Planning Application to develop a Muslim Burial site on agricultural land adjoining Nene Way, Sutton – Planning Reference 24/01440/FUL.
These are the joint comments of the Sutton Parish Council and the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan Group on the Landscape and Visual impact Assessment prepared by LVIA Ltd and filed on behalf of CDS, the developer, on 30 June 2025.
These comments are additional to previous comments that have been filed in respect of the application by the Sutton Parish Council and the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan Group.
1. What is immediately apparent is the difference between the conclusion of this assessment, commissioned and prepared on behalf of the proposed developer, on the one hand, and that of the independent expert, David Singleton, in his report dated 7 May 2025, on the other.
2. Mr Singleton, in his independent assessment concludes that it is “likely that the landscape and visual effect of these changes would be adverse and more than moderate, with some (such as the views from local roads and public rights of way) being substantial”. This conclusion is consistent with the comments made by Mr Singleton earlier in his report that “the degree of change to the landscape locally is likely to be considerable” (para 4.13) and that “the scale of development would be relatively large” (para 4.15).
3. In contrast, LVIA Ltd, whose report neither acknowledges nor comments on Mr Singleton’s assessment, reaches the conclusion that there will be “no substantial adverse impacts to the visual of the landscape” (para 16.2.10).
4. Whilst we appreciate that LVIA Ltd is employed to put a positive case forward on behalf of CDS, we do not accept its conclusion, which we believe falls short of the requirements of the GLVIA3 Guidance, and presents a highly misleading understatement of the severity of the landscape and visual impact of this proposed development.
5. A striking example of a failure to follow GLVIA guidance in order to give a misleading impression, and to improperly bolster a favourable conclusion, is the use of photographs only taken during the spring, when all the natural deciduous hedges and trees in the affected area are in full leaf. This is not in accordance with the GLVIA3 requirements, as pointed out by Mr Singleton. Mr Singleton also identified that CDS and their experts have had plenty of time to take photographs in winter months, as they should have done. We strongly agree with Mr Singleton.
6. The relevance of this failure is clear in much of the report, but an example is found in the comment on the visual impact that refers to “a relatively small visual envelope on account of the surrounding mature vegetation”. Any visual screening of the development which LVIA might rely on is removed during the six months of the year after leaf fall and before new leaf growth. Throughout the winter months the agricultural field is fully visible through the existing deciduous hedgerow.
7. A comparison can and should be made with the photographs taken on behalf of the Sutton Parish Council and appended to the Council’s comments dated 14 January 2025. The difference is striking.
8. As examples of the difference, and the distorted overall impression that can be given, the applicants conclude that “the introduction of the proposals should form a limited reduction in the quality of the present environment” when addressing their viewpoints 8,9, 10 and 11. It is hard to see how this conclusion can be reached if the comparison is made with Photograph number 7 attached to the Parish Council’s comments of 14 January 2025.
9. If any doubt lingers, then consideration of the Parish Council’s photograph showing the view Northeast from Sutton Lodge should remove such doubt, revealing as it does the significant imposition on the environment, both in terms of landscape and visual impact, that the proposals would have.
10. What is more, the photographs used for VPs 12 and 13, demonstrate a highly inappropriate and incompatible gate construction, of a scale which is completely inconsistent with the declared use of a pedestrian and cycle path, and clearly designed with vehicular access in mind. Leaving aside the concerns that this gives rise to in respect of any commercial intentions of the developers, the visual impact of these gates alone would represent a dramatic change to the existing environment. There are no such ornate and grandiose gates within the village, and they alone demonstrate the complete absence of any empathy with the landscape of the site and its visual setting.
11. The overall impression gained from the applicants’ visuals is that they have been carefully chosen so as not to give a clear and fair representation of the impact of the height of the main building (7.2m) which, based on the illustrative impact of the Parish Council’s photographs will be clearly visible and obtrusive above the current hedgerows (height 2.4m) all along Nene Way and from the Peterborough Road and the Sutton Crossways bridlepath.
12. Viewpoint 2 is described as a view from Nene Way. In fact, the view is from the Peterborough Road looking at the junction with Nene Way. This is the only viewpoint offered from Nene Way, and looking from this point in the direction of the photograph, rather conveniently, the main building location is out of view.
13. Sutton residents will drive down Nene Way daily and value the view into open agricultural views in the winter. The open agricultural fields on both sides of the main access road form a critically important part of the rural setting and character of the village. It seems inevitable that if this development is permitted, the very large main building and car parking will be clearly visible and dominant through the hedgerow in winter.
14. It is disturbing to see that in the only place in the assessment where the residents are considered, in paragraph 16.2.4, the applicants dismiss the views of residents completely, primarily on the basis that they “have no right to a view in planning terms”. We respectfully remind the applicants that this proposal is contrary to the policies of the Local Plan and the existing Sutton Conservation Areas Appraisal document which recognises the agricultural history and character of the village and seeks to protect the countryside surrounding the village from inappropriate and harmful development.
15. This dismissive approach has characterised this application - brushing aside the complete lack of any support from any resident in the village of Sutton, and the consistent opposition from all affected local parish councils. The only support for the proposal has come from individuals and organisations that live, or are based, many miles away, and will not suffer the impact that this proposed development will undoubtedly have.
16. As a further demonstration of this, the applicants photograph VP1 shows a view from the Drift, one of the two roads into the village. However, instead of taking the photograph from that part of the Drift which has residences, it is taken well away from those residences, and as a result concludes that the sensitivity of impact will only be medium and then only to Road Users.
17. That there might be some impact on some residents is grudgingly acknowledged in paragraph 16.2.4, but in addition to its being dismissed as a view to which those residents “have no right” in planning terms, the impact is stated to be “limited to their property and will not be publicly assessable”. This is nonsense – the views of those residences to which they refer are shared by others, walking, cycling and riding horses, all activities that are widely enjoyed in the village.
18. There are other occasions where the assessment falls short of objectivity. In table 14, the visual impact of VPs 4-12 is assessed as moderate/major, but the overall impact is inexplicably downgraded to only “moderate” in the assessment’s conclusion. These views are of great importance to the residents of Sutton and Ailsworth, and we submit that the impact is more ‘major’ than ‘moderate’, based upon (i) the applicants’ definition of high sensitivity ( page 23) “where the development results in changes in the landscape setting or valued views enjoyed by the community” ; and (ii) the fact that the impact would be ‘very large’ (table 10 page 24) due to “a dramatic change in the existing view” caused by replacing an open agricultural field with a building and formal landscaped area.
19. This combination of high sensitivity and very large impact ratings gives an overall rating which is major - not moderate as the applicants have concluded. An impact rating of ‘major’ is consistent with the ‘considerable’ and ‘more than moderate’ adverse impact assessed by Mr Singleton’s more objective and independent conclusion.
19 July 2025