Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the second application of the night, application number 142065 for construction of 30no. Entry Level homes andassociated infrastructure on land off Deepdale Lane Nettleham Lincoln – resubmission of 140938. There were no updates from the Officer and the Chairman confirmed there were four registered speakers. He requested the first speaker to address the Committee.

 

Councillor John Evans, of Nettleham Parish Council, made the following statement.

 

Local strength of feeling on this matter can clearly be judged by the large number of submissions of opposition from the community.  But we do understand that developments such as this must be judged on planning grounds.

 

The Parish Council strongly objects to this application and respectfully requests that the committee should refuse this application for 30 homes off Deepdale Lane on the following planning grounds:

 

1. This is not an allocated site in the adopted Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan (Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan) or CLLP.

 

2. The developer claims that this is an entry-level exception site so under NPPF 71 development on an unallocated site is permissible. However the proposal is contrary to para b) of the NPPF 71 as it does not comply with the design policies or standards as per D-6 and D-3 of Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan. 

 

NettlehamNeighbourhood Plan D-6 clearly states that new development should recognize and reinforce the local character in terms of height, scale, density, etc.  This is supported by LP26 c). 

 

The Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan also identifies the max density for new homes in Nettleham as 20 homes per Ha, which is reflected in the adjacent recent development by Larkfleet/Allison Homes where a total of 86 homes were originally approved (PA 135567) on a site of some 4.6Ha. giving a gross density of 18.7 homes /Ha.  Even when the additional 7 homes were approved for the site in August 2020 it resulted in 20.2 homes/Ha. 

 

LP2 spacial strategy section 4 on large villages  refers to -

Exception sites are unlikely to be of a scale over 25 dwellings / 1 ha per site.

This proposal seeks to produce 33 homes/Ha. leading to an inappropriate urban density in a sensitive rural village edge setting. 

 

The design and access statement and officers report seeks to justify this high density by comparing it to that of the adjacent residential care home development for older people which was a part of the earlier development.  This would be a totally inappropriate and invalid as a comparison for a housing development such that proposed now.

3. It is clear that none of the properties in the proposal have garages and the parking provision is in place of a front garden which will provide a car cluttered street scene. This is more usual in urban developments and does not reflect the character of Nettleham.   

 

4. The applicant, and officer’s report, seek to identify local need by referring to the housing register which is inappropriate as that refers to rented accommodation requests not entry level or affordable housing which is the subject of this planning application.  Mention is also made of the SMHA but that was published 6 years ago and is currently under review so the document cannot be relied as evidence in 2021.

 

Over the past 3 years Nettleham village has had planning permission approved which includes 71 affordable homes, a yield of over 27%. 

 

LP11 calls for 20% of new housing allocation in rural locations to be affordable, which equates to 47 based on the total number of new homes allocated to Nettleham in the CLLP. So we are already delivering 51% more affordable homes than envisaged in the CLLP.

 

Additional development in Nettleham Parish include 24 affordable 1 bed flats at Roman Gate (PA 142230), and  Minster fields is also providing some 93 affordable homes.  Affordable homes delivered in the Parish of Nettleham since 2016 will total some 188. 

 

Clearly there is little local need for additional entry level housing on the proposed site as well as that already in the pipeline.

 

Nettleham Parish Council submits that based on the above grounds alone, this opportunistic planning application should be refused. It is contrary to the adopted Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan and not compliant with NPPF 71 b, in that it does not comply with local design policies and fails to reflect the character in terms of housing density of the surrounding area. 

 

There is also no up to date assessment showing local housing needs for this type of property.

 

However should the LPA be minded to approve the development then provision for children’s play equipment on site (via S106 agreement) or a financial provision should be required for the Bill Bailey recreation ground some 700m. away along Deepdale Lane.

 

Deepdale Lane lacks a footpath on the development side the lane, so for safety and amenity purposes there should also be a S106 requirement for the developer to be required to provide one to meet up with the existing footpath on the north side of the road. 

 

Nettleham Parish Council requests that it is made a party to any S106 agreement.

 

The second speaker, Mr Mark Mann, made the following statement.

 

My name is Mark Mann, and I am speaking on behalf of Allison Homes.

 

The application before you today, is a resubmission of the one refused in August. Whilst it remains an ‘Entry Level’ scheme; designed to provide much needed affordable accommodation for younger people, the scheme has been amended to take on board the reasons for refusal. In addition, following further discussions with officers, changes were made to better reflect the housing needs of the village.

 

At the heart of Members concerns was that the density was considered too high, being above the figure referred to in the Neighbourhood Plan. And, that it did not meet the parking levels required by policy D3, despite meeting the Local Highway Authority’s. However, elsewhere in Nettleham, exceptions to these requirements have been agreed by the Council. This flexibility is supported by the Neighbourhood Plan, which allows for exceptions, particularly in respect of affordable housing.

 

Nevertheless, the applicants have sought to compromise. The revised scheme has a lower density and has more parking spaces. The only shortfall, is that one of the cluster units of 1 bed homes, has only 1.5 spaces per dwelling. Of note is that the other cluster unit, and all the other dwellings, meet the requirements of policy D3. As such, it has a lower density than the LACE scheme and the 7- unit scheme recently approved by Members in August 2020, both of which are adjacent. It also has a much greater level of parking than both those schemes.

 

Elsewhere, the Council has accepted higher densities as well as lower parking provision, than that required in the Neighbour Plan. For example, the recent development at Lodge Lane.

 

Your officer’s report examines in detail, what weight to give to the Neighbourhood Plan policies, bearing in mind the age of that Plan, and the fact that it was adopted before the Council’s own Local Plan and the NPPF. My only comment is that the Neighbourhood Plan states that it’s parking policy was in accordance with the Council’s own local plan. This is not the case. The WLLP (2006) policy specified a maximum number of spaces per dwelling, whereas D-3 requires a minimum. It cannot be in accord with the WLLP. To compound this error, the Plan also advises that within the village, over 57% of households had access to just one car or none at all. I believe this application would fail to meet those earlier LP policies as it provides too much parking!

 

In West Lindsey there is a shortage of affordable homes as confirmed by officers. The Council acknowledge that this shortfall cannot be met solely by market led schemes and that more needs to be done. This includes working with developers to bring forward wholly affordable proposals like this application.

 

Prior to paragraph 71, it was very unlikely that we would have developed this site. However, this amendment to the NPPF changed the planning position of this site, as well as others. It removed any objection in principle to such developments.

 

In terms of design, character, and appearance the development is very similar to phase 1. The density is higher, but that is the nature of affordable housing.

That is accepted by the Neighbourhood Plan and this Committee, when in August, the 7-unit scheme was approved. The LACE scheme is higher still, and whilst it contains apartments, it also contained bungalows. The only distinction of the LACE development is that it is for the over 55s. It is not a care facility. All 36 dwellings are 2 bed units, yet parking provision is substantially less than what we provide for our 1 bed units. In fact, compared to our revised scheme, which provides 64 spaces for 30, mostly 1 and 2 bed homes, the LACE development provided 39 spaces for the 36, 2 bed dwellings. Strict adherence to Policy D3 would require 72 spaces. This is despite evidence that indicates car ownership levels are greatest for those aged 60 plus!

 

The above clearly demonstrates that the Council can apply policy flexibly and the Neighbourhood Plan allows for such flexibility, as does the Council’s own Local Plan.

 

To conclude the development will provide:

•              much needed affordable housing in the area.

•              It will look like the housing already approved.

•              It will provide attractive open space at the front of the site, and

•              It will provide more parking than some recently approved/built developments.

 

There are no objections from statutory consultees such as highways, the flood authority, etc., and your officers consider the development will comply with the policies in both the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

We trust therefore that Members will support their officer’s recommendation and approve this revised application.

 

The Chairman invited the next speaker, Sally Lidbury, to address the Committee. She made the following comments.

 

Statement from residents of Nettleham Chase in relation to the following planning applications:

140938 - construction of 30 entry level homes and associated infrastructure

I have been asked to speak on behalf of residents of Nettleham Chase. We have many concerns about the quality and integrity of the developer, but fully appreciate this is not the forum to share our concerns.

 

Local support – an application should demonstrate there is local support for it, as stated in LP26. It is clear that there is a distinct lack of local support for this proposal. Given the high number of LOCAL objections to the previous application, the objection by Nettleham Parish Council and a unanimous refusal by WLDC planning committee, we find it astonishing that again the developer has submitted a further plan.

 

Larkfleet’s original design statement CLEARLY stated that the land would be retained as agriculture land. Planning was granted on that basis. Therefore, we are astounded that the developer has chosen to submit a further application.

 

Density – in their application the developer has chosen to compare the density of the proposed housing to that of the Lace Housing development and NOT their own existing development of residential dwellings.

The current Larkfleet development is 8.13 per hectare. The proposed density is however 18 per hectare. We feel the density of the application will drastically affect the character of the area. One of the key points in the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan was to retain a village feel and the character of the village. It states that this particular piece of land should be an area of local green space.

 

Need – We do not feel sufficient need for this proposal has been demonstrated. LP 11 states: In rural areas, where through a local needs assessment there is both a need and clear local community support for affordable housing. Has a LOCAL needs assessment been carried out or is only the wider area of Lincoln being used to determine need?

The existing development already has 42% of affordable homes. Double the suggested 20%. This proposal of 30 affordable homes, plus the 7 given permission would mean there would be a total of 73 affordable homes and 50 residential properties. A staggering 59% would be affordable homes on this development.

 

Parking – there is a lack of parking for visitors. Given the density of the proposal, this would undoubtedly mean vehicles would be forced to find alterative parking. This could negatively impact on the existing development. For those planned houses which would have direct access to driveways on Baker Drive, visitors would be forced to park on the roadside. At certain points of Baker Drive there is already an issue when two vehicles try to pass each other. The road is not wide enough. Visitors to these properties would be forced to park on the roadside which would cause a hazard to road users. The only alternative would be to park on the pavement – which is not acceptable.

 

Larkfleet have recently written to residents of Phase 1, reminding them of their duty to adhere to covenants and not park vehicles incorrectly. This suggests that there is already an existing issue with parking availability for both homeowners and their visitors. Whilst all residents of Phase 1 will endeavour to abide by the legal requirements, human nature suggests that future homeowners and their visitors would cause more significant issues.

 

Design and appearance – the application is not in keeping with the character of the village. The neighbourhood plan states: new housing should be of a scale, design and density to fit within the existing character of the village. The Lincolnshire Local Plan suggests 50 homes per site to maintain the character and feel of the village. We notice that the original planning application by the developer sought permission for 90 dwellings but this was rejected.

 

The final speaker, Councillor Giles McNeill, speaking as Ward Member, made the following statement.

 

The Committee in its wisdom chose to accept the arguments of myself, the Parish Council and members of the public in refusing the previous submission of this planning application a mere 23 weeks and 1 day ago. You did so for good reason. As is clear from the minutes of that meeting, Councillor White’s call-in request, and the submission of the Parish Council, that you are being asked, by the developer, to reconsider the Committee’s view, taken in August, of Paragraph 71 of the National Planning Policy Framework and how it integrates with the other parts of the Local Plan.

 

Your responsibility is to determine planning applications in accordance with the local plan and other relevant policies. The application before the Committee this evening is, in my opinion, materially the same as that which was previously refused.

 

I contend that in August the Committee discharged its responsibility to determine the previous application properly and should align its decision tonight with that decision. This is why:

 

When the permission was granted for the first phase it was understood that a higher number of homes (86) for the allocated site (of around 50) was acceptable as the trade-off for the housing development for older persons that was contained therein.

 

I would respectfully request that the application be refused permission on the basis that it conflicts with:

National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 71 (b)

I contend that in relation to NPPF 71 (b), the requirement for the development to ‘comply with any local design policies and standards’ remains not met.

I accept that the site is adjacent to the existing settlement, that there are no protected assets or areas and is narrowly proportionate in size – The area of this site is only very narrowly below the 1 hectare limit (down to 9,118 square metres from 9,167 square metres) – which is a direct and lingering consequence of the developer ‘playing the system’ and splitting the previous application in two – for which he has secured permission for the bungalows.

 

The proposal fails to meet the requirement for an entry level exception site to comply with local design policies and standards as articulated in the Nettleham Design Statement.

 

The Nettleham Design Statement makes it clear that development along the 6 access roads – such as Deepdale Lane, should be avoided. Each of the house types are two story dwelling that are highly urban in their character and therefore in my opinion do not accord with this policy. Elsewhere the Nettleham Design Statement contends:

“New developments should respect the country lane character of the village approach roads”.

 

The statement also makes clear that “Any new buildings should be of similar proportions to houses in their vicinity.” The nearby properties on Baker Drive are of a very different order to those being proposed by the developer and the, permission for bungalows, approved in August.

 

This is reinforced by the conflict with:

NNP Policy D-6: Design of new development

The proposal fails to recognise and reinforce the local character in relation to height, scale, density (65% greater than the specified maximum) and spacing (a); reflect existing residential densities in the locality of the scheme (b); merge into the existing rural village context and respond to the wider countryside setting (e).

And:

Policy LP26: Design & Amenity

The proposed development fails to take into consideration important design principles, including respecting the, landscape character and identity, relating well to the site and surroundings, particularly in relation to siting, height, scale, massing, form and plot widths (c); fails to provide a tight village nucleus buy building away from the village’s centre (d); and reflect or improve on the architectural style of the local surroundings (j). It also fails to meet the Local Plan’s amenity considerations (which all existing and future occupants of neighbouring land and buildings may reasonably expect to enjoy) in respect of the compatibility of this phase of development in relation to the first phase (m).

 

I will not reiterate the arguments advance by Nettleham Parish Council to include Policy LP11 (the applicant’s failure to demonstrate local support) and NPPF 127 (as the proposal would not be sympathetic to the local character).

 

Finally, I am also deeply concerned at the representation made by Anglian Water that the Nettleham Water Recycling Centre does not currently have capacity to treat the flows from this proposed development.

 

Whilst I have no desire to see the Committee grant planning permission on the application I would be remiss not to highlight that they strongly recommend that conditions are included to ensure no occupation of any dwellings takes place until the Nettleham Water Recycling Centre has capacity to treat the waste water flows that the development will generate.

 

This is important to protect the Nettleham Beck, ensuring the development does not make the current phosphorous issues worse and cause any other pollution. Nettleham Beck was classified as poor for phosphate in 2019 in the Water Framework Directive; the major reason for this failure was identified as continuous discharges from sewage treatment works. There is a Phosphorous improvement scheme due to be completed by 22 December 2024. However Anglian Water are not aware of any plans to increase capacity of the Nettleham Water Recycling Centre before 2040. This is a material consideration. I would contend that this proposal conflicts with NPPF 170 (e) and NPPF 8 (c) – the third of the three pillars of sustainability, the environment. I would therefore request that should the Committee be minded to ignore the arguments advanced for refusal of this application then a condition be applied, in line with the request from Anglian Water, that habitation of any dwellings not take place until the completion of capacity improvements at the Nettleham Water Recycling Centre at the absolute earliest after 2040.

 

Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank-you for your consideration

 

The Chairman thanked all speakers for their comments and invited the Development Management Team Leader to offer any response. She stated that maximum density was not included in the Neighbourhood Plan ad is was seen as being too prescriptive. Community support was not necessary on entry level sites and affordable housing was based on the authority rather than parish need, however, the Nettleham needs assessment did demonstrate a high need for affordable housing. With regards to parking, there was parking provided on the site and that of the existing site was not a material consideration for this application. Regarding drainage, Anglian Water had stated there was capacity but they were obligated to provide drainage from the site.

 

The Chairman invited comments from Members. A Member of Committee stated it was disappointing that local support was not required given the strength of feeling against the application. She stated that Nettleham had already provided affordable housing and there was a significant number of new residents to be integrated into the village. She supported the comments made by the Parish Councillor and Ward Member.

 

There was further comments made regarding the water recycling and the Officer clarified that the comments made by the Environment Agency were based on old information and Anglian Water had since confirmed there was capacity. A Member of Committee noted that it had been misleading for the site to have been said to be remaining as open land as that had not been the case.

 

With the Officer recommendation moved but not seconded, the Legal Advisor reminded Members that it was a Paragraph 71 application which did fall under most recent policy. An alternate proposal for refusal, on the basis that the application was contrary to LP26 and D6 of the Neighbourhood Plan, was moved and seconded. Based on this the Chairman led the vote and it was agreed that permission be REFUSED.