Agenda item


The final application of the night was introduced for consideration. Application number 139840 for approval of reserved matters for 60no. dwellings, considering appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following outline permission 136309 granted 12 December 2018, on land off Willingham Road, Lea. The Senior Development Management Officer explained there had been a request for the application to be referred to the Secretary of State, therefore, any decision the Committee made would be subject to further consideration by the Secretary of State. He also advised the removal draft recommended conditions three and four as these would be covered by conditions on the outline permission.  A new condition was additionally recommended following the submission of new information.  This recommended condition was:


·         The development must be completed in strict accordance with the Precautionary Method of Works document by RammSanderson and the Amphibian Management Plan by RammSanderson including enhancement plan RSE_4126_Figure.  All the enhancement measures must be retained as such thereafter.


Reason:  In the interests of protecting and enhancing biodiversity to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policy LP21 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036.


The Chairman invited the first speaker to address the Committee.


Mr Frank Powell, objector, made the following statement.


“Firstly, I would like to thank WLDC for allowing me to address the planning committee.

Secondly, in order to provide credence to my statement I am a retired naval officer of some 45 years service, having had command of two submarines. I therefore have considerable experience and knowledge concerning flowing water, pipes and pump capacities.


There are numerous serious issues with this planning application, one of which is the current sewage system and the potential for the developer to connect into it.


The current Lea village sewage system was laid down some 80 to 100 years ago. The southern section which passes beneath my property, the Old Schoolhouse, consists of a 150mm (6 inch) pipe. There are currently 80 homes connected into this pipeline. The pipe is always full to 2/3 capacity by a continuous flow of water which is designed to keep the sewage flowing to avoid blockages. During heavy rainfall the sewage system is overload owing to some of the 80 homes having their surface water diverted to the sewage system.


In 2000, 2012, 2013 & 2014 my property was flooded with sewage. Severn Trent has now bolted down the various manholes on my property to stop further flooding, but this is only a temporary measure. However, the manhole adjacent to my property in Gainsborough Road Lea now lifts and floods the road with sewage during heavy rainfalls. This is a regular occurrence and on 5 occasions during the past 18 months flooded Gainsborough Road Lea with sewage.


The risk assessment report by Severn Trent plc contained the impact advice on conducting development on the proposed site as – sewage flooding, high risk, sewage pumping station, high risk and the capacity of the sewage treatment works to accommodate sewage flows from additional properties was of serious concern.


The report also stated that capacity improvements are required to accommodate flows from the proposed site. In my experience this would require an update to the complete system, including increased diameter piping from the development site and through the 6 properties that the system passes through and upgraded pumps.


It is my professional opinion that the cost of this upgrade would be beyond the financial capability of the developer and that Severn Trent would have difficulty in financing the upgrade.


In summary, the current sewage system is already overloaded and connection by the developer of an additional 60 homes would be unacceptable, would not meet LP14 flood risk requirements and cause serious sewage flooding and a health and safety issue.


Full planning approval on just this issue should therefore not be approved.


Thank you for your time.”


The second speaker was invited to address the Committee. Mr Robin Heppenstall made the following statement


“Good evening. On 23rd June Lea P.C. wrote to the Planning Officer strongly objecting to this development because it did not comply with the Lea NDP. I support that.


For example, the indicative plan showed 2 bungalows adjacent to my boundary, even then described by the Planning officer as creating a significant loss of amenity.


The present site drawing shows 3 bungalows and 1 house –the mere presence of the house is non-compliant with the NDP   a continuous line of building 45m  long against my boundary of 50m,  at a  closest distance of 6.5m. – not 11m as the officer’s report.


The loss will now be considerably more significant, in complete disregard of Policy 1a of the NDP. 


The application still lacks a coherent Landscape Management Plan; the present one is described by WL’s Tree and Landscape officer as very poor and unacceptable.


The Officer’s report says that the applicant is creating a more comprehensive document.  Frequent reminders over 20 months have failed to produce it, so why should we believe he will produce it now? 


This is an area of Great Landscape Value and landscape management is essential;  approval should not be given until a real – not a  mythical – document is produced and approved by the P C.


Severn-Trent has assessed the sewage system downstream of the site as inadequate needing capacity improvements.

Surely, permission should not be given to connect houses to a known inadequate system with the consequence of discharging raw sewage downstream.


Assurances from ST are not enough; you are all too well aware of changes and cuts to budgets. No approval should be given to this application until the improvement works have actually started.


Paragraph 083 of the NPPF states;  where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date neighbourhood plan permission should not usually be granted.

So. Approval

 goes against the NPPF

 disregards residents’ hard work developing the NP.

 creates a precedent that could be used against you by other applicants


I ask you to support the PC’s rejection of the application.”


The Chairman thanked Mr Powell and Mr Heppenstall and invited Councillor J. Milne, Ward Member for Lea to speak.


Councillor Milne made the following statement


“I was against this application the first time and  I even more so having read the application before the committee this evening, how can an incomplete be put before the committee for approval?.


From the start Ripon homes have handled the communication with the residents of Lea Village very badly, at the last minute some of the villagers were given a leaflet to advise of a meeting  to be held in the village hall (this is the first time as the ward member I was not invited to such an event). Ripon homes were evasive and reluctant to answer questions, no display boards all the cards were in a pile on the table, those residents who are going to be most affected were told Ripon Homes would visit each homeowner, this hasn’t happened.


1.There are a number of issues with this application not least Flooding, I am not assured that this problem has been resolved there is not anyway the present sewage and waste water system Will be able to cope, any amount of extra water at the moment causes flooding at the bottom of Lea with sewage overflowing on to the road and into homes. This has not been resolved, and retention ponds will not work. The sewage pumping system is already unable to cope.

We all know the major impact global warming is having on our weather.


2.The properties appear to be quite small with the 4 beds having little parking space, in fact none of the houses have enough space for parking, the entrance and exit from the site comes out opposite another entrance and at the top of an incline, an accident waiting to happen. And definitely not well thought out.


3. The fencing especially which does not do anything to improve to or enhance the look of the village and is inadequate where the pond is, there are not any details about the green spaces trees etc how will these be attended too, what about the great crested newts, when west Lindsey had to do a survey before building the Crematorium 85 great crested newts were found, apparently they have all disappeared according to this survey. LP17 applies Area of Great Landscape value, significant harm will be caused to the church which sits high on the hill and will overlook this site, none of the proposed houses have any distinctive features they are almost the same throughout and less homes are planned but an increase in the size meaning more cars sewage  run off surface water nothing like the ones promised, plus more children to an already overflowing school and only 2 doctors surgeries, also  what impact will this have on the woods which are an haven for all types of wildlife. This application gives the impression of a piece meal attempt at an housing estate with little thought or care.


4. Lea village plan has not been taken into account.”


Note:              Councillor J. Milne stepped down from Committee for the duration of this item.


The Chairman thanked all speakers and invited any comments from the Officer. He noted that it had been conditioned for there to be further information abut surface water and foul drainage, capacity and percolation tests. He also confirmed there would be a landscape management plan. The biodiversity plan was still awaited.


A Member of Committee enquired whether the Neighbourhood Plan had been in place at the time the outline application was put forward and this was confirmed to be the case. There was also a question regarding the distance of boundary for No 10 that would be adjacent to a two storey house and this was confirmed to be 4m out of the 50m boundary line. It was also highlighted that this was a reserved matters application and that the pre-commencement conditions would need to be proven prior to development commencing.


A member of the committee commented on adding an obscure glazing condition for the first floor windows of the two storey dwelling which shared the rear boundary of 10 Willingham Road.  The Senior Development Officer advised the committee that a condition of this nature would not be reasonable or necessary therefore would not meet the six conditions test


With no further discussion the Officer recommendation was moved and seconded, and on being voted upon, it was agreed that approval of reserve matters be GRANTED subject to the following conditions


Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:





Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the development commenced:




Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the development:


1.    With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved must be carried out in accordance with the following proposed drawings:


  • 197.24.01 Rev H dated 14th July 2020 – Site Layout Plan
  • 197.24.04 Rev E dated 25th June 2020 – Materials Layout
  • 194.24.02 Rev F dated 25th June 2020 – Landscaping Plan
  • 197.24.35 dated May 2020 – Vehicle Tracking
  • 197.24.25 dated January 2019 - Highway Construction Details
  • 197.24.34 dated January 2019 – Highway Construction Details (Sheet 2)
  • 197.24.27 Rev C dated 25th June 2020 – Kerbing Layout
  • 197.24.21 Rev C dated 17th June 2020 – Sewer Layout
  • 197.24.20 Rev D dated 25th June 2020 – Highway Layout
  • 197.24.26 dated January 2019 – Adoptable Drainage Details
  • 197.24.28 dated January 2019 – Outfall Details


Elevation and Floor Plans (unless stated all dated September 2018)

  • 197.24.300 – Haselmere (3B14V)
  • 197.24.301 – Salisbury (3B16)
  • 197.24.302 – Foxton (3D6)
  • 197.24.303 – Bakewell (3D7)
  • 197.24.304 – Cranmore (3D8)
  • 197.24.305 – Romsey (3S27G)
  • 197.24.306 – Richmond (4D20)
  • 197.24.307 – Richmond (4D20G)
  • 197.24.308 – Winsor (4D36G)
  • 197.24.309 – Winsor (4D36S)
  • 197.24.310 – Woodford (4D44X)
  • 197.24.311 – Newton (4D50)
  • 197.24.312 dated September 2017 – L2
  • 197.24.313 dated September 2014 – L3


The works must be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and in any other approved documents forming part of the application.


Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, local policy LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036 and policy 1, policy 3 and policy 4 of the Lea Neighbourhood Plan.


2.    No occupation of each individual dwellings must take place until its individual driveway or parking space(s) has been completed in accordance with site layout plan 197.24.01 Rev H dated 14th July 2020 and retained for that use thereafter.


Reason: In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, local policies LP13 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036 and policy 1 of the Lea Neighbourhood Plan.


3.    No occupation must take place until details of the type and position (including a plan) of bat boxes has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved must bat boxes must be retained thereafter.


Reason: In the interest of nature to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policy LP21 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036.


4.    Apart from bat boxes described in condition 3 of this permission the development must be completed in accordance with all the recommendations set out in the submitted ecological appraisals and great crested newt surveys.


Reason: In the interest of biodiversity to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policy LP21 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036.


5.    The development must be completed in accordance with the materials layout plan 197.24.04 Rev E dated 25th June 2020.


Reason:  To safeguard the character and appearance of the site, the area and the area of great landscape value and to ensure the proposal uses materials and components that have a low environmental impact to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, local policy LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036 and policy 1 and 4 of the Lea Neighbourhood Plan.


6.    As identified on site 197.24.01 Rev H dated 14th July 2020 dwelling type L2 and L3 must be completed to accord with standard M4(2) of the Building Regulations (access to and use of buildings) and retained as such thereafter.


Reason:  To accord with the policy requirement to comply with the 30% M4(2) standard to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policy LP10 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036.


7.    Any dwelling with a driveway fronting a garage which has a length of less than 6m will must have a garage with a vertically opening garage door and retained thereafter.


Reason: To ensure best use of the applicable driveways by ensuring they are not hindered by the opening method of the garage doors to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, local policy LP13 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036 and policy 1 of the Lea Neighbourhood Plan.


Conditions which apply or relate to matters which are to be observed following completion of the development: