Agenda item

Minutes:

Note:              Councillor Robert Waller returned to the room at 7:14pm and retook his seat at Committee.

                        The meeting also reconvened at 7:14pm.

 

The Chairman introduced application number 139839 for outline planning to erect 2no. dwellings with all mattersreserved. He invited the Development Management Team Leader to provide any updates to the report. She stated that there was a typographical error in that application number 140128 referenced in the report was for one dwelling. She explained that application number 140160 had been granted for one dwelling the week prior to Committee and this took the remaining growth level for Osgodby to two dwellings. She reiterated that, notwithstanding that recent approval, the Officer comments in the report on page 38 about there being no requirement for the applicant to demonstrate community support still stood, as, at the point of submission of the application, there was headroom to accommodate the number of dwellings proposed. It was also highlighted to Members that the wording of LP2 stipulated that community support should be demonstrated at the point of submission in respect of applications in settlements where growth levels had been met or exceeded. In this instance, it was the case that there was capacity for each proposal individually and therefore no community support was required for them. The Development Management Team Leader commented that the fact that the council had received three separate applications for the same village should not be a determining factor in each of the applications. Following determination of the two applications before Committee, the growth figures would be reassessed and any future applications determined accordingly.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer and invited the first speaker to address the Committee.

 

The first speaker introduced herself as Councillor Yvonne Knibbs, Chairman and representative of Osgodby Parish Council. She stated that the Parish Council objected to the application, as it did not meet the criteria in the Neighbourhood Plan. She explained that the Parish Council felt it was not an appropriate site, that it was a green field site and a previous application had been refused as the whole of the site was not considered to be appropriate. She added that the proposed development would go against the core shape and character of the village and was in conflict with section 7.8 of the Neighbourhood Plan regarding frontages and Main Street. Councillor Knibbs stated that the Parish Council felt the applicant needed to demonstrate clear support for the proposed development, as it would exceed the maximum of 25 houses in the area and that, not only was there no support, there were actually several objections. She explained that the access lane was not suitable, that there were already issues with the road breaking up and they had concerns about flooding and drainage issues. Councillor Knibbs stated that West Lindsey District Council had a duty of care to the community and requested that the application be refused.

 

The second speaker was invited to address the Committee. He introduced himself as Mr Ian Hutchison, agent for the applicant, speaking in favour of the application. He stated that the Officer’s report provided a detailed analysis of what he believed was a difficult application in consideration of the numerous contrasting policies in the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan. Mr Hutchison explained to the Committee that, in relation to the Parish Council’s objection to the application, the development had been considered at two Parish Council meetings. The applicant had attended both meetings and it had seemed that the Parish Council had been happy for the West Lindsey District Council Officer to analyse the application accordingly. He highlighted the sequential tests, with definition of the eight categories running over several pages of the Neighbourhood Plan and, although there were contradictions within the plans, he highlighted that the site was categorised as a category D site, meaning it was in the higher bracket for development than E sites and below. Mr Hutchison made reference to the growth levels for Osgodby and highlighted to Members that, although the allowed growth level was for a period until 2036, it had been made clear by Officers that there was no time restriction for this level being met. He thanked the Committee for their time and requested that the Officer recommendation be upheld.

 

With no further comment from the Officers, the Chairman invited comments from the Committee Members. He noted that he had received an email from Councillor Cordelia McCartney, Ward Member, stating her support of the Parish Council’s views.

 

There was significant discussion regarding the benefits of parishes adopting a Neighbourhood Plan and the importance of supporting these Plans. It was also highlighted that previous applications had been refused. A Member of Committee supported concerns raised regarding the ribbon development style of the village and that the proposed development would detract from this tradition. It was also felt that to agree the proposed development would be to set a precedent for similar developments in other similar villages. The Development Management Team Leader explained that previous applications and appeals had been determined under a different plan and it was important to consider each application on its own merits.

 

The Chairman reminded Committee Members that, in order to recommend refusal of the application, Members did need to provide reasons and policies that they felt were being contradicted. Following further discussions, a Member of Committee moved to refuse the application. This was seconded on the basis that the application was contrary to LP1, as it was not sustainable; contrary to LP2, as the proposed layout was contrary to the spatial strategy and contrary to LP26 regarding design and amenity. It was also noted that it was contrary to NP4, regarding the design and character of the settlement.

 

Having been proposed and seconded, the Chairman called the vote. With thirteen in favour and one abstention it was agreed that the application be REFUSED as contrary to LP1, LP2, LP26 and NP4.

 

Supporting documents: