Members were asked to give consideration to application number 141429 outline planning application for 5no. dwellings - with all matters reserved on land to the south of Clixby Lane, Grasby. There were no Officer updates and following the initial presentation, the Chairman invited the first speaker to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Viv Wood, of Grasby Parish Council, explained that there had been at least 68 objections against the application as well as work recommended by the Lincolnshire wildlife Trust. She wanted to emphasise the most concerning aspects. Regarding ecology, she stated that the field had been undisturbed for 60 years and was an ecosystem in its own right. She stated that the applicant had already removed a hedgerow and simply putting up some bat boxes would not mitigate the loss of the natural habitat. She continued that Clixby Lane was very narrow and there were no street lights near the entrance. She suggested that a site visit would be the only way to appreciate the difficulties of the narrow access. She added that it was difficult for vehicles to turn around and often had to reverse up the lane. She noted the difficulties this would cause during the construction of the proposed development. Councillor Wood stated that a previous application had been refused as a result of the narrow lane. With regards to the historical importance of the lane, she enquired what actions would be taken should there be archaeological finds during the development work. The impact on existing residents, businesses and the local wildlife was highlighted and Councillor Wood implored Members to request a site visit in order to see for themselves the difficulties that would arise from the proposed development.

 

The Chairman invited the second speaker, Leanne Pogson, Agent for the Applicant, to address the Committee. She made the following statement.

 

“Good Evening,

 

My name is Leanne Pogson, I am an Associate Planner at Brown and Co and I am the agent representing the applicants, David Frankish and Judith Frankish, and I am speaking in support of this application.

 

This application seeks outline planning permission for five dwellings on land at Clixby Lane, Grasby, and has been recommended for approval by the case officer.

 

The site is part of an agricultural field on the southern side of Clixby Lane. There is residential development to the north and west of the application site and a brick-built building which has permission for business use to the east. This building has recently been refurbished and modernised.

 

Pre-application advice was sought earlier in the year for four dwellings on the site, which the case officer considered to be acceptable in principle. Informal discussions with the case officer during the pre-app process suggested that five dwellings would be supported on the site. 

 

An indicative layout submitted with the application shows two vehicular entrances to the site, with a private drive parallel to the main road. This would reduce the number of vehicle movements along Clixby Lane as opposed to creating individual access points and would also retain all but one of the trees along the site frontage. These two access points would also provide natural passing places, which are currently lacking on Clixby Lane, thereby improving the lane for all road users.

 

As stated in the officer’s report, Grasby has a growth level of 10% and would still support 13 new dwellings before this growth limit is met. A sequential test has been carried out and no sites within the main body of the village, or brownfield sites on the edge of the village are available and this site is therefore considered suitable for development, without affecting the core shape and form of the settlement.

 

There are no technical objections to the application with highways, drainage, ecology and trees all being considered to be acceptable by professional officers.

 

Any concerns regarding design and amenity can be designed out at reserved matters stage.

 

The NPPF states that there is a favour in presumption of sustainable development unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposed development for five dwellings is considered by the case officer, in line with the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the NPPF to be sustainable. The absence of any concerns and objections by technical consultees and the ability to design out any potential impact on amenity at the next stage, would demonstrate that there are no material considerations which would justify refusing the application.

 

As such, on behalf of my client I respectfully ask members to follow the officer’s recommendation, local and national planning policy and grant permission for this proposal.

 

Thank you.”

 

The final speaker, Mr Blair Bushby, was invited to speak. HE made the following comments.

 

“Thank you, Chairman, for this opportunity to address the committee.

 

Highways – Grasby has had to accommodate a substantial increase in vehicle movements due to significant developments both within the village and in adjacent settlements, these impact on the A1084 which runs directly through the village. Over the years there has been numerous collisions at the crossroads, some fatal.

 

Grasby has no local amenities and it is likely that each dwelling will have at least 2 plus cars. This will add a minimum of 20 additional vehicle movements to Clixby Lane per day.

 

Clixby Lane narrows after number 10, the last house on the South side. There is good reason why this narrower section of Clixby Lane has only been developed on one side as it is totally inadequate for vehicles merging from both sides.

 

There is a total absence of footpaths. All vehicles larger than a medium size van must reverse up or down the Lane, this poses a great risk to pedestrians and cyclists. Deliveries block the Lane and there is further danger when children are dropped off and collected from the village school.

 

Following a freedom of information request it should be noted that the highways report is based on a desk top study. If the application is not declined, then a site visit is imperative.

 

Previous development on Clixby Lane and in Grasby – Since the 1970’s there has been 8 new houses built on Clixby Lane, with a further one already approved this year, this represents a 50% increase. If 5 more houses are added this gives an increase of 75% with no road improvements.

 

In Grasby there has already been approval for 7 new dwellings this year. Last year on top of the permanent new dwelling approvals there was approval for 32 lodges in the old chalk quarry off Grasby Wold Lane.

 

It is clear to see that Grasby is already undergoing significant development for its size.

 

Objections – There have been over 60 objections to this development, and not one in support.

 

Grasby has 11 roads and there were objections from 8 of these. This means residents from 73% of the roads have put in an objection. Therefore, the majority of the village deem this development inappropriate and not just Clixby Lane residents.

 

If a physical meeting had been allowed in the chamber, then residents would have been able to show their disapproval by virtue of their presence.

 

In Character – The proposed development site doesn’t feature in the LP4 Hierarchy as it is a Green site within the settlement, NOT at the edge. As properties exist on all 4 sides of the development this greenfield is definitely in the core and not at the edge. This means the sequential test cannot be applied and used in support of the application.

 

The proposed development does not meet with the requirements of LP2 as the settlements character and appearance would be harmed by building on one of the few green spaces left within the core. Furthermore, the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and rural setting would be harmed by blocking the view over the Ancholme Valley and escarpment at Nettleton and Caistor. This view is appreciated by the many walker on the Viking Way.

No other road in the village has a secondary access road running parallel to it. This proposed access road is significantly wider than Clixby Lane and will be over dominant and out of character. Clixby Lane is 3m wide and the proposed access road is 4.5m with the splays extending to 15m. How can this be in keeping with a small single-track lane. Again, a site visit is imperative to appreciate.

 

Wildlife and habitat loss – The Ecology report was primarily a desktop study with only one site visit taking place before the main growing season and before many migrating birds had arrived. In June and July when the grass is a full height the site is an important habitat for insects, reptiles and small mammals. Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust was hoping for a second visit, but this never happened.

 

The report fails to mention that the site is a regular feeding ground for the local Barn Owls, which are listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Swallows, Swifts and bats all feed on the abundant flying insects that emanate from this grassland. Once their feeding grounds are destroyed these species will be absent from Grasby for ever.

 

Another omission of the Ecology report is not mentioning a single type of insect. Our pollinators are declining rapidly and many of the flowering plants that grow at the site support their existence.

 

Environmental impact – We must consider what village we want to leave for the next generation? A village with green spaces and abundant wildlife or a village with no green spaces and the wildlife desecrated by inappropriate development. Once the wildlife is destroyed, it will be gone for ever. Our quest should not be to race blindly forward and build further houses just because LP4 states a 10% growth. The world is in danger of forgetting about the importance of the natural world. Future generations will judge us on whether we prioritised development over the natural environment.

 

After the passing of Councillor Strange Grasby no longer has a ward councillor and we feel disadvantaged because no one is talking in this position.”

 

The Chairman invited any return comments from the Officer who reminded Members that there were no outstanding objections from ecology nor highways and the area was not a designated open space.

 

Members of the Committee enquired whether there would be any archaeological work undertaken and it was confirmed that they had been consulted and no input was required. There were also several comments regarding the suitability of further development in Grasby. It was confirmed that based on the development plan, Grasby was suitable for growth however it was the exact site that was under consideration.

 

The Officer recommendation to grant permission was moved and seconded however on taking the vote, the proposal was lost and so the Chairman requested for an alternative recommendation to be put forward.

 

Following further discussion, it was proposed that permission be refused as contrary to LP13 and LP26 section B. This was seconded and taken to the vote. It was agreed by majority vote that permission be REFUSED for the aforementioned reasons.

 

Note:              The meeting adjourned at 8:48pm for a short comfort break and reconvened at 8:55pm. A full register of attendance was undertaken.