Venue: Council Chamber - The Guildhall. View directions
Contact: Ele Durrant/James Welbourn Democratic and Civic Officers
Note: *PLEASE NOTE - the application at Reepham Road, Fiskerton has been withdrawn from tonight's agenda.
Public Participation Period
Up to 15 minutes are allowed for public participation. Participants are restricted to 3 minutes each.
After opening the meeting, the Chairman reminded Members, people in the public gallery, and viewers of the webcast that application number 138180, Reepham Road Fiskerton had been withdrawn by the applicant, and would not be discussed.
There was no public participation at this stage of the meeting.
i) Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 19 September 2018, previously circulated.
The minutes of the meeting dated 19 September 2018 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
Declarations of Interests
Members may make any declarations of interests at this point but may also make them at any time during the course of the meeting.
Councillor Fleetwood declared an interest in application number 137950 – Land off Lea Grove, Bardney, and would stand down as Chairman for this item and speak as Ward member. He had been lobbied by the Parish Council and members of the public.
Councillor Fleetwood declared a non-pecuniary interest with relation to the planning application to be heard as agenda item 6a, in that he was Vice Chairman for the Parish Council which was objecting to the application. He clarified that he had not been involved with any of the parish planning decisions and would be considering the application solely in his role as Chairman of the Committee.
Update on Government/Local Changes in Planning Policy
Note – the status of Neighbourhood Plans in the District may be found via this link
The Development Management Team Leader gave the following local and national updates:
· The consultation on the Cherry Willingham Neighbourhood Plan had ended. The independent examination was now underway;
· The consultation on the submission draft on the Willoughton Neighbourhood Plan had just ended. There was now a move to appoint an Independent Examiner;
· Consultation on the draft version of the Neighbourhood Plan in Sudbrooke was underway until the 5th November;
· In a change to legislation, as of 1 October, the local Planning Authority required the written agreement of the applicant in order to apply any pre-commencement conditions.
The Principal Development Management Officer introduced application number 138157, an application for 5no. dwellings at Bleak Farm, Cherry Willingham.
There were a number of updates for this item:
· The original appeal on this site had now been validated by the planning inspectorate, and had a start date of 11 October;
· No additional information from the applicant had been submitted following last month’s Planning Committee, so the application remained as written;
· The Cherry Willingham Neighbourhood Plan was referenced in the report; however, some of the policies within the Plan, in particular H3 have been challenged. The weight given to these policies would have to be tempered whilst the challenge was ongoing;
The first of the public speakers on this item was Parish Councillor Paul Moore, from Cherry Willingham Parish Council. He raised the following points:
· The Parish Council fully accepted the principal of development on this site, as established by the previously granted outline permission;
· This was an important site at the heart of the village, and it justified a development that made the most of the heritage and potential of the site;
· The Parish Council were gratified when an earlier application in May 2018 was refused, as they felt it did not live up to these heritage standards;
· This application seemed almost identical to a previous application from May 2018, which was rejected by committee; the Parish Council felt that there were no material changes in this application that could lead to this new application being granted;
· The site, until recent times, was a working farmstead. It was confirmed as a non-designated heritage asset in the Neighbourhood Plan;
· Some of the buildings on-site had now gone through demolition; however the historic context and the setting of the farmstead and nearby listed buildings remained unaltered. Any development on this site would have an effect on the setting and significance of these heritage assets, but this should be properly assessed to inform the design and layout of any new development. That was the requirement of adopted planning policy;
· The Parish Council agreed with Lincolnshire County Council’s (LCC’s) Historic Environment Officer that the submitted heritage statement was wholly inadequate;
· By only developing part of the site, the application failed to make the most of the whole area, and there was no requirement for public open space or affordable housing;
· Policy LP25 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP) required that development proposals protected the significance of designated heritage assets, including their setting, as well as promoting opportunities to better reveal the significance of heritage assets. In addition, the desirability of sustaining and enhancing non-designated heritage assets should be taken into account;
· Many developments exist on old village-centre farmyards that retained design and layout links with the site’s former use, and produced a high quality development that enhanced the village centre;
· The site’s present condition was very poor; this did not justify an inadequate development proposal for this site simply to tidy it up (reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework – NPPF);
The Development Management Team Leader introduced application number 138097, for the proposed erection of 2no. dwellings at Church Road, Stow.
There were two updates to the report:
· An extension of time on the application had been agreed to the 19October 2018;
· The applicant had agreed to the pre-commencement decision on materials.
Councillor Chris Turner spoke on behalf of Stow Parish Council, and highlighted the following five objections:
1. In the opinion of the Parish Council, conditions 4 and 5 of the outline planning permission had not been met. There related to surface, and foul water drainage issues on Church Road, which was prone to flooding. The officer’s report confirmed these conditions had to be met at some time in the future, but that it did not relate to reserved matters in this application. It would be difficult to consider drainage after approval had been granted for development;
2. Permission for a small bungalow immediately to the north-west of this application was refused. The applicant in that case appealed; this was unsuccessful; the proposed bungalow would have damaged the view of the open countryside from Church Road. For application 138097, this appeared to have been addressed by the officer under the ‘views’ section. Extensive bedrooms in the roof will make them appear like three-storey properties, which again would damage the view of the open countryside from Church Road;
3. It was hard to envisage a house with five bedrooms, a large number of toilets and a double garage conforming to low carbon living;
4. There was no requirement for an archaeological survey;
5. There was a vibrant community in Stow; what the village needed was affordable housing for families.
The next speaker was Mrs Carolyn Turner, who was objecting to the application. She raised the following points:
· Mrs Turner was a local resident of 35 years;
· Earlier in 2018 planning permission for a small bungalow adjacent to the plot for application 138097 was refused because it would detract from the view of the countryside from Church Road;
· The proposed dwellings were totally out of character with the area. They contained many windows, and did not blend in with the tiny single track road on Church Lane;
· The submitted plans show a laudable attempt at fitting into the surrounding landscape; however, closer inspection shows that hedges were to be destroyed as they were overrun with species. In fact, the hedgerow could be seen as a haven for flora or fauna;
· Bulldozers had already decimated the area;
· LP4 of the CLLP advised that Stow should accommodate small scale development of a limited nature in an appropriate location; this development was neither small-scale nor appropriately located;
· The drainage in place could not cope with a one in ten year event;
· The application was totally inappropriate in terms of appearance, style, and landscape.
Following these comments, the Development Management Team Leader responded:
· Planning permission had already been granted on this site; this application is for reserved matters only;
· Drainage was a condition of the ... view the full minutes text for item 44.
Note: At this point in proceedings, Councillor Ian Fleetwood stepped down from the committee to speak as Ward Member for the item and Councillor Owen Bierley sat as Chairman.
The Principal Development Management Officer gave the following update to committee:
· The minerals and waste team from Lincolnshire County Council have lifted their safeguarding objection to the proposal;
The first public speaker was Councillor Robert Webb, from Bardney Group Parish Council. He raised the following points from the viewpoint of the Parish Council:
· There was currently no spare capacity in the drainage system. Several properties had been flooded with effluent; at times of heavy rainfall; surface water was a known problem in Bardney;
· Anglian Water had assessed the area and concluded it was acting above its previously stated capacity; they had also said that this development would lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream;
· In recent times heavy rainfall had caused flooding to take place; the last occurrence was 8 October;
· A water study in 2010 stated that the drainage infrastructure in Bardney could only cope with an additional 333 dwellings; since that date, 400 homes had been approved or built. No further applications should be approved on public health grounds until the health matter was resolved;
· The true measurement of the road is 4.8 metres; this was not a straight road and had a 90 degree angle;
· The Highways department at Lincolnshire County Council in October this year said there had been no consultation between the risk management team and the regional team covering Bardney; therefore the response to the consultation had been inaccurate and should not be accepted;
· Parking on Lea Grove was difficult as not all houses had driveways;
· The nearest bus stop was half a mile from the site, with only five buses a day. Most residents have to use private vehicles;
· The development made no provision for employment or retail within the village;
· It was disputed whether the site was brownfield; it had historically been greenfield and used for grazing;
· A letter had been received from the local school outlining that the cost of an additional classroom would be approximately £300,000, not £45,000.
Note: Councillor David Cotton declared a personal interest as he was acquainted with Mr Michael Braithwaite, the next speaker, as Mr Braithwaite had worked alongside him on the Joint Strategic Local Plan. He had not had any dealings with Mr Braithwaite on this application.
Councillor Owen Bierley added that Members of the Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee had met Mr Braithwaite in his former role on the Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee.
The next speaker was Mr Michael Braithwaite, planning consultant, acting for the applicant. He raised the following points:
· The planning application was prepared and submitted following positive pre-application advice with officers at West Lindsey District Council;
· The brownfield site was within the developed footprint of Bardney;
· This site met the intensification and renewal criteria within the Central Lincolnshire Plan for a large village;
· There was contact with Highways ... view the full minutes text for item 45.
Note: Councillor Ian Fleetwood rejoined the meeting for the final item.
RESOLVED that the determination of appeals be noted.