43

NB1 S15/0496 Target Decision Date:24th April 2015Committee Date:8th March 2016

Applicant Mr Arnold Hurley, Aegis Consultancy Group, 34 Laurel Drive, Stockton, Southam

Agent Proposal Demolition of public house and erection of food store

(amendments to S13/3116)Location Lord Nelson, Bourne Road, Morton, Bourne, Lincolnshire PE10

0RGApplication Type Full Planning PermissionParish(es) Morton Parish Council

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application was deferred from the Development Control Committee of 13 October 2015.

Recommendation Approved conditionally

Key Issues

Impact on highway safety through vehicle and pedestrian movements What impact the replacement building would have on the character of the Conservation

Area Residential Amenity e.g. overlooking an overbearing Principle of development in this location Planning history to the site

Technical Documents Submitted with the Application

Transport statement Elevation and layout drawings Heritage statement Design and Access statement

Enquires about this report to: Nigel Bryan Area Planning Officer 6304 n.bryan@southkesteven.gov.uk

44

45

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The application was deferred from the Development Control Committee of 13 October 2015. Members expressed concern about highway considerations given a previous application for the erection of a food store (S13/3116), which was refused permission and dismissed on appeal. As a result it was resolved that an independent consultant be appointed to review highway considerations on the application, with particular regard to highway safety.

1.2 The appointed consultant reviewed all information submitted with the application, the Inspectors decision on application S13/3116 and also visited the site on the 16 November. The site meeting was attended by a representative of the Parish Council, applicant and Development Control Committee. The observations of the independent review were received on the 18 December and made available in full on-line. A summary of the main conclusions reached are drafted below:-

There is an existing access point to the site from the A15 and there is no record of collisions involving site traffic. There would be no reason to refuse permission should the existing access point continue to be used.

Statistical information indicates that a reduction in the right turn lane into High Street from the A15 would be acceptable.

There are opportunities to increase pedestrian safety through a controlled crossing or refuge on the A15.

For deliveries vehicles should only be able to exit the site by turning left with a two access point solution the preferred option from a highway safety point of view.

It is not appropriate to change the speed limit to 30mph along this stretch of the A15. Overall, the safest option from a highway safety point of view is to have two access

points, with a no signal junction, restricted turning movements, retention of existing right turn lane and a staggered uncontrolled pedestrian crossing to the south of the main access point.

1.3 It is in view of the above that the agent has submitted amended plans to accord with the recommendations of the independent highway consultant. Public consultation has been undertaken on the amended plans.

2.0 Relevant History

2.1 No relevant planning history

3.0 Policy Considerations

3.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)Section 4 - Promoting sustainable transportNational Planning Policy FrameworkSection 2 - Ensuring the vitality of town centresSection 1 - Building a strong, competitive economySection 12 - Enhancing the historic environmentSection 7 - Requiring good design

3.2 South Kesteven District Council Core StrategyPolicy E2 - Retail DevelopmentPolicy E1 - Employment DevelopmentPolicy EN1 - Protection and EnhancementPolicy SP3 - Sustainable Integrated TransportPolicy SP2 - Sustainable CommunitiesPolicy SP1 - Spatial Strategy

46

3.3 Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan DocumentPolicy SAP1 - Retention of community services

4.0 Representations Received

Parish Council Their observations will be reported in the late background paper.

LCC Highways & SuDS Support The Highway Authority support the scheme as amended, subject to conditions, and do not feel that highway safety would be compromised.

Historic Buildings Advisor Does not feel that the scheme as amended is as sympathetic to the character of the Conservation Area as the previous scheme in that the 'visual stop' of the building, when viewed along High Street, is not of the same quality of design.

Planning Policy SKDC No Comment Received.

Environmental Protection Services No Comment Received.

5.0 Representations as a Result of Publicity

5.1 Further consultation was undertaken on the amended plans allowing 14 days for representations to be received. Since the application was deferred at the Development Control Committee of October 2015 a total of 30 letters have been received. 28 of the letters object to the application, including a letter from the Primary School, a summary of their comments are below:-

The access is still unacceptable and improvements need to be made to make it easier for pedestrians to cross the A15.

A traffic light system should be installed on the junction. The independent consultant should have been made to visit the site in rush hour. The speed limit of the A15 should be reduced to 30mph. Morton does not need another shop. A mini roundabout should be considered. Children crossing the road for buses or to attend the Primary School are at risk when

crossing the road

5.2 2 letters of support have been received, a summary of their comments are below:-

The site is an eyesore and something needs to be built on this junction. There is a need for the store and people are only objecting as they do not wish to

upset existing business owners.

47

6.0 Evaluation

6.1 Application as amended - highway considerations

6.1.1 Alterations to the application have been made in light of the observations received from the highway review and it is now intended to have an entrance point for vehicles only from Hanthorpe Road and exit to the A15. No vehicles will be allowed to enter the site from the A15 and signage will be put in place to direct traffic. Traffic exiting the site onto the A15 can turn left or right, with the exception of delivery vehicles who will have to turn left. Furthermore, a pedestrian island is to be erected, which would result in a modest reduction in the right turn lane to High Street.

6.1.2 Previously the application would have had one access point to the A15 and whilst the independent highway consultant did not feel that such a scheme would justify a refusal of permission a two access point is the safest option. In addition, pedestrian movement across the A15 will be aided by they pedestrian island. . It is apparent that the applicant has taken on board the suggestions of the highway consultant about the most appropriate way to develop the sight from a highway safety point of view, for both pedestrians and vehicles. The highway authority does not object to the application. As a result it is considered that the development, as amended, is acceptable and the best solution from a highway safety perspective.

6.2 Application as amended - design considerations

6.2.1 There have been wide ranging changes to the design of the building to accommodate the updated highway layout. The building would now be sited closer to the front of the plot, to allow vehicular access to the site from Hanthorpe Road. The scale of building would alter with a simple design incorporating a large mono pitch roof that would be 4.8m at its lowest point increasing to 6.8m adjacent to Hanthorpe Road. There would still be a focal point to the building when viewed along High Street, however, it has not been possible to replicate the tower of the previously designed scheme as there is a need to ensure that there is appropriate visibility along the A15 when exiting from Hanthorpe Road. There are other design features that have been retained from the previous scheme including the stone plinth and recessed window detail on the Hanthorpe Road elevation.

6.2.2 The application site falls within Morton Conservation Area and there are few features of interest in the building to be demolished, with the principle of demolishing the structure accepted. There is also a need to ensure that the replacement building would either preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area. There are a number of design features in the building that are welcome including the detailing on the north elevation and stone plinth. However, the focal point of the building when viewed along High Street is not of the same quality as previously proposed but it is understood that this is as a result of compromises required to address highway concerns. It is also apparent that with an appropriate condition samples of materials would need to be supplied to the Local Planning Authority to ensure the build is completed to an acceptable quality. Overall the design of the building is, on balance, acceptable, despite not being as sympathetic to the character of the area as a previously submitted scheme but this needs to be weighed up alongside highway considerations, which is done in the planning balance section of this report.

6.3 Other considerations

6.3.1 Given that the building would now be sited further away from residential properties to the west it is not considered that the proposal would be detrimental to residential amenity through a dominating or overlooking impact, nor would the development result in harm through noise or other disturbance.

48

6.4 Planning balance

6.4.1 It is clear that the scheme as amended is an improvement having regard to highway safety considerations. However, it is also apparent that the design of the building is not quite of the same quality taking into account the impact on the character of Conservation Area, notably the focal point of the building when viewed along High Street. That said, alterations to the design of the building are required as a result of making highway improvements e.g. ensuring appropriate visibility is retained when existing Hanthorpe Road to the A15. As a result it is considered that when weighing up these two primary considerations the development is acceptable and addresses previous concerns about the application and is, on balance, deemed to comply with Core Strategy policies E1, E2, EN1, SP3, SP2 and SP3, along with guidance contained in the NPPF, with no other material planning considerations to indicate that the application should be determined otherwise

7.0 Section 106 Heads of Terms

7.1 For the avoidance of doubt a Unilateral Undertaking has been drafted and signed for a contribution of £25K toward wider highway improvements. However, given changes to the scheme as a result of the amended application, with an island to aid pedestrians across the A15, this no longer required.

8.0 Crime and Disorder

8.1 It is considered that the proposal would not result in any significant crime and disorder implications.

9.0 Human Rights Implications

9.1 Articles 6 (Rights to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

9.2 It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

9.3 The original committee report, from the application that was deferred at the Development Control of 13 October 2015 and is reproduced in Appendix A below along with the Additional Items paper, Committee Minutes and related Appeal decision.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION: that the development is Approved subject to the following conditions

Time Limit for Commencement

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

Reason: In order that the development is commenced in a timely manner, as set out in Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

49

Approved Plans

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans:

AA-493-001MAA-493-002IAA-493-003HAA-493-004IAA-493-005HAA-493-07DAA-493-008FAA-493-009DAA-493-021A

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission. Reason: To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.

Before the Development is Commenced

3 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, a scheme for the treatment of surface and foul water drainage shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory surface and foul water drainage is provided in accordance with Policy EN2 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).

4 Before development commences on site further details relating to the vehicular access to the public highway, including materials, signage, specification of works and construction method shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The approved details shall be implemented on site before the development is first brought in to use and thereafter retained at all times.

Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site.

5 Prior to the commencement of any demolition or construction work on site a method statement regarding the proposed construction and demolition works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall cover the following points:

a) Hours of operation;b) Types of machinery and equipment to be used on site; andc) Details of how noise, vibration, dust and asbestos removal are to be controlled, using best practicable means.

The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement.

Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is carried out according to the best practice to minimise disruption to adjoining occupiers.

During Building Works

50

6 Before any of the works on the external elevations of the building(s) hereby permitted are begun, samples of the materials (including colour of any render, paintwork or colourwash) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).

Before the Development is Occupied

7 Prior to the operation of the store details of any condenser and extraction units associated with the store shall be submitted to and approved in writing. The details shall include manufacturer details and noise that would be omitted from the units. Only the details as approved shall be installed and no further units installed without the benefit of planning permission.

Reason: To ensure that the amenity of neighbouring properties is not compromised and to comply with Core Strategy policy EN1.

8 Prior to operation of the store a Delivery Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include:

Hours and number of deliveries; identifying the size of vehicles as well as a means of controlling how vehicles will enter the site, including from which direction of travel;

Details of how noise from cages will be controlled, as well as from vehicles and staff.

The plan as approved shall be adhered to thereafter unless the Local Planning Authority give written consent to a variation.

Reason: To ensure that the amenity of neighbouring properties is not compromised and highway safety respected and to comply with Core Strategy policy EN1.

9 Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied/brought into use, the works to provide the surface and foul water drainage shall have been completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory surface and foul water drainage is provided in accordance with Policy EN2 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).

10 The store shall not operate until such time as the highway improvements on the approved drawing, or those approved under condition 5, have been implemented.

Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site.

11 Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied/brought into use, the external surfaces shall have been completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).

Standard Note(s) to Applicant:

51

1 In reaching the decision the Council has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner by determining the application without undue delay given the need for amended plans and further consultation undertaken. As such it is considered that the decision is in accordance with paragraphs 186 -187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 Please note that this grant of planning permission does not authorise the erection of the totem sign shown on the approved layout, which would need to be granted Advertisement Consent.

3 The applicant will need to enter into a Section 278 Agreement with Lincolnshire County Council to implement the improvement works for the proposed pedestrian crossing on the A15.

4 Prior to the submission of details for any access works within the public highway you must contact the Divisional Highways Manager on 01522 782070 for application, specification and construction information.

52

Appendix A

NB2 S15/0496/FULL Target Decision Date:Committee Date:

24-Apr-201513-Oct-2015

Applicant Mr Arnold Hurley, Aegis Consultancy Group 34, Laurel Drive, Stockton, Southam, Warwickshire, CV478FB

AgentProposal Demolition of public house and erection of food store (amendments

to S13/3116)Location Lord Nelson, Bourne Road, Morton, Bourne, Lincolnshire, PE10 0RGApp Type Full Planning PermissionParish(es) MortonReason for Referral to Committee

At the request of the Vice Chair, given local interest in the application and with a previous application on the site considered by the Development Control Committee.

Recommendation Approved subject to condition(s)

Key Issues

Impact on highway safety through vehicle and pedestrian movements What impact the replacement building would have on the character of the Conservation

Area Residential Amenity e.g. overlooking an overbearing Principle of development in this location Planning history to the site

Technical Documents Submitted with the Application

Transport statement Elevation and layout drawings Heritage statement Design and Access statement

53

54

REPORT

1.0 Application Category

1.1 This application is categorised as a minor.

2.0 Reason for Referral to Committee

2.1 At the request of the Vice Chair, given local interest in the application and with a previous application on the site considered by the Development Control Committee.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application is for the demolition of The Lord Nelson Public House and to erect a Co-op store in its place.

4.0 The Application Site and its Surroundings

4.1 The existing public house comprises an original building, dating between 1888-1904, which sits along the Hanthorpe Road elevation and western boundary of the site. Historically the building also had a large projecting gable that sat very close to the road junction but following an accident the two projecting gables, which are currently in situ, replaced them. Large parts of the site are open and were used for car parking along with a small area for outside seating and drinking; however, the building is now boarded up. The application site is primarily surrounded by housing although on the opposite corner of the A15 is a vacant site, that formerly had the Kings Head on it, along with a convenience store and Fish and Chip shop.

5.0 Relevant Site History

5.1 Application S13/3116, for the ‘demolition of public house & erection of new food store’ was refused permission by the Development Control Committee and a decision issued on the 14 May 2014. The two reasons for refusal are drafted below;

“In the interests of highway safety due to potentially dangerous movement of traffic accessing the site from High Street, Hanthorpe Road and the A15 and conflict with the A15 right turning lane”.

“The safety risk to pedestrians accessing the shop across the busy A15 from the bulk of the village that lies on the opposite side of the road”.

5.2 That decision was subject of an appeal and the appeal dismissed. The Inspector concluded that with regard to highway safety issues it was apparent that vehicles looking to enter the store whilst heading south on the A15 would have to cross the right turn lane of vehicles heading north and turning into High Street. This has the potential to be detrimental to highway safety. Furthermore, the Inspector questioned some of the figures with regard to vehicles movements as to whether or not they were accurate.

5.3 With regard to pedestrian movements the Inspector did not consider that due consideration had been given to the fact that the majority of local residents lived on the opposite side of the A15 and whilst traffic flow was not constant at off-peak hours this may not be the case at peak hours. In the absence of evidence to substantiate that pedestrian movements would not be dangerous the Inspector dismissed the appeal on this ground too.

55

5.4 The Inspector considered that replacing the Public House with the store would not be detrimental to the character of Morton Conservation Area, nor raised any objection in principle to the form of development proposed.

5.5 However, the Inspector did consider that the mass of the built form would be detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of the adjacent property, 1 Hazeland Steading, which has high level windows adjacent to the application site. The loss of outlook was an issue.

6.0 Policy Considerations

6.1 National Planning Policy Framework:

6.1.1 1. Building a strong, competitive economy

6.1.2 (paras 18 -22) – Emphasises the government’s commitment to economic growth and that the planning system should encourage economic growth rather than be an impediment to it. Local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and business investment should not be overburdened by planning policy expectations.

6.1.3 7. Requiring good design

6.1.4 (paras 56, 58, 60, 64) – Requires new development to be of high quality design which is appropriate for the character of the area and the way it functions and makes use of all available opportunities to enhance it. Whilst local distinctiveness is encouraged, planning decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative. It is emphasised that good design goes beyond the visual appearance of individual buildings and includes among other things, connections between people and places, and integration with the historic, built and natural environment. Planning permission should be refused for developments which are considered to be of poor design.

6.1.5 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

6.1.6 (paras 128-129, 131-132) – Requires local planning authorities to take into account the significance of any heritage assets affected and the impact on their settings. If harm is identified the relevant tests should be applied. The desirability of development providing an enhancement to the historic environment is also emphasised.

6.1.7 In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and

putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable

communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character

and distinctiveness.

6.1.8 When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and

56

II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

6.2 South Kesteven District Council Core Strategy 2010:

6.2.1 Policy SP1: Spatial Strategy

6.2.2 Guides major development to Grantham and supports new development which helps to maintain the three market towns of Stamford Bourne and the Deepings.

6.2.3 In addition this policy supports new developments in sustainable locations including allocated sites within local service centres (LSCs)

6.2.4 Policy SP2: Sustainable Communities

6.2.5 This policy defines the local service centres (LSC’s) and directs development to LSCs where localised service use is already strong

6.2.6 Policy SP4 – Developer Contributions

6.2.7 The Council may enter into planning obligations with developers to secure the provision of (or financial contributions towards) infrastructure and community benefits which the council considers are necessary in conjunction with development.

6.2.8 Planning obligations can cover those matters which would otherwise result in planning permission being withheld and should enhance the overall quality of a development.

6.2.9 Policy EN1: Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District

6.2.10 Requires that development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration.

6.2.11 E1: Employment Development

6.2.12 This policy guides development proposals for employment to allocated sites within Grantham, Stamford, Bourne and the Deepings whilst seeking to retain and enhance existing areas of employment use.

6.2.13 In rural areas new employment development that meets a local need will generally be supported within local service centres, providing that the proposals will not have an adverse impact on the character and setting of the village, or negatively impact on neighbouring land uses through visual, noise, traffic or pollution impacts.

6.2.14 Outside local service centres, rural diversification proposals will be supported where it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to meet the needs of farming, forestry, recreation, tourism or other enterprises and has an essential requirement for a rural location. Such proposals would need to demonstrate that they will help to support or regenerate a sustainable rural economy.

6.2.15 Policy E2: Retail Development

6.2.16 Retail development will be guided to the town centres of Grantham, Stamford, Bourne and the Deepings in order to improve their vitality and viability.

6.2.17 Local service centres should accommodate small scale local shopping facilities to serve the everyday needs of local people but more significant development will not be appropriate.

57

6.3 Site allocation Development Plan Document

SAP1 – Retention of community services and facilities

The policy seeks to retain existing community uses in villages unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there are other alternative uses within the village or that the use is no longer viable without a realistic prospect of an alternative community use being sought for the building/site.

7.0 SKDC Corporate Priorities

7.1 The applicant is considered to comply with the Council Corporate Priorities listed below:

7.2 Grow the economy

Support & facilitate the growth of business Enable delivery of attractive retail & leisure offer Easy to do business with – look to say yes Promote infrastructure to support growth Skills – high value employment Attract as a destination for investment

8.0 Representations Received

8.1 LCC Highways:Note that the previous application was refused permission and appeal dismissed. However the County Council intend to make improvements to the junction. This will be in the form of either a fully automated traffic light junction, as has been provisionally drawn up. Alternatively a signalised pedestrian crossing maybe considered. It is currently unclear as to which proposal will be constructed but negotiations have taken place with the applicant and a contribution of £25k sought from this development for highway improvements. Deliveries to the shop should also only be made from vehicles heading north along the A15 and not heading south e.g. so that delivery vehicles do not have to cut across oncoming traffic.

8.2 Heritage Lincolnshire:The application would not affect any known sites of archaeological interest

8.3 Conservation Officer:The application as submitted would result in a building that enhances the character of the area over and above the existing with the prominent gable serving as a visual stop when viewed along High Street as well as heading along the A15, including a finial and prominent date stone. Detailing has also been used that reflects the older existing building on the Hanthorpe Road elevation with blind and recessed doors/windows breaking up the solid wall. A 1m high stone plinth is proposed with quoins on the prominent gable with the main material a red brick; slate is proposed for the majority of the roof with red pantile for the large prominent gable.

8.4 Morton Parish Council:Councillors ask for all earlier objections (April 2015), regarding retention of stone part of building, traffic and delivery movements and possible noise disturbance, to be taken into account. The earlier suggestion of a pedestrian refuge has now been withdrawn and the revised application now shows the proposed four-way crossing system. Although Councillors realise that this is not part of the application the fact that they have been combined on the plans makes it necessary to comment on both issues.

58

Councillors consider that the proposals for the Lord Nelson combined with the proposed crossing system would cause more traffic problems. it has been suggested that the local bus service may have to be reduced because of this system and that the yellow 'no parking' lines would cause the loss of a fish shop and stores on the A15.

9.0 Representations as a Result of Publicity

9.1 The application has been advertised in accordance with the Councils adopted Statement of Community Involvement. The closing date for representations being the 10th April 2015. As a result of that consultation 47 letters were received and all objected to the application; a summary of their objections are drafted below;

Highway safety will be compromised through the increase in traffic A reduction in the right hand turn lane when heading into High Street is not

acceptable There have been a number of ‘near misses’ in the area and this will make it worse Parking provision appears inaccurate The pedestrian crossing island will not work What hours are the store intending to operate? Is the car park big enough? Will there be enough space for deliveries and parking to occur at the same time There are already enough shops in the village and existing operators will be

undermined The totem light/sign on the corner is not acceptable The calculations in the Transport statement are flawed and underestimate vehicle

movements and parking provision as well as not providing enough alternative methods to access the site e.g. walking and cycling

The public house should be retained and reopened The reduction in building height is not large enough and will still impact on amenity The bin store and food waste areas should be re-located The building design is poor and should be reconsidered Parking and access for residents further down the A16 will be compromised

9.2 Further consultation on amended plans has also been undertaken with the changes indicating the highway improvements intended by Lincolnshire County Council, which the applicant would financially contribute toward. At the time of writing 13 letters have been received with some supporting identified junction improvements and other still expressing concern, a summary of the observations are below;

Traffic lights at the junction are welcome, although they would need to be in place before the store should operate

Contributions to highway improvements should be sought from the developer Still believe that pub should be retained as there is no need for a food store Figures used within the transport statement are out of date and under estimate

vehicle movements so that the capacity and efficiency of the junction is unknown People will park on surrounding streets regardless of the double yellow lines The design of the building has not altered and should be improved Traffic flows will be worse and traffic continue to back up because of the short right

filter lane Noise and odour problems will result Proposed double yellow lines outside existing businesses will put them out of

business

59

10.0 Officer Evaluation

10.1 Principle of development

10.1.2 The principle of development is considered to be acceptable in that there would not be the loss of a community use within the village in that a Public House would be replaced with a shop. Furthermore, there is broad policy support for such development with an appeal Inspector raising no objection to the principle of a near identical scheme. As a result the application is deemed to comply with Site Allocations Policy SAP1 and guidance contained in Core Strategy policy SP2.

10.2 Highways

10.2.1 A total of 19 car parking spaces are provided and there is the ability for vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear. Furthermore, delivery vehicles can also turn within the site provided the lorry is not larger than 18 tonne rigid vehicle (10m x 2.5m). A number of representations made have been critical of how predicted vehicle movements have been calculated and a main reason for the Inspector’s dismissal at appeal of the previous scheme was a lack of evidence which was ‘sufficiently robust or conclusive to demonstrate that there would not be an adverse impact upon highway safety arising from the development. The Transport Statement submitted provides further survey data and assessment and has been assessed by the Highway Authority and is considered to be acceptable.

10.2.2 Currently there is not intended to be any alteration to the wider highway network save for an existing access to the public house being closed off and the proposed store being accessed by the opening indicated on drawing AA-493-001K. A 600mm high boundary wall would also be erected along part of the frontage to the site but this is of a height so as to not restrict visibility. It is accepted that to overcome reasons for refusal on the previous application there would be a need to provide some highway network improvements; however, these have not yet been designed although there are currently two clear options under consideration by the Highway Authority. This will either result in a traffic light pedestrian crossing along the A15 or a fully automated traffic light junction. It is also apparent that contributions have been received toward highway improvements from a residential development to the south of the application site, which would be pooled with those proposed under this application. Therefore whilst there is no definite highway improvements identified there will be money for Lincolnshire County Council to spend improving, at least, pedestrian links across the road. Furthermore, additional information with has been supplied with the application about predicted vehicle movements with condition 6 addressing how delivery vehicles will access the site to ensure that movements across on coming will be minimised.

10.3 Impact on character of the Conservation Area

10.3.1 The design of the building has not altered significantly from that previously proposed save for the reduction in scale of the building by approximately 400mm. As a result it is considered that the development would respect the character of the Conservation Area with a projecting gable that could be viewed along High Street. Furthermore, the scale of replacement building and proposed materials, would be appropriate in the context. It is also apparent that the Inspector on the previous appeal did not dismiss the application because of the building design

10.3.2 The application would, therefore, respect the character of the Conservation Area and wider built environment and is deemed to comply with Core Strategy policy EN1 and guidance contained in chapter 12 (preserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF.

60

10.4 Residential amenity

10.4.1 It is accepted that the previous application was dismissed because of the overbearing impact that the development would have on 1 Hazeland Steading. To address this concern the building has been reduced in scale and a section produced that shows the relationship with the most affected neighbouring property and mitigation put forward. Given that the windows on the adjacent property are high level, and the reduction in scale of the building, it is considered that the application as amended has gone far enough to address the previous dismissal of appeal and complies with paragraph 17 of the NPPF, which identifies that a good standard of amenity should be achieved for existing occupiers.

10.5 Other considerations

10.5.1 Subject to conditions it is not considered that flooding would increase as a result of the application. Furthermore, it is not for the authority to favour one particular retail store, existing or otherwise, over and above another with economic growth the key driver to such applications. A number of conditions to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties were also recommended when application S13/3116 was determined, primarily to do with deliveries and demolition of the site; these would need to be replicated too.

11.0 Section 106 Heads of Terms

11.1 A unilateral undertaking is being entered into by the applicant with a contribution of £25,000 provided to Lincolnshire County Council toward highway improvements at the junction of High Street and the A15.

12.0 Crime and Disorder

12.1 The proposed development raises no significant crime and disorder implications.

13.0 Human Rights Implications

13.1 Articles 6 (Right to fair decision making) and Article 8 (Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act have been taken into account in making this recommendation.

13.2 It is considered that no relevant Article of that act will be breached.

14.0 SUMMARY OF REASON(S) FOR APPROVAL/REFUSAL

14.1 The proposed use would result in an alternative community use for the site. The design of the building would result in an enhancement over and above the existing building, subject conditions, and respect the character of the Conservation Area. Highway safety would not be compromised having regard to parking provision, vehicle movements and pedestrian movements taking into account the contribution made with regard to highway improvements. Additional information in the Transport Statement addresses the lack of evidence cited as a reason for the dismissal of the previous appeal. Nor would residential amenity be compromised through noise that would be generated or through overlooking or overbearing impacts. Furthermore, taking into account the refusal of permission S13/3116 and subsequent dismissal of appeal.

14.2 The application is, therefore, deemed to comply with Core Strategy policies EN1, SP1, SP2 and E2; policy SAP1 of the Site Allocation and Policies DPD, along with guidance

61

contained in the National Planning Policy Framework; with no other material planning considerations to indicate that the application should be determined otherwise.

15.0 RECOMMENDATION:

15.1 Defer to the Chairman and Vice Chairman in consultation with the Executive Manager Development and Growth for conditional permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 obligation or Unilateral Undertaking for a contribution toward highway improvements. Where the agreement has not been concluded prior to the Committee a period not exceeding six weeks post the date of this Committee shall be set for the completion (including signing) of that obligation.

15.2 In the event that the obligation has not been concluded within the six week period and where in the opinion of the Executive Manager Development and Growth there are no extenuating circumstances which would justify a further extension of time, the related planning application shall be refused planning permission for appropriate reason(s) on the basis that the necessary criteria essential to make what would otherwise be unacceptable development acceptable have not been forthcoming.

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

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

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans submitted as part of the application:

AA-493-001KAA-493-002GAA-493-003FAA-493-004GAA-493-005FAA-493-007CAA-493-008DAA-493-009BAA-493-0011CAA-493-0019

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

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

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010).

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

62

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

5. Prior to the commencement of any demolition or construction work on site a method statement regarding the proposed construction and demolition works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall cover the following points:

a) Hours of operation;b) Types of machinery and equipment to be used on site; andc) Details of how noise, vibration, dust and asbestos removal are to be controlled, using best practicable means.

The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement.

Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development is carried out according to the best practice to minimise disruption to adjoining occupiers.

6. Prior to operation of the store a Delivery Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include:

Hours and number of deliveries; identifying the size of vehicles as well as a means of controlling how vehicles will enter the site, including from which direction of travel;

Details of how noise from cages will be controlled, as well as from vehicles and staff.

The plan as approved shall be adhered to thereafter unless the Local Planning Authority give written consent to a variation.

Reason: To ensure that the amenity of neighbouring properties is not compromised and highway safety respected and to comply with Core Strategy policy EN1.

7. Prior to the operation of the store details of any condenser and extraction units associated with the store shall be submitted to and approved in writing. The details shall include manufacturer details and noise that would be omitted from the units. Only the details as approved shall be installed and no further units installed without the benefit of planning permission.

Reason: To ensure that the amenity of neighbouring properties is not compromised and to comply with Core Strategy policy EN1.

Note(s) to Applicant1. Please note that this grant of planning permission does not authorise the erection of the

totem sign shown on the approved layout, which would need to be granted advertisement consent.

63

64

NB2 - S15/0496

Additional Information

For the avoidance of doubt a full copy of the Inspectors decision notice on application S13/3116 is reproduced (please see Appendix A). The inspector did not feel that the original application demonstrated that highway safety would not be compromised; this was primarily as a result of observations received from the ‘Smarter Choice Consultancy’, who questioned figures supplied with regard to vehicle and pedestrian movements associated with the store.

The Transport Statement with the current application has looked in greater detail at the capacity of the junction as well as predicted vehicle movements associated with the shop. Originally application S15/0496 proposed to reduce the length of the right turn lane on the A15 for vehicles turning into High Street; provide a pedestrian island and have a right turn lane for vehicles entering the store whilst heading in a southerly direction on the A15. However, Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) expressed concern about the reduction in the right hand turn lane for vehicles entering into High Street. It is as a result of the concern expressed by Lincolnshire County Council that the applicants have sought to provide monies toward highway improvements that can be undertaken by the Highway Authority.

Proposal

Demolition of public house and erection of food store (amendments to application S13/3116)

Information Received

None; however, clarification is offered with regard to the previous refusal and options considered.

65

Officer Comment on Information Received

It is apparent that the inspector questioned the figures submitted in support of the application given the observations received from the 'Smarter Choice Consultancy'. The updated Transport Statement explores in greater detail the capacity of the junction and predicted vehicle movements associated with the store. Furthermore, possible solutions were proposed through reducing the right turn lane to enter into High Street, provide a pedestrian island and a right turn lane to the store.

Whilst this would have improved vehicular access to the store and for pedestrians it is apparent that the changes would also have caused safety hazards for vehicles turning right into High Street through the capacity of the right turn lane being exceeded and vehicles queuing on the A15.

In view of the highlighted concerns LCC have requested contributions toward future junction improvements. Whilst a Grampian condition would normally be sought e.g. no development shall commence until such a time as highway works have been undertaken, this would not be possible in that the works have not yet been designed. Furthermore, it is also apparent that the overall cost of highway improvements would be excessive and disproportionate for the scale of development under consideration. In addition, the contribution sought could be pooled with that already received from a residential development to the south.

The Unilateral Undertaking indicates that the money would need to be spent on works within 75m of the junction with the A15 and are reasonably necessary to improve access to the store. This would, as a minimum, improve pedestrian access across the A15 and possibly vehicular access too.

Whilst it is accepted that there could be a period of time where no wider highway works have been undertaken and the store operating, this needs to be considered alongside the money available to LCC to make improvements and fact that the public house could re-open and utilise the two existing access points, one of which is closer to the junction of the A15. Furthermore, consideration also needs to be given to the fact that the existing public house building could be changed into a shop/supermarket at any time without the need for planning permission and that no betterment to the existing highway network could be asked for in that instance unlike that which is before members now.

It is in view of the additional information received with the application, over and above those before the Inspector when determining the earlier appeal, combined with the financial contribution that will be received, it is recommended that the application be approved..

Alterations to Conditions

None.

Changes to Recommendation:

None.

66

REPORT TO Development Control Committee

REPORT OF: Paul Thomas – Executive Manager - Development and Growth

REPORT NO: DM 04

DATE: 13 October 2015

TITLE: Power to enter into a S106 legal agreement following the refusal of permission and subsequent submission of an appeal (ref; S14/1684).

KEY DECISION OR POLICY FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL:

N/A

PORTFOLIO HOLDER: NAME AND DESIGNATION:

N/A

CONTACT OFFICER: Nigel Bryan

INITIAL IMPACTANALYSIS:

Equality and Diversity

Carried out and Referred to in paragraph (7) below

Not applicable

Full impact assessmentRequired:

Not applicable

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT:

This report is publicly available via the Your Council and Democracy link on the Council’s website: www.southkesteven.gov.uk

BACKGROUND PAPERSN/A

67

1. RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1 That the Council enter into a Section 106 Legal Agreement to allow the Planning Inspectorate to appropriately consider an appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse permission for the erection of 23 dwellings on land at Falcon Way, Bourne.

2. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

2.1 To seek Members agreement to enter into a S106 Legal Agreement.

3. DETAILS OF REPORT

3.1 Application S14/1684/MJRF was considered at the Development Control Committee of 11 November and refused permission.

At the time of writing a draft S106 Legal Agreement has largely been completed; however, there is a requirement for a Minute from the Development Control Committee prior to the agreement being signed.

For clarification, the contributions sought are outlined below;

Affordable dwellings (8) A contribution of £13,838 toward play equipment

3.2 In view of the above it is recommended that the S106 Legal Agreement be signed so that Inspector can consider whether or not the decision to refuse permission was just and, if minded to grant permission, requisite contributions could be secured.

4. OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

4.1 None

5. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

5.1 No significant impact on resources.

6. RISK AND MITIGATION

Risk has been considered as part of this report and any specific high risks are included in the table below:

Category Risk Action / Controls

7. ISSUES ARISING FROM IMPACT ANALYSIS

7.1 None

8. CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

8.1 It is considered that the development would not result in any significant adverse crime and disorder implications.

9. COMMENTS OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

9.1 The applicants have already applied for costs against the Council, which is being considered separate from the planning appeal; however, it would be considered

68

unreasonable of the Council to refuse to enter into the Legal Agreement and increase the likelihood that an award of costs would be given to the applicant.

10. COMMENTS OF LEGAL AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES

10.1 It is necessary to provide the Planning Inspectorate with a completed S106 Agreement to secure necessary infrastructure or community contributions are forthcoming in the event that the appeal is allowed.

11. COMMENTS OF OTHER RELEVANT SERVICES

11.1 None.

12. APPENDICES:

12.1 Planning submission can be viewed via the following link:

http://www.southkesteven.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=8170&application=S14/1684

69

Appeal DecisionSite visit made on 29 September 2014

by R Schofield BA(Hons) MA MRTPIan Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 14 October 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/E2530/A/14/2221577Lord Nelson, 2 Bourne Road, Morton, Bourne PE10 0RG• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission.• The appeal is made by Aegis Architects against the decision of South Kesteven District

Council.• The application Ref S13/3116/FULL, dated 12 November 2013, was refused by notice

dated 12 May 2014.• The development proposed is demolition of existing public house and erection of a new

food store.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Aegis Architects against South KestevenDistrict Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Main Issue

3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the safety of highway users and pedestrians.

Reasons

4. The appeal site is located on the corner of the A15 and Hanthorpe Road, which together with High Street, opposite Hanthorpe Road, form a crossroads junction. There is a ghost island right turn into High Street, when approaching from the south, the deceleration lane for which extends the width of the site frontage. The crossroads is not traffic light controlled nor is there a pedestrian crossing.

5. It is generally accepted that retail development does not, of itself, generate trips. The Transport Statement (the Statement) submitted for the scheme assumes around 10% of traffic accessing the site will be wholly new. It is on this basis that the Statement suggests an increase in vehicle flow of around 7-10 vehicles per hour and concludes that there will be no material adverse impact upon the safety of the highway network.

6. However, while some trips may be bypass trips, assumptions that have been made about the traffic that will be diverted from elsewhere are not explicit. Bypass and diverted trips cannot be regarded as synonymous. Although 10%

70

of traffic may be wholly new, and bypass traffic would be passing the site anyway, diverted traffic will still be using the local road network, and accessingthe site, in preference to travelling to stores elsewhere, potentially using a different road network. The role of diverted traffic is unclear in the Statement’s calculations and there is undisputed representation from The Smarter Choice Consultancy, in response to the Statement, that the increase in vehicle movements arising from diverted traffic has been greatly underestimated.

7. Information used to inform a judgement about traffic flow has been taken from a Transport Assessment submitted in relation to the redevelopment of the Former Kings Head Public House. Although this site is nearby, also on a corner of the crossroads, it is not clear whether this traffic flow data can be regarded as directly relevant to the appeal site. The undisputed assessment of The Smarter Choice Consultancy, again undertaken in response to the Statement, which draws upon Department for Transport traffic count data for the A15, suggests that traffic flow at peak times will be higher than that indicated by the appellant.

8. The Statement suggests that, given the assumed increase in traffic flow arising from the development, the junction will remain in capacity and there will be little or no queuing in the deceleration lane and, consequently, no adverse interaction with the proposed site access. This may be the case, but the latter assumption is not automatically consequent upon the former.

9. It was evident even from my ‘off-peak’ site visit that vehicles still move regularly into the deceleration lane to turn right into High Street. Vehicles turning right into the car park would have to cross this lane, vying with the approaching traffic, and that on the main carriageway, whether it was queuing or not. It has not been disputed that traffic flow, although it may well be within capacity for a road of this nature, can be constant at peak times.

10. The junction may, of itself, be able to cope with any increased traffic flow, and queuing in the deceleration lane may be limited. However, the Statement fails to provide any detailed consideration of how the access to the proposed store car park would interact with the operation of the junction in this context, specifically given the presence of the deceleration lane.

11. There are currently two uncontrolled access points to the appeal site.However, the Statement suggests that there would be between 30 and 40 vehicle movements per hour, based upon dwell times assumed at less than 10 minutes, at the proposed store. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to consider that such short dwell times, and high vehicular turnover levels, would be far from typical for a, what the appellant acknowledges was poorly frequented, pub where customers would be stopping for longer periods of time to drink and/or eat. Thus, any impact from the presence of two access points would be commensurately reduced.

12. Taking these factors into consideration, I am not satisfied that the evidence suggesting no impact from the proposal upon the local road network is sufficiently robust or conclusive to demonstrate that there would not be an adverse impact upon highway safety arising from the development.

13. The appellant notes that the Statement does not flag up any potential pedestrian movements to the site as a concern. However, the Statement does not address the issue of pedestrian access to the appeal proposal in any substantive detail at all. The majority of residents live on the eastern side of the village, in easy walking distance of the proposed store, and would need to

71

cross the A15 in order to use it. Although there are two existing village shops on the eastern side of the A15, which could still be used by residents on this side, they are not large. Bearing in mind the size of the proposed store, and the comment in the appellant’s Statement that it “will expand customer choice by potentially providing many more goods that [sic] the existing local shop [sic] can stock” (para. 6.18), it is reasonable to consider that it could attract residents, on foot, from the eastern side of the village.

14. This does not, of itself, mean that pedestrian safety would be adversely affected. Indeed, at the time of my site visit, undertaken between 1345 and1430, traffic on the A15 was regular, albeit with gaps in the flow. Notwithstanding the need to move away from the appeal site in order to avoid having to cross the deceleration lane, there were no particular difficulties in crossing.

15. However, traffic conditions will vary considerably throughout the day and week and it is not disputed that the A15, and the cross roads, is busy at peak travel times in the early morning and evening from Monday to Friday. Nor is there any dispute of the statements of local residents that crossing the A15 as a pedestrian at peak times, when traffic flow is constant, is extremely difficult. Representation from The Smarter Choice Consultancy also shows that around a third of customers to the existing village shops walk and that morning and afternoon peak shopping times overlap with the times of peak traffic flow onthe A15. If this situation were replicated in relation to the proposed store, it could well impact upon pedestrian safety.

16. In this context, on the balance of the evidence before me, it is unclear whether the appeal scheme would result in an increase in pedestrian movements across the A15 at times of peak traffic flow. Taking a precautionary approach, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the scheme would not giverise to an unacceptable risk to pedestrian safety.

17. If the, now closed, pub on the site were operating at full capacity it may be that it could also draw pedestrians over the A15. However, given that the appellant has stated that the pub had been underperforming for a considerable period of time, and was marketed for sale for twenty months from July 2012 with no genuine interest, such a situation would not appear to be likely.

18. It may be that the pub could be turned into a shop without the need for planning permission. However, as the appellant states that this would not work operationally or provide the open space and storage that is required forthe smooth operation of a convenience store, little weight can be given to such a fallback position.

19. Taking the above matters into consideration, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the appeal proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the safety of highway users and pedestrians. The proposal fails to accord, therefore, with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to ensure, among other things, that decisions take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people.

Other Matters

20. The Highway Authority has indicated that there is a need for an obligation under S106 of the Planning Act to secure a contribution towards the provision

75

of a pedestrian crossing over the A15. It is evident that a crossing would address the Council’s concerns relating to pedestrian safety. Nonetheless, given the uncertainty over whether additional pedestrian trips, at peak traffic times, would be generated by the appeal scheme I am unable to determine whether or not a pedestrian crossing would be necessary. Notwithstanding this, no obligation is proposed by the appellant and there is, therefore, no means of securing a crossing in any case. Furthermore, as I am also dismissing the appeal on grounds of inadequate justification of a lack of potential conflict arising from vehicles attempting to turn right into the appeal site, the decision does not turn on this matter.

21. The appeal site is located prominently in the Morton Conservation Area.Although the original plan form of the pub building can still be read, modern accretions and alterations detract from its appearance. Overall, its impact upon the Conservation Area may be regarded as neutral. The Council has raised no issues in this regard and, based on all that I have read and seen, while it may be desirable to retain the older sections of the building, I have no reason to consider that the appeal proposal, being similarly neutral in its impact, would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the area.

22. My attention has been drawn to other appeal decisions relating to the change of use of pubs. However, these appear to relate to matters of principle in relation to the change of use, which is not an issue raised by the Council. Consequently, I do not consider them to be directly relevant to the appeal before me.

23. The appeal scheme would lead to the creation of new jobs. However, I do not consider this benefit to be sufficient to outweigh my concerns in relation to highway and pedestrian safety.

24. The Council has not raised concerns in relation to the impact of the proposed store on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. However, concerns have been expressed by the occupants of 1 Hazeland Steading, which has several small windows in its eastern elevation, looking out over the open expanse of the pub’s beer garden and carpark. It was confirmed at the site visit that the western elevation of the appeal scheme would extend across these windows. This would present a blank brick wall and roofscape to them, at a distance of only 1.5 metres, which would result in a very significant loss of outlook and light to the dwelling. Although I am dismissing for other reasons, the appeal scheme would appear to give rise to a high degree of harmful impact upon the reasonable living conditions of the occupiers of 1Hazeland Steading. This consideration adds weight to my overall findings.

Conclusion

25. For the reasons given above, and taking all other matters into consideration, including the Highway Authority’s acceptance of the Statement, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

R SchofieldINSPECTOR

76

Site layout

Elevation - east

Elevation – north

77

Elevation - south