The second application of the night was introduced. Application number 1411032 for erection of 2no.affordable elderly persons bungalows and 5no. homes on land off Deepdale Lane, Nettleham. The Senior Development Management Officer explained there was an amendment to the recommendation. It is now recommended that committee delegate powers to officers to finalise the section 106 agreement then grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the report.
The final recommended condition should be number 12 not 11.
He added that since the report was drafted further objections had been received from residents of 40 Deepdale Lane, 16 Baker Drive, and Orchard Cottage 18 The Crescent, Nettleham summarised as follows:
· This is typical of builder getting onto a site then flexing their wings.
· Nettleham was a village, now the Council are allowing any building if the builder mentions social housing.
· Loss of property value due to this development but Council Tax remains the same.
· Ridge and furrow earthworks have been lost on the existing development. The developer should be made to make good, not tarmac them over.
· Does the Council exist for the people of the builder?
· More houses on the edge of the village, pressure on village amenities which are not coping now.
· Roads cannot cope with more traffic and roads into the village are dangerous.
· There is already another development on Scothern Road which will increase traffic.
· It is time to say enough is enough to these greedy developers.
He stated that these objections did not alter the recommendation.
The Chairman invited the first speaker to address the Committee.
Councillor John Evans, of Nettleham Parish Council, made the following statement.
“The Parish Council strongly objects to this application and respectfully requests that the committee should refuse this application 141032 for 7 homes off Deepdale Lane on the following grounds:
1. It does not comply with the design policies or standards as per D-6 of the adopted Neighbourhood Plan. Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan D-6 (supported by LP26) clearly states that new housing developments should recognize and reinforce the local character in terms of height, scale, density, spacing, layout orientation, features, and materials.
The Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan identifies the typical max density as 20 homes per Ha for housing developments. This is reflected in the adjacent housing development for 50 homes currently being completed by Larkfleet/Allison Homes. This proposal seeks to roughly double that housing density leading to an inappropriate urban density in a rural village setting.
The design and access statement seeks to justify this high density by comparing this housing density to that of the nearby sheltered accommodation. This offers apartment style accommodation for older people, plus some older persons bungalows. It would therefore be totally inappropriate and invalid point of comparison for a housing development such as this.
The proposed high density design is totally at odds with what has been built on the rest of the housing development on opposite side of the road, where garages and front gardens are provided.
2. Car parking provision has been made on hard standings on land at the front of the houses, which would normally be front gardens. This is a sensitive visual area on the left-hand side of a right hand bend on the principle estate road near the entrance to the estate.
The location on a bend on the principal estate road also requires consideration from a road safety perspective as cars parked at the locations could obstruct views of young children from drivers using the principle estate road.
3. Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan policy D-3 states very specific minimum parking requirements to avoid parking clutter. Parking across footpaths is frequently seen on many new housing developments where insufficient parking provision has been made.
The requirements of D-3 have not been met here for the 3 and 4 bed properties.
There is no conflict here between Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan D-3 and LP13, as LP13 specifically does not allocate spaces, the CLLP states:
"4.7.11 It is not proposed to set specific parking standards within this Local Plan but rather to allow for each proposal to be considered on a case by case basis”.
Reference has been made to LCC highways guidance but this is not a strategic policy.
The parking standards in D-3 are part of the character of Nettleham’s estates and should be respected in any planning considerations.
This application fails to comply with the adopted Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan in character, density, design and parking provision and we respectfully request that the application is rejected.”
The second speaker, Mr Mark Mann, applicant, was then invited to speak.
Mr Mann explained this this scheme was on an allocated site and therefore the principle of development was already accepted both in the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan. The scheme was very similar in design and materials to those houses in phase 1 of the development and the house types were similar as well. The houses were to be slightly smaller as it was part of an affordable housing scheme and it was also slightly higher density, however this was allowed for in the Local Plan. He highlighted that there was a requirement for affordable homes in the district and this development would contribute to the number of affordable houses. In respect to concerns about car-parking issues, there would be parking spaces rather than garages and each home would have rear garden space as well. The provision of bungalows was additional and he stated that the proposed development did comply with the Neighbourhood Plan, the Local Plan and the NPPF. He thanked the Chairman for his time.
The Chairman then requested that the third registered speaker address the Committee.
Sally Lidbury, speaking in opposition to the development, made the following statement.
“The points raised in the previous application in relation to the ecological impact and green space still stand. Furthermore, this application replies on infrastructure within 140938.
Traffic & Parking
The planning officer’s report states that ‘it is not considered that there would be an unacceptable impact on parking or highway safety’. We do not believe this reflects the safety concerns of residents.
Deepdale Lane is a busy access road to the village. It also provides the main access to the Lincolnshire Police and Fire Headquarters. Additional dwellings would bring further traffic to this busy road. A speeding issue has already been identified, with the recent installation of an automatic speed safety road sign. This issue is not referred to within the planning officer’s report.
Baker Drive has one narrow access and egress point. There are two points on the road through the development (Baker Drive) where cars struggle to pass. With extra cars this will cause even more congestion and potentially a risk to safety.
There is a significant lack of roadside parking available on the proposed development, given the density of dwellings. This could result in parked vehicles spilling onto Baker Drive, creating a hazard. Given the width of the road, vehicles would also need to park on the pavement to ensure road users could pass. This could impact on pedestrian access to pavements. We know of a number of existing residents who require wheelchair access.
Furthermore, we would like to draw your attention to the poor condition Baker Drive has been left in at various points over the last few months. The mud left on the road by the developer has caused a safety concern for both drivers and pedestrians. Keeping the site safe has also been an on-going concern, with it being left open and unlocked during working hours.
We feel these points should be given further consideration on the grounds of safety. Furthermore, within in the transport statement, there is no mention of the current or planned housing development within the village. We feel this should be taken in consideration.
The planning officers report states that the site is currently being used as a mix of fenced off overgrown land and the construction compound for the adjacent estate development. We would like to make the point that this land has been used by both Lindum and Larkfleet as their site storage areas. We were told prior to purchase, that once building works were completed, the land would be returned to farm land as per their advertising material. It should not be considered as ‘overgrown land’ for the purposes of this application.
Amenity Space and Storage
Policy D-6 of the NNP states that new developments should provide sufficient external amenity space, refuse and recycling storage facilities and car parking. It goes on to say that the appearance and location of such features should be considered to ensure that they are well integrated into development proposals and form part of a cohesive and visually appealing environment. We feel insufficient weight has been given to this aspect.
In the planning officer’s report refers to ‘the frontage parking arrangement is perhaps the most conspicuous element of the proposal given it forms a bank of parking on a bend in the road’. As residents living on this street, we feel this does not reflect the current appearance.
In addition to this, we wonder where utility bins will be stored? Given the size of gardens and limited access to the rear, will they be stored in front of the dwellings? This again would not reflect the design or appearance of our street. We feel this point has been given sufficient weight.
We feel there has been a lack of consideration to those living in phase 1, who were incidentally told by the same developer, that the land would not be developed! It should also be noted that those residents who occupy the over 55’s accommodation adjacent to the site are deeply concerned about the impact this proposed development would have on their health and well-being. We do not feel sufficient weight has been given to these points.
Whilst we appreciate the following is not a material consideration, we feel it is right to bring to your attention the complete lack of transparency demonstrated by the developer.
As residents we were sold our properties with the understanding that the land would remain undeveloped and would be farmland in line with the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan. This information was provided through all marketing materials issued, site plans through our solicitors and via all sales representatives that have worked in the marketing suite. To date none of this information has been changed/updated to reflect the proposed ‘Phase 2’ and is showing this area as ‘Farmland’.
The Chairman thanked all speakers and noted that the final speaker, Councillor Giles McNeill, had rescinded his request to speak. The Officer highlighted that, in relation to comments around vehicle access, condition three did ensure vehicle and pedestrian access to the bungalows.
A Member of the Committee commented on the lack of provision of garages however the Legal Advisor highlighted that often housing of this nature did not come with garages and it was not a mandatory element of affordable housing development. In addition, the designs and materials proposed were in line with the existing development.
The Officer recommendation was proposed, followed by a second proposal to refuse the application. This was not seconded.
A Committee Member commented that the site was allocated and the design and materials did match existing developments and so seconded the proposal for the Officer recommendation. On taking the vote, it was agreed that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions as detailed below and that final details of the s106 agreement be delegated to Officers.
Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To conform with Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the development commenced:
2. No development shall take place until a Construction Management Plan and Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall indicate measures to mitigate against traffic generation and drainage of the site during the construction stage of the proposed development. The Construction Management Plan and Method Statement shall include;
• phasing of the development to include access construction;
• the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
• loading and unloading of plant and materials;
• storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
• wheel washing facilities;
• the routes of construction traffic to and from the site including any off site routes for the disposal of excavated material and;
• strategy stating how surface water run off on and from the development will be managed during construction and protection measures for any sustainable drainage features. This should include drawing(s) showing how the drainage systems (permanent or temporary) connect to an outfall (temporary or permanent) during construction.
The Construction Management Plan and Method Statement shall be strictly adhered to throughout the construction period.
Reason: To ensure that the permitted development is adequately drained without creating or increasing flood risk to land or property adjacent to, or downstream of, the permitted development during construction and to ensure that suitable traffic routes are agreed.
3. No development of plots 29-30 hereby permitted, as depicted on drawing L162-NET-RLP-02 rev.A, shall take place unless planning permission has been subsequently given, to enable vehicular and pedestrian access to connect the dwellings to the public highway.
Reason: Access to these plots is reliant upon planning permission being granted for access across land outside of the application site. It is considered necessary therefore, that no development of the plots take place unless adequate access is secured, in order to accord with policy LP13 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan; and policies D-1, D-2 and H-5 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan.
Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the development:
4. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans:
L162-NET2-LOCATION-02 Rev B
L162-NET-RLP-02 Rev A
and in any other approved documents forming part of the application.
Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans.
5. No development other than to foundation level shall take place until full details of foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided to serve the development and to prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy LP14 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.
6. No development other than foundation level shall take place until details of external finishing materials have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials to safeguard the character and appearance of the street scene in accordance with the NPPF and Policies LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and D-6 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan.
7. Prior to its first use details of the field access track within eastern boundary of the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include measures to prevent use by vehicles other than farm vehicles. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy LP13 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.
8. Demolition and/or Construction works shall only be carried out between the hours of 07:00 and 19:00 on Mondays to Fridays; and between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays, with no demolition and/or construction works on Sundays and Bank Holidays unless specifically agreed in writing by the local planning authority beforehand.
Reason: To ensure appropriate mitigation for the impact on residential amenity caused by the construction phases of the development and to accord with policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan
9. Prior to occupation,a scheme of landscaping including details of the size, species and position or density of all trees to be planted, fencing and walling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To ensure that a landscaping scheme to enhance the development is provided in accordance with policy LP17 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.
10. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment dated March 2020 by Millward Consulting Engineers. Any mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.
Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to people and property in accordance with policy LP14 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and policy D-4 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan
Conditions which apply or relate to matters which are to be observed following completion of the development:
11. The bungalows shall be occupied by people aged 55 years and over.
Reason: In recognition of the terms of the planning application and in accordance with Policy LP10 and LP12 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and H3 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan.
12. None of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied, unless the vehicular and pedestrian access serving it has been completed.
Reason: To ensure adequate access is secured, in order to accord with policy LP13 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan; and policies D-1, D-2 and H-5 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan.