TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
SITE:
LAND OFF NORTH END LANE, SOUTH KELSEY,
MARKET RASEN, LINCOLNSHIRE, LN7 6PE.
PROPOSAL:
OUTLINE ERECTION OF DWELLING
APPELLANT:
MRS P. A. HORNE
Planning Inspectorate Reference:
Local Planning Authority Reference:
APP/N2535/W/15/3028938
132233
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
WEST LINDSEY DISTRICT COUNCIL
June 2015
LIST OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Comments on grounds of appeal
3.0 Conditions
Appendices
Appendix 1. Appeal decision for APP/N2535/A/14/2227574 Rose Cottage, Thornton
Road, South Kelsey.
Appendix 2. Statement of case for APP/N2535/A/14/2227574 Rose Cottage,
Thornton Road, South Kelsey
Appendix 3. Suggested conditions
1. Introduction
Whilst West Lindsey District Council relies on the officer’s report as the formal
statement of case, which was previously sent with the questionnaire, the opportunity
to comment on the appellant’s grounds of appeal is taken here.
2. Comments on appellant’s grounds of appeal
The development site is not considered sustainable for the reasons set out in the
officer’s report.
The later appeal decision at Rose Cottage, Thornton Road (131787), was given
more weight than the previous planning consent on North End Lane (130404), being
the more recent decision and was refused and dismissed on appeal yet was closer
to the village centre.
Public transport serving South Kelsey is limited to the Call Connect service where a
bus has to be booked, one service each way on a Thursday to North Kelsey and
Brigg and one to Scunthorpe Morrison’s supermarket (1.5hrs) once a week. It is not
possible to get to Market Rasen and back in a day.
3.
Conditions
If the inspector is minded to allow the appeal, a list of suggested conditions is
attached at Appendix 3.
Appendix 1
Appeal decision for APP/N2535/A/14/2227574
Rose Cottage, Thornton Road, South Kelsey.
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 15 December 2014
by Alison Partington BA (Hons) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 19th December 2014
Appeal Ref: APP/N2535/A/14/2227574
Rose Cottage, Thornton Road, South Kelsey, Market Rasen LN7 6PS
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr R Douglas against the decision of West Lindsey District
Council.
The application Ref 131787, dated 15 August 2014, was refused by notice dated
10 October 2014.
The development proposed is the erection of a dwelling.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matter
2. The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved for future
consideration. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis, treating the plans
that show scale, access and siting as indicative.
Main Issue
3. The main issue in the appeal is whether or not the proposed development
would conflict with policies for residential development which seek to achieve
an accessible form of development.
Reasons
4. The appeal site currently forms part of the garden area of Rose Cottage and is
surrounded by other residential uses. It is located within the village of South
Kelsey. In order to promote sustainable rural development Policies STRAT1
and STRAT3 of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006 (adopted June
2006) (WLLP) seeks to direct new residential development towards the main
settlements which have the facilities and services to cater for new residents
and which have access to public transport.
5. In the settlement hierarchy set out in Policy STRAT3, South Kelsey is
designated as a Subsidiary Rural Settlement which is defined as a village that
provides a smaller range of day to day facilities. Policy STRAT7 indicates that
infill development that meets various criteria in such villages will only be
permitted where it is to meet an indentified local need. It is no part of the
appellant’s case that the development would meet such a local need.
Appeal Decision APP/N2535/A/14/2227574
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2
6. A core planning principle of the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) is to focus significant development in locations which are, or can
be made, sustainable. With the aim of promoting sustainable development in
rural areas, paragraph 55 directs housing to areas where it will enhance or
maintain the vitality of rural communities. In general, new residential
development is most appropriate in locations where there is access to services,
opportunities for employment and alternative modes of transport other than
the private car (paragraphs 30 and 37).
7. Services within South Kelsey comprise a village hall, church, public house,
garage, pre-school/day nursery and a play area and these are all within
walking distance of the site. Whilst the “Call Connect” service does cover the
village there is no regular bus service. A greater range of services, including a
convenience store and a primary school are available in North Kelsey.
However, at a distance of around 3km and connected by a road with no
pavements or street lights outside the village boundaries, the majority of
people are likely to access these by car.
8. The Framework acknowledges that opportunities to travel by sustainable
means, and to minimise journey lengths, will vary from urban to rural areas.
Notwithstanding the fact that some people can now work at home and that
supermarkets offer home delivery, the limited services in the village would
require future residents to travel outside the village to meet the majority of
their basic needs and they would be dependent on the private car to do so.
Although the proposal would not, of itself, generate large amounts of traffic,
the cumulative impact of allowing such developments would increase the
amount of unsustainable journeys made. In addition, the limited range of local
services means that the impact of the proposal on the vibrancy and vitality of
the immediate community would be minimal.
9. As a result, I consider that the proposal would not create an accessible
pattern
of development. As such it would conflict with Policies STRAT1, STRAT3 and
STRAT7 of the WLLP and the guidance within paragraphs 30 and 37 of the
Framework.
Other Matters
10. The Framework sets out in paragraph 47 that to boost significantly the
supply
of housing, local planning authorities should be able to demonstrate a 5 year
supply of deliverable housing sites. The Council acknowledges that it cannot
demonstrate this. This is clearly a matter of significant weight.
11. My attention has been drawn to other applications within the village for
residential development that have recently been approved. However, for the
reasons set out in the Council’s evidence these do not appear to be directly
comparable to this site. I have, in any case, reached my own conclusion on
the appeal proposal on the basis of the evidence before me.
12. It is highlighted that outline permission for residential development has been
granted on the site previously, the most recent being in 1993. Given the time
that has elapsed since these applications and the significant changes in policy
that have occurred since then, I have only given minimal weight to this in my
decision.
Appeal Decision APP/N2535/A/14/2227574
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3
Conclusion
13. In circumstances where a Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of
housing land, paragraph 49 states that housing applications should be
considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable
development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be
considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five
year supply of deliverable housing sites.
14. The workings of the presumption in favour of sustainable development are
set
out in paragraph 14 of the Framework. This tells us that the presumption in
favour of sustainable development should be seen as a golden thread running
through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking, the
presumption means approving proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant
policies are out of date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of
doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific
policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
15. In terms of harmful impacts, the development proposed would not be
accessible and so would create a pattern of development that the Framework
seeks to resist. Whilst the provision of a new house would be a benefit of the
scheme, its contribution to housing delivery in the borough would be small.
Therefore, in this case, I consider that the adverse impacts of the proposal
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against
the policies of the Framework as a whole.
16. For the reasons set out above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.
Alison Partington
INSPECTOR
Appendix 2
Statement of case for APP/N2535/A/14/2227574
Rose Cottage, Thornton Road, South Kelsey
TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
SITE:
SITE AT ROSE COTTAGE, THORNTON ROAD,
SOUTH KELSEY, MARKET RASEN,
LINCOLNSHIRE, LN7 6PS
PROPOSAL:
OUTLINE ERECTION OF DWELLING
APPELLANT:
MR R DOUGLAS
Planning Inspectorate Reference:
Local Planning Authority Reference:
APP/N2535/A/14/2227574
131787
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
WEST LINDSEY DISTRICT COUNCIL
November 2014
LIST OF CONTENTS
4.0 Introduction
5.0 Appeal site and surrounding area
6.0 Relevant planning history
7.0 Planning policy consideration
8.0 The case for the local planning authority
9.0 Comments of grounds of appeal
10.0
Conditions
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Planning History: 130404 North End Lane, South Kelsey
Appendix 2 – Planning History: 127235 Church Farm, Waddingham Road, South
Kelsey, Market Rasen.
Appendix 3 – Conditions requested
1.0
1.1
Introduction
This appeal arises from the decision of West Lindsey District Council to refuse
application ref. No. 131787 on the 10th October 2014. The reason for refusal is
as follows:
The proposed development would be located within an unsustainable location
where future occupants would be reliant upon private motor vehicles to access
most essential life services. The proposal is therefore deemed contrary to saved
Policies STRAT1, STRAT3 and RES1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan First
Review 2006 and the provision of the National Planning Policy Framework
which supports sustainable development.
1.2
This statement will, when read in conjunction with the officer’s delegated written
report (sent previously with the questionnaire); substantiate the Local Planning
Authority’s (LPA) decision.
2.0
Appeal site and surrounding area
2.1
The LPA does not wish to add to its description outlined within the officer’s
written report sent previously with the appeal questionnaire.
3.0
Relevant Planning History
3.1
The LPA does not wish to add to anything further to the planning history outlined
within the officers’ delegated report.
4.0
Planning policy considerations
4.1
The NPPF indicates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and
instructs decision makers to “approve development proposals that accord with
the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent,
silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless:
–– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework
taken as a whole; or
–– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted.
4.2
The NPPF seeks to significantly boost housing supply and authorities should
ensure a 5 year supply of readily available land (plus a buffer of an additional
20% where there has been a persistent under supply of housing). Housing
applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour
of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should
not be considered up-to-date, however, if the local planning authority cannot
demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
4.3
The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) advises that housing figures
in up-to-date Local Plans should be used as the starting point for identifying the
five year requirement. As the Local Plan for West Lindsey is considered
outdated and the policies in the emerging joint Local Plan are at an early stage,
these can only be afforded limited weight except where they accord with the
NPPF.
4.4
The NPPG goes on to state that “Where there is no robust recent assessment
of full housing needs, the household projections published by the Department
for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) should be used as the starting
point, but the weight given to these should take account of the fact that they
have not been tested.”
4.5
The latest housing requirements published by DCLG for Central Lincolnshire is
1,230 dwelling per year or 6,150 over the five year period (2015/2016 to
2019/2020). However, to meet the requirements of the NPPF an additional 5%
buffer must be added to the requirement. The total requirement increases to
6,458 dwellings (6,150 +308) or 1,292 per year.
4.6
It has been identified that there is a land supply for 4278 houses currently April
2015 to March 2020) which using the DCLG Central Lincolnshire position
indicates that there is only 3.5 years’ deliverable supply.
4.7
In this context, there should be a presumption in favour of housing development
provided that proposals are: delivered early (a condition can secure an earlier
than normal commencement), sustainable and is acceptable when considered
against other material planning considerations.
4.8
The NPPF defines the three roles of sustainability as economic, environmental
and social. A development proposal must be assessed against these criteria to
ascertain whether it is sustainable or not. These roles are also amongst the
criteria cited within policies STRAT1, STRAT3, STRAT7, RES1, RES3, and
CORE10 of the Local Plan Review and are consistent with principles of the
NPPF itself.
4.9 Local Plan Policies
4.10 Saved Local Plan policy STRAT1 is a general policy which seeks to guide
development in a positive manner. It also seeks to protect the environment so
that present demands do not compromise the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs. This is further expanded within the stated criteria which
includes the need to have satisfactory: iii) scope for providing access to public
transport, iv) scope for reducing the length and number of car journeys and ix)
availability and capacity of infrastructure and social/community facilities to
adequately serve the development. Such provisions along with the more
general requirements of the policy accord with the provisions of the NPPF to
seek to guide development in a sustainable manner.
4.11 Saved Policy STRAT3 seeks to assess settlements as to their services, facilities
and linkages to the wider area. This includes shops, school, health facilities,
sporting and recreational facilities and employment options. The LPA accept
that the actual list of settlements predate the NPPF and should not be
considered up to date. This does not, however, invalidate the policy in total as
the approach to categorising settlements does accord with the provisions of the
NPPF in terms of assessing sustainable credentials. Such an approach also
provides a guide as to when development should be considered appropriate to
the scale of the settlement.
4.12 It is right to question the validity of saved Policy STRAT7 in relation to the
sustainability criteria outlined the NPPF and South Kelsey’s inclusion as a
Subsidiary Rural Settlement (STRAT3). The settlement does have a limited
number of facilities such as a public house, garage, village hall, nursery/ preschool and recreation ground. Such facilities are, however, limited in the overall
range of services/facilities needed to sustain daily life. Equally the site is 3.5km
from North Kelsey which has a greater level of facilities. Such a distance would
preclude pedestrian traffic and probably cyclists, particularly given the lack of
footpath and street lighting for most of the distance between settlements. Whilst
North Kelsey has a greater number of services including a village shop and
primary school this is still a relatively small settlement and most people would
realistically to travel to Caistor to access a supermarket and job opportunities
etc. Equally, public transport is limited. As such, therefore, sustainable
development opportunities within South Kelsey are limited. It is considered on
this basis that the designation within the current Local Plan would accord with
the NPPF’s sustainable growth in rural areas.
5.0 The case for the Local Planning Authority
5.1
The LPA does not wish to add to the appraisal within the officer’s delegated
report sent previously with the questionnaire and the comments provided within
the policy section above and the responses below.
6.0
Comments of grounds of appeal
6.1
Ground of appeal 1: Para. 1.0 – 3.1 Introduction, Material Site History,
Response to the LPA’s reasons for refusal.
6.2
The LPA does not wish to challenge the points made within these sections of
the appellant’s statement.
6.3
Ground of appeal 2: Para 3.2: Character, residential amenity, highway safety.
6.4
The LPA generally agree with the appellant’s statement that the main issue is
one of the principle of developing a house within this settlement. Equally, it is
noted that the outline nature of the development and its history suggest that a
development of this nature could be accommodated upon this plot without harm
to the character and appearance of the area, highway safety and residential
amenity subject to detailed matters to be considered later. The indicative plans
submitted show a two storey dwelling being located which the LPA consider to
be harmful to residential amenity by overlooking the rear garden of the dwelling
to the rear, The Bungalow. Due to the building line to the street and the limited
depth of the garden to the rear any proposed first floor accommodation to the
rear could overlook the adjoining garden. These matters are not, however,
under consideration and as a result they can be considered at a later date. A
condition and/ or advice note is, however, recommended to limit/guide future
developers to consider no overlooking windows at first floor to the rear
development only. Recommended conditions can found at appendix 3 if the
appeal is allowed.
6.5
Ground of appeal 3: Para 3.3 – 3.4 Sustainability of settlement & similar
development
6.6
Para. 3.3 The LPA has outlined within the policy section its appeal statement
that the village has a number of facilities but these are limited with most facilities
and services only accessible by travelling to either North Kelsey or Caister.
Such is the public transport and highway/footpath networks that it is unlikely
that residents would utilise such services and resort to utilising private motor
vehicles. Equally, the developments identified by the appellant have yet to be
completed which would assist to support what limited facilities the village has.
6.7
The applicant has noted that a number of previous approvals which are deemed
relevant to the appeal. This includes a building plot at North End Lane (appendix
1). This plot had previous approvals upon it similar to the current appeal site. In
determining the application the case officer noted the inherent unsustainable
nature of the village but that the site appeared as an un-natural gap within the
uniform street scene detracting from the character of the street. Indeed it was
the final plot at the end of a line of modern residential properties. It was
considered, therefore, that the approval of that proposal would improve the
appearance of street scene which together with the benefits of providing an
additional house to assist meeting housing targets would be sufficient to
outweigh the concerns of the sustainability in this location.
6.8
The present application site does not appear as an unacceptable/ unnatural
gap site and indeed it represents an attractive setting for Rose Cottage. Rose
Cottage is also located and orientated in a manner that does not create the
impression that the appeal site is a specific development plot although it is
accepted that a development could be accommodated here. This specific
difference between the two sites and shows that the relevance of 130404 to this
appeal is therefore limited.
6.9
Equally the site at Church Farm, Waddingham Road (appendix 2) has been the
subject to previous approvals on the site in 2001, 2006 and 2008 which are
deemed extant by reason of the construction of the spine road. Such a history
limited the ability of the local authority to resist more recent proposal noted by
the appellant. Equally, approval of the initial outline approvals occurred prior to
the current local plan when different policies were in force. Finally, the site
incorporated a number of affordable homes which are much needed within the
area. The appeal scheme, therefore, is not comparable with the development
of Church Farm. The LPA is of the opinion that it has determined the current
application in a consistent manner on the basis of the policies in force, the
planning history and the individual physical characteristics of the sites.
6.10 Grounds for approval 4: Paragraph 3.5 – 3.9 Sustainability
6.11 The LPA notes that the proposal would be centrally located within the village
itself and would be in close proximity to those facilities that are located within
South Kelsey. The LPA has already outlined above why it considers the village
to be unsustainable in relation to the settlement and its connections to other
settlements such as North Kelsey and Caistor; and the likelihood of the use of
the private motor vehicle given the limited number of public transport services
and the lack of a lit footpath network to connect to these settlements.
6.12 It is noted that the proposal would provide an additional family dwelling within
the village rather than outside within the open countryside. Nevertheless there
are specific policies to resist urban sprawl and the village’s limited sustainable
credentials would outweigh the benefits of a single additional dwelling. The LPA
accepts that the development would not accord with the DfT’s Guidance on
Transport Assessments with respect the ability of an individual property to
generate significant traffic movements but this would not justify a dwelling within
a location which would increase travel without justification. This is particularly
important as such an argument could be copied too often increasing vehicle
movements reducing sustainability.
6.13 Ground of appeal 5: Para 3.10 – Alternative transport methods, internet
shopping and home working
6.14 The LPA notes the positive Call Connect Service which provides a valuable
service for rural areas. The service, however, requires booking for each service.
If space is not available on the bus then occupants will not be able to travel.
Equally routes are often indirect due to dropping other passengers off at their
destinations. As a result journey times are often extended. Such characteristics
would limit the attractiveness of such services for the majority of users
increasing the likely use of private motor vehicles.
6.15 Equally, whilst the LPA accept that major retailers undertake home shopping
such services are still in its infancy and are a matter of personal choice. Equally,
working from home is possible but the vast majority of employees still travel to
work at work premises away from home limiting the potential of internet working. Such aspects, whilst noted, are not therefore deemed of sufficient
merit to outweigh the sustainability concerns outlined by the LPA.
6.16 Ground of appeal 6: Para 3.13 – 3.16 Housing Need
6.17 The LPA has recognised the importance of meeting housing targets and has
been clear that the district only has 3.5 years’ worth of housing land readily
available. Nevertheless, in accordance with the NPPF, sustainable residential
developments should be approved without delay. The LPA consider the
settlement to be unsustainable for the reasons outlined and the addition of a
single dwelling to help meet the housing shortfall is deemed to be outweighed
by the concerns outlined.
7.0 Conclusions and conditions requested
7.1
The Local Planning Authority has shown that a residential proposal within South
Kelsey would be contrary to the NPPF’s requirement for sustainable
development. In doing so it balanced the benefits of the provision of an
additional new dwelling to assist in meeting housing need with the limited
sustainable characteristics of South Kelsey and the lack of connections to other
settlements by modes of transport other than private motor vehicles. On
balance it was considered that the unsustainable nature of the site outweighed
the benefit of a single new dwelling in this location. It has also been shown that
the LPA has acted consistently in resisting this proposal compared to other
developments in the village which were approved. The LPA therefore
respectfully request that the appeal is dismissed for the reasons given.
7.2
Without detriment to the Local Planning Authority’s case if the Inspector deems
the proposal acceptable it is respectfully requested that the conditions below be
attached to any approval.
APPENDIX 3 – Conditions recommended.
Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved,
whichever is the later.
Reason: To conform with Section 92 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended).
2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning
Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To conform with Section 92 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended).
Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the development
commenced:
3. No development shall take place until, plans and particulars of the: layout, scale
and appearance of the building to be erected, the means of access to the site and
the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the
development shall be carried out in accordance with those details.
Reason: The application is in outline only and the Local Planning Authority wishes
to ensure that these details which have not yet been submitted are appropriate for
the locality to accord with saved Policy STRAT1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan
First Draft.
4. No development shall commence until a scheme detailing the disposal of surface
and foul water drainage from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided to serve the
development, to reduce the risk of flooding and to prevent pollution of the water
environment in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and saved
policy STRAT 1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006
Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the
development:
5. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this
consent, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with
the following drawing: 015.03.DES001. The works shall be carried out in
accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and in any other approved
documents forming part of the application.
Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved
plans and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and saved
Policies STRAT 1 and RES3 of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006
Conditions which apply or relate to matters which are to be observed following
completion of the development:
None
Appendix 3 – Suggested conditions
Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:
1. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local
Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this
permission.
Reason: To conform with Section 92 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended).
2. No development shall take place until, plans and particulars of the layout, scale
and appearance of the building(s) to be erected and the landscaping of the site
(hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be carried out in
accordance with those details.
Reason: The application is in outline only and the Local Planning Authority wishes to
ensure that these details which have not yet been submitted are appropriate for the
locality in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and saved
Policies STRAT 1 and RES 1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006
3. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved,
whichever is the later.
Reason: To conform with Section 92 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended).
Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the
development commenced:
4. No development shall take place until details or samples of the external facing and
roofing materials to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the building and its
surroundings in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and saved
Policies STRAT1 and RES1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006.
5. No development shall take place until details or samples of the hard landscaping
materials to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the building and its
surroundings in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and saved
Policies STRAT1 and RES1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006.
6. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the position, design,
materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected.
Reason: To ensure the provision of appropriate boundary treatment in the interest of
visual and residential amenities in accordance with the National Planning Policy
Framework and saved Policies STRAT1 and RES 1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan
First Review 2006.
7. No development shall take place until a soft landscaping scheme including details
of the size, species and position or density of all trees to be planted, fencing and
walling, and measures for the protection of trees to be retained has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall also
include a timetable for the implementation of the landscaping and a methodology for
its future maintenance.
Reason: To ensure that an appropriate level and type of soft landscaping is provided
within the site in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and saved
Policies STRAT 1, RES 1, and NBE20 of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review
2006.
8. No works shall take place between 1st March and 31st August in any year until, a
detailed survey shall be undertaken to check for the existence of nesting birds.
Where nests are found, a 4 metre exclusion zone shall be created around the nests
until breeding is completed. Completion of nesting shall be confirmed by a suitably
qualified person and a report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority before any works involving the removal of the hedgerow, tree or
shrub take place.
Reason: In the interest of nature conservation in accordance the National Planning
Policy Framework and with saved Policies STRAT1 and NBE10 of the West Lindsey
Local Plan First Review 2006.
Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the
development:
9. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this
consent, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with
the following drawings: 142/14/01 Illustrative Layout dated Nov. 14 and Site Location
Plan (undated). The works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown
on the approved plans and in any other approved documents forming part of the
application.
Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved
plans and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and saved Policy
STRAT 1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006.
10. The development shall be carried out only using the materials approved in
conditions 4, 5 and 6 of this permission and shall be so retained.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in accordance with the
National Planning Policy Framework and saved Policies STRAT 1 and RES 1 of the
West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006.
11. A 2 x 43 metre visibility is to be provided from the access, onto North End Lane.
This visibility splay shall be kept free of any obstruction to the rear of the highway
boundary that exceeds 0.6m in height.
Reason: To ensure safe access to and from the site with clear visibility in the
interests of highway safety in accordance with the National Planning Policy
Framework and saved Policies STRAT 1 and RES 1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan
First Review 2006.
12. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the access and turning space shall be
completed in accordance with the approved plan drawing Illustrative Layout dated
Nov. 14 and retained for that use thereafter.
Reason: To ensure safe access to the site and the dwelling in the interests of
residential amenity, convenience and safety and to allow vehicles to enter and leave
the highway in a forward gear in the interests of highway safety in accordance with
the National Planning Policy Framework and saved Policies STRAT 1 and RES 1 of
the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006.
.
Conditions which apply or relate to matters which are to be observed following
completion of the development:
13. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping
shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation
of the building(s) or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and
any trees or plants which within a period of 5 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.
Reason: To ensure that an approved landscaping scheme is implemented in a
speedy and diligent way and that initial plant losses are overcome, in the interests of
the visual amenities of the locality and in accordance with the National Planning
Policy Framework and saved Policy STRAT 1of the West Lindsey Local Plan First
Review 2006.
Note to applicant
Contact Divisional Highways Manager
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.