development will not have any significant or detrimental crime and disorder implications. Human Rights Implications Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation. It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached. Conclusion The development is considered acceptable. SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL The proposed erection of a two storey extension and rear conservatory will, due to their design, appearance, size, location and relationship with surrounding properties have no detrimental impact on the dwelling itself or on the visual and residential amenities of adjacent dwellings and the surrounding area. It is considered that this is a satisfactory form of development and is in accordance with national Policy PPS1 and Saved Policies H6(d)(i) and EN1(iii) of the South Kesteven Local Plan. Therefore the considerations are not sufficient to indicate against the proposals and outweigh the policies referred to above. CASE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The development shall be built in accordance with the materials detailed on the submitted application forms unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to ensure a satisfactory development in accordance with Saved Policies EN1 and H6 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

79

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no window, dormer window or rooflight other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed without planning permission having first been obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties in accordance with Saved Policies H6 and H7 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

4. This permission relates solely to the application as amended by drawings received on 11 May 2009.

Reason: The earlier drawings were unacceptable due to the relationship with the adjacent public sewers.

5. This permission shall be read in conjunction with the submitted application and the amended plans Drawing No. 1080/6a, 1080/5a, 1080/4a and 1080/1 received by the local planning authority from the applicant's agent on 11 May 2009 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to define the permission.

* * * * * *

80

JST1 S08/1332/MJNF Target Decision Date: 21-Apr-2009

Applicant Mr I Turk, Lincolnshire County Council County Offices, Newland, Lincoln, LN1 1YL

Agent Mr I Turk, Mouchel Business Services Limited Mill House, Brayford Wharf North, Lincoln, LN1 1YT

Proposal 3 Storey multi-use office complex

Location Whitley Way, Northfields Industrial Estate, Market Deeping

App Type Major Full (Non-residential)

Parish(es) Market Deeping

REPORT The Proposal The proposal is for a 3 storey multi-user office complex with associated parking at land off Whitley Way, Market Deeping The application site and its surroundings The site is located on the northern edge of the settlement of Market Deeping within the Northfields Industrial Estate. The site has direct vehicular access of Whitley Way and is closely connected to the A15 and A16 highway network. The site is a level area of vacant land extending to 0.9 hectares in size and is situated just south of the new Ampy industrial building. The site has exposed views from the northeast with matures trees including tall conifers providing some visual relief from the southeast. A small electric sub station is located on the northern perimeter of the land but this is not included within the application site. Representations Received Community Archaeologist: No known archaeological sites affected Local Highway Authority: No objections subject to conditions being attached Highways Agency: No objections Welland and Deepings Internal Drainage Board: The board would not welcome unattenuated flows into the downstream system as it is already up to capacity. A scheme for addressing surface water disposal from this site should be addressed. Environment Agency: No objection subject to condition being attached

81

Town Council:

The office complex looks splendid and new work premises should bring much needed employment to the local area. Concerns are raised about parking – 34 individual offices plus 1 large open plan office, a kitchen and a café with only 72 spaces. 2 parking spaces per unit appears inadequate and does not take into account meeting rooms, conference facilities and other visitors. There is a bus service, as the application states, but this service may not be user friendly where start and finish times are concerned and we already have parking issues on the industrial estate’

Representations as a result of publicity The application was advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement with the closing date for third party representations being 20th February 2009 No third party representation were received. Reason for Referral to Committee The application is referred to committee following a request from the Lead Professional Site History S05/0894 – Approval of development of land for B1, B2 and B8 uses and associated infrastructure. Policy Considerations National Policy PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPG4 – Industrial, Commercial Development and small firms PPG13 Transport Regional Policy Regional Plan Policies 1, 2 and 18

82

Saved Policies of South Kesteven Local Plan Policy EN1 states that: THE VISUAL QUALITY AND AMENITY OF THE BUILT AND COUNTRSIDE ENVIRONMENTS OF THE PLAN AREA WILL BE CONSERVED AND ENHANCED. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS SHOULD:

I) INCORPORATE APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPING AND TREE PLANTING WHERE APPROPRIATE

II) CONSERVE AND ENHANCE, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, WOODLAND, TREES, HEDGEROWS, WETLAND AND OTHER WILDLIFE HABITATS, WATERCOURSES AND OTHER NATURAL FEATURES, KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND FEATURES OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

III) IN RESPECT OF BUILDINGS, REFLECT THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA THROUGH LAYOUT, SITING, DESIGN AND MATERIALS

IV) NOT INTRUDE INTO THE SETTING OF IMPORTANT BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPE FEATURES OR PROMINENT VIEWS

V) WHERE APPROPRIATE, HELP TO ACHIEVE THE IMPROVEMENT OF DERELICT, DEGRADED AND UNDERUSED LAND

VI) BE LOCATED WHERE THE HIGHWAY SYSTEM CAN ADEQUATELY AND SAFELY ACCOMMODATE THE VOLUME AND NATURE OF TRAFFIC LIKLEY TO BE GENERATED OR INCORPORATE SUITABLE PROPOSALS FOR ALL NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS

VII) AVOID POLLUTION OF THEIR SURROUNDINGS BY NOISE, TOXIC OR OFFENSIVE ODOUR OR BE RELEASE OF WASTE PRODUCTS

Key Issues Conforming use The site already benefits from an outline approval for B1, B2, and B8 use which was approved in 2005. Design, size and scale The proposal is for a 3-storey office complex with a maximum height of 13.7m. The location of the building, which measures some 57m by 21m, is situated towards the eastern edge of the site with the primary elevation providing a pleasing outlook over the site for users of the building. The building makes maximum use of natural light by providing large areas of glazing, in particular the roadside approaches. The internal layout will again make efficient use of natural light with large central voids. It is considered that the contemporary design will be in keeping with the recent Ampy building and the 2 buildings will complement each other. Both buildings will provide an attractive visual entrance for visitors approaching the site from the east.

83

The industrial estate has a mix of building types of varying sizes. This proposal will, in general, be consistent with the size and scale of nearby buildings and will draw on the design principles of the new Ampy building. Highway safety and car parking A full Transport Statement was submitted dated 2005; however, this was considered out of date and a request was made for a revised statement. A new Transport Statement was then received dated April 2009. The local highways authority was consulted on this new document and raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions being attached. The proposal will have access off Whitley Way and will provide on site for 76 car parking spaces, 4 of which area disabled, motorcycle parking and a bicycle stand. Although it is envisaged that the majority of users of the site will travel by car provision has been made to allow alternative means of transport by way of cycling and travelling by motorcycle. Public transport is also available but the frequency of the service is unknown. A Travel Plan has also been requested (by condition) to ensure the monitoring of movement of users of the site and to discourage the dependency on the motor vehicle when using the site. Impact on the form and character of the surrounding development The existing dwellings that surround the site are predominantly 2-storey detached houses with bungalows to the east and south east. The pattern of the surrounding development is typically estate housing with some older properties to the south that front onto Stamford Road. It is considered that the proposal does not adversely affect the general form and character of the surrounding built environment or detract from the appearance of Tattershall Drive and its streetscene. Visual impact The size and scale of the proposed building appears to be consistent with other nearby industrial buildings. The most prominent views will be to vehicle users travelling west along the A16 Market Deeping bypass and distant views across the open fields to the south and east. It is considered the attractive modern design of the proposal, which will be no more visually prominent than the Ampy building, will be acceptable in terms of its overall visual impact and its impact to the streetscene. Crime and Disorder Implications The site appears to raise no concerns relating to crime and disorder.

84

Human Rights Implications It should be noted that Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) will be taken into account in determining this application It is considered that no other relevant Article will be breached. SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL In the opinion of the local planning authority the proposal will introduce an attractive, functional building in a location where the proposed use will be both acceptable and beneficial to the local economy. It is considered that the contemporary 3-storey building, in terms of size, scale and design, will assimilate well with the surrounding buildings, in particular the Ampy building to the north. It is further considered that the proposal will have adequate parking for vehicles and will provide for alternative means of transport helping to reduce the dependency on the motor car. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1), Planning Policy Guidance Notes 4 and 13 (PPG4 and PPG13), Policies 1, 2 and 18 of the East Midlands Regional Plan and Saved Policy EN1 (i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii) of the South Kesteven Local Plan. CASE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Saved Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

3. The arrangements shown on the approved plan E9914(D)01B dated March 2009 for the parking/turning/unloading of vehicles shall be available at all times when the premises are in use.

85

Reason: To enable calling vehicles to wait clear of the carriageway of Whitley Way and to allow vehicles to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

4. No development shall take place before the detailed design of the arrangements for surface water drainage has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority and no building shall be occupied before it is connected to the agreed drainage system. Reason: To ensure that surface water run-off from the development will not adversely affect, by reason of flooding, the safety, amenity and commerce of the residents of the site.

5. Within 6 months of the development being occupied, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter annually a staff survey shall be analysed and submitted to the local planning authority that will provide details of the implementation of the Travel Plan. The occupiers shall ensure that travel arrangements are fulfilled in accordance with the Travel Plan, unless agreed in the local planning authority stipulates approval to any variation. Reason: In order that the local planning authority conforms to the requirements of PPG13 'Transport', a Travel Plan has been conditioned to ensure that access to the site is sustainable and reduces dependency on the car.

6. If, during development contamination not previously identified is found present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the local planning authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Reason: To prevent the risk of pollution to controlled waters.

7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface and foul water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to prevent pollution of controlled waters by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface and foul water disposal.

8. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include (proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artifacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services

86

above and below ground (e.g. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); retaining historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant). Soft landscape works shall include (planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedule of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; implementation programme). Reason: Hard and soft landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings.

9. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To provide a satisfactory appearance by screening rear gardens from public view and in the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupants of the proposed dwellings.

10. This permission relates solely to the application as amended by drawing nos. E9914(D)01B, E9914(D)02A, E9914(D)03A, E9914(D)04A and E9914(D)05B received on 7 May 2009.

Reason: The earlier drawings were superseded due to a small variation in the design of the scheme.

* * * * * *

87

JST2 S09/0737/MJRF Target Decision Date: 29-Jun-2009

Applicant Mr P Sharman, Baxter & King Squirrels Lodge, Hards Lane, Frognall, Deeping St James, Peterborough, PE6 8RP

Agent

Proposal Erection of 15 'affordable' dwellings and associated infrastructures

Location Land Adj, Dickens Close/Stowe Road, Langtoft

App Type Major Full (Residential)

Parish(es) Langtoft

REPORT The Proposal The proposal is for the erection of 15 affordable dwellings which include 9 number 2-bedroom houses, 6 number 2-bedroom dormer bungalows and associated infrastructure. The application site and its surroundings The site, which measures approximately 0.63 ha, is located on flat agricultural land adjacent to the built curtilage on the western side of Langtoft. The site has a small access track on the eastern perimeter that provides access to the fields at the rear. Open fields are located to the north and west with the old quarry works situated on the opposite side of Stowe Road to the south. Reason for Referral to Committee Application referred to committee due to the wider public interest. Representations Received Local Highway Authority: No objections subject to conditions being attached. Anglian Water – Advise that the water supply network and foul sewerage system has adequate capacity for the development. Community Archaeologist - No archaeological intervention required Langtoft Parish Council: Recommend refusal on the following grounds;

88

The site was deemed unsuitable within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) due to the open countryside location and, potential visual impact and site being in a flood zone Development of a Greenfield site Inadequate physical infrastructure Inadequate social infrastructure Protecting countryside will maintain the identity of Langtoft from incremental ‘development creep’ Doubts over the social housing demand figures Increase linear development LCC Education: Requests a financial contribution towards education via a Section 106 Agreement for £34,352 Housing Solutions – Affordable Housing: The Council are working in partnership with Baxter and King and Minster Housing Association, which are one of the district council’s preferred registered providers to develop affordable housing. The proposed development has been based on the greatest need for 2 bedroom accommodation, both bungalows for the elderly and houses for couples with or without family. Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objection subject to conditions being attached Planning Policy – The policy comments received were written prior to the withdrawal of another affordable housing scheme for 17 dwellings at land to the east of New Road Langtoft. The Planning Policy team acknowledge that the principle of the proposal conforms to national guidance, regional policy and local policy but raise concern over the mix of dwellings in terms of size, type and affordability. The Planning Policy Section also raises concern over the lack of evidence submitted by the applicant that demonstrates that the proposal meets a proven local need. Finally, concern has also been expressed at the location of the proposal site and the fact that little evidence has been provided on the discounting of other sites within the village which may relate better to the settlement than this proposal. Open Space provision – Request a financial contribution of £35,000 for the development of a LEAP within a 5 minute walking distance of the proposed site.

Representations as a result of publicity The application was advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement with the closing date for third party objections being 1 May 2009. A number of representations were received after this date and these have also been included for consideration. As a result of the consultation period (and objections received after the closing date) 76 objections were received. A summary of the material planning considerations raised in the objections were;

89

The site was deemed unsuitable in the SHLAA produced by SKDC Site is in open countryside Inadequate physical infrastructure Inadequate social infrastructure Protection of agricultural land Concerns over foul sewerage Congestion Visual impact Impact on character of the area Impact on roads Impact on schools Design out of keeping with the area Dominant and oppressive environment caused by the proposal Access, parking and traffic generation Possible air, noise and water pollution Nearest bus stop is 0.5 miles away Lack of local employment to support further housing Land is green belt Contravenes local policy Impact on highway safety Loss of privacy Concerns over selling off the whole field for development Doubts over the social housing need for the area Impact on wildlife Development is outside the village envelope Development would exacerbate the ribbon development Impact on doctors surgeries and schools Site History There is no relevant recent history for the site. Policy Considerations National Policy PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 3 – Housing Paragraph 9 of PPS3 states: The Government’s key housing policy goal is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. To achieve this, The Government is seeking;

90

To achieve a wide choice of high quality homes, both affordable and market housing, to address the requirements of the community. To widen opportunities for home ownership and ensure high quality housing for those who cannot afford market housing, in particular those who are vulnerable or in need. To improve affordability across the housing market, including by increasing the supply of housing. To create sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities in all areas, both urban and rural. Paragraph 30 states that; In providing for affordable housing in rural communities, where opportunities for delivering affordable housing tend to be more limited, the aim should be to deliver high quality housing that contributes to the creation and maintenance of sustainable rural communities in market towns and villages. This requires planning at local and regional level adopting a positive and pro-active approach which is informed by evidence, with clear targets for the delivery of rural affordable housing. Where viable and practical, Local Planning Authorities should consider allocating and releasing sites solely for affordable housing, including using a Rural Exception Site Policy. This enables small sites to be used, specifically for affordable housing in small rural communities that would not normally be used for housing because, for example, they are subject to policies of restraint. Rural exception sites should only be used for affordable housing in perpetuity. A Rural Exception Site Policy should seek to address the needs of the local community by accommodating households who are either current residents or have an existing family or employment connection, whilst also ensuring that rural areas continue to develop as sustainable, mixed, inclusive communities. Annex B of PPS3 goes on to state that ‘housing need’ is defined as ‘The quality of housing required for households who are unable to access suitable housing without financial assistance. PPG13 - Transport Regional Policy REGIONAL PLAN 2009 Policy 1 – Regional Core Objectives Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design Policy 14 – Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing Policy 15 – Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing in Rural Areas Saved Policies of South Kesteven Local Plan Policy H6 (a,i,ii,iii,v)

91

Policy H8 – Affordable Housing According to saved policy H8 of the South Kesteven Local Plan, ‘Local Need’ is defined as covering; Existing residents needing separate accommodation in the area People who are employed in the locality and need to be close to their work People with the offer of a job in the locality, who cannot take up the offer because of the lack of affordable housing; and People who are not necessarily resident locally but have long-standing links with the locality Policy EN1(i,ii,iii,vi,vii) Interim Housing Policy (IHP) Key Issues The ‘need’ for affordable housing Notwithstanding that a number of market housing sites have yielded much needed affordable housing within the district a high number of areas still have large numbers of people who cannot afford to purchase or rent a decent home that meets their needs. In 2006, Fordham’s Research was commissioned by South Kesteven District Council to produce their Housing Needs Survey (HNS). This survey is one of a number of compulsory background papers that informs the ongoing development of the South Kesteven Core Strategy. The district council’s housing waiting list, along with information in the HNS, assists in providing the current levels of ‘housing need’ within various parts of the district. The council’s waiting list is constantly changing taking into account people’s requirements. According to the council’s housing register the waiting list for Langtoft, which was validated on 27th May 2009, identified the following; PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN LANGTOFT

BUNGALOW 2-BED HOUSE 3-BED HOUSE 4-BED HOUSE TOTAL

5 9 1 0 15

DIRECT CONNECTION WITH LANGTOFT

BUNGALOW 2-BED HOUSE 3-BED HOUSE 4-BED HOUSE TOTAL

0 16 1 0 17

LIVE OR DIRECT CONNECTION WITHIN 5 MILES OF LANGTOFT

BUNGALOW 2-BED HOUSE 3-BED HOUSE 4-BED HOUSE TOTAL

17 52 27 8 104

92

Concern has been raised by the parish council and a number of residents in Langtoft that there is little or no need for any affordable housing in the settlement. There have also been ongoing discussions about the inaccuracy of the recorded data that the council hold on the housing waiting list for Langtoft. I have also been made aware of 2 surveys that have been carried out within the village of Langtoft. Both of these surveys, one of which was in support of affordable housing and the other unsupportive, provide a snapshot of the local need within the village only. Given that I have not received the full details of either of these surveys, which have greatly differing results, and the fact that they appear to target village residents only I consider that I can only attach limited weight to them when considering my recommendation. Notwithstanding the fact that the recorded figures for people waiting on the council’s housing list identify a need for affordable housing in Langtoft, Members should be aware that it is likely that a proportionate number of these people may have moved on or their financial circumstances may have changed where they no longer require an affordable home. It should be noted that historically, in terms of local need, applications for 100% affordable housing schemes on exception sites have always used the council’s housing waiting list as a tool to assess this local need. In terms of the affordable housing need in Langtoft it is for members to decide on how much flexibility is given to figures contained in the housing register; however, and in my professional opinion, based on the latest figures on the South Kesteven Council waiting list for housing (as outlined in the tables), it is considered that there is a demonstrable need for affordable housing in Langtoft. Development of a Greenfield Site The site forms part of a larger field that extends north and westwards along Stowe Road. This Greenfield site has no area specific protection status apart from the generic restraint policies. National guidance and local policy encourages using rural exceptions policies to increase affordable housing provision in areas that meet a proven local need. It is for this reason that this area of previously undeveloped land is being considered by this local planning authority for 100% affordable housing. Layout and Design The layout of the proposal will introduce a new access off Stowe Road to serve the 15 dwellings. The entrance to the site will be located between the existing dwellings to the west and the new development to allow a greater degree of separation between properties. It is considered that all 15 dwellings will have acceptable levels of private amenity space and the site also provides for 20 car parking spaces, of which 4 of these are to be constructed to disabled standards. Although the design incorporates communal parking areas the limited size of the development ensures that the maximum walking distance from the car to the front door is approximately 30m.

93

The dormer bungalows have been grouped into 2 blocks of 3 and are situated on the eastern side of the development, whist the remaining 9 2-storey dwellings are positioned as 3 pairs of semi-detached houses and one block of 3 dwellings. The 2-storey dwellings will have a maximum ridge height of 8.6m with the dormer bungalows being set at 6.8m. This appears to be consistent with many of the nearby properties to the east. It is acknowledged that the development will result in some visual impact; however, with an appropriate scheme of landscaping, it is considered that, on balance, the visual impact will not be severe enough to warrant refusing a scheme that will yield 15 new affordable dwellings. Highway safety, parking and congestion The access for the proposal will be off Stowe Road and will serve the 15 dwellings. It will also provide access for the farmer to the fields at the rear. The local highways authority has assessed the proposal and considers that the proposed development, which is subject to conditions, will not compromise highway safety. Furthermore, they consider that the levels of off-street car parking provision are acceptable for the development. Concerns have also been raised regarding the increase in traffic within Langtoft as a result of the proposal, in particular the A15 crossroads junction within the village. It is acknowledged that this is a busy junction but it is considered that the small increase in traffic levels would not be sufficient reason to warrant refusal of an application such as this. Impact of the development on existing schools, care facilities and open space A request has been made for financial contributions of £34,352 by Lincolnshire County Council ‘children’s services’ and £35,000 towards a local equipped area of play. Although these contributions are usually sought for market housing sites it should be noted that this application is for 100% affordable housing on a rural exception site. These exceptions sites usually result in very low profit margins for developers and requesting a financial sum of nearly £70,000 is likely to make the scheme unviable. Given that the site is for a 100% affordable housing scheme the paying of the financial sums, in this instance, is not being sought as the payment of these sums by the developer is very likely to result in the loss of the proposed affordable housing development. Protection of neighbour’s amenities The layout of the proposed development ensures that new occupiers will have acceptable levels of amenity space which is both private and usable. The existing development to the east of the site is considered sufficient distance away as to not adversely impact on the occupants by way of noise, loss of privacy through overlooking or dominance.

94

Crime and Disorder Implications The site appears to raise no concerns relating to crime and disorder. Human Rights Implications It should be noted that Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) will be taken into account in determining this application It is considered that no other relevant Article will be breached. SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL In the opinion of the local planning authority the location of the site, which is on the extreme western edge of the village, is acceptable for use as a rural exceptions site and is one that will provide for 15 new affordable dwellings in an area where there is an identified local need. It is considered that the design, in terms of size and scale, is consistent with the neighbouring development to the east and the layout will provide attractive hard/soft landscaping, adequate car parking provision and private, usable garden areas. It is further considered that the overall development will not detract from the general character and appearance of the area and that the visual impact of the development, subject to appropriate landscaping, will be acceptable in terms of its impact to the streetscene and from distant public vantage points. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with national and local policies as set out in Planning Policy Statements 1 and 3 (PPS1, PPS3), Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13), Policies 1, 2, 14 and 15 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, Policies H6 (i, ii, iii, v), H8 and EN1 (i, ii, iii, vi, vii) of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan (1995) and the Interim Housing Policy (IHP) (2005). CASE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. No development shall commence until final details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roofs have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Only the agreed materials shall be used in the development.

95

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Saved Policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

3. Before the dwellings are occupied, the access and turning space shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan drawing no. CH/04/08 Rev A dated 30 March 2009 and retained for that use thereafter.

Reason: To ensure safe access to the site and each dwelling in the interests of residential amenity, convenience and safety and to allow vehicles to enter and leave the highway in forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

4. Prior to any of the buildings being occupied the private drive shall be built in accordance with the details shown on drawing no. CH/04/08 Rev A dated 30 March 2009. Reason: In the interests of safety fo the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site.

5. The development shall not begin until a scheme for the provision of the affordable housing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The affordable housing shall meet the definition of affordable housing in Annex B of PPS3 or any future guidance that replaces it. The scheme shall include: i) the arrangements for the transfer of the affordable housing to an affordable housing provider (for the management of the affordable housing) (if no RSL involved); ii) the arrangements to ensure that such provision is affordable for both first and subsequent occupiers of the affordable housing; and iii) the occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of occupiers of the affordable housing and the means by which such occupancy criteria shall be enforced. Reason: To ensure that affordable housing provision is met in accordance with national, regional and local policy, and to ensure that local people's housing needs (when identified) are accommodated within their community.

6. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface water and foul water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to prevent pollution of controlled waters by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface and foul water disposal.

7. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels, means of enclosure and hard surfacing materials.

96

Soft landscaping works shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate and an implementation programme.

Reason: Hard and soft landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings.

8. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To provide a satisfactory appearance by screening rear gardens from public views and in the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupants of the proposed dwellings.

9. Before the development is brought into use, the road and parking areas shall be provided with lighting in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To reduce the risk of crime.

Note(s) to Applicant

1. This site is within 50m of a Land Contamination Concern. Please contact Environmental Protection Services on 01476 406300 for further information.

* * * * * *

97

IVW1 S09/0959/LB Target Decision Date: 23-Jun-2009

Applicant Assetts & Facilities, South Kesteven District Council South Kesteven District Council, Council Offices, St. Peters Hill, Grantham, NG31 6PZ

Agent

Proposal Alteration of listed building (signage)

Location Public Toilet, Red Lion Square, Stamford, Lincolnshire

App Type Listed Building Consent

Parish(es) Stamford

REPORT

Reason for Referral to Committee The application building is owned by the District Council and the application is made by the District Council. The Proposal Listed building consent is sought for the installation of replacement signage on a grade II listed building that is currently occupied on the ground floor as a public toilet. The application site and its surroundings The application building is Grade II listed and located in the south east corner of Red Lion Square, alongside Horseshoe Lane, a narrow pedestrian thoroughfare that connects with Sheepmarket to the south west. The building also lies within the Stamford Conservation Area. The public toilets occupy the southernmost part of a Victorian building that has distinctive rounded arches to the ground floor and a rounded corner to Horseshoe Lane. On this corner is a crude sign painted directly onto the stonework. In white letters on a black background the sign reads

“TOILETS →”.

The proposed new Toilet sign, measuring 0.58 cm x 15 cm, would be constructed of metal and again feature black lettering on a white background. It would be affixed over the existing gloss painted sign. The existing Horseshoe Lane metal nameplate is broken and it is proposed to remove this and restore the former painted sign that can still be seen higher up on curved corner.

98

Representations received as a result of consultation Stamford Town Council: No objections subject to Listed Building Regulations and is pleased this is being progressed. Stamford Civic Society: No objections, in fact we welcome the disappearance of the current unsightly painted sign. We are surprised that the paint has to be covered over, rather than removed – is there not some way this can be done? Representations as a result of publicity The application has been advertised in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement, the closing date for representations being 29 May 2009. There have been no third party representations in respect to publicity. Site History The historic of applications on this building relate to change of use. Policy Considerations PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 27 – Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment

The historic environment should be understood, conserved and enhanced, in recognition of its own intrinsic value, and its contribution to the Region’s quality of life.

Applicants submissions The application is accompanied by the requisite Justification Statement. Key Issues Impact on character and appearance of the listed building.

99

Officer Evaluation The proposal will result in a reduction in and improvement to the signage on the exterior of the listed building, to the overall enhancement of its character and appearance. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Central Government Policy Guidance contained in PPG 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) Crime and Disorder Implications It is considered that the proposed development would not give rise to any significant Crime and Disorder issues. Human Rights Implications Article 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taking into account in making this recommendation. It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL It is considered that the proposed signage would not detract from the character or appearance of the listed building and the proposal is, therefore, in accordance with Central Government Policy Guidance contained in PPG15 and Policy 27 of the East Midlands Regional Plan. CASE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s):

1. The works hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

Reason: To comply with Sections 18 (as amended) and 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

* * * * * *