Agenda item

Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 270 dwellings including affordable housing, public open space, associated infrastructure, and vehicular access from West Road

Location: Land south-west of Bourne, PE10 0LB

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT outline planning permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions set out in this report.

Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 270 dwellings including affordable housing, public open space, associated infrastructure, and vehicular access from West Road

Location: Land south-west of Bourne, PE10 0LB

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT outline planning permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions set out in this report

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillors                               Cllr Helen Crawford

                                                                       Cllr Sue Woolley (County Cllr for        adjoining County Division)

                                                                         Cllr Ken Redfern (Bourne South and Thurlby Division, LCC) *Statement*

Against                                                               Peter Sharpe

Agent                                                                  Brian Flynn, Carter Jonas

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven.

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection Services (SKDC).

·       Comments received from LCC Highways and SuDs.

·       Comments received from Anglian Water.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue.

·       No comments received from National Gas.

·       Comments received from Cadent Gas.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

·       Comments received from NATS Safeguarding.

·       No comments received from Active Travel England.

·       Comments received from Environment Agency.

·       Comments received from LCC Education.

·       Comments received from NHS Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from Bourne Town Council.

·       Comments received from Natural England.

·       Comments received from Historic England.

·       Comments received from Affordable Housing.

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer.

·       Comments received from Black Sluice Drainage Board.

·       Comments received from Bourne Civic Society.

·       Comments received from Ministry of Defence Safeguarding.

·       Comments received from Principal Design Officer.

 

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

 

-       Concerns were raised over Highways and the safety impacts of commuting from the site into Bourne via car, alongside dangers of pedestrians crossing busy A roads, with inadequate safe crossing points. It was felt the proposal was in the wrong location.

-       Lincolnshire Road Partnership had provided a detailed breakdown of vehicular accidents that had occurred. 

-       That the application was within open countryside and that the community did not support the proposal in line with policies.

 

-       The Applicant had undertaken design review, pre-application discussions, Highways meetings and community consultation alongside a Parish Council meeting.

 

-       The proposal was put forward due to the housing land supply shortfall and a draft allocation of the site was subsequently added to allocations in the Local Plan Review, now abandoned in favour of the new system of Plan Making. The houses would include Affordable Housing.

 

-       New pedestrian crossings and bus stops on West Road and bus stops on the A151 but without adequate pedestrian crossings would be provided to connect the site to Bourne and Stamford.

 

-       The western edge of the site would be retained for open space and green infrastructure to reflect the design advice received.

 

During questions to public speakers, Members commented on the following:

 

-       Whether the provision of foot bridges on the bypass would make a difference.

 

It was confirmed the provision of foot bridges on the bypass would increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

 

-       Whether the requirement of the S106 agreement was sufficient enough for proper safety measures.

-        Members discussed the tilted balance with public speakers.

 

The agent noted foot bridges had not been requested by Highways and would be difficult to access for disabled individuals. The types of crossings would be confirmed at the reserved matters stage of the application, however, crossing locations had been identified.

 

-       Whether the Applicant had addressed cumulative impact of this development against other recent applications within Bourne.

 

The agent highlighted that cumulative impact had been considered during transport assessments. It was felt that proposals would outline improvements to walking and cycling connectivity to the town.

 

-       Clarification was sought around the bus stop and whether the Applicant had liaised with the bus company on the location of it.

 

It was confirmed that no conversations had taken place and permission would need to be obtained prior to any arrangements.

 

During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

 

Landscape and character

 

-       Members discussed the balance between the need for Housing against harm caused by development into the open countryside.

-       Queries were raised on green open spaces, children play areas and drainage. These would be resolved at reserved matters stage.

 

 

Highways and connectivity

 

The Committee were shown a video which was submitted by a public speaker. The video showed a ‘near-miss’ situation between a car and young cyclists close to the site.

 

-       Members discussed the weight that should be given between the Highways authority compared to the safety concerns of residents regarding crossing the surrounding A roads to access facilities.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that Lincolnshire County Council had requested the appropriateness of a puffin crossing to the east of the roundabout, where an existing tactile crossing was. The developers had undertaken a piece of work to survey vehicle movements and pedestrian usage of the crossing; it was deemed not necessary to have a crossing in this location from a Highways perspective.

 

It was proposed and seconded to defer the application to resolve the safety issues, however, this proposal fell.

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to refer the application to the Secretary of State with a resolution to REFUSE planning permission; and in the event that the Secretary of State did not call-in the application, the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth is authorised to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

 

 

1. The proposed development would, as a matter of principle, give rise to an unacceptable adverse impact on landscape character and visual effects contrary to Policy DE1 and EN1 of the adopted Local Plan and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The material considerations including the provision of housing, which is a significant benefit, particularly given the presence of the tilted balance set out in Paragraph 11 of the Framework, would not outweigh the identified harms.
2. The application proposals do not satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed development can be adequately connected to the existing pedestrian and cycling network through safe, suitable and deliverable infrastructure improvements in order to prioritise sustainable transport modes and provide a safe and suitable access for all users. The application is therefore contrary to Policy ID2 of the adopted Local Plan and Paragraph 115 of the Framework. The material considerations in this case, including the provision of housing, which is a significant benefit, do not outweigh the significant and demonstrable harms.
3. The Applicant has failed to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure the necessary obligations relating to healthcare, education, open space, highways infrastructure and affordable housing. As such, the measures necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms have not been secured contrary to Policy H2, OS1, ID1 and ID2 of the adopted Local Plan.