AGENDA ITEM

Development Control Committee 27th July 2004

SU.1 S00/1124/69 Registration Date: 31-Oct-2000

Applicant F H Gilman & Co Uffington Road, Stamford, Lincs, PE9 2HA

Agent

Proposal Business Park

Location PT OS 2700, Land north of Uffington Road, Stamford

Site Details Parish(es)

Stamford ** No longer required E2 Employment - Stamford Airfield Zone - No consultation required Notified waste disposal site - TIP1 Drainage - Welland and Nene

REPORT The Site and its Surroundings The 13.36 ha application site is located to the north of existing development fronting Uffington Road and to the east of that fronting Ryhall Road, at the southern end of the Gwash Valley. The site is divided in two by the River Gwash which enters the site from the north and exists it in the south eastern corner. To the north of the site is open agricultural land either side of the river. Also, to the east is agricultural land rising gently away from the valley floor to Newstead Road. Much of the site lies within the identified floodplain of the River Gwash. The site is allocated for Employment development in the 1995 Local Plan. It was not included as an allocation under the, now withdrawn, First Stage Deposit Draft of the replacement plan. A Local Development Framework is now being prepared to replace the 1995 Local Plan and it is too early in that process to know whether this site will be included as an allocation. The nearest residential properties are located to the south-east, fronting Uffington Road (+ 150m) and Newstead (250m) to the east. Site History The planning history of the site, insofar as germane to this application, is as follows: S69/1308/91 Business Park (Outline). Refused 22nd October 1991 on the grounds that it would

be contrary to the Policies of the then Draft Local Plan.

The Proposal

Outline planning permission is sought for development of the site as a Business Park. As the proposal involves the development of a significant area of land which has not previously been developed and would have an urbanising effect on a previously non-urbanised area, an Environmental Impact Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. The submitted 1:2000 scale plan shows access to the site off Uffington Road (A16), along the line of the existing private drive serving the applicants premises on its western side and those of Central Wool Growers to the east. A new roundabout would have to be constructed on the A16 at the existing junction. Policy Considerations The Lincolnshire Structure Plan

The Structure Plan for Lincolnshire comprises the following documents: Lincolnshire Structure Plan (1981) Alteration No. 1 (Housing) (1991) Alteration No. 2 (Employment and Retail) (1994) The employment policies of the Structure Plan relevant to this application are contained in Alteration No. 1: Policy 13A: Provision will be made in Local Plans to ensure that there is an adequate

range of sites available for industrial, warehousing and office use. Policy 16A: In or immediately adjacent to urban areas and where appropriate other

existing settlements, industrial, warehousing and office development will normally be provided for in Local Plans and planning permission will normally be forthcoming. The suitability of any proposal will be assessed in relation to the scale and impact of development in relation to its surroundings, including access and traffic movement, neighbouring uses and general amenity, and the effect on the landscape, areas of important open space and the need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land.

South Kesteven Local Plan (1991-2001) Policy E2: Allocates the application site, together with further land to the north, for

Employment related development. Policy E2 is quite specifically time-defined (1991-2001).

There have been no material signs of the application site being brought

forward for development in the Plan period.

Lincolnshire Structure Plan (Deposit Draft April 2004) This document replaces a previous replacement Deposit Draft Structure Plan published 1998, that had to be withdrawn due to a Direction from the Secretary of State requiring revisions to housing policies and which, in turn, had implications for the replacement Local Plan. The policies of the new Deposit Draft Structure Plan relevant to this application are: Policy S1: Promoting Sustainable Development Development should meet the Council’s key sustainable development objectives. Policy S2: Location of Development A sequential approach to the development of land should be adopted in

accordance with the following order of priority: (a) Land and buildings within urban areas which are, or are capable of

being, well served by public transport and are accessible to local facilities; (b) Land and buildings adjoining urban areas which are, or are capable of

being, well served by public transport and are accessible to local facilities; and

(c) Land and buildings not adjoining urban areas which are, or are capable of being, well served by public transport.

The suitability of previously developed land should be assessed as first

priority before consideration is given to greenfield sites. Policy S3: Development in Major Settlements New development will be located principally at the major settlements using the

hierarchy to allocate appropriate amounts and types of development, in the following priority order, to:

(a) the principal urban area – Lincoln Policy Area; then (b) the sub-regional centres – Boston and Grantham; then (c) the main and small towns. Policy S6: External Influences Local Plans/Local Development documents should promote sustainable

employment development in settlements close to larger out-of-county urban areas.

Policy E2: Employment Land and Buildings Existing Local Plan allocations should be assessed in line with the Structure

Plan sustainable development objectives to gauge their continued suitability for business and industrial uses and ability to support the role and function of settlements as set out in the spatial strategy, poor quality and surplus sites will either be re-allocated for more suitable uses or de-allocated.

In particular, the quality of existing employment land commitments should be

assessed in light of the following criteria:

Site Quality

• commercial viability and attractiveness of sites as measured by, for example land values and end user interest;

• allocations meeting identified local need;

• need for public sector intervention to bring sites forward for development;

• extent and intensity of site-specific constraints such as contamination and the availability of funding for mitigation;

• availability as measured by amount of on-site infrastructure in place.

Sustainability

• location in one of the major settlements having regard to the settlement hierarchy;

• ability to meet local regeneration needs and priorities;

• accessibility measured by distance from strategic road network and public transport facilities;

• minimisation of the amount of take-up of additional greenfield land for development; and

• ability to become mixed-use development sites. Policy NE11: Development and Flood Risk

Local authorities should not permit or allocate new development if, alone or in conjunction with other such development, it would:

• be at unacceptable risk from flooding or create such an unacceptable risk elsewhere;

• inhibit the capacity of the floodplain to store water;

• impede the flow of floodwater;

• have a detrimental impact upon ground water storage capacity;

• interfere with coastal processes or

• otherwise unacceptably increase flood risk.

In appropriate areas, strategic risk assessments should be carried out to inform the implementation of this policy. Site specific flood risk assessments should be provided by developers when requested by the relevant authorities.

Policy BE4: Archaeological Heritage:

Where development proposals will affect sites of archaeological significance, or potential significance, the results of an archaeological evaluation will be required to accompany an application for planning permission. Where development is likely to adversely affect important archaeological remains, or their setting, the physical preservation in situ of those remains will be the preferred option. Development likely to adversely affect archaeological remains or national, or international, importance (whether scheduled or not), or their setting, will not normally be permitted.

Where development is permitted and the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not warranted or desirable, taking into consideration the importance of the remains and other material considerations, the excavation and recording of the archaeological remains will be required along with the appropriate publication of the results.

There is something of a policy vacuum at present with the preparation of a replacement for the adopted Local Plan having to be delayed due to the difficulties with the Structure Plan’s Housing allocations but work on a Local Development Framework has now commenced. Planning Gain Requirements

To be determined. Statutory Consultations (Responses following the submission of the EIA) Local Highway Authority: If permitted, requests the following conditions:

1. Standard Condition C1. 2. Standard Condition C3 … any … 3. Standard Condition C4 … 100m … 4. Standard Condition F1. 5. No development shall commence on site (apart from those immediately identified on drawing nos. D41326/A/001 Rev A and D41326/A/002 Rev A, before the works to improve the public highway by means of a roundabout on the A16 Uffington Road have been certified as complete by the District Planning Authority. And Note to Applicant: No works shall commence on site until an Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 has been entered into with Lincolnshire County Council, as local highway authority, for the provision of a roundabout on the A16 Uffington Road, together with any necessary ancillary works.

Environment Agency:

In summary, the proposal raises significant concerns of potential pollution and flood risk issues, however careful management of the issues may alleviate an objection in principle by the Agency. The probable presence of contamination, the site’s proximity to a main watercourse and its position overlying a major aquifer combine to make the site particularly sensitive to development. The Agency consider that high standards of flood risk, drainage and pollution protection measures as part of a strategy for the whole site would need to form an essential part of any proposal and subsequent permission. Flood Risk and Drainage

The site is partly in the indicative fluvial floodplain map (IFM) and the proposal would generate surface water run-off issues relating to residual flooding further downstream. The applicant seeks to address these issues through carefully siting buildings, bridges and parking areas and through extensive use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) to store and attenuate surface water run-off arising from the site. The Agency considers the general mitigation measures proposed in the environmental statement to be essential and consequently requires these to be secured through both planning conditions and a planning agreement/unilateral undertaking to secure the appropriate maintenance funding and responsibility. The terms of such an agreement would need to be agreed prior to any granting of outline planning permission.

The Environmental Statement includes a Stage 1 Flood Risk Assessment looking at general flood risk issues, and is suitable only for an outline application where no precise siting/design/drainage matters are to be determined. The Agency has not seen a Concept Master Plan that is referred to in the ES, however discussions with Mr Wright SKDC indicate that the Concept Master Plan may not form part of the submitted plans. The Agency’s comments at this stage therefore represent the application in outline, with no details of siting submitted whatsoever, such as number or siting of bridges. There is also a reference on page 60 of the ES to an island building in cell 5 being on columns with parking underneath. The Agency would object in principle to such a proposal that would not only be in the indicative floodplain, but the related issues have also not been adequately addressed in the stage 1 flood risk assessment. In addition, it is unclear how the island site could be safely accessed or evacuated in times of flood. The Agency would therefore strongly advise that this aspect of the scheme be completely revised. Prior to the Agency considering any information in relation to siting and flood risk, a further and considerably more detailed flood risk assessment (Stage 2) would be required prior to any master plan or layout being agreed for the site. Should a concept master plan be put forward including details of siting, at this stage, the Agency would object on the basis of insufficient flood risk information submitted. The Agency wishes to make it clear that a piecemeal development of the site would be totally inappropriate to secure either the SUDS scheme proposed by the applicant or as a solution to the significant flood risk issues on the site on the basis of the environmental statement submitted. Any application taking into account siting would need to be accompanied by a Stage 2 FRA based on a detailed assessment of the whole site, including full consideration of siting details such as locations of bridges, plot sizes and building siting etc. This in turn would identify in further detail any areas that are not suitable for development, what sustainable drainage strategy would be appropriate and the specifications for it. In summary, should the Council be minded to grant outline planning permission with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, the Agency would have no objections in principle subject to the following conditions: CONDITION Development shall not commence until a detailed flood risk assessment for the whole site has been carried out which includes an allowance for climate change and a scheme for the provision and implementation of flood risk protection measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and the development shall not be occupied until the flood protection measures have been constructed in accordance with the approved scheme. REASON

To prevent the increased risk of flooding. CONDITION No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of a scheme for the provision and implementation of a scheme for on-site surface water storage with a capacity for a 1 in 100 year rainfall event has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include provision of a limited discharge of the stored surface water at a maximum of 5 litres per second per hectare, or a rate comparable with a greenfield run-off rate as may be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. The storage and discharge schemes shall be implemented in accordance with the details so approved prior to the development being brought into use.

REASON To alleviate the increased risk of flooding. CONDITION Prior to the commencement of any development, a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water drainage system including storm water storage and discharge attenuation shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Authority. The works/scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans/specification at such time(s) as may be specified in the approved scheme prior to the development being brought into use. REASON To ensure a satisfactory method of surface water drainage. Contaminated Land Issues In respect of land contamination and groundwater, the Agency has only considered the proposed development in relation to controlled waters (the adjacent main river and underlying major aquifer). The following conditions basically require further details of a contaminated land study, risk assessment and remedial measures: CONDITION No development approved by this planning permission shall be commenced until: a) A desk top study has been carried out which shall include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information a Conceptual Model for the site of all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors shall be produced. b) A site investigation has been designed for the site using the information obtained from the desk top study and any Conceptual Model. This should be submitted to, and approved in writing by the LPA prior to that investigation being carried out on the site. The investigation must be comprehensive enough to enable: - a risk assessment to be undertaken relating to ground and surface waters

associated on and off the site that may be affected, and - refinement of the Conceptual Model, and - the development of a Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements. c) The site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with details approved by the LPA and a risk assessment has been undertaken. A Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements, including measures to minimise the impact on ground and surface waters, using the information obtained from the Site Investigation has been submitted to the LPA. This should be approved in writing by the LPA prior to that remediation being carried out on the site. REASON

To ensure that the proposed site investigations and remediation will not cause pollution of Controlled Waters. CONDITION

The development of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement and completed in accordance with the approved plans/specification at such time(s) as may be specified in the approved scheme. REASON To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters. CONDITION If during development, contamination not previously identified, is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the LPA, an addendum to the Method Statement. This addendum to the Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. REASON To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters. CONDITION Upon completion of the remediation detailed in the Method Statement a report shall be submitted to the LPA that provides verification that the required works regarding contamination have been carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement(s). Post remediation sampling and monitoring results shall be included in the report to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report. REASON To protect Controlled Waters by ensuring that the remediated site has been reclaimed to an appropriate standard. Pollution Control It is understood that this application is for B1 and B8 uses only therefore the conditions below do not relate to any B2 General Industrial uses which the Agency requests consultation on should any such proposals be forthcoming. CONDITION

Prior to the commencement of any development or service infrastructure, a scheme for the provision and implementation of pollution control to the water environment shall be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Authority. The works/scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans/specification at such time(s) as may be specified in the approved scheme prior to the development being brought into use. REASON To ensure a satisfactory method of pollution control. CONDITION There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways. REASON

To prevent pollution of the water environment. CONDITION Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, vessel or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks or vessels plus 10%. All filling points, associated pipework, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund or have separate secondary containment. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank/vessels overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. REASON To prevent pollution of the water environment. CONDITION There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways. REASON To prevent pollution of the water environment. Water Based Ecology The Environmental Statement lacks information on the status of otters and water voles in the Gwash catchment. Otters are present upstream on the Gwash – regular records, the latest of which is from Belmesthorpe (TF042104) on 20.6.03. Otters are also known to be present on the Welland both upstream and downstream of Stamford, and therefore almost certainly move along the Gwash through the application area. Water voles are also known to inhabit upstream of the Gwash and it is possible that these will pass through or inhabit the site. Any planning permission should therefore incorporate further studies of water based mammals. Where any are found to be present appropriate mitigation measures such as habitat protection, provision of mammalian passes on any bridges and habitat replacement provision shall be incorporated in to the proposals. CONDITION No development shall commence until a scheme for the study and assessment of water and bank side ecology including suitable mitigation measures and method statement to conserve protected species and related habitat both in the design of the development and during construction/works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The works/scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans/method statement at such time(s) as may be specified in the approved scheme prior to the development being brought into use. REASON

To ensure the conservation of water related ecology. The following informative clarifies the Agency’s expectations as regards the need for Consent under the Land Drainage Act. INFORMATIVE

1. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 9 metres measures horizontally from the foot of any bank of the landward side, or where there is no bank, within 9 metres measured horizontally from the top edge of the batter enclosing the River Gwash. The applicant is requested to contact the Agency’s Development Control team on Kettering 01536 517721 for further information. The proposed development lies within 250 metres of a former landfill site. It is thought unlikely that the site is producing landfill gas in any quantity sufficient to become hazardous. However, we would advise the applicant contacts a consultant competent in the investigation and assessment of a site which may have potential gas or pollution problems. Suitable remedial measures, as agreed with Local Authority, incorporated into the development should alleviate any possible problems. The applicant should be informed that the responsibility for the safe development and secure occupancy of this development rests with them. The comments and advice given above for the landfill site are made entirely without prejudice and without any liability, accepted, implied or given on behalf of the Environment Agency.

Community Archaeologist: If permitted, requests pre-decision evaluation.

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: The site for the proposed development is situated on the eastern outskirts of Stamford and covers an area of 13.36 hectares. The land is currently undeveloped and is divided by the River Gwash. To the east of the Gwash the land is in agricultural use whilst to the west of the river, the land has been used for deposition of foundry sand. PLANNING BACKGROUND: An outline planning application has been submitted to South Kesteven District Council for a business park. South Kesteven requested an Environmental Impact Assessment which has now been completed by Wardell Armstrong. This revealed that 4.3 hectares of the site will not require any archaeological work to be undertaken (as it consists of foundry sand which is to be built on and poses no threat to any buried archaeological remains), whilst the remaining area should be subject to some pre-determination fieldwork. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND:

The town of Stamford dates from the post-Roman period when both Danish and Saxon settlers established boroughs to the north and south of the River Welland respectively. The town is mentioned in the Doomsday Survey and during the medieval period developed as an important ecclesiastical centre, with 14 churches and a number of religious houses. There are three sites recorded within close vicinity of the proposed development. To the south of the proposed development is an Anglo-Saxon cemetery, which was discovered in 1854 in a cutting on the Stamford to Essendine railway (which is now redundant). Here, one complete turn was found along with pottery fragments from at least three other vessels, an iron spearhead and skull and bone fragments. To the immediate east is the site of Newstead Mill, a Grade 2 listed building dating from the early 19th century. Slightly further south from the mill is Newstead Priory, a medieval monastic site, which appears to have been founded prior to the 13th century and was dissolved in 1536.

Although no archaeological sites are recorded within the development site, it is possible that evidence may exist relating to the Anglo-Saxon cemetery or to Newstead Priory. In addition, further unrecorded sites may exist within the site, which should be taken into consideration. Therefore, it is recommended that further pre-determination evaluation be undertaken consisting of a geophysical survey. It is likely that further fieldwork may be necessary. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Only 7.5 hectares of this site need to be subject to geophysical survey (the area to the immediate east of the Gwash which is currently in agricultural use), as the majority of the rest of the proposal poses no archaeological threat, since all groundworks will be carried out on the deposited foundry sand.

(The requirement for a pre-determination evaluation was discussed with the then Community Archaeologist, who suggested that perhaps the required archaeological works could be a condition of approval, although the above remains the formal response on the proposed development). English Nature:

Thank you for consulting English Nature in respect of the above environmental statement. As a statutory consultee in respect of all such statements in England, English Nature considers that the thorough and impartial assessment of significant environmental effects and the description and assessment of the effectiveness of avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures are of considerable importance to nature conservation. We therefore welcome the opportunity to comment on the content of the statement. General In summary, English Nature:

• does not object to the proposal; and

• considers that the environmental statement is in general a satisfactory basis for the Authority to assess the effects of the proposal on nature conservation; and

• considers that the Authority should impose planning conditions requiring the applicant to submit further environmental information and (if necessary) additional proposals to ameliorate the effects of the development on nature conservation.

Our detailed comments are set out below.

Statutory Sites English Nature is satisfied that the proposals are unlikely to affect any statutory nature conservation sites in the area. Protected Species PPG9 (paragraphs 47 and 48 in particular) advise that protected species are a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

Bats

All species of bat are European protected species, listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (the Habitats Regulations). In most circumstances, a licence is required from DEFRA if it is proposed to do anything that would deliberately

disturb, harm or destroy the breeding or resting place of a bat. English Nature advises DEFRA on licence applications. The Environmental Statement identifies Grindlepits Spinney, outside of, but adjacent to, the application site, as a likely roosting site for bats. Whilst the development is unlikely to have any effect on the Spinney itself, and no existing or likely roosting places were found within the application area, the Environmental Statement also correctly identifies the River Gwash corridor as suitable foraging habitat for bats. Consequently, English Nature does not consider that, on the basis of the information available to date, a licence would be needed for the proposed development in respect of bats. However, there is potential for the River Gwash corridor and habitat to become less attractive for feeding bats, through the disruption caused by construction activities, the introduction of the two bridges, and increased illumination when the development becomes operational.

Kingfisher As the Environmental Statement recognises in paras 7.3.18 and 7.5.8, Kingfishers are a species given protection by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, though it is clear what the reference to Kingfishers having additional protection during the breeding season relates. They are present along the river corridor, and a licence from English Nature would be required for anything that would harm or disturb them. There is potential for the River Gwash corridor and habitat to become less attractive for feeding and nesting Kingfisher, through the disruption caused by construction activities, any changes to river morphology and vegetation, and disturbance when the development becomes operational. Other nature conservation resources The Environmental Statement also identifies the River Gwash corridor as being a watercourse with high water quality, and with an associated invertebrate assemblage that is interesting and varied. It is also likely to serve as an important wildlife corridor, helping to link areas beyond the application site. English Nature welcomes the recognition that the timing and method of site clearance will need to ensure that breeding birds are not disturbed. Planning policy The Environmental Statement and the application itself refer to PPG9, but do not mention other statements of planning policy that may be relevant to this application. English Nature would like to draw the Council’s attention to RPG policies 29 and 31, which seek to encourage not only the protection of the most important nature conservation resources, such as SSSI’s, but also a wider range of species and habitats. We consider that this encompasses areas such s the River Gwash corridor running through the site. Additionally, the RPG seeks to recover past losses to biodiversity. The emphasis is on seeking protection and enhancement through carefully designed development, wherever possible. We also consider that this approach is supported by policies 48 and 49 of the Lincolnshire Structure Plan.

Conclusions

English Nature recognises that the application is in outline form at this stage, but consider that sufficient information has been submitted to make an informed judgement in respect of nature conservation issues. In light of the above comments, we also welcome, in general terms, the mitigation proposals and conclusions in the Environmental Statement. Nevertheless, to translate the good intentions of the proposals into reality, further submissions and detailed designs will have to address nature conservation issues. We also consider that long-term management of the river corridor is the only way that the residual impacts of the development will effectively be negated. Consequently, English Nature recommends that if permission is granted, planning conditions should be imposed requiring the submission and approval of a nature conservation strategy for the site, prior to the commencement of the development. This should include:

• identification for areas of protection, enhancement and habitat creation;

• details of the design of the bridges crossing the River Gwash;

• measures to protect habitats and species, including water quality protection, during the construction phase;

• details of measures to limit the impact of lighting on the River Gwash corridor;

• a long-term strategy for the management of areas for nature conservation;

• timing of implementation, related to the different phases of site preparation, construction and operation.

It may also be necessary to negotiate a Section 106 planning obligation to ensure that the long-term management is assured.

DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs):

Having considered this proposal in the light of Government policy for the protection of the best and most versatile agricultural land as set out in paragraphs 2.16 to 2.20 and Annex B of Planning Policy Guidance Note 7, “The Countryside – Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development” the Department wishes to draw your Authority’s attention to the following agricultural considerations: 1. The development will result in the loss of some 8.1 hectares of agricultural land which is stated to be of grade 3b in Chapter 8 of the Environmental Statement, although it is noted that no formal soil and drainage inspection has been undertaken. This assessment appears to be based on interpretation of the large scale Soils of Eastern England Map Sheet 4 produced by the then Soil Survey of England and Wales, identifying the soils as belonging to the Fladbury Series. The assessment of grade is then based on the climatic regime, soil water regime and topsoil texture for Fladbury Series as defined in the accompanying handbook to the soils map. Whilst it is accepted that this site is allocated for development within the South Kesteven Local Plan and hence the loss of agricultural land is accepted by the Department, it is nevertheless felt that the assumptions made about the soils and land grade are questionable. The Soil Survey map, like the Provisional Agricultural Land Classification Maps, do not differentiate between areas of land of less than about 80 hectares (200 acres) and so they should not be used to interpret conditions in small areas such as this. It might have been anticipated that a formal Environmental Statement such as this would have contained a site specific survey rather than rely on such interpretation.

2. Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the soil resources will be protected from potential impacts associated with improper handling by the adoption of modern soil handling practices as set out in paragraph 8.4.1. This will ensure that soil resources are protected and utilised in a sustainable manner. The views expressed above are without prejudice to the Secretary of State’s duty to take account of all material planning considerations and the representations made by other parties.

Environmental Health Services: If permitted, requests standard condition R25. Town Council:

We are concerned about the development having an urbanising effect on a previously non-urbanised area. We believe that the river corridor of the Gwash should be protected. We are concerned about the welfare of wildlife in this area. We agree that planning permission should not be granted for any development which would destroy or adversely affect the open character of the land to the east of the River Gwash at Newstead. We recognise and are sympathetic to the need for this form of development within the area of Stamford. Finally, we would (not?) resist development to the west of the Gwash except in the southern corner of this site but we do not wish to see development into the open countryside in the east.

Representations as a result of publicity The application has been advertised in accordance with statutory requirements, the closing date for representations being 1st December 2000. Representations have been received from interested parties. The planning issues raised are: a) Concerns as to whether site is appropriate for a business park. Other more suitable areas

available which would not increase volume of traffic on Uffington Road. b) Environmental issues need to be addressed as development will infringe on a site of natural

beauty and habitat for wildlife. (1) c) ‘Screening screening’ will be required to protect views and the needs of existing wildlife. (2) d) Object to any increase in industrial activity which will encroach on undeveloped land. (2) e) Opposed to any further increase in traffic along Uffington Road. Access should be only via

Ryhall Road. (2)

f) Should development proceed, attention needs to be afforded to problems such as surface water run off into adjacent watercourse and protection of existing water quality. (1)

g) Increase in noise and disturbance. (1) In addition, the Environmental Impact Assessment was advertised in accordance with statutory requirements, with a closing date for representations of 28th February 2002. No representations were received from members of the public in response to publicity for the Environmental Impact Assessment. Applicant’s Submissions

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Environmental Statement has been prepared by Wardell Armstrong on behalf of F H Gilman & Co and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. JMP Consultants Ltd have addressed the Transport Impact Assessment. 1.2 On 27 October 2000, F H Gilman & Co submitted an outline planning application to

South Kesteven District Council seeking approval for a proposal to create a Business Park in the Gwash Valley at Stamford (Reference S00/1124/69) on 13.36 ha of land in its ownership located to the north of the Company’s premises in Uffington Road. The site location is shown on Drawing ES1.

1.3 The planning application boundary was amended in December 2001 at the request

of the Highway Authorities to show the intended point and means of access to the proposed Business Park from the A16 Uffington Road.

1.4 The application site is allocated for industrial and business development under

Policy E2.3 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan. 1.5 A Concept Master Plan in support of the outline application was submitted to South

Kesteven District Council on 11 January 2002. The Concept Master Plan gives an indication of the nature and scale of the proposed development and provides a basis for the Environmental Impact Assessment.

2. THE SITE 2.1 The proposed Business Park is to be located on land situated on the north eastern

edge of Stamford in Lincolnshire. A mixture of land uses surround the site, with agricultural land to the north and east and industrial uses bounding the south and west of the site.

2.2 The site is less than one mile from the town centre of Stamford and is conveniently

located for many of the town’s major housing developments. 2.3 The application area consists of four main areas of land:

• approximately 4.3 hectares of former industrial land bounded to the east by the River Gwash and to the west by premises occupied, in part by the foundry and engineering works of MAN B&W Limited (formerly Blackstones) and, in part, by a former industrial brownfield site owned by Stamford

Property Company Limited currently being re-developed as the Stamford Business Park;

• approximately 7.5 hectares of agricultural grassland on the eastern side of the River Gwash forming part of Newstead Farm, bounded to the west by the River Gwash, to the north by Grindlepits Spinney and to the south by the Newstead Mill Lade;

• an ‘island’ area of grassland measuring approximately 0.6 hectares at the confluence of the Newstead Mill Lade and the course of the River Gwash; and

• approximately 0.3 hectares of grassland bordered by scrub and woodland located immediately to the south of the ‘island’ area.

2.4 The remainder of the application area comprises the River Gwash itself and the route of the proposed access road from the A16 Uffington Road. 2.5 The site is a mix of brownfield and greenfield land. The 4.3 ha of former industrial

land lying to the west of the River Gwash is ‘brownfield’ land having been the subject of deposition of ‘spent’ foundry sand between 1967 and 1983 by the previous owners.

3. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 General Outline 3.1.1 The intention is to create a Business Park development which can evolve to meet

market demand and assist expansion and diversification of the local economy. 3.1.2 In particular, the proposed Business Park should provide, within a high quality

sustainable environment, facilities which will:

• secure Stamford’s ‘defined town’ role as an important employment and service centre;

• enable existing local businesses to relocate and expand;

• increase and diversify economic activity by attracting new businesses to the area;

• create both additional and new employment opportunities;

• provide a range of compatible employment and businesses uses close to the existing Stamford town centre;

• enhance the vitality and viability of the town and the surrounding area.

3.2 Design Principles 3.2.1 The Concept Master Plan (see Drawing ES4) envisages development falling under Class B1 (Business) and B8 (Storage/Distribution) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987 as amended with a strong emphasis on high quality architectural and landscape design. 3.2.2 The following principles are applied therein:

• a comprehensive approach to structure the various land uses has been adopted;

• recognition of the need for the development design to take account of the relationship of the River Gwash to its surroundings, its setting and amenity value to enable these qualities to be satisfactorily incorporated;

• provision of generous open space opportunities for end users of the site;

• incorporation of the relevant standards for highways, car parking and open space;

• judicious use of both natural and artificial contours, sympathetic materials and imaginative landscaping.

3.3 Design Approach 3.3.1 The maximum floor area for the Business Park has been established in the Concept Master Plan at a gross of 30,000 square metres. 3.3.2 The site has been divided into eleven potential development cells (Drawing ES4).

Each individual cell will incorporate a proportion of the 30,000 square metres of floor area and associated parking, infrastructure, together with screen planting, structure planting and courtyard planting.

3.4 Access 3.4.1 The Transport Impact Assessment undertaken by JMP Consultants Ltd has

indicated that the current access from the A16 (T) Uffington Road, suitably upgraded and extended with the creation of a new roundabout to replace the existing junction, will satisfactorily accommodate all predicted traffic generation to and from the Business Park.

3.4.2 The main vehicular access across the River Gwash is to be by a bridge at the

southern end of the site. Following discussions with the Highways Division (South Kesteven & Sleaford) of Lincolnshire County Council, an additional access across the River Gwash at the northern end of the site is proposed for pedestrians and cyclists only. This bridge will also provide direct pedestrian/cycle access from the Ryhall Road area (one of the main residential areas of Stamford), to the proposed development area to the east of the River Gwash. In addition, a bridge is proposed to access the ‘island’ site (Cell 5) at the confluence of the Newstead Mill Lade and the River Gwash.

3.4.3 F H Gilman & Co will prepare a Green Transport Plan for the Business Park to

encourage alternative modes of transport to and from the site. The Concept Master Plan proposes a pedestrian linkage along the western bank of the River Gwash between Footpath No. 3 north west of the site and the A16 (T) Uffington Road to the south. A cycleway is to be created alongside the footpath to encourage a non-motorised form of transport linking the A16 (T) to the A6121 Ryhall Road. The Green Transport Plan will be developed in more detail following the grant of outline planning consent.

4. THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

The Need for the Gwash Valley Business Park 4.1.1 For many years Stamford has been dependent upon heavy industry, mainly

engineering, for the livelihood of its working population. These heavy industries are now generally in decline. Much of what has replaced these sources of employment has been in the retail sector. As a result the incidence of ‘outward’ commuting has increased dramatically in recent times. Thus there is a need to diversify the economy of Stamford into the service sector and new technology operations.

4.1.2 Paragraph 3.34 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan advises “Some existing and highly successful firms in Stamford are experiencing problems of expanding in situ and their search for better or larger sites and premises in the town within which to relocate their business is being frustrated by the acute lack of suitable land and buildings in acceptable locations. Clearly the loss of these firms would be to the detriment of the town, as would the lack of any prospect of attracting new businesses.”

4.1.3 At paragraph 3.17, the Local Plan confirms “The major part of demand is for well

designed estates and buildings with plenty of space, good parking, attractive environments, preferably near the main centres of population and labour supply. Some of the best locations are on green field sites on the edge of, or close to, urban areas with good access to primary roads.”

4.1.4 The Lincolnshire Structure Plan requires the allocation of between 20 and 50

hectares of land at Stamford for employment development during the period 1991 to 2011.

The Suitability of the Application Site 4.1.5 The proposed Gwash Valley Business Park is to be located on land allocated under

Policy E2.3 for business/industrial development in the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

4.1.6 Situated less than one mile from Stamford’s town centre, on the eastern edge of the

Town, the site is conveniently located for many of Stamford’s major housing developments.

4.1.7 The proximity of the application site to the centre of Stamford, its larger residential

areas and the local strategic highway network, will enable easy access via public transport whilst also offering the opportunity to encourage alternative modes of travel to and from the site.

4.1.8 Paragraph 3.35 of the Local Plan states “The council is of the opinion that the sites

identified in Policy E2, which adjoin existing industry on either derelict land or land of poor agricultural quality, will not have a serious effect upon the form, character and setting of the town.”

4.1.9 The application site is a mix of ‘brownfield’ and ‘greenfield’ land. It is surrounded by

a mixture of land uses: agricultural land to the north and east and industry on the south and west.

4.1.10 Implementation of the proposals as outlined in the Concept Master Plan will create a

high quality business and employment environment and generate environmental improvement on derelict land. This will in turn improve the visual quality of this urban edge of Stamford.

4.1.11 The development will aid realisation of the objective set out in Paragraph 3.18 of the

adopted Local Plan, “It is clear that only a range of readily available sites and buildings of varying size, location, tenure and price can meet the diverse and sometimes very particular requirements of individual firms.”

Assessment of Alternative Locations

4.1.12 Four other sites, together with the northern portion of Site E2.3 which forms no part of the proposed Gwash Valley Business Park, are allocated in the adopted Local Plan for business/industrial development at Stamford. They are unsuitable for, or incapable of, accommodating the envisaged development for the following reasons:

• Land at the former sewage works between Uffington Road and the River Welland (Pollicy E2.1)

This site has been partially developed with small industrial units. The remaining area is too

small to fulfil the need expressed in Paragraph 3.17 of the adopted Local Plan (see paragraph 4.1.3 above).

• Land to the East of Cherry Holt Road alongside the River Welland (Policy E2.2)

Much of this small site is no longer available, part having been developed as a private car

park for an adjoining industrial concern.

• Land to the South of Ryhall Road at Mirrlees Blackstone Ltd car park (Policy E2.4)

This very small area of land now forms part of a larger area for which planning consent has been granted for retail purposes.

• Land to the East of Newage Engineering between Barnack Road and the railway (Policy E2.5)

Part of this 8 hectare site has been sold. The remainder is of insufficient size to

accommodate the proposed Business Park and is also unsuitable. South Kesteven District Council at Paragraph 3.38 of the adopted Local Plan has advised that it “intends that the size and type of development on site E2.5 will be such as not to give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions at the junction of Barnack Road and High Street St Martins.”

• Land to the East of Ryhall Road and the dismantled railway on both sides of the River Gwash (Policy E2.3)

This refers to the northern portion of the land allocated under Policy E2.3. It is situated

between the western bank of the River Gwash and the route of the former Stamford/Essendine railway line and lies immediately to the north of the application site. The Highway Authority has advised that its development in advance of the application site would not be permitted.

5. ECOLOGY 5.1 The application site comprises the River Gwash and a mill stream (the Mill Lade) with associated grassland and scrub in conjunction with improved agricultural grassland to the east of the river and a platform of foundry sand to the west. The river and mill stream are the most important ecological features within the site and are considered to be of a high value for nature conservation in the local (parish) context; the associated floodplain habitats are considered to be of value for nature conservation in a local context. The other areas of grassland and scrub, the disturbed ground forming the platform of foundry sand and the agriculturally improved grassland areas are considered to be of negligible value for nature conservation.

5.2 There is no evidence to suggest that any protected species are present on the site.

However, it is possible that bats roost in Grindlepits Spinney (adjacent to the northern boundary of the site) and forage along the river and mill stream.

5.3 In general, the construction and operation of the proposed Business Park will have

negligible adverse impacts on wildlife habitats which are of negligible value for nature conservation (agriculturally improved fields, the foundry sand platform). The adverse impacts on the River Gwash and the Mill Lade are also considered to be of minor significance with the potential for mitigation by careful design of the overall scheme and by stringent site management during the construction phase.

5.4 There is the potential for habitat creation and positive habitat management of the

River Gwash and the Mill Lade within the site as the watercourses will form a central feature of the proposed Business Park.

6. LAND USE AND SOILS 6.1 The proposed development area comprises agricultural land (to the east of the river)

and non-agricultural ‘brownfield’ land (to the west of the river). Potential impacts related to the proposed development include the permanent loss of 8.1 ha of Grade 3b agricultural land and potential impacts upon soil quality as a result of inappropriate handling and storage during the construction phase and the change in drainage characteristics of the area.

6.2 These potential impacts will be mitigated by the adoption of suitable soil handling

techniques during the construction phase and the incorporation of sustainable drainage systems into the development. The permanent loss of agricultural land will not be mitigated fully and is considered as a residual impact. However, the redevelopment of approximately 4.3 ha of ‘brownfield’ land at the site will help to offset this loss.

7. HYDROLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 7.1 A major acquifer underlies the site which lies within protection zones for public

supply abstractions to the east. The eastern half of the site is in protection Zone 1, which will limit the use of soakaways for any discharge other than, potentially, roof drainage.

7.2 The River Gwash bisects the site and part of the site lies within the Indicative

Floodplain as defined by the Environment Agency. However, Rutland Water, which was constructed upstream in 1976, will considerably reduce the risk of flooding for any given return period. This is reflected in the Environment Agency Flood Risk Area Maps which indicate that the indicative floodplain has a standard of protection greater than 1 in 100 years. However, the results of the preliminary assessment of potential flooding, undertaken as part of the Stage 1 Flood Risk Assessment, indicate that there is a limited area of the site where the probability of flooding is greater than 1 in 100. A Stage 2 Flood Risk Assessment will be undertaken following the grant of outline planning consent. Precautionary mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Business Park design principles.

7.3 The water quality of the River Gwash is classified as good and suitable for many fish

species and the proposed development will not impact detrimentally on water quality.

7.4 Adequate bunding around oil/chemical stores and well-maintained trapped gullies

and interceptors/separators or swales will mitigate the risk of hydrocarbons/chemicals and sediment entering the river and groundwater.

8. NOISE

8.1 The noise assessment has considered the impact of noise from the proposed

Business Park on the local community. With the aid of a sophisticated computer model, noise levels from routine operations on the site have been predicted and compared with existing background noise levels and other relevant guidelines and criteria.

8.2 The assessment has included a separate evaluation of the day and night noise

climate, bearing in mind the possibility that some activities (primarily storage and distribution on land to the west of the river) might take place during the night period.

8.3 It is concluded that, with appropriate attention to detail and good operational

practice, the proposed Business Park will not give rise to significant noise impact on the local community.

9. AIR QUALITY 9.1 Air quality in the vicinity of the proposed development has been examined. The

South Kesteven District Council Local Air Quality Review indicates that the current state of ambient air quality is good in terms of the air quality objectives for sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulates.

9.2 Vehicle emissions resulting from changed traffic movements due to the proposed

Business Park have been considered, particularly in relation to the proposed access road from the A16 Uffington Road. A Highways Agency procedure called the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) has been used to examine changes in the main pollutant concentrations. The changes were found to be small. It is concluded that the development will have no significant impact on local air quality.

10. CULTURAL HERITAGE 10.1 The archaeological assessment of the proposed development site at Gwash Valley

has established that there are no recorded archaeological features within the site according to the Lincolnshire Sites and Monuments Record. However, it was established that the area does have the potential for archaeological remains to be present due to the close proximity of a number of archaeological features, principally an Anglo-Saxon cemetery, thought to lie to the west of the River Gwash, and the reputed site of Newstead Priory, believed to be in the vicinity of Newstead Mill. No features of archaeological interest were identified during a study of aerial photographs of the area or during a site inspection.

10.2 Discussions have been held with the Community Archaeologist for South Kesteven

and it was established that there is a limited potential for the presence of archaeological remains on land to the east of the River Gwash. A programme of geophysical scanning has been requested which will establish the presence of magnetic anomalies suggestive of archaeological features. When the results from this programme of archaeological evaluation have been completed, an agreed

mitigation strategy will be developed in consultation with the Community Archaeologist.

10.3 The land to the west of the River Gwash is currently overlain by foundry sand and it

is proposed to retain the sand as a base for construction. There will therefore be no requirement for archaeological evaluation in this location.

11. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT 11.1 The proposed Business Park has been designed to ensure that there will be minimal

impact on views from the surrounding area. The visual assessment process has shown that the site is generally well screened from long distance views by the surrounding landscape, hedgerows, blocks of woodland and existing development. Where views do exist, the proposed development will improve current views of the industrial eastern edge of Stamford by the creation of a high quality Business Park set within a screening landscape framework.

11.2 The Landscape Capacity Assessment undertaken to analyse the ability of the

landscape to accommodate the proposed development has indicated that there will be a beneficial effect on the local landscape character. This is to be achieved by the landscape and screening proposals presented as part of the Concept Master Plan for the Business Park.

11.3 The proposed Business Park provides the opportunity for increased public access to

the River Gwash and the countryside beyond. 12. WASTE AND CONTAMINATION 12.1 A formal landfill, generally comprising discarded foundry sand, overlies the natural

deposits (alluvium and the Lincolnshire Limestone) on the western side of the River Gwash. Tipping occurred between the 1960s and the 1980s. The eastern and southern areas of the site have remained open fields. The land adjacent to the western and southern site boundaries has been industrialised for many years.

12.2 Chemical analysis of the foundry sand indicates that, under existing official

guidance, the material is considered to be essentially uncontaminated. Accordingly, disturbance of the materials during construction will not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment. It is considered that the development as proposed is unlikely to require a Waste Management Licence.

12.3 Storage of hydrocarbons, chemicals and building materials during construction and

after will conform to current guidance in order to reduce the risk of spills and leaks affecting the groundwater and the River Gwash.

13. TRAFFIC 13.1 The Transport Impact Assessment undertaken by JMP Consultants Ltd, whilst

forming an integral part of the Environmental Impact Assessment, has been produced as a separate document with a summary included in the Environmental Statement.

13.2 The assessment of the transport impact of the proposed Business Park has shown

that the existing simple priority junction on the A16 (T) Uffington Road does not have

sufficient reserve capacity to accommodate the additional traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development.

13.3 It is, therefore, proposed that the access into the site from the A16 (T) will be via a

newly constructed roundabout in the vicinity of the existing junction. The layout of the proposed roundabout is contained within the Transport Impact Assessment.

13.4 There is likely to be a certain amount of residual impact at other existing junctions

but there is little scope for any major improvements. Therefore, at the detailed planning application stage, it is intended to develop a scheme for Green Travel Plan initiatives, to encourage alternative modes of transport to and from the proposed Business Park.

14. SUMMARY 14.1 The development proposals for the Gwash Valley Business Park represent the

detailed considerations of F H Gilman & Co and have been set out in the outline planning application and the Concept Master Plan. The environmental impacts of the proposed development have been fully assessed in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

14.2 Consultations with Lincolnshire County Council, South Kesteven District Council, the

Environment Agency, the Highways Agency and others have been undertaken to identify likely environmental issues. A Transport Impact Assessment was undertaken by JMP Consultants Ltd and has been produced as a separate document with a summary included in the Environmental Statement.

14.3 The site of the proposed Business Park is allocated for new industrial and business

development under Policy E2.3 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan. 14.4 The proposal is for the creation of a high quality Business Park incorporating

development comprising Use Classes B1 (Business) and B8 (Storage/Distribution). The maximum gross floor area of the Business Park has been set at 30,000 square metres and the access will be from the A16 Uffington Road.

14.5 Potential alternative sites have been given careful consideration. F H Gilman & Co

own the proposed site of the Gwash Valley Business Park which is immediately adjacent to their existing business. Other sites for business and industrial use in Stamford allocated in the adopted Local Plan have been assessed and are considered to be unsuitable for, or incapable of, accommodating the proposed development.

14.6 The proposals for the Business Park conform fully with national and regional

planning guidance and with the relevant development plan policies. 14.7 The site is generally well screened from long distance views. Where views do exist,

the proposed Business Park will improve current views of this industrial eastern edge of Stamford.

14.8 The Stage 1 flood risk assessment has identified that there is a limited area of the

site where the probability of flooding is greater than 1 in 100. Precautionary mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Business Park design

principles. A Stage 2 flood risk assessment will be undertaken following the grant of outline planning consent.

14.9 Chemical analysis of the discarded foundry sand on the western side of the River

Gwash indicates that, under existing official guidance, the material is considered to be essentially uncontaminated.

14.10 The Transport Impact Assessment has identified the need for a new access

roundabout from the A16 (T) Uffington Road. The final details will be agreed with the respective highways authorities following the grant of outline planning consent. It is intended to develop Green Travel Plan initiatives to encourage alternative modes of transport to and from the Business Park.

14.11 The environmental impacts of the proposed Business Park have been carefully

assessed and there are unlikely to be significant adverse impacts given full implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement as part of the design, construction and operational phases.

Comment There are obvious similarities between this application and that for the site on Barnack Road (which appears elsewhere on this agenda) in terms of the policy considerations. Both sites are allocated in the 1991-2001 Local Plan for Employment Development and both were not included as allocations in the First Deposit Draft replacement Plan. However, a significant difference between the two is the inclusion within Uffington Road site of a substantial area (on the western side of the Gwash) of ‘Brownfield’ land. A case could possibly be made for allowing solely this area to be developed in advance of the outcome of the Development Plan Review. If Members are minded to approve the application it will be necessary for the formal grant of permission to be deferred to enable a Section 106 Agreement to be drafted for appropriate planning gain requirements and for a Section 278 Agreement to be entered into in respect of the improvements to the public highway required by the Highway Authority.

RECOMMENDATION: That, in view of the early stage at which the Development Plan, comprising both the Structure and Local Development Framework, is at in its review process, a decision on the application be deferred pending the outcome of the review. In the opinion of the local planning authority a decision at the present time would be prejudicial to the outcome of the plan review.

* * * * * *

SU.2 S03/0100/69 Registration Date: 28-Jan-2003

Applicant Burghley House Preservation Trust C/o FPD Savills

Agent Stephen Sibley Bridge Place, 132-134, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 2PA

Proposal B1 (business) development (outline)

Location PT OS 2800, Barnack Road, Stamford

Site Details Parish(es)

Stamford Adj authority - Peterborough City B Class Road Radon Area - Protection required E2 Employment - Stamford Airfield Zone - No consultation required Drainage - Welland and Nene

REPORT

The Site and its Surroundings The 8.0 hectare (20 acres approximately) application site is located on the northern side of Barnack Road (B1443), one kilometre east of the junction with High Street, St Martin’s (A43) and immediately to the east of the premises of Newage Engineering. To the east is open agricultural land. To the north is the Stamford to Peterborough Railway line and to the south, on the opposite side of Barnack Road, is Burghley Park, which lies within the neighbouring local authority area, Peterborough City Council. The District/County boundary runs along the Barnack Road. The site is allocated in the South Kesteven Local Plan for the period 1991-2001 for Employment Development. In 1996 permission was granted (SK.96/0312/69) for the change of use of a 270 x 25m wide strip along the western edge of the allocated land, to allow for the extension to the premises of Newage International. The Proposal Outline planning permission is sought for Class B1 business development on the site, with a limitation on floorspace of 17,500 sq.m. in order to overcome Highway Authority concerns about the impact of traffic generated by the development on the junction of Barnack Road and High Street, St Martins. A Screening Opinion was made under Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 as to whether an Environmental Impact Assessment was required in connection with the application. It was determined that an Assessment was required in order to assess the potential impact of the proposed development on the following:

• the local highway network;

• a local feature of archaeological interest;

• increased risk of flooding;

• the setting of historic parkland and the setting of Conservation Area;

• the local ecology.

An Environmental Assessment has been submitted and subject of consultation. Site History Some Members will be aware that this site has been the subject of two previous applications seeking Outline planning permission for Class B1 (Business) development. The first application (S01/0659/69), submitted in 2001, was refused on the following grounds:

1. The application site was allocated for Employment development in the South Kesteven Local Plan for the period 1991-2001. It has not been included as an allocation in the First Stage Draft to the Plan for the period 2001-2011, published in January 2002. It is considered that the granting of planning permission for development of the application site would prejudice the outcome of the Local Plan review process by pre-determining decisions about the scale and location of new development in Stamford, that are most appropriately determined through the development plan preparation process. The granting of consent in such circumstances, at this time would prejudice the plan-preparation process, detrimental to the planned growth of the settlement, and the district as a whole. 2. An Archaeological Geophysical Survey has identified a number of features within the site and it is considered that further evaluation work is required, in the form of trial trenching, to investigate these features and determine what further action may be required. Such an evaluation has not been undertaken. 3. No technical information or flood risk assessment has been submitted to establish whether development of the application site is likely to be subject to flooding or whether it would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. PPG25 (Development and Flood Risk) states that development permitted without regard to flood defence considerations can lead to danger to life, damage to property and wasteful expenditure on remedial works, on the development site or elsewhere.

An appeal has been made against that decision with a Public Inquiry scheduled for late October. A subsequent application (S02/1298/69) for the same development was withdrawn. Policy Considerations The Lincolnshire Structure Plan

The Structure Plan for Lincolnshire comprises the following documents: Lincolnshire Structure Plan (1981) Alteration No. 1 (Housing) (1991) Alteration No. 2 (Employment and Retail) (1994) The employment policies of the Structure Plan relevant to this application are contained in Alteration No. 1:

Policy 13A: Provision will be made in Local Plans to ensure that there is an adequate range of sites available for industrial, warehousing and office use.

Policy 16A: In or immediately adjacent to urban areas and where appropriate other

existing settlements, industrial, warehousing and office development will normally be provided for in Local Plans and planning permission will normally be forthcoming. The suitability of any proposal will be assessed in relation to the scale and impact of development in relation to its surroundings, including access and traffic movement, neighbouring uses and general amenity, and the effect on the landscape, areas of important open space and the need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land.

South Kesteven Local Plan (1991-2001) Policy E2: Allocates the application site, together with further land to the north, for Employment

related development. Policy E2 is quite specifically time-defined (1991-2001). There have been no material signs of the application site being brought forward for

development in the Plan period. Lincolnshire Structure Plan (Deposit Draft April 2004) This document replaces a previous replacement Deposit Draft Structure Plan published 1998, that had to be withdrawn due to a Direction from the Secretary of State requiring revisions to housing policies and which, in turn, had implications for the replacement Local Plan. The policies of the new Deposit Draft Structure Plan relevant to this application are: Policy S1: Promoting Sustainable Development Development should meet the Council’s key sustainable development

objectives. Policy S2: Location of Development A sequential approach to the development of land should be adopted in

accordance with the following order of priority: (a) Land and buildings within urban areas which are, or are capable of

being, well served by public transport and are accessible to local facilities; (b) Land and buildings adjoining urban areas which are, or are capable of

being, well served by public transport and are accessible to local facilities; and

(c) Land and buildings not adjoining urban areas which are, or are capable of being, well served by public transport.

The suitability of previously developed land should be assessed as first

priority before consideration is given to greenfield sites. Policy S3: Development in Major Settlements New development will be located principally at the major settlements using the

hierarchy to allocate appropriate amounts and types of development, in the following priority order, to:

(a) the principal urban area – Lincoln Policy Area; then (b) the sub-regional centres – Boston and Grantham; then (c) the main and small towns. Policy S6: External Influences Local Plans/Local Development documents should promote sustainable

employment development in settlements close to larger out-of-county urban areas.

Policy E2: Employment Land and Buildings Existing Local Plan allocations should be assessed in line with the Structure

Plan sustainable development objectives to gauge their continued suitability for business and industrial uses and ability to support the role and function of settlements as set out in the spatial strategy, poor quality and surplus sites will either be re-allocated for more suitable uses or de-allocated.

In particular, the quality of existing employment land commitments should be

assessed in light of the following criteria: Site Quality

• commercial viability and attractiveness of sites as measured by, for example land values and end user interest;

• allocations meeting identified local need;

• need for public sector intervention to bring sites forward for development;

• extent and intensity of site-specific constraints such as contamination and the availability of funding for mitigation;

• availability as measured by amount of on-site infrastructure in place.

Sustainability

• location in one of the major settlements having regard to the settlement hierarchy;

• ability to meet local regeneration needs and priorities;

• accessibility measured by distance from strategic road network and public transport facilities;

• minimisation of the amount of take-up of additional greenfield land for development; and

• ability to become mixed-use development sites. Policy NE11: Development and Flood Risk

Local authorities should not permit or allocate new development if, alone or in conjunction with other such development, it would:

• be at unacceptable risk from flooding or create such an unacceptable risk elsewhere;

• inhibit the capacity of the floodplain to store water;

• impede the flow of floodwater;

• have a detrimental impact upon ground water storage capacity;

• interfere with coastal processes or

• otherwise unacceptably increase flood risk.

In appropriate areas, strategic risk assessments should be carried out to inform the implementation of this policy. Site specific flood risk assessments should be provided by developers when requested by the relevant authorities.

Policy BE4: Archaeological Heritage:

Where development proposals will affect sites of archaeological significance, or potential significance, the results of an archaeological evaluation will be required to accompany an application for planning permission. Where development is likely to adversely affect important archaeological remains, or their setting, the physical preservation in situ of those remains will be the preferred option. Development likely to adversely affect archaeological remains or national, or international, importance (whether scheduled or not), or their setting, will not normally be permitted. Where development is permitted and the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not warranted or desirable, taking into consideration the importance of the remains and other material considerations, the excavation and recording of the archaeological remains will be required along with the appropriate publication of the results.

There is something of a policy vacuum at present with the preparation of a replacement for the adopted Local Plan having to be delayed due to the difficulties with the Structure Plan’s Housing allocations but work on a Local Development Framework has now commenced. Planning Gain Requirements To be determined. Statutory Consultations Local Highway Authority: Requests further information in respect of improvements to the public highway (extension of footways, visibility splays and speed restriction) to enable ‘Grampian’ conditions to be imposed on any grant of permission. Environment Agency:

I refer to my previous letter dated 7th February 2002 relating to the Agency’s objection to the above planning application which is now the subject of an appeal. I have now received a copy of the Environmental Statement in connection with the proposal and would make the following comments on the areas of concern to the Agency: Flood Risk

I can confirm that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was contained in the Environmental Statement to support the application. The Agency considers that the details outlined in the

FRA submitted by King Environmental (ref. KT/22178) forwarded to the Agency on 7th April 2004 have been undertaken in line with guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 25, ‘Development and Flood Risk’, is appropriate for the scale and nature of the proposed development, and demonstrates that the proposed development is at a low risk of flooding. Accordingly the Agency is prepared to withdraw its previous objection subject to this FRA being approved as part of any Appeal decision notice to ensure that the issue of flood risk is adequate resolved for the lifetime of the development. In addition it is essential that the development proceeds in accordance with the approved FRA document. The Agency also requests, in the event that the Inspector allows the Appeal, the imposition of the following conditions: CONDITION The development hereby approved shall not commence until details of a scheme for surface water drainage to include storage and flow-attenuated discharge have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Environment Agency. The development will then proceed fully in accordance with the approved details/plans. REASON To ensure the development does not increase the risk of flooding downstream or pollution to controlled waters. It should be noted however that this site may have a residual risk of flooding from flood events exceeding those currently mitigated for. Therefore the Local Planning Authority need to be satisfied that the proposed development is in accordance with the requirements of PPG25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’. Groundwater Protection and the use of soakaways The development is situated within Zone 1 of the Environment Agency’s groundwater protection policy. In relation to the proposed use of soakaways within a Source Protection Zone 1, the Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater allows only the discharge of roof drainage to soakaway. The present use of the site is given as ‘agriculture’ however no details have been provided on previous activities such as there having been any tanks, barns etc on the site or indeed whether it is just a greenfield site. A quantitative risk assessment in relation to the use of soakaways should, therefore, be carried out to determine the risk of contamination to the underlying aquifer, and to any abstractions within the Source Protection Zone (see below condition). Soakaways (even solely for the discharge of roof water) will not be permitted as a means of drainage in contaminated ground, given the relative ease with which they may transfer contaminants to controlled waters (groundwater). Accordingly, the Agency requests that in the event that the Inspector allows the Appeal, the following conditions be appended: CONDITION Prior to the commencement of any development a desk top study shall be undertaken to include the identification of the previous site uses, the potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses, and any other relevant information. The submitted details shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency.

REASON To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters. CONDITION

If during development, contamination is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a Method Statement. This Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. REASON To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters. The applicant should be aware that the discharge of surface water via soakaways from impermeable areas, including public/amenity spaces and large car parks is not acceptable at this site, regardless of the underlying ground conditions. For this reason, Anglian Water Services Ltd should be consulted by the Local Planning Authority and be requested to demonstrate that the sewerage and sewage disposal systems serving the development have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flows, generated as a result of the development, without causing pollution or flooding. If there is not capacity in either of the sewers, the Agency must be re-consulted with alternative methods of disposal. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the development will not affect any water features (i.e. wells, boreholes, springs, streams or ponds) in the area, including licensed and unlicensed abstractions.

Community Archaeologist:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND: Located in the field immediately to the east of the development are a number of possible prehistoric features recorded from cropmark evidence from the RCHME (1997). These include a probable Bronze Age round barrow, described as ‘… an incomplete, circular enclosure, diameter 30m, defined by 1 ditch’, a probable prehistoric or Roman enclosure, ‘… a rectilinear enclosure measuring 35m by 20m and defined by one ditch with an entrance in the west side’ and a probable prehistoric or Iron Age pit alignment, ‘… an interrupted linear feature, defined by 1 line of pits with a maximum length of 240m.’ A geophysical survey has been carried out on approximately 50% (c. 4 ha) of this site. This identified a number of anomalies that may be archaeological in origin and therefore require further investigation. It will also be necessary to test the ‘blank’ areas from the survey as well as some of the site not covered by the geophysics. Therefore, due to the archaeological potential of this site (located in an area of probable prehistoric or Roman activity), it is recommended that the applicant commission further archaeological evaluation to provide more information prior to determination. The next stage of this will be trial trenching but it is possible that additional work may be necessary.”

English Heritage:

This application appears to be very similar to the previous proposals on which we commented in a letter of 18th November 2002. We therefore reiterate the significant comments made in that letter (copy attached). Many of the historic environment issues surrounding this application are similar to those considered by Peterborough City and Cambridgeshire County Councils in previous applications (in 1996b and 1997) for gravel extraction by the Nene Barge & Lighter Co Ltd on a site between the River Welland and Barnack road across the county border. In representations made to Peterborough City Council in September 1996 (and reiterated in 1997) English Heritage highlighted the high landscape value of the Welland Valley, the setting of Stamford from the east and the setting of the Grade I listed Burghley House and its Grade II* Registered Park. For these reasons we recommend that the applications for gravel extraction be refused. Cambridgeshire County Council cited the impact on the historic parklands, the setting of Stamford and the river valley as reasons for the subsequent refusal. The site identified in the current application is adjacent to the existing engineering works. It is between Barnack Road and the River Welland and is immediately outside the boundary of the Grade II* registered Burghley Park. Development on this site would clearly adversely affect the setting of the Registered Park and the historic relationship between Burghley and the river. Although a row of poplars on the boundary of the site performs a partial screening from Burghley Park in the summer, historically there were important views out from Burghley House and other points in the park which need to be taken into account when taking planning decisions. The first series OS map of 1824 shows the double avenue running north from the house crossing Barnack Road (further east than the application site) and running down to the river, meeting the long western avenue at Uffington. Further encroachment of industrial development would also have an impact on the easterly approaches to Stamford – an historic town whose national importance was highlighted by its selection as the first ever conservation area. Although Uffington Park is not on the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens, the proposals would also appear to affect the setting of this historic park on the northern side of the Welland. The intervisibility of the historic houses and parks of Uffington and Burghley remains an important element of the historic environment of this side of Stamford. There is no mention in the application of potential archaeological implications for the proposals. Given the location of the site on the river gravels we would normally expect to see desk-based assessment and, in most cases, field evaluation, undertaken prior to determination. Notwithstanding the designation of the application site for employment uses in the outdated local plan, the site is not allocated for development in the recently withdrawn draft Local Plan 2001-2011. We therefore would stress the sensitivity of the proposed site and draw your attention to the substantial historic environment issues which arise from the application. These suggest that the current application should be refused.

Stamford Town Council:

We have no objections in principle provided the recommendations supplied on the Flood Risk and Travel assessments are incorporated into any formal application in particular 1.6 of the Travel Assessment non-Technical Summary page 2.

Peterborough City Council (neighbouring authority):

Peterborough City Council acknowledges that this application replaces the previous application (S02/1298/69/IVW/Lam) that was withdrawn in December 2002. The only difference that can be seen between the two application forms is that the current application states B1 (business) development (outline) and the previous states B1 Industrial development. As confirmed by SKDC, Planning Department by telephone on 12 February 2003, the traffic assessment carried out by Derek Palk for the site in July 2001 is relevant to the current application. Peterborough City Council would like to re-iterate it’s objection to the original application. Following discussions with the Highways Authority, I note that within the Traffic Assessment the lowest possible trip rates have been used in the report to justify the development of 17,500 square metres as B1 use. Peterborough City Council is of the view that such a low trip rate cannot be relied upon and it may be possible that the actual traffic generation of the site may be higher and would result in unacceptable problems at St Martins junction. Were Use Class B8 to be considered as an alternative form of development, the different pattern of traffic generation may result in increased HGV and lorry movements with inevitable concerns for the amenity of the area. Peterborough City Council objects to the proposal due to potential traffic generation and the impact on the amenity of the surrounding villages particularly those of Pilsgate, Barnack, Ufford and Bainton. It considers that the increased traffic generation at the St Martin’s junction with the proposed scheme will make it more likely that traffic will seek alternative routes through these villages. I appreciate that this land is allocated in the South Kesteven Local Plan (April 1995) for new industrial and business development under policy E2.5. However I also note that this area was un-allocated in the South Kesteven Plan 2001-2011 First Stage Deposit version. Notwithstanding, the understood intention of South Kesteven District Council to withdraw this draft plan in the light of new development plan arrangements set out in the “Green Paper”, I feel that in accordance with this version and the thinking underlying it, the application should be refused.”

Planning Gain Requirements To be determined. Representations as a result of publicity The application has been advertised in accordance with statutory requirements as Major Development, the period for representations expiring on 7th March 2003. Representations have been received from interested parties. The issues raised are:

a) Object to use of a “Greenfield site” for an industrial development in the unspoilt Welland valley. (1)

b) Unacceptable increase in traffic, in particular on junction of Barnack Road and St Martin’s.

(8) c) Stamford needs a strategic plan to ease traffic problems. This application is an example of

short term piecemeal planning. (1) d) Impact on unique setting of Burghley House, responsible for attracting many visitors to the

town. (4) e) Traffic Assessment is out of date and was undertaken when schools were on holiday. (5) f) Adverse impact on villages to the east on B1443. (5) g) Many Brownfield areas that should be utilised before any destruction of agricultural land.

(7) h) Safety of school pupils will be compromised. (3) i) Proposal will inhibit implementation of “Blue Route” (Southern Bypass). (2) j) River valley will not be enhanced by development. (3) k) Junction of Barnack Road and St Martin’s not suitable to accommodate HGV’s. (6) l) Any new development in this location should be tourism related. (2) m) Proposed 17,500 sq.m. development is only beginning of larger development. (2) n) Proposal would violate heritage of international importance. (1) o) Lorry traffic has already increased on Barnack Road due to weight restriction on Town

Bridge. (4) p) Accident record does not appear to include those that do not involve personal injury. (1) q) Existing Local Plan lacks strategic vision. (1) r) Local Plan has been overtaken by national policy on development of greenfield sites. (2) s) Support the provision of more land which will bring employment opportunities to the town.

(1) t) Proposed development will further mar eastern approach to Stamford. (1) u) Proposal contrary to PPG25. (1) v) Development not required in view of the low unemployment levels in Stamford. (1) w) Increase risk of pollution of water supply from proposed development. (1) Representations in response to the Environmental Assessment from interested parties.

The issues raised are: a) Proposed development not needed nor necessary. (2) b) Inaccessibility. (1) c) Unacceptable increase in traffic. (2) d) Inadequate traffic assessment. (1) e) Environmental damage to river valley. (1) f) Inappropriate position at an entrance to Stamford and in its juxtaposition to Burghley House

and Park. (1) g) Inadequate consultation to EIA. (1) h) No consideration has been given to possible alternatives to the development proposals. (1) i) The greater landscape and visual constraints on the southern part of the site should be

weighed against archaeological constraints in order to identify best development solution. (1)

j) The landscape and visual assessment presented in the ES fails in numerous respects to

comply with correct methodology. (1) k) Proposed development would have an adverse effect on the landscape character of the

Welland valley. (1) l) Significant traffic impacts on Barnack Road, High Street St Martins and Kettering Road

which have not been adequately explored. (1) m) National policy on development on Greenfield sites has changed since Local Plan adopted.

(1) n) Assessment of the need for additional employment land in Stamford should be undertaken

through the new Local Development Framework. (1) o) Development not required given low level of unemployment in Stamford and vacant

industrial premises. (2) p) Adverse impact on the historic St Martins area. (1) q) Increase in heavy goods traffic through villages to the east of Stamford. (2) r) This review of the Transport Chapter (8) of the ES and the TA for the proposed Barnack

Road B1 development has highlighted a number of deficiencies which would, in our opinion, not allow the planning and highway authorities to reach a positive conclusion on the planning application. (1)

s) Proposal contrary to Local Plan Policy EN1. (1)

t) Decision to include retain application site as an allocation in Local Plan was fundamentally flawed as it was based on expediency with total disregard to the overriding highway and planning considerations. (1)

u) Granting of planning permission would be contrary to guidance contained in RPG8. (1) v) Factual errors and omissions in ES and general subjective tone lead to the presumption that

document is designed solely to justify the development rather than provide an objective and reasoned critique of the environmental consequences. (1)

w) Granting of approval would inhibit the bringing forward for development of better located,

high quality, brownfield sites which are already, or with developers’ contributions can easily be linked to Stamford’s strategic highway network. (1)

Applicant’s Submissions

1. THE PROJECT The Burghley House Preservation Trust proposes to construct a class B1 business development on the eastern edge of the built-up area of Stamford immediately to the north of the B1443 Barnack Road. The development of the site for B1 business use will enhance the employment potential of Stamford, in line with the Lincolnshire Structure Plan’s strategic policy. 2. ALTERNATIVES The Adopted South Kesteven Local Plan designates new employment land in Stamford, and the proposed site on Barnack Road is one of these sites. The other sites are not in the control of the applicant and therefore cannot be considered as feasible alternatives to the proposed development. Alternate locations for the development on the site were also considered. The locations of buildings will be restricted in order to avoid damage to any archaeological remains identified on site. The archaeological studies to date indicate that the potential for archaeological remains is limited to certain parts of the site, as these areas will be avoided to limit any archaeological impacts. The following land use options were also considered:

• The continuation of agricultural practices on the land – retaining agricultural land use practices is not in accordance with the Local Plan and would not maximise the economic potential for the land.

• Heavy industry – due to the effects associated with heavy industry such as the possible significant increases in pollution, noise and the number and size of vehicles travelling to the site, it is not considered a favourable option for the development of the site.

3. THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

It is bounded by the Newage Engineering Works to the west and by the Stamford to Peterborough railway line to the north. Other features of interest in the immediate surrounding area include the River Welland to the north and historic parkland at Burghley Park to the south. The land to the east is open arable agricultural land. The site itself is a single field of approximately 8 hectares in size, currently being used for the growing of crops. 4. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development will be made up of one or more areas of single-storey class B1 Business Use accommodation, most probably small units suitable for small businesses (sometimes known as “nursery units”). There will be extensive use of landscaping to create buffer strips along all of the perimeters, providing a suitable setting for the proposed development. Approximately only one fifth of the site area will be developed for buildings. 5. CONSTRUCTION The proposed development will be built using conventional low-rise construction techniques, and is likely to be built in a number of stages over several years. Construction access to the site will be via Barnack Road. 6. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES From an investigation of the site, and from consultations with Lincolnshire County, South Kesteven District and Peterborough City Councils, the Environment Agency, English Nature, Heritage Lincolnshire and other relevant organisations, the principal environmental issues have been identified. They are presented in the following chapters which cover both the construction and operational stages of the development. 7. ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS Construction Phase The generation of dust will occur during construction, although it will have only minor and short term effects. The use of sheeting on lorries and around stockpiles, and the spraying of the site and access roads with water will all reduce the effects of dust during construction. Construction of the development in stages will also reduce the amount of dust produced at any one time. Operational Stage No significant contributions to regional air pollution are expected, as the B1 development type is not expected to produce significant levels of pollutants. 8. NOISE Construction Phase The generation of noise and the effects on the adjacent works will only be short term and of no significance. The location of the site away from residential areas will restrict any significant annoyance caused by noise to the residents of Stamford. The selection of a quiet plant will further reduce the impacts of noise during construction.

Operational Stage

No significant levels of noise are expected to be produced by a B1 business type development. Increase in traffic noise due to the development is not considered to be significant. 9. ECOLOGY Construction Phase A desk study and field survey was conducted to identify the ecology present on site and assess any effects that may occur to the ecology both on the site itself and the associated effects in other areas as a result of the development. The habitats found at the site are typical of agricultural land and are common and widespread in this part of Lincolnshire and in lowland Britain in general. They are therefore of no special conservation value although they have some local value in terms of supporting a range of common flora and fauna. This investigation also confirmed that there are no statutory nature conservation sites in the vicinity of the site, and no rare plants, birds or animal species are found at the site. The only protected species recorded at the site are nesting birds. Timing of site clearance activities to avoid the bird nesting season (mid-March to July inclusive) will avoid direct impacts on nesting birds. The main habitats used by nesting birds such as hedgerows, the tree belt and rough grassland along the field margins can be retained as much as possible and new nesting and foraging opportunities will be created as part of the landscaping. The effects of lighting on foraging bats and insects during the construction phase is considered to be short term and of no significance. Any effects can be reduced through the arrangement of construction lighting to minimise the glare and overspill of light. A reduction in open arable land and a small area of neutral grassland habitat will occur during construction. Through the planting of new hedgerows, shelterbelts, shrubs and grassland, and by retaining grassland along boundary, site habitat can be maintained and improved. As waste water is to be collected in sumps or tanks and disposed of off site, no significant ecological effects on the groundwater and River Welland are expected. Operational Stage The activity related to the operation of the site could have a possibly significant effect on nesting birds. The provision of increased habitat through landscaping and the planting of trees, shrubs and other plants should provide adequate alternatives and nesting sites for birds. Although few pollutants are expected to be generated by the proposed wetlands could be considered as a form of mitigation for any possible pollution arising on site should it be required. All surface water arising from areas susceptible to oil contamination (e.g. car parks) can be treated using on site petrol interceptors. There could be possible significant effects on bat and inset foraging at night, caused by on site lighting. Careful lighting design (e.g. directing lighting only to areas where it is required, UV filters, the use of yellow rather than white light etc) can prevent any significant effects.

10. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

Construction Phase There will be no large items of permanent construction plant which could give rise to any significant levels of visual intrusion. Hoardings around the construction site will reduce the effects of the visual intrusion of the construction plant. Glare and overspill from construction lighting can be reduced by arranging the lights to minimise the effects. There will be no significant effects caused by lighting during construction. Operational Stage The visual changes arising from the proposed development was assessed from a number of vantages points including:

• Burghley Park

• Uffington Park

• Historic parts of Stamford Town

• Carrs Lodge and along Barnack Road

There are no significant effects on views into the site from Burghley Park, from Uffington Park or from the historic parts of Stamford Town. Furthermore, it is well screened from general views from the higher land of the Kesteven Uplands to the north, Carrs Lodge and along Barnack Road. The development will be visible from Barnack Road when travelling past the site. Single storey architectural design and extensive landscaping will reduce any effects caused by visual intrusion of the development, and therefore no adverse significant effects on views and through visual intrusion are expected. The additional landscaping proposed for the development will improve the landscape setting. 11. TRANSPORT Construction Phase

Construction is likely to take place in a number of stages over several years. As a result construction traffic flows will be very low and are not considered to give rise to any significant environmental effects. Operational Stage A possibly significant increase in traffic numbers along Barnack Road towards Stamford may occur when the development is fully operational. These increases are likely to be most significant over the peak morning hour driving east along Barnack Road, and over the peak evening hour returning to Stamford. The environmental effects of the increased traffic have been assessed in terms of noise, vibration, visual effects, driver delay, pedestrian delay, pedestrian amenity, accidents and safety, hazardous loads, dust and dirt, ecological effects and heritage and conservation areas, and were found not to be significant in every case. 12. WATER AND HYDROLOGY

Construction Phase

As the proposed development site is adjacent to the River Welland, a flood risk assessment was carried out on the site. The site falls outside of the floodplain and is not expected to flood for the 1 in 100 year event. Any waste water arising on site during construction could be collected in a sump or tank and disposed off-site, and not discharged to the River Welland. This will also reduce the risk of wastewater reaching the groundwater, and no significant effects are expected. Operational Stage

As described in the Ecology section, measures will be implemented to prevent any significant effects on water resources caused by surface water discharge. On site storage facilities can prevent any significant increase in run-off and resulting flood levels in the River Welland downstream from the site. The proposed development is not considered to be at any significant risk of flooding. 13. ARCHAEOLOGY Construction Phase Areas identified by a geophysical survey as having potential archaeological significance can be avoided during construction, excavation and when laying out access routes during construction. Trial trenching can be carried out in areas where buildings are to be constructed to identify any further archaeology in these areas. As a result no significant effects on archaeology on the site are expected. Archaeological mitigation can be achieved by an archaeological watching brief during groundwork. Operational Stage No significant disturbance, damage or loss of archaeological remains will occur at this stage. 14. CONCLUSIONS

Archaeology Archaeological assessment and trial trenching during construction will reduce the risks of damage to archaeology on site. No significant effects are expected. Archaeological mitigation can be achieved by an archaeological watching brief during groundwork. Water and hydrology

No significant risk of on site flooding, increase in flows downstream of the site due to site runoff, or contamination of water resources are expected. Landscape and visual

There will be no significant landscape or visual effects on resources or receptors within the surrounding area. Ecology It is unlikely that there will be any significant effects on site ecology or the ecology of the surrounding area. Site clearance can be timed to avoid the bird nesting season to prevent disturbance to nesting birds. Noise It is considered unlikely that there will be any significant effects due to noise resulting from the site during construction or operation. Traffic levels will increase in Barnack Road, but the increases are not expected to result in any significant increases in noise disturbance or annoyance. Transport Increases in traffic flows slightly in excess of 30% are predicted on Barnack Road to the west of the site during the weekday peak hour periods. This is not expected to result in any significant environmental effects.

Comment There are a couple of outstanding issues with regard to highway and archaeological matters. The Highway Authority require details, including drawings showing improvements to the highway, so that ‘Grampian’ conditions can be attached to any grant of planning permission. The Community Archaeologist has advised that trial trenching is scheduled to take place for the end of July/August. Following this, further comments will be forthcoming. RECOMMENDATION: That, in view of the early stage at which the Development Plan, comprising both the Structure and Local Development Framework, is at in its review process, a decision on the application be deferred pending the outcome of the review. In the opinion of the local planning authority a decision at the present time would be prejudicial to the outcome of the plan review

* * * * * *

SR.1 S03/1587/73 Registration Date: 26-Nov-2003

Applicant PDT Property Management Ltd PO Box 206, Stamford, Lincs, PE9 4YW

Agent Jefferson Sheard Architects Ltd 1, Scotgate Mews, Scotgate, Stamford, Lincs, PE9 2FX

Proposal Erection of nine dwellings and revisions to access

Location Land Adj Anchor Farm, High Street, Swinstead

Site Details Parish(es)

Swinstead Conservation Area B Class Road Demolition of any building Radon Area - Protection required Adjacent Listed Building Area of special control for adverts C9 Area Conservation Policy EN3 Area of great landscape value Drainage - Welland and Nene

REPORT The Site and its Surroundings The 0.3 ha application site is a redundant farmyard fronting High Street in the centre of Swinstead. It was the subject of an outline planning permission granted in June 2003 (S01/1469/73) for residential development. That application specified six dwellings served by a private drive through a new opening to be formed in the stone wall that defines the boundary on the road frontage. The site is elevated in relation to the road and at present there are two accesses, one from the north-east between the village hall and no. 1 Bertie Close, the other off the western end of the main frontage opposite the public house. To the north are modern residential properties of Bertie Close and a traditional stone and pantile cottage that is currently accessed through the farmyard. To the west are listed properties fronting directly onto High Street. To the east, the unlisted Anchor Farmhouse and an attached barn, and the Village Hall. To the south, on the opposite side of High Street the Windmill public house and an adjoining residential property, both of which are listed. A Section 106 Agreement is in place on this site and requires the following:

1. That a minimum of six dwellings shall be provided on the site and that those units be of a maximum internal ground floor area of 70 sq.m.

2. That future owners of the properties to be built on the site are responsible for maintenance of the access driveway and parking areas.

The Proposal

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a terrace of six dwellings on the site frontage, behind the retained stone wall, and three detached houses at the rear all served off the same private drive. Access would be at the same point as at present, at the western end of the site frontage, with improvements to the highway proposed, involving a narrowing of the carriageway, to improve visibility for vehicles emerging from the site. Materials specified are coursed limestone rubble with ashlar quoins for the external walls and pantiles for the roof. The ground floor area of the proposed six terraced dwellings complies with the requirements of the Section 106 Agreement. A design statement has been submitted in support of the scheme, this is reproduced below. Policy Considerations South Kesteven Local Plan Policy C9 – Development in Conservation Areas. Policy H7 – Residential Development on Unallocated Sites. Policy EN1 – Protection and Enhancement of the Environment. Policy EN3 – Development in Areas of Great Landscape Value. Central Government Policy Guidance PPG 1 – Planning General Policy and Principles PPG 3 – Housing (2000). PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment. Swinstead Conservation Area (Designated 1982). Statutory Consultations Historic Buildings Advisor (original comments):

“My comments on the various aspects of the proposals are as follows:

1. A range of former farm and storage buildings within the site are to be demolished in order to facilitate a comprehensive redevelopment scheme. These comprise a large corrugated sheet covered implement shed/dutch barn located centrally, and three small garages and storage sheds, mainly timber framed and clad, located within the south-west corner. The buildings to be demolished are comparatively modern, generally dilapidated and, in my opinion, a negative influence in impact on the character and appearance of this part of the village Conservation Area. I can therefore see no objections to the demolitions as proposed.

2. In respect of the proposed redevelopment scheme, I would offer the following

observations: The three proposed detached houses to be erected in the northern site sector will, in my

opinion, be discordant and uncomplimentary to the scene (unimaginative repetitive suburban style houses with little in common with the character of the surroundings either by way of form or layout). The houses are also shown to be over-large, uncomfortably overcrowd the plots, and will have an unwelcome overbearing impact on the area generally and on the setting to the attractive existing cottage nearby at No. 6 High Street, in particular. I would advise that this aspect of the scheme should be reconsidered.

The proposed terrace of houses to be erected behind the existing stone boundary wall along the High Street site frontage will, in my opinion, be more in harmony with the surroundings. I would, however, suggest that:

i) an accurately drawn street scene view also showing the existing properties at either end of the terrace and the various changes in ground level should be further submitted to show the impact in scale of the development in this key area; ii) both front and rear elevations to the terrace block are impaired visually and

architecturally by the excessive number of dormer windows. The modelling of the front elevation would also be much improved, in my opinion, if the gable features could be set at a more comfortable distance apart.”

Comments on revised scheme: “1. The design of the terrace of cottages to be built along the High Street frontage to the site is

now much improved, particularly with the separation of the projecting gable features in the front elevation. I remain of the opinion, however, that the building is over-fenestrated with too many dormer windows causing overcrowding of the roofslopes in particular. This is mainly a consequence of the large number of dwelling units to be created in the terrace with narrow frontages and a deep plan form. Short of a radical re-design with fewer units, there is scope for reducing: a) the number of windows in the front bedrooms to Units 1 and 6 from two to

one; and b) the widths of the windows in the front bedrooms to Units 2 and 5 from three

to two panes. 2. The terrace will stand high in the street scene along High Street in relation to the

existing adjacent building to the east in particular mainly because it is to be built on level ground whereas the natural ground slopes down from west to east. The unified form of the building is however more attractively modelled, in my opinion, than were it to be stepped to follow the ground slope.

3. I remain of the opinion that the three detached ‘suburban’ style houses to be built at

the rear of the site will be uncomplimentary to the established character of the setting, and perhaps an imaginative ‘farmyard’ theme would be more appropriate here.”

English Heritage (Comments on original submission):

“The application site is currently an area of open land and a barn yard situated behind a traditionally constructed stone wall. While the barns themselves are of no interest, their agrarian character, the stone wall and the gap in the built up frontage as a composition make a strong contribution to the conservation area.

The character of the village is on the whole one of organic growth, with individual houses sited cheek by jowl, each displaying subtle variations in proportion and detail. The proposals as submitted – the repetition of the house designs, the modern layout of plots 7-9 and the modern highway treatments applied to the currently unmetalled track would completely obliterate the aforementioned qualities of the site and would result in a suburbanisation of this end of the village, adversely affecting the character and appearance of the conservation area and the settings of St Mary’s Church, a grade I listed building and the village cross, a scheduled monument. We therefore advise that the application is refused. We do not however dismiss the principle of development of at least part of the site and recommend that a smaller scheme on the site of the existing barn yard, designed to reflect the style of agricultural buildings within the village could be visually successful and preserve those qualities of the site that make it an asset to the conservation area.”

Comments on revised proposals:

“On the basis of the submitted information, we would refer you to our previous advice given in my letter of 17th February 2004.”

Local Highway Authority: Requests refusal – see reason below, but if Committee are minded to approve the application, further details are required from the County Council in respect of a Section 278 Agreement under the Highways Act 1980. Environment Agency: No objection. Environmental Health Services: Requests standard condition R25. Property Services: Access may involve crossing a culvert. If permitted full design details are required together with surface water drainage details. Community Archaeologist: Requests standard condition W7. Lincs Police Architectural Liaison Officer: If permitted, recommends conditions re: lighting on private driveways and 1.8m fencing to the eastern boundary to plot 9. Parish Council (comments on original proposals):

“The Parish Council objects to this planning application on the following grounds: 1. There would be a considerable loss of privacy where windows overlook the house and garden at 2 Bertie Close from Plots 8 and 9. 2. The terraced houses to the front of the plot are built on land already 1 metre higher than the opposite side of the road and 2 metres higher than Anchor Farm itself. They are likely to dominate the street scene at this point, the height to the roofline being 9 metres. It is thought that velux rooflights would be better situated at the rear of the houses. The Parish Council also queried ornamental chimney stacks.

3. The attempt to fit in 9 rather than the original 6 dwellings requested does not sit well on this site as the terraced houses appear to be squashed against Anchor Farm and do not allow a satisfactory access into the area from the track adjacent to 10 High Street. If there was a reduction in the number of houses a more satisfactory splay could surely be made at the entrance to the site. The three 4-bedroomed houses to the rear are squashed into very small gardens. The Parish Council requests a reduction in that number. 4. There is no room for a footpath through to the Village Hall as requested by the Parish Council. If provided this, together with appropriate lighting in the area, would make for safer access to the Hall. The Parish Council requests that access be made from this site to the Village Hall. 5. There could be as many as 26 more cars as well as the 7 existing cars associated with the housing in this area. The Parish Council is concerned about the safety of ingress and egress from the one entrance to the area. 6. The Parish Council is pleased that the front wall to the site appears to have been retained and requests that this is made part of any planning consent; allowing for very minor removal of one end if necessary to improve the entrance to the site. Clarification is sought as to whether there is any restriction on floor area due to a Section 106 Agreement. The Parish Council does not object to the sympathetic development of this area. However, on the points raised above the Parish Council objects to this application.”

Comments on revised proposal:

“The Parish Council objects to this planning application on the following grounds: 1. The dominant and oppressive environment that will be created by the row of terraced houses. a) The proposed 6 terraced houses in proximity to the High Street are 9 metres to the ridgeline whilst adjacent properties are between 6.4 to 7 metres in height. The proposed terrace will block the view from the West to Anchor Farm, which is a building of merit. This building is built on land that is 2 metres lower than the proposed terrace site. b) The narrowness of the High Street opposite The Windmill Inn (a low roofline listed building at No. 7 High Street – not Nos. 3-5 as marked on the site plan) combined with the steep rise in land to the North means that the proximity of these proposed dwellings will be overbearing to the inn, lying to the south, and to the High Street. Should the gardens be repositioned to the south side of the dwellings? The other terraced properties in the village fronting to the High Street are ‘The Mews’. These are single storey. 2. The attempt to fit in 9 rather than the original 6 dwellings requested constitutes overdevelopment and does not sit well on this site as the terraced houses appear to be squashed against Anchor farm and do not allow a satisfactory access from the High Street

into the track adjacent to 10 High Street. If there was a reduction in the number of houses a more satisfactory splay could surely be made at the entrance to the site. The three 4-bedroomed houses to the rear are squashed into very small gardens. The Parish Council requests a reduction in that number. The lowered roofline of the dwelling adjacent to No. 2 Bertie Close is welcome but as the fenestration remains the same the house will be overlooked from Plots 8 and 9. The size of the gardens is not in keeping with the general size of gardens in the village. 4. There is no room for a footpath through to the Village Hall as requested by the Parish Council. If provided, this together with appropriate lighting in the area, would make for safer access to the hall. The Parish Council requests that access be made from this site to the Village Hall. 5. There could be as many as 26 more cars as well as the 7 existing cars associated with the housing in this area. The Parish Council is concerned about the safety of ingress and egress from the one entrance to the area, keeping in mind that many heavy goods vehicles use the adjacent junction as well as large farm machinery. Again the question of sustainability is relevant as all occupants will have to rely on their own vehicles for the majority of journeys, there being a paucity of facilities within the Parish. The Section 106 Agreement on this site appears to have been dropped. 6. The Parish Council does not objection to the sympathetic development of this area, but asks that any development should enhance the appearance of the conservation area. On the points raised above the Parish Council objects to this application and recommends refusal."

Representations as a result of publicity The application has been advertised in accordance with statutory requirements, the closing date for representations being 26th December 2003. Representations have been received from interested parties. The planning issues raised are as follows:

a) Roofs of frontage properties are too high and will dominate the Conservation Area, detract from the existing buildings and are overbearing to the Windmill Inn and Cottage opposite.

b) The increased density causes overdevelopment of a relatively small site close to the heart

of the Conservation Area. c) English Heritage are reported to have described the development as ‘suburban’ and

therefore inappropriate to the Conservation Area. d) The road narrowing proposal would result in danger and the increased pathway width would

compound on street parking and visibility problems. e) The increased development should be rejected on grounds of sustainability and lack of

amenities.

f) The roof heights of the properties to the rear are too high and the revised plans continue to cause an unacceptable loss of privacy, overlooking and overshadowing of neighbouring houses to the rear.

g) The front houses are too far forward. h) Local schools are already full. i) Houses would have tiny north facing gardens. j) Garage to plot 7 would obscure No. 6 High Street. k) Parking provision insufficient. l) Loss of parking from demolition of existing garages. m) Design of terrace should be less uniform. n) Proposed access is dangerous. o) Loss of privacy to Bertie Close properties to north of the site. In addition to the above, a petition has been submitted signed by 85 residents of Swinstead objecting to the proposed development. Applicant’s Submissions

“Summary of design and main changes to the scheme which received outline planning consent ref. No. S01/1469.

1. Existing lock-up garages on site will be relocated as follows:-

a) Single garage to be built within curtilage of No. 6. b) Remaining three to be built in curtilage of farmyard.

All new garages are located as indicated on site layout no. 2489-10, but will be the subject of a separate planning application.

2. Original outline planing consent drawing had the access road to no. 6, rear of no. 10, and to the new dwellings located to adjacent Anchor Farm, opposite to no. 7 High Street. This has several disadvantages as follows:

a) The existing stone wall and grass verge, which adds greatly to the existing

character of the High Street would be breached for a distance of 10 metres to form a new road access into the site. It is also indicated to be breached at two other points to give pedestrian access to units A to D.

We feel that this is detrimental to the character of the High Street and propose that the wall and verge should remain as existing.

b) The new road access enters the site where the difference in level between road and site at the boundary is approximately 1.7 metres and would require a visually severe ‘cutting’ and steep gradient to achieve on site levels.

Again, we feel this is detrimental to the character of the High Street and propose instead to retain the existing road access at the western boundary of the site. Here the road access is level, the High Street is wider and can be adjusted to provide the required visibility splays, which would be very difficult with the previous scheme. This solution also preserves the existing verge and stone wall intact as an important visual edge to the High Street, with the new development clearly set behind.

3. This arrangement enables a terrace of dormer cottages to be placed across the frontage to create a better continuity of the typical Swinstead street scene with the detached dwellings being in a subservient and shielded position at the rear of the site, related to No. 6 and other newer detached dwellings to the north and north/east of the site.

4. Materials generally have been carefully chosen to blend in with the existing

village housing. All dwellings are proposed to be built of coursed dressed rubble limestone with ashlar limestone quoins. Roofs are pitched at 50 degrees and finished in orange/red pantiles, with stone parapets at verges and simple eaves with gutters supported on rise and fall brackets. Windows and doors will be softwood painted with oak faced lintols and blue bullnosed brick cills.

5. Parking is provided at a ratio of 1.5 spaces per house for plots 1 – 6 and two

garages plus additional parking for up to two cars per house for units 7 – 9.

The access road will be paved in grey tegular concrete blocks and will incorporate a turning area for service/delivery vehicles as indicated. It is intended for this to remain in private ownership and to be the subject of a private maintenance agreement.”

Conclusions The principle of redevelopment of this site for residential purposes has already been established by the grant of outline permission. The access position shown on the outline scheme would necessitate the removal of a substantial length of the stone wall on the site frontage. The scheme now proposed would utilise the existing access at the western end of the frontage, allowing the wall, an important feature of the street scene, to be retained. Whilst the form and scale of the development proposed is considered acceptable, there remain concerns about the over fenestration of the front elevation to the terrace on the site frontage and the design of dwellings at the rear and the relationship of that proposed for plot 7 to the existing dwelling, no. 6 High Street, it is considered that these matters could be overcome by negotiation. A Member site visit has taken place in advance of the application coming before Committee. Summary of Reason(s) for Approval It is considered, having regard to the form and character of existing development in the area and relevant provisions of the development plan that, subject to compliance with the conditions attached

to this permission, the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, the setting of nearby listed buildings, nor the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s) 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the

date of this permission.

2. This consent relates to the application as amended by site layout plan no. 2489 10 Rev D, 2489 09 Rev D, 2489 08 Rev C and 2489 11 Rev A.

3. Samples of the materials to be used for all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority before any development to which this permission relates is commenced and only such materials as may be approved in writing by the authority shall be used in the development.

4. 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.

5. Large scale details of all external joinery, to a scale of not less than 1:20, to include cross sections to show cills, lintols, etc., shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.

6. Before the development is commenced, there shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority details of the means of surfacing of the unbuilt portions of the site.

7. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details of the means of defining the plot boundaries shall be submitted to and Local Planning Authority and only such details as may be agreed in writing shall be used in the development.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions, conservatories, garages, outbuildings or other structures shall be erected on the land without the express permission of the District Planning Authority.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed.

10. Before any development is commenced, details including location and means of disposal of surface water and foul drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority, and no building shall be occupied until the drainage works have been provided.

11. Before the development is commenced there shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority details (including cross-sections) of the relative heights of existing and proposed ground levels of the site and existing adjoining development and roads.

12. The applicant shall arrange for an archaeologist recognised by the District Planning Authority to monitor all stages of the development involving ground disturbance in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by that Authority before development is commenced. A report of the archaeologist's findings shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority

within one month of the last day of the watching brief and shall include arrangements for the conservation of artefacts from the site.

13. Development shall not be begun until a scheme to deal with any contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14. Before the development is brought into use, the private driveway shall be provided with lighting in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

15. Prior to the buildings becoming occupied, the driveway (and turning feature) shall be laid out and constructed, and suitably gravelled/hardened for the whole of its length.

16. Before any development is commenced the approval of the District Planning Authority is required to the detailed design of the scheme to provide for the satisfactory disposal of surface water run-off from the development; and such scheme as may be approved shall be carried out before (the) (any) building is occupied.

17. No works shall commence on site (apart from the highway improvement works as shown on drawing no. 2489/10 Rev D for the realignment of the carriageway of the High Street) before the works to improve the public highway have been certified as completed by the Local Planning Authority.

18. Before the vehicular access is commenced to be used the access and turning facility shall be provided on site in accordance with the approved plans.

19. The area shown on the plan accompanying the application reserved for the parking of vehicles shall be used or be available for vehicle parking at all times when the premises are in use.

The reason(s) for the condition(s) is/are:

1. Required to be imposed pursuant to section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. For the avoidance of doubt.

3. These details have not been submitted and the District Planning Authority wish to ensure that the colour and type of materials to be used harmonise with the surrounding development in the interests of visual amenity.

4. Landscaping and tree planting contributes to the appearance of a development and assists in its assimilation with its surroundings. A scheme is required to enable the visual impact of the development to be assessed and to create and maintain a pleasant environment.

5. No such details have been submitted and the district planning authority wish to be in a position to ensure that the proposed details are sympathetic to the property.

6. In the interests of visual amenity.

7. To ensure that these details are in keeping with the character of the area.

8. The planning authority wish to be in a position to determine the effects that such development would have on the surrounding area.

9. The planning authority wish to be in a position to determine the effects that such development would have on the surrounding area.

10. To ensure satisfactory provision is made for the disposal of foul and surface water drainage from the site.

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

12. To ensure that satisfactory provision is made for the evaluation, investigation, preservation (in situ where necessary) and recording of any possible archaeological remains on the site.

13. To ensure a satisfactory development, and to ensure the proper treatment of any contamination present on the site, in the interests of public and environmental safety.

14. To provide adequate lighting of the private driveway in the interests of crime prevention and community safety.

15. The local Highway Authority so requests in order that mud and soil are not deposited on the highway in the interests of road safety.

16. To ensure that surface water run-off from the development will not adversely affect, by reason of flooding, the amenity of nearby land.

17. The local Highway Authority so requests in the interests of road safety.

18. The local Highway Authority so requests to enable vehicles to enter and leave the highway in forward gear in the interests of road safety.

19. The local Highway Authority so requests in the interests of the safety and convenience of traffic using the adjacent road.

Note(s) to Applicant 1. Your attention is drawn to the enclosed Planning Guidance Note No. 2 entitled 'Watching Brief'

and the Community Archaeologist's assessment which may be helpful to you in complying with the condition relating to archaeology included in this approval. The South Kesteven Community Archaeologist may be contacted at Heritage Lincolnshire, The Old School, Cameron Street, Heckington, Sleaford, Lincs NG34 9RW - Tel: 01529 461499, Fax: 01529 461001.

2. This road is a private drive and will not be adopted as Highway Maintainable at the public expense (under the Highways Act 1980) and, as such, remains the responsibility of the individual property owner.

3. No works shall commence on site until a Section 278 Agreement Highway sAct 1980, has been entered into with the Local Highway Authority, Lincolnshire County Council for the realignment of the carriageway and kerb lines on the High Street, together with any necessary ancillary works.

This application was deferred by the Development Control Committee on 6th April 2004 for the submission of amended plans to reduce the impact of the scheme on the streetscene and the properties to the rear. Amended plans have now been received following extensive negotiations with Officers. The amendments can be described as follows: 1. Reduction from 3 to 2 dwellings on the rear part of the site. 2. Removal of any potential overlooking windows adjacent to Bertie Close properties. 3. Amendments to the design of the 2 rear properties to reflect the rural character of the area. 4. Greater separation from the front elevation to No. 6 High Street.

5. Overall reduction in height of the frontage dwellings by 1.5 metres to reflect the adjacent cottages. This has been achieved through lowering of ground levels and lowering the actual ridge height of the terrace.

6. Reduction in the number of windows from the terrace block. 7. Removal of porches from terrace block. Consultations have been carried out on this amended scheme in line with the Council Code of Practice on publicity. At the time of writing this report no representations have been received. The publicity period does not expire until 14th May 2004 and any representations received up until that date will be reported verbally at the meeting. It is now considered that the applicants have amended the scheme in line with the wishes of Committee and is formally recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined earlier in this report and an additional condition relating to the latest amended plans (received 28th April 2004). Members will recall that at the Development Control meeting of 15th June 2004 a resolution was passed to approve the application following the receipt of the latest amended details and subject to appropriate highway conditions. Since that time discussions have taken place involving both the applicants and the Local Highway Authority regarding the issues of highway safety and any necessary S278 works. It has now become clear that the proposed works to improve visibility at the junction with High Street would not be satisfactory to the Local Highway Authority as the proposals failed an initial safety audit. In effect this would mean that the Local Highway Authority would not be prepared to ‘sign off’ the highway works so effectively rendering the planning permission incapable of being implemented. In order to overcome this apparent impasse the applicants have now made a further amendment to the layout repositioning the access point to the eastern end of the site’s frontage with High Street. This has increased the forward visibility to 54 metres without having to make any highway improvements. It has resulted in the loss of part of the front boundary wall but the applicants are planning to rebuild this on the line of the new visibility splay. The revised application has now been re-advertised in accordance with standard procedures, the closing date for representations being 26th July. Any comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting.

* * * * * *

SR.2 S04/0588/17 Registration Date: 23-Apr-2004

Applicant Mr & Mrs Hall 3, Church Street, Carlby, Stamford, PE9 4NB

Agent Wilbraham Associates Ltd 33A, Albert Street, Rugby, CV21 2SQ

Proposal Erection of dwelling

Location Adj 3 Church Street, Carlby

Site Details Parish(es)

Carlby C Class Road

Area of special control for adverts EN3 Area of great landscape value Airfield Zone - No consultation required TPO adjoins site - TPO2 Drainage - Welland and Nene

REPORT The Site and its Surroundings The 29m x 12.5m application site forms part of the garden of a modern residential property fronting the south side of Church Street, immediately to the east of the Churchyard. To the south is the rear garden of a residential property fronting High Street. The front boundary and that with the Churchyard are defined by traditional stone walls. On the western boundary, just inside the Churchyard are three mature Horse Chestnut trees which are protected by a Preservation Order. In the north-eastern corner of the proposed plot is a pine tree. There is a slight fall across the site from west to east. The Proposal Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a 4 bedroom detached house shown to be positioned 7m from the boundary with the Churchyard and about 3m from the branch spread of the protected tree. A new 4m wide access is to be created through the wall on the site frontage and two parking spaces are shown alongside the western side of the house. Materials are specified to be stone for the external walls and slates for the roof covering. The existing house has rendered walls. Site History There is no planning history on the site relevant to the current application. Policy Considerations South Kesteven Local Plan Policy H6 – Residential Development on Unallocated Sites in Existing Settlements Policy EN1 – Protection and Enhancement of the Environment Policy EN3 – Areas of Great Landscape Value Statutory Consultations Local Highway Authority: Requests standard condition F4 and Note to Applicant – DHP. Community Archaeologist: Requests standard condition W7. Parish Council:

“Please note that due to the timescale the Parish Council has not been able to meet and formally resolve on this application. However, it has been examined by members and the following objections were proposed: 1. Not in keeping with amenity of area immediately adjacent to the church. 2. No turning area shown. Access will destroy ancient rubblestone wall. ‘No dig’ on drive is irrelevant. Access too near to right angle bend (Church Street is very narrow). Will increase parking problems. No garage is shown. 3. The roadway/track/path on the property is thought to be medieval and would be

destroyed. 4. Infill that is overbearing. 5. Concern for the state of the large Chestnut trees – ‘although the plot looks big

enough, with the restrictions needed to protect the (TPO) tree it is not a viable building plot.’

The Parish Council unanimously requests that this application be rejected.

If, as expected a decision is requested from the Development and Control Committee, the Parish Council requests that it is notified of the appropriate meeting so that it can be represented and speak.”

Representations as a result of publicity The application has been advertised in accordance with statutory requirements as “Development Affecting a Tree Preservation Order”. Representations have been received from interested parties. The following issues were raised: a) Narrow road in crowded part of the village. (5) b) House would be too prominent on this elevated site. (1) c) Medieval road runs through the site. (9) (See comment below) d) Damage to protected Chestnut trees in churchyard. (9) e) Rooting system of the trees will be in direct line with footings of proposed dwelling. (1) f) Dangerous access. (2) g) Difficult to believe that the house and driveway will be constructed without damage to the

root system of the trees in the churchyard. (1) h) Any building here would be visually intrusive and fail to remain in-keeping with the character

of the village. (2) i) Protected trees are a potential danger to the proposed dwelling. (3)

Comment

Some objectors have made reference to the remains of a medieval road and hall within the site. This is apparently incorrect. According to the Community Archaeologist, this mistaken belief is due to a mis-interpretation of records held by Heritage Lincolnshire. The Authority’s own Arboriculturalist, having had sight of the Tree Report commissioned by the applicant, is satisfied that appropriate conditions can be imposed on the planning permission to safeguard the protected trees in the neighbouring churchyard. Applicant’s Submissions

“The Site The site comprises part of the side garden to Heath House which stands on the south side of Church Street in the centre of the village of Carlby. The property comprises a detached house which has a parking/turning area to the front and a separate stable/garage building situated adjacent the eastern boundary. The house stands in a substantial plot of some 0.15 hectares (0.37 acres). The intention is to erect a house on the western side of the plot generally in line with No. 3 and with a complementary design. The land is level and currently comprises a lawned area, a children’s play area screened from the street by fencing, and flower beds. Church Street varies in width along its length. The first section from its junction with High Street to the east is 4.5m wide for approximately 32m and then narrows down to about 3m. It then widens out towards the western end of the application site and continues at a width of between 4.5 and 6m along that section of the road from the church northwards. There is a pavement and grass verge on the south side in front of the plot. At the front of the site is a 1m high stone wall. To the west of the site is the churchyard of St Stephens Church and there are three mature chestnut trees within the grounds close to the boundary of the site. These are set in approximately 2m from the stone wall on the boundary and their positions are shown on the site layout plan. On the north side of Church Street opposite the site is the garden of 2 Church Street which is bounded on its southern side by a 2m high hedge. Beyond the garden stands Nos. 4 and 6 Church Street which are approximately 16 and 22m respectfully from the northern boundary of the site. The Proposal The proposed house would be set back 9m from the frontage of the site and would be situated within a plot measuring approximately 19m x 31m (0.06 hectares/0.15 acres). In this position it would stand generally in line with Heath House. The new house would be 4.9m to eaves and 7.9m to ridge, slightly lower than No. 3. The dwelling would be built in brick with a slate or clay tiled roof. The design reflects the village location and would include a plinth, brick on edge detail to the eaves and gables, brick heads and sills to the windows and a bay window to the front elevation.

A new 3.5m wide access would be created to Church Street at the eastern end of the plot. Within the site would be a parking area for two cars and a turning facility such that vehicles could exit the site in forward gear. The proposed driveway would be constructed using the ‘no-dig’ method of construction shown on the enclosed Arboricultural Advice Note (APN1) at page 4. Planning Policies The South Kesteven Local Plan advises at Policy H6 that new residential development in villages such as Carlby will be allowed subject to consideration being given to five factors. I will deal with these in turn: i. The impact of the proposal on the form, character and setting of the settlement and

on the community and its local environment. The proposed house would not change the form or the setting of the village given that the site lies close to the centre of the village and is surrounded by development.

The building would relate well to Heath House and the position of the building would mean that the front elevation would be some 27m from the nearest point of 4 Church Street and some 33m from No. 6. These distances, together with intervening vegetation, would ensure that there is no loss of privacy to those properties from the development. The rear garden would be approximately 12m deep. There is a 2m high wall along the rear boundary, beyond which is the bottom of the very long garden of 15 High Street.

A short section of the stone wall along the frontage of the site would need to be removed (3.5m) to form the access. The remainder of the stone wall along the frontage of the site, and Heath House, would be retained and a stone wall of a similar height would be provided along the common boundary between No. 3 and the proposed dwelling. This is shown on the layout plan.

To the west of the site is St Stephen’s Church with the churchyard situated to the north of the church. Within the churchyard and close to the common boundary with the application site are three mature chestnut trees, the positions of which are shown on the site layout plan. These trees would be a minimum of 8m from the nearest point of the proposed house which accords with the protection distances given in Table 1 of BS 5463:1991 Trees in Relation to Construction. The use of the ‘no-dig’ construction method would ensure that the trees are not damaged during construction of the driveway.

ii. The available of utility services

Utility services are available in Church Street to serve the development. Surface water from the development would be discharged to a soakaway, whilst foul drainage would be discharged to the public foul sewer in Church Street.

iii. The provision of satisfactory access

The proposed access would be 3.5m wide and would be gained from Church Street which at this point is straight and level. As you will be aware, Church Street has a junction with High Street some 70m to the east of the site and a further junction with the High Street some 150m to the north-west. The majority of residents of the dwellings on Church Street use the latter junction to access their property in view of the greater width of the road at its north-western end.

There has been some residential development on the western side of Church Street (to the west of the Church) in recent years following an allocation for 25 dwellings (H5.15) in the Local Plan. Church Street is capable of accommodating the additional limited traffic from this development.

iv. The need to protect open spaces defined on the proposals map as serving an important

visual or amenity function.

The land is not identified on the proposals map to the Local Plan as serving an important visual or amenity function. Nor is the site within a Conservation Area.

v. The need to avoid the extension of isolated groups of houses and the consolidation or

extension of sporadic and linear development.

The proposal would not extend the village beyond already clearly defined boundaries and is, as indicated above, enclosed on all sides by existing development.

The proposals fully accord with Policy H6 in the Local Plan and will provide an additional unit of accommodation on previously developed land without any harm to the village or the amenities of nearby properties.”

Summary of Reason(s) for Approval It is considered, having regard to the relevant provisions of the development plan, that the proposed development will, subject to compliance with conditions attached to this permission, be in accordance with the development plan and not materially harm the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of nearby occupiers, the survival of adjacent protected trees and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety. RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s) 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the

date of this permission.

2. The applicant shall arrange for an archaeologist recognised by the District Planning Authority to monitor all stages of the development involving ground disturbance in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by that Authority before development is commenced. A report of the archaeologist's findings shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority within one month of the last day of the watching brief and shall include arrangements for the conservation of artefacts from the site.

3. The area shown on the plan accompanying the application reserved for the parking of vehicles shall be used or be available for vehicle parking at all times when the premises are in use.

4. Samples of the materials to be used for all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority before any development to which this permission relates is commenced and only such materials as may be approved in writing by the authority shall be used in the development.

5. Excavation of the foundations of the western gable wall of the approved dwelling shall be undertaken using only hand digging.

6. Construction of the driveway and vehicle parking area shall be undertaken only using the 'no-dig' method, recommended in the Arboricultural Practice Notes appended to this decision notice.

7. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details of the means of surfacing the driveway and parking area shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority and only such details as may be agreed in writing shall be used to surface these areas.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no buildings shall be erected on the land to the west of the western gable wall of the approved dwelling without the express permission of the District Planning Authority.

9. Prior to the commencement of development a temporary access shall be formed through the eastern end of the wall on the site frontage for vehicles delivering materials. This access shall be used by all vehicles connected with the construction of the dwelling and the wall shall be reinstated before occupation of the dwelling.

The reason(s) for the condition(s) is/are:

1. Required to be imposed pursuant to section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. To ensure that satisfactory provision is made for the evaluation, investigation, preservation (in situ where necessary) and recording of any possible archaeological remains on the site.

3. The local Highway Authority so requests in the interests of the safety and convenience of traffic using the adjacent road.

4. In order to ensure that the materials to be used harmonise with existing properties in the locality and that the development as permitted will not deleteriously affect the character of the area.

5. To ensure that the roof system of the protected trees in the neighbouring churchyard are not unnecessarily disturbed by works of excavation.

6. To ensure that there is no disturbance to the root system of the protected trees in the neighbouring churchyard.

7. The local planning authority wish to assess the impact that the positioning of any buildings in this area would have on the protected trees in the neighbouring churchyard.

8. To safeguard the protected trees during the construction period.

9. To safeguard the protected trees during the construction period.

Note(s) to Applicant 1. Your attention is drawn to the enclosed Planning Guidance Note No. 2 entitled 'Watching Brief'

and the Community Archaeologist's assessment which may be helpful to you in complying with the condition relating to archaeology included in this approval. The South Kesteven Community Archaeologist may be contacted at Heritage Lincolnshire, The Old School, Cameron Street, Heckington, Sleaford, Lincs NG34 9RW - Tel: 01529 461499, Fax: 01529 461001.

2. Prior to the commencement of any of the access works within the public highway, please contact the Divisional Highways Manager (Lincolnshire County Council) on 01522 553170 for appropriate specification and construction information.

This application was deferred from the last meeting in order for Members to undertake a site visit to assess the effect of the proposed development on the protected trees in the neighbouring Churchyard.

The following supporting statement was reported verbally at the last meeting:

“Great care has been taken in the preparation of this application to ensure that the proposed house is in keeping with the character of this part of the village and that the trees just inside the churchyard to the west of the site are not harmed by the development. The house itself is of traditional design and incorporates a number of architectural details which are found in buildings nearby. It would be situated in line with 3 Church Street and there would be a 3 metre gap between the two buildings. This is not significantly different from the gaps between nos. 2 and 4, 4 and 6, and 6 and 8 Church Street to the north and the newer properties on the western side of Church Street. It would be set in 7.5m from the boundary to the churchyard and therefore will not appear cramped on the plot. The house would be built of stone with a slate or clay tiled roof. As far as the protected trees within the churchyard are concerned, the proposed house

would be situated a minimum of 2.5m outside the spread of the canopy of those trees, which is well in excess of the minimum distances set out in the British Standards publication, Trees in Relation to Construction. The access and car parking spaces would also be provided by what is known as a ‘no dig method’ which would avoid damage to the roots of the trees. The Council’s own Tree Advisor accepts that the development can be carried out without harming the trees.

In view of the fact that the proposed house would be set in some 7 metres from the boundary with the churchyard, and some 40 metres distant from the church itself, development would not harm the setting of the church. Indeed, development has taken place on the western side of Church Street with the property known as Church View being situated considerably closer to the church than would be the case with the proposed house. The Highway Authority have not raised any concerns relating to highway safety and the house would not affect the amenity of any nearby dwellings. In the light of the above I therefore request that planning permission be granted for the application.”

* * * * * *

NU.1 S04/0770/06 Registration Date: 21-May-2004

Applicant Mrs Clark & Mr Thompson Mayfields, High Road, Barrowby, Grantham, NG321BL

Agent Domestic Transformations 188, Harrowby Road, Grantham, NG319DX

Proposal Erection of chalet bungalow

Location Adj Mayfields, High Road, Barrowby

Site Details Parish(es)

Barrowby C Class Road Radon Area - Protection required Area of special control for adverts Airfield Zone - No consultation required Drainage - Lincs

REPORT The Site and its Surroundings The site is located on the north side of High Road, behind the 2 storey dwelling of 26 High Road and to the west of the bungalow of Mayfields. Access to the site is gained via a private driveway serving Mayfields, running between 26 High Road and The Paddock. The site boundaries comprise of fencing to either side of the access and to the western site boundary, fencing and a Leylandii hedge (not in the control of the applicant) to the southern boundary, a natural hedge to the north and a recently erected 2.2m high wall to the east. The site is level, grassed and devoid of any existing buildings. Site History Outline planning permission was refused for the erection of a dwelling on the site on 7th May 2002 (application reference S02/0452/06). An appeal was lodged against the reason for refusal and the appeal was dismissed on 9th January 2003. The planning reason for refusal was mainly based on the ‘backland’ position of the site (Policy H7) and the potential noise, disturbance and privacy issues that would arise through the use of the access and the siting of any dwelling in relation to the neighbouring properties. The appeal was dismissed following an Informal Hearing. The Inspector commented that the proposal would have ‘an intimate relationship between the proposed dwelling and the neighbours’ and ‘the need to protect privacy while undue shading from boundary hedges and at the same time achieving a comfortable relationship with the plot and its surroundings, including the proposed shared access presents real difficulties’. He concluded ‘…living conditions both within and around this plot would be significantly compromised. In turn this means that the impact of the development on its local environment would not be satisfactory.’ Notwithstanding the decision that was made at appeal the Inspector did make comments that would suggest that a property could be designed and positioned so as to avoid any overlooking and/or loss of privacy. He stated ‘… avoiding south facing windows and locating the dwelling away from

the southern boundary of the site’, ‘overlooking from No. 24 would be restricted to views from the summerhouse area; this might prompt a more robust enclosure of the site from the west’ and ‘as the main rooms of Mayfields face towards the plot, there would again be an incentive to provide a more robust boundary and possibly a hedge along the eastern boundary of the plot’. Based on the comments of the Inspector it has to be considered that some form of development on the site would be acceptable if the concerns raised could be addressed. Permission was sought earlier this year for the erection of a ‘chalet’ style dwelling and garage on the site under application S04/0151/06. This proposal was for a 2 storey dwelling located towards the northern part of the site, 2m from the northern boundary and 8.5m from the southern boundary with No. 26. The dwelling was shown to be 3.1m from the west boundary (to remain as a 1.9m high fence) and 1.25m from the east boundary, which is formed by a 2.2m high brick wall. The property was designed to avoid any potential overlooking and loss of privacy. The majority of the habitable rooms were located on the north side of the dwelling (lounge, kitchen, dining room and all 4 bedrooms at first floor). This application was considered at the Development Control Committee on 6th April 2004 when members resolved to defer the application to enable a site inspection to take place to establish the likely effect of the proposal on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. The application was scheduled to be visited by Members on 21st April 2004 and go back before the Committee on 27th April 2004 but was withdrawn by the applicant on 13th April 2004, pending a revised submission. The Proposal The current application was submitted on 21st May 2004 and seeks consent for the erection of a primarily single storey dwelling, which utilises the roof void for the master bedroom area. The property is 0.5m shorter than previously considered at 16.95m, 0.7m narrower at 9m and 2.2m lower at 6m. There are no first floor windows of any type on the south, east or west facing elevations of the proposed dwellings. Five roof lights are proposed on the north facing elevation. In a similar manner to the previous application the property would be sited in the northernmost half of the site to provide a greater degree of separation with the existing properties that front High Road. When considering that the Inspector made comment that would suggest that a property could be designed and positioned so as to avoid any overlooking and/or loss of privacy the current proposal would appear to be acceptable in both principle and design/detail, sufficient to warrant a planning approval. Policy Considerations H7 – Housing – Individual dwellings must be considered with regard to the impact of the proposal on the form, character and setting of the settlement and on the community and its local environment. EN1 – Protection and Enhancement of the Environment – Ensures that development proposals should reflect the general character of the area through layout, siting, design and materials.

Statutory Consultations

Parish Council:

The Parish Council feel that this ‘footprint’ is still too large for the area allocated taking into account the proximity of other dwellings.

Local Highway Authority: Requests 2 conditions and a ‘Note to Applicant’ on any approval. Community Archaeologist: No objections. Environment Agency: No objections. Environmental Health Services: Requests standard condition R25 on any approval. Representations as a result of publicity Representations were received from interested parties. The following issues were raised: a) Previous issues at appeal are still relevant. b) Development in close proximity to boundary fences. c) Proximity to boundaries will make development dominant/visually intrusive. d) Detrimental affect on environment with regard to noise, disturbance, privacy and proximity. e) High roof elevation with windows overlooking neighbours. f) Design not in character with the area. g) Impact on highway safety. h) Inaccuracy on plans with regard to southern boundary. Planning Panel Comments 30th June 2004 – That Members undertake a site visit and the application be considered by the Development Control Committee on 27th July 2004. Applicants Submissions None Summary of Reason(s) for Approval The proposal involves the erection of a modest 'chalet' bungalow property on land adjacent to Mayfields, Barrowby. Subject to the conditions imposed the proposal will have no adverse effect

and, in consequence, will be in accordance with Policies H6 and EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Approved subject to condition(s) 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the

date of this permission.

2. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, final details of the materials to be used in the construction of external walls and roofs shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Only such materials as may be agreed shall be used in the development.

3. The existing natural hedge along the north boundary of the site shall be retained and maintained at a height not less than 1.6m.

4. Prior to the buildings becoming occupied, the driveway (and turning feature) shall be laid out and constructed, and suitably gravelled/hardened for the whole of its length.

5. Before the access is commenced to be used, provision shall be made within the site to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority for a motor car/motor vehicle to turn to enable it to enter and leave the highway in forward gear.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions, conservatories, garages, outbuildings or other garden structures shall be erected on the land without the express permission of the District Planning Authority.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows or rooflights (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed.

8. Development shall not be begun until a scheme to deal with any contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The reason(s) for the condition(s) is/are:

1. Required to be imposed pursuant to section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. These details have not been submitted and the District Planning Authority wish to ensure that the colour and type of materials to be used harmonise with the surrounding development in the interests of visual amenity.

3. These features make an important contribution to the appearance of the area. Their retention will maintain the appearance of the area and help assimilate the development with its surroundings.

4. The local Highway Authority so requests in order that mud and soil are not deposited on the highway in the interests of road safety.

5. The local Highway Authority so requests to enable vehicles to enter and leave the highway in forward gear in the interests of road safety.

6. The planning authority wish to be in a position to determine the effects that such development would have on the surrounding area.

7. The planning authority wish to be in a position to determine the effects that such development would have on the surrounding area.

8. To ensure a satisfactory development, and to ensure the proper treatment of any contamination present on the site, in the interests of public and environmental safety.

Note(s) to Applicant 1. Prior to the commencement of any of the access works within the public highway, please

contact the Divisional Highways Manager (Lincolnshire County Council) on 01522 553170 for appropriate specification and construction information.

2. You are advised that the application site falls within an area which requires protection from Radon. You are advised to contact the District Council's Building Control Services to ascertain the level of protection required, and whether geological assessment is necessary.

* * * * * *

- SU1 -

NR.1 S04/0744/18 Registration Date: 19-May-2004

Applicant Mr & Mrs C Downward The Hall Farm, Main Street, Carlton Scroop, NG32 3AZ

Agent Riverside Design 88, Belton Grove, Grantham, NG31 9HH

Proposal Conversion of barns to dwelling

Location The Hall Farm, Main Street, Carlton Scroop

Site Details Parish(es)

Carlton Scroop Public footpath adjoins site A Class Road Radon Area - Protection required Area of special control for adverts EN3 Area of great landscape value Airfield Zone - No consultation required Drainage - Lincs

REPORT

The Site and its Surroundings The residential property of Hall Farm is located immediately adjacent to the north west side of Main Street and, other than associated outbuildings, is surrounded by paddock land or agricultural fields. The buildings that are the subject of this application are located to the north west of the dwelling and north east of the public footpath that crosses the site. The existing buildings are of stone and brick construction with a red brick 2 storey barn in the north east corner. Originally the range of buildings would have formed a courtyard but some of the structures have been removed leaving 3 main buildings linked together with some of the existing walls. Site History None The Proposal Consent is sought for extensions to the existing buildings to essentially re-instate the former buildings, and the conversion of the existing buildings to form a single dwelling unit. The new build element would re-introduce the courtyard to the centre of the buildings. The proposed scheme of conversion and new build is acceptable in planning terms and utilises design elements and materials that would be expected in such a proposal. As the majority of the buildings already exist it is considered that there would be no undue impact on the character and appearance of the area through the provision of an independent dwelling in this location. On this basis the proposal would be in accordance with Policies H7 and EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan. In addition, the existing buildings appear to be of sound construction and capable of conversion without any major reconstruction required. Notwithstanding that there has not been a structural survey submitted as part of the application it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy AG2 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

- SU2 -

The main issue of concern is the lack of services within the village to support any further development. Carlton Scroop does not benefit from facilities such as a village shop, post office, school, pub or surgery, which are usually essential for a village to be classed as a sustainable settlement. This being the case it is considered that the provision of a further dwelling within the village would be contrary to Core Policy 1 of the Draft Deposit of the Lincolnshire Structure Plan and PPG13 (Transport). Notwithstanding the acceptability of the proposal in terms of design, form and character it is considered that the application should not be permitted on grounds of sustainability alone. Policy Considerations H7 – Housing. EN1 – Protection and Enhancement of the Environment. AG2 – Reuse or Adaptation of Agricultural and Other Rural Buildings. PPG13 – Transport. Core Policy 1 – Promoting Sustainable Development. Statutory Consultations Parish Council: No objections. Local Highway Authority: Requests standard condition B19. Community Archaeologist: No comments made. Environment Agency: No comments made. Representations as a Result of Publicity None Planning Panel Comments

7th June 2004 – The application be deferred for a site inspection to determine the acceptability of the proposal and the Development Control Committee then consider the application. Applicants Submissions

None Conclusions In terms of design, detail, materials and layout the proposal forms a good scheme of conversion and new build that would bring this range of partly demolished buildings back into use. However, as with many other smaller villages within the District, Carlton Scroop is considered to be a settlement that, due to its lack of essential services, is unsustainable in planning terms and cannot support further residential development.

- SU3 -

RECOMMENDATION: That the development be Refused for the following reason(s)

1. Carlton Scroop is a village that is devoid of any essential services and is considered to be a village that cannot sustain any new developments without the need for future occupants to rely on the use of the motor vehicle. It is considered that the proposal would be contrary to PPG13 (Transport) and Core Policy 1 of the Draft Deposit of the Lincolnshire Structure Plan.

* * * * * *