Agenda item

Major – Outline Planning Permission

Outline planning application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for later approval, for proposed industrial development and associated infrastructure (Use Classes B2, B8, E(g))

Land off Station Road  Sutterton  Boston  PE20 9JX

Outline planning application with some matters reserved (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout & Scale) for later approval for proposed industrial development and associated infrastructure (Use Classes B2, B8, E(g))

Land off Station Road, Sutterton, Boston, PE20 2JX

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to the committee, confirming that whilst the ward member had called in the application for a number of reasons, there had also been a high level of public interest in the proposal.

Members were advised that the site was an open agricultural field, to the east of Station Road. The site lay approximately 420m south of the defined settlement boundary for Sutterton and approximately 250m north of the Sutterton Roundabout, where Station Road connects with the A16 and A17.

The site was broadly open in character with no substantial boundary treatments to the west, although there was a small ditch separating the site from the footway and Station Road. The agricultural field continued to the south beyond the red line boundary, with a van and truck dealership at the southern edge of the field, and a smaller field borders the site to the southeast.

To the north of the site was more agricultural land, separated from the site by a hedgerow. The dwelling known as White Lilacs bordered the site in the north west corner. To the east of the site was Church Lane, which connected the A16 with Algarkirk.  Further north was the settlement of Sutterton and to the north east was the settlement of Algarkirk.  Algarkirk contained a number of Heritage Assets that could be impacted by the proposals and that the site could be considered to sit within the setting including the Listed Church of St Peter and St Paul, a Grade II Listed South Cottage, Village Hall and Church View Cottage and Garden Wall, and Algarkirk Shrunken Village Scheduled Ancient Monument

The site lay in an area of open countryside and was not allocated for development or within the settlement boundaries of Sutterton (Inset Map 8) or Algarkirk (Inset Map 30). The site is within Flood Zone 3 and the ‘Danger for Most’ Flood Hazard category. A high-pressure gas main owned by Cadent Gas ran across the site and Cadent Gas has objected to the application.

The proposal sought outline planning permission for a mix of employment uses on the site.  No details of any specific uses had been provided at this initial stage but the uses would be a mix of Class E(g) for an office to carry out any operation administrative functions; the research and development of products or processes, or any industrial process being a use, which can be carried out in the residential areas without detriment to the amenity of that area by reasons of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit. Class B2 for use for the carrying on of an industrial process other than one falling within the uses described in Class E.  Class B8 for use for storage or as a distribution centre.

The application had been submitted as outline planning permission with

appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for later approval.

Access would be considered at that stage.

The application as it had initially been submitted had been for a larger site area, including a field on the east of Church Lane and extending to be in close proximity with the village form of Algarkirk to the northeast. That area of the site had been removed through amendments and the site area was now the reduced. The application had been accompanied by an indicative site masterplan, showing how the development may be laid out should outline permission be granted. This masterplan has also been further amended following comments from Cadent Gas in relation to their pipeline which runs through the site.

As a result of publicity 152 representations had been received, being primarily from addresses within Sutterton and Algarkirk. Two rounds of consultation had been conducted, with 127 comments received in the initial round and further 25 on the revised scheme.  In addition, a petition had been submitted, with the signatures of 164 residents.  It is noted that multiple comments had been received from some addresses. Given the substantial difference in the scheme and volume of comments, the comments have been recorded separately and were detailed under the relevant headings with concerns noted in respect of the principle of development, amenity and wellbeing, highways, and character and natural environment. 

Members were advised that the application was a matter of balance with some aspects that officers considered to be compliant with policy, whilst also accepting the arguments in respect of the viability of the allocated employment sites.  They did however appreciate that there was a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and in the details in relation to design.

Representaton was received from Mr D Bradley in objection to the application which included:

The 150 neighbour objections depicted the level of feelings by the local community against this application in a rural area, with not one letter of support having been received.   The site was in the countryside on prime grade 1 agricultural land and once it changed there would be no way of reinstating the land back to agricultural.  Residents contended that it was up the applicant to prove it was an exception site, as the proposed development would be out of character with the area.  The application was only in outline with access only being considered in detail, with the local community having no idea of the size or height of the proposed buildings or the final layout.   Members were asked to remember that key planning decision must be in the public interest.  Cadent Gas, who had a high-pressure gas distribution part running right through the site, were still objecting to this application and with a lack of detailed dimensions, the gas main was clearly limiting the development, potential of this site.
Residents also claimed the application posed a major health and safety risk, with the speed limit on Station Road being 60 miles an hour. There was no street lighting and no pedestrian crossings nor any bus service.  Furthermore, it was close to the dangerous A17 / A16 Sutterton roundabout.

Residents felt the addition of the development would have a detrimental impact on highway safety.
Any traffic assessment needed to be set against the speculative development where any end user or trip generations are completely unknown.  Objectors’ feet the addition of development would have a detrimental impact on the highway safety.  The applicant was relying on the Boston Alternative Energy Facility (BAEF) as a justification for this development and residents felt it was not a reasonable justification for siting industrial units in the countryside, because it must be noted that the BAEF itself would create employment opportunities eventually.
A schedule had been submitted showing residents own assessment of local employment starts, which showed over 25 hectares of land on the market, being developed or, on a consideration which could provide employment opportunities. Also, existing units are available for rent and sale.
The speculative development represented unwarranted and unjustified industrialisation of the countryside. No convincing case had been made for what would be a clear departure from policy if the committee allowed the application.  It would set a clear precedent for making any similar applications in the future.

No questions were asked of Mr Bradley.

Representation was received from M L Smith, the agent for the applicant which included.

Members would be aware from the report that the application had been amended following a seat of objections, particularly in relation to its impact on residential amenity. The site was now roughly half the size of the original submission, and all the accompanying documents had been updated to reflect the changes.  A number of reports and surveys had been commissioned in relation to highways, noise, air quality, ecology, flood risk, archaeology, and biodiversity gain. Out of the extensive consultation on these matters, there were no new objections from technical consultees to the proposal, subject to suitable conditions set out in the officers’ report. Whilst it was appreciated the members of the public were unlikely to welcome the new industrial development, it was clear from the report that there were now far less objections to the revised proposal when compared to the original.
Access to the site would be via the new junction onto Station Road to the north of the Sutterton Roundabout, which would enable the proposal to take advantage of the strategically important intersection of the A-16 and A-17. The application allowed for a variety of commercial use classes.
And the applicant had already received interest from several parties looking at developing the site. The applicant was a local businessman who hds already built out the Haven Business Park in Boston and most recently 14 industrial units off Avalon Rd in Kirton, which took sixteen months from the grants permission to the first tenants moving in.  It was now home to well-known firms.
A master plan had been submitted to indicate how the site could be developed, and that showed that there was sufficient space for policy compliance, parking and turning and sustainable drainage, landscaping and biodiversity net gain.  Together with sufficient separation for the nearest dwellings.
The application tabled had thoroughly weighed all the material planning considerations when set against the prevailing policies in the local plan and national guidance, and concluded that planning permission should be granted.
Condition 5 on page 71 of the report required that the new junction onto Station Road must be built first and there were further proposed planning conditions which would secure matters relating to construction, management, drainage, landscaping, ecology, noise mitigation and the widening of the footway from the site to the junction with Saint Mary's Drive.
The overall highway implications of the proposal had been the subject of rigorous assessment, including a stage 1 road safety audit, which had been approved by the local highway authority. As with most new developments there would always be some change to the local environment.

No questions were tabled for Mr Smith.

Representation was received from Parish Councillor Rushworth which included:

Sutterton Parish Council strongly objected to the application stating it was quite simply the wrong plan in the wrong place at the wrong time.  There were many reasons that the planning process had not considered fully or simply skirted over, it was agricultural land that would be lost to an application that has not demonstrated a clear need for it, and would diminish yet further, an important great British industry.
Once the land had been lost to being concreted over, it would be lost forever. The existing problems with traffic at Sutterton roundabout and Station Road were well known and an ongoing problem for businesses in the vicinity which would only get worse should the application be granted.  A traffic plan was intended however when the roundabout was busy, traffic to and from the site, would take the easiest route and go through the village.
The impact of residents’ mental health and well-being would not be mitigated by however many ifs and buts and maybes. Furthermore, they would not mitigate changes to the peace and tranquilly and sounds of the wildlife in the countryside with noise pollution.  Added traffic from the site would be a terrible consequence for health and wellbeing. There was no evidence for another industrial site in the area, and if there was a demand for such sites, they would already be used. The evidence pointed to the contrary.  Cadent Gas had a clear position in opposition to the plan. In an e-mail which they sent to the planning officer on the 3rd of December, they stated that it made it impossible to police development inside the site and they would not withdraw their objection. They have not withdrawn their objection.

No questions were asked of Councillor Rushworth.

Representation was received from Councillor J Cantwell which included:

Stating that he was not only relaying his own views on the application Councillor Cantwell advised that they were also the views of his residents, of Sutterton and Algarkirk Parish Councils, a local charitable organisation and the residents’ group and a professional independent planner.  The views followed a number of meetings held in consideration of the application.

The applicant had not evidenced the need for the site when others are available and sought to use the Boston Alternative Energy Facility as a disguise for an inappropriate application for the area, when other sites were available.  The application looked to build on prime agricultural land, which must be preserved, given the wider context of over development in the five villages ward from energy projects. Although highways had no objection, traffic from the site would have a negative impact.  The traffic would compete with existing businesses including two service stations, a new horticultural site, fast food outlets and other businesses.
The outlined nature meant a high risk going forward with impacts on neighbouring land use, in regard to noise and pollution for the isolated properties nearby. The application with its large-scale thinking would clearly have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.
The application would also negatively infringe on the protected monuments in Algarkirk, such as the sunken village and the Mini Cathedral of the fens. The land would outcompete with nearby allocated sites such as Endeavour Way, making it unviable for future development as specified in the local plan.  Cadent Gas had not withdrawn their objection, casting serious doubts in the safety of this application. The proposals lack of connecting public transport and safe access to amenities meant that it would force users to rely on public transport, further impacting pollution.
Access to nearby services was not served by any pavement or designated walkway on point 3.2 of the planning statement submitted to all members by the Parish Councils and the Action Group, which presented a very worrying consideration for committee.  It had serious capacity to damage the integrity of the local plan going forward, something which is on its own merit has not been addressed by the application.  Furthermore, the Planning Inspector had upheld a decision by the committee to refuse an application over the road.  The application did not belong in a rural scene and had generated significant interest resulting in two villages being united on a shared issue and hundreds of residents reacting to the proposal.

No questions were tabled for Councillor Cantwell who left the meeting at this point in the proceedings.

The Senior Planning Officer who presented the report did not wish to comment on any of the representation received.

Committee deliberation followed which included the following:

Members voiced concern at the onsite facility of Cadent Gas and the objection raised by the company at the application relating to easement.

There was considerable agreement by members that the need for employment on the site had not been proven by the applicant.  Further discussions tabled the possibility of setting a precedent should the application be granted resulting in further speculative developments in similar sites.  Further agreement noted the depth of feelings of residents and the Parish Councils which members acknowledged were well founded.

RESOLVED: That the committee refuse the application and that a delegation be agreed to the planning officers, to formalise the reasons for refusal as indicated by the committee as being contrary to policies 1 and 7.