Appeal 6002869

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved for future consideration except access. I have therefore assessed the appeal on the basis of the Location Plan 01.381.25 A and Proposed Site Access Arrangements NTP25003-001 [name].

I have considered the Proposed Site Layout Plan 02.381.25 [name] on an indicative but informative basis insofar as it relates to all matters except access.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the decision notice as agreed with the Appellant in the interests of certainty.

The application was determined on the basis of drawing numbers NTP25003-001 [name] to NTP25003-006 [name] which relate to the proposed access. A Revision E version set of the same plans were submitted to the Council prior to determination and both sets of plans were submitted as part of the appeal. As the [name] drawings contain amendments to the access design that involve a substantial difference and would prejudice those who have not been consulted of the changes, the opportunity to do so, I have considered the appeal on the basis of the [name] set of drawings that were the basis of the Council’s determination of the application.

During the course of the appeal, a signed and dated planning obligation made under s106 of the Act (s106) was submitted which the parties agree addresses the reason for refusal relating to education provision and affordable housing. I have taken the s106 into account and see no reason to disagree. Therefore, the main issues are: • whether the proposal would accord with the Council’s development plan strategy for the location of housing with particular regard to the character and appearance of the area and the strategic green infrastructure corridor between Waltham and [site address] ; • the effect of the proposal on heritage assets with particular regard to archaeology; and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The site lies outside of the development boundary as defined in the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2013-2032 (Adopted 2018) (LP). LP Policy 5 part 3 sets out the circumstances where development beyond development boundaries would be supported subject a number of considerations. As the proposal would not meet any of the circumstances set out within the Policy, the parties agree that the scheme would conflict with the development plan in this particular respect.

LP Policy 40 seeks, among other things, in pursuance of a principle of maintaining strategic gaps, to protect the setting and separate identity of settlements; prevent coalescence of settlements; retain the openness of land; and control the nature and scale of urban and rural development. The policy goes on to require special protection to be afforded to open areas including between Waltham and Grimsby and [site address] .

The site lies roughly halfway between the development boundaries of Waltham and [site address] to the north of [address]. [address] is a busy road that connects Waltham and [site address] . It is primarily via this road that the separation of the two settlements is experienced by the public. [address] and [address] intersect at the [name] (Roundabout). The development boundary of [site address] follows [address] and turns westward at the Roundabout to contain the allocated housing site to the south of [address]. The housing at the allocated site appeared to be largely built or under construction at the time of my site visit. On the north side of [address], the character of the area changes from a residential character to the east of the roundabout within the development boundary, to the educational feel of the sports pitches of the school to the northwest of the roundabout.

To the west of the school lies [address] and [address], the open character of which can be glimpsed between the vegetation along [address]. [address] is also occupied by large barns near the road and to the west of the farm lies a residential home ([address]). These buildings are either set in relatively large plots or have an agricultural character.

The new housing development on the south side of [address] stretches from [address] roughly to the end of the school premises. As such the built up area of [site address] visually appears to start at the school and new housing area and extends eastward.

The character of the area becomes more rural in feel heading westward from the school despite the busy character of the road. Moreover, opposite to [address] on the other side of [address] are modest dwellings in large plots that contribute to the more open feel of this stretch of [address]. Accordingly, the stretch of [address] from the school to the residential home has a transitional and more open feel compared with [site address] to the east of the roundabout.

The open sports grounds of the school lie to the north of the school buildings and can be seen from [address]. Moreover, the lack of built development beyond the sports fields towards the site to the west can also be seen from this view.

Turning to the site, it is a generally flat, open, agricultural field used as a large paddock for horses and includes [address] and the area to the north of [address] and [address] with access from [address]. The main part of the site comprises open pasture and there is hedgerow along the western and northern field boundaries. The site, therefore, has an open rural character in keeping with the areas to the west and north which are also agricultural fields.

The site lies in [name] 4: [name] and [name](xi) identified within the [name] Assessment, Sensitivity and [name], 2015. The site is in keeping with the identified key characteristics including medium to large scale open arable farmland.

The Landscape and [name] (LVA) considers that the urbanising effects of overhead powerlines, a busy road network and dominance of existing and emerging residential development warrant the site sensitivity to be assessed as being low. While the overhead power lines can be seen near the site, these do not appear as a dominating feature in the skyline. Similarly, the existing and developing residential development is mostly to the east of the Roundabout and to the south of [address], while the buildings of [address], [address] and [address] are set in relatively large plots or have an agricultural character. As such, the site is not primarily experienced in the context of substantial residential development, is in keeping with the rural character of the fields to the north and west, and is accessed from the stretch of [address] which has a transitional character.

The proposal for up to 120 dwellings would introduce a significant amount of built development, along with hard landscaping and domestic paraphernalia. While scale, layout, appearance and landscaping are matters for future consideration, the proposal would nonetheless urbanise the site, adversely affecting its open rural character.

Given the open fields to the west and north of the site, and the open sports ground to the east, the proposal would appear to intrude into the open undeveloped area that separate Waltham and [site address] .

This urbanising effect would be seen from Viewpoint 1 identified with the LVA, from [address] near [address], across its lawned grounds. Although views would be filtered by the boundary vegetation along the southern and northern boundary of the property, the upper part of dwellings and the presence of residential development across the site would be seen. This would introduce significant built development substantially closer to Waltham thereby unacceptably diminishing the gap between the settlements. Moreover, the scheme would harmfully alter the identified key characteristics of [name] 4 including medium to large scale open arable farmland.

Viewpoint 5 of the LVA looks towards the site from [address], from within the field which is not publicly accessible. From the footpath of [address] near Viewpoint 5 the scheme would be seen extending a significant distance into the open fields that separate Waltham and [site address] . The proposed dwellings may be partially screened by trees and vegetation both along [address] and along the western boundary of the site. Nonetheless, the permanence of the vegetation and level of screening along [address] cannot be guaranteed.

Layout and landscaping are reserved for future consideration and a landscaping buffer within the site could reduce views to the site from this viewpoint, as indicated on the indicative Proposed Site Layout drawing. However, it is likely that even with a landscaping buffer, some of the roofscape of the scheme would be visible from this view. Proposed landscaping would also take some time to provide any screening effects.

When travelling towards [site address] from Waltham on [address], the proposed dwellings would be seen extending northward and intruding into the open space between settlements. While vegetation along [address] will screen some views, the permanence and level of screening along the length of [address] cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the built up area of [site address] would become apparent at a far earlier point along the journey from Waltham to [site address] compared with the existing situation. As such, the urbanising effect of the proposal would result in the appearance of the settlement of [site address] extending closer to Waltham, harmfully reducing the settlement gap.

Viewpoint 2 of the LVA looking west from [address] Residential Development looks across the school grounds towards the site. The view is through the fencing of the school grounds and the boundary vegetation between the school grounds and the site consists of a number of gaps such that the proposed scheme would be visible in this viewpoint. As with the other views, landscaping buffers could be considered at reserved matters stage that may reduce the visibility of the buildings. However, given the number of dwellings proposed and the extent of the site northward, the roofscape of the proposed dwellings are likely to be seen and the proposal would appear as a northerly intrusion into the undeveloped fields that separate the two settlements.

The site lies roughly halfway between [address] and the settlement boundary of Waltham in terms of the LP development boundaries. Other than the school, [address], [address] and the residential home, the land to the north of [address] between [address] and Waltham is largely open and undeveloped. Given the fairly close proximity of the two settlements, the open land in between serves an important purpose in preventing the coalescence of the settlements. This is reflected in the special protection afforded to the open land in LP Policy 40.

The LVA considers the overall effects of the proposal to be minor adverse. However, the topography of the area is generally flat and the proposal is heavily dependent on landscaping both within and outside the site for screening from public views. Landscaping is matter for future consideration as is scale and layout. However, landscaping outside the site is beyond the control of the Appellant and would take time to mature. Therefore, the proposal would not appear as an extension to existing residential development and would protrude into the open space roughly halfway between development boundaries of [site address] and Waltham to the north of [address].

Therefore, given the number of dwellings proposed, it is unlikely that the proposed residential development could be screened to such a degree that the gap between the settlements is not harmfully diminished. In addition, the setting of [site address] in particular would be harmed by the scheme. Accordingly, the proposal would harm the landscape character of the area and would unacceptably diminish the open space separating the settlements of Waltham and [site address] . Therefore, I attribute very significant weight to this harm.

Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the Council’s development plan strategy for the location of housing with particular regard to the character and appearance of the area and the strategic green infrastructure corridor between Waltham and [site address] . Therefore, it would conflict with [name] 5, 22, 40 and 42 which seek development that, among other things, recognise the distinctive open character, a thorough consideration of the particular site's context, protect the setting and separate identity of settlements and has regard to the landscape context.

The Council advised that the site lies adjacent to a complex of cropmarks tentatively dated as iron age or Roman. The cropmarks could extend onto the proposed development site suggesting buried archaeological remains.

An Archaeological Geophysical Survey (Survey) was submitted during the application which indicated a number of anomalies that are suggestive of anthropogenic activity.

Paragraph 207 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) states that where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.

The (Survey) states that taken as a whole, [name] and B suggest the presence of anthropogenic activity or features across a significant part of the site. However, the exact cause or type of activity is not certain.

Layout is a matter for future consideration, and the proposal is for up to 120 dwellings. Therefore, it may be possible that future consideration of layout could enable the preservation of some archaeological assets in situ if required. The anomalies may not translate to archaeological remains and the anomalies appear to have no clear form to suggest significant structures or features. However, given the quantity and spread of the identified anomalies across the site, and the possibility that the anomalies could indicate anthropogenic activity, there can be no certainty that a condition requiring field evaluation such as trenching would make the scheme acceptable.

Consequently, in the absence of evidence to demonstrate otherwise, the proposal would harm heritage assets with particular regard to archaeology. Therefore, it would conflict with LP Policy 39 which seek to protect the significance of heritage assets.

The proposed access to the site comprises a signal controlled junction off [address] into the site. The proposed alterations to the highway and junction layout was designed on the basis of topographical information and the extent of the public highway from the Highways Search Extent Plan. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposed lane widths and space for traffic signals and bus stop can be provided as per the drawings.

Furthermore, there is no reason why corduroy paving for a segregated footway/cycleway and relocation of a lamp column as well as an area of hardstanding at the bus stop cannot be provided as part of a condition. The drawings indicate the 30mph speed limit sign to be relocated. However, this would be subject to a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). There is no evidence before me to indicate that it is unlikely that a TRO would be granted, or that the proposed access arrangement would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety without the relocation of the sign.

In any event, I am satisfied that the proposed access as shown on drawings NTP25003-001 [name] to NTP25003-006 [name] can be provided and, subject to conditions, would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety or severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network.

Consequently, the proposal would not unacceptably impact highway safety. Therefore, it would not conflict with LP Policy 5 in this particular respect which seeks, among other things, development proposals to have regard to access and traffic generation.

I note the comments of the Inspectors for the cases at Torbay Drive1, Land south of Millennium Park2 and Humberston3. With regard to the [address] case, existing residential development extended along the site’s northern and eastern boundary. In the Millenium Park case, there was modern residential development to the north and west, both adjacent to the site. The site in the Humberston case was immediately east of existing housing. The locations of the sites for these cases in terms of the character and appearance of the area are materially different to the appeal site which is bordered on three sides by undeveloped land. These cases are therefore not directly comparable to this appeal and have not altered my overall

I also note the approval of planning permission for 8 dwellings on land to the south of the site. As it is for a much smaller development, that case is not directly comparable to this appeal and has not altered my overall decision.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing. The housing supply figure is 3.6 years. Accordingly, paragraph 11dii of the Framework is engaged 1 Appeal Ref: APP/B2002/W/22/3311282 2 Appeal Ref: APP/B2002/W/23/3330854 3 Appeal Ref: APP/B2002/W/25/335967 which requires that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The proposed scheme for up to 120 dwellings would provide a significant contribution to the local housing supply. 20% of the housing would be affordable housing. Future residents would provide an economic benefit to the local services and facilities and would provide a social benefit to the local community. In addition, there would be temporary economic benefits during the construction phase. The scheme would also provide environmental benefits through the delivery of [name] and landscaping which would be considered at reserved matters stage. Given the scale of the proposal, I attribute significant weight to these benefits.

The proposal would be contrary to the development plan objective of directing new housing to within development boundaries. Moreover, it would harmfully urbanise an undeveloped site and would intrude into the open area that separates the settlements of [site address] and Waltham. The landscape effect is described as minor in the LVA. However, LP Policy 40 requires specific protection to be afforded to the open areas between Waltham and [site address] . Therefore, given the importance of the strategic green infrastructure corridor between Waltham and [site address] identified in the LP and the location of the site separated from significant existing and developing residential areas, the proposal would significantly harm the rural feel of the site and its vicinity and would result in very significant harm to the strategic gap between settlements. Accordingly, I attribute very significant weight to this harm.

The scheme would also result in harm to heritage assets in the absence of evidence to indicate otherwise, to which I attribute moderate weight given the uncertainty regarding the nature of the anomalies. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The very significant weight attributed to the conflict with the development plan strategy for the location of housing with particular regard to the character and appearance of the area and the strategic green infrastructure corridor between Waltham and [site address] , and the moderate weight attributed to the harm to heritage assets, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and in the absence of material considerations to indicate otherwise, the appeal is dismissed.