Agenda item

Outline planning application for mixed use sustainable village extension comprising up to 325no. private and affordable dwelling units - Use Class C3, community meeting and community health rooms - Use Class D1, with ancillary pub-cafe-Use Class A4 and sales area - Use Class A1, new landscaping, public and private open space - all matters reserved.   Land to West of A1133, Newton on Trent.

Outline planning application for mixed use sustainable village extension comprising up to 325 private and affordable dwelling units - Use Class C3, community meeting and community health rooms - Use Class D1, with ancillary pub-café - Use Class A4 and sales area - Use Class A1, new landscaping, public and private open space - all matters reserved.   Land to West of A1133 Newton on Trent.

Prior to opening the debate the Chairman sought and received confirmation from Committee Members that they had received a letter from the applicant’s solicitor, Gosschalks.

The Case Officer updated the Committee, advising that he would comment on the letter referred to earlier but first sought an amendment to the reason for the refusal, as set out in the report.  It was proposed that this be split as follows  and be used in place of the single one on the committee report: -

1. The development is proposed within an area at risk of flooding contrary to the sequential approach to site selection, with the aim of steering development to those areas at lowest risk of flooding advocated by the National Planning Policy Framework. The Development does not comply with the saved policies of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review (2006), most particularly STRAT 1.

2. Development of the scale proposed would result in the growth of this subsidiary rural settlement at unsustainable levels demonstrated by its inability to meet the infrastructure requirements.  Future occupants of the development would be heavily dependent on private vehicles to access employment, retail and other basic facilities leading to a significant increase in car travel. The adverse impacts of development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of development and the development does not meet the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development.  Development does not comply with the saved policies of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review (2006), most particularly STRAT 1, STRAT 12, STRAT 19, SUS 1 and RES 6.

A further update was received, in that a late e-mail had been submitted from the Ward Councillor, this was summarised to the Committee and supported deferral of the application.

Making reference again to the letter received, the Planning Officer summarised its content to the Committee before asking the Legal Officer to comment.  It was noted that the Applicant had been afforded the opportunity to withdraw the Application at this stage but had declined to do so. The letter also included two legal opinions prepared on behalf of the Applicant, again these were summarised.  These opinions expressed a view that too much emphasis was being placed on policy STRAT 7. Members were asked to note that this was not a policy that was being used to support refusal in the Officer report. The letter further sought deferral to allow the applicant to negotiate with the Education authority.  The Officer had previously spoken with officers at LCC Education Services who in turn provided an amended response which was included as part of the committee report and their objection to the proposals remained unchanged.  Deferral was also being sought in order that the Applicant could work further on the travel plan and had commented on the Planning Officer’s apparent lack of dialogue with the Applicant’s highways consultants.  The Officer confirmed that as set out in the report this was not considered to be a sustainable location and additional representations from Highway Consultants were not considered capable of changing this situation. He considered the development unsustainable and this position would not change.  Finally the Applicant’s Solictor had referred to Members needing to have all the information to determine the application, and they did not consider this to be case.  The Case Officer confirmed that in his view all the information necessary to make the decision was available.The Legal Officer was asked to comment on the points raised in the letter regarding costs and Judicial Review during which Members noted that Judicial Review was a last resort and could only be applied for when all other avenues of appeal had been explored, ie if the application was refused the Applicant’s first step would be his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.  Costs could only be applied if unreasonable behaviour could be demonstrated , they did not neccesarily follow after the success at appeal.  In summary the Applicant had indicated that given time he could address the issues given for refusal in statement 1, however having heard from Officers, the reasons offered in statement 2 for refusal were unlikely to be addressed

It was also confirmed at the request of the Chairman, that once an item had been published on the Planning Committee Agenda, only the Committee could defer it. The Legal Adviser confirmed that as the meeting had now opened, those that could withdraw it were of the view that the committee could determine the matter but that the committee was still able to put deferral forward as a motion. The Chairman sought indication from the Committee as to whether they wished to defer or proceed and on being put to the vote it was decided that the application would be determined.

Mr Neil Boughey, agent for the applicant the addressed the meeting, making the following statement: -

“I'mspeaking toyou invery unusualcircumstances becausein allhonesty Ido notfeel you arein aposition tomake adecision onthis applicationtonight. Facedwith anunresolved issue withthe EnvironmentAgency, astatutory agencyand keyconsultee, weare jointlyworking with them towardsa solutionwe expectwill bothachieve theEAs supportand secure further significantoff siteflood mitigationthat willbring benefitsto thewider community.

Thedelay isat theEAs requestand whilethey cannotintervene, theyhave statedthat WLDCs refusal todefer inthese circumstancesis intheir experienceunprecedented. Similarly,issues overeducation stillrequire furtherwork, officershaving failedto take BassetlawDCs consultationadvice toconsult withNotts CC education,discussions whichwe arecurrently havingto progresson behalfof theapplicants instead. Ifyou areminded todecide thisapplication tonight,I mustdraw yourattention tothe following, whichwas alsoset outin theletter membersreceived fromGosschalkssolicitors over theweekend.Imust emphasisethat havingto writeto membersis againa quite extraordinarymeasure, butwe feltit necessarygiven theextent ofinaccuracy andomissions inthe Committeereport beforeyou. As theattached barristersopinion tothe Gosschalksletter willhave advised you, thepolicy positionset outin theCttee reportis simplywrong.

Thepolicies inthe WLLocal Planare outof datein thesecircumstances. Theproposal isfully compliantwith emergingCent LincsLocal Planpolicy, which WLDC arejointly authoring.As aplanning authorityyou simplycannot pick andchoose thepolicies fromboth planswhich bestsuit yourarguments, the CLLPhas materialweight, andthis applicationcomplies withits policies. Asa BREEAMexemplar, theproposal couldnot bemore sustainable. Locational issuesraised arequestionable. Itis yourpolicy (throughthe CLLP), andthe policyof neighbouringauthority Bassetlaw,to expand settlementsalong theA57, namelyRampton,Dunham andSaxilby. Itis this verycritical massof growththat willpromote andencourage improvedpublic transport servicesthat appearto bethe mainlocational concern.Newton on Trent PCare beingextremely pragmatic,promoting thiscommunity driven development soas toadd thevillage tothis chainof expandedsettlements and ensure itsown sustainabilityand longterm viabilityand prosperity.  The veryrecent appealdecision atChurch Lane,Saxilby,decided inDec 2015has alreadyexamined almostidentical issuesto thosehere. Itconfirms the Councildoes notcurrently havea deliverable5 year housingsupply, and that theWL LocalPlan hasvery limitedweight, notbeing basedon an upto date objectiveassessment ofhousing need.In thesecircumstances, Saxilby,which isonly 3miles furtherfrom themain urbanarea ofLincoln than Newton washeld tobe a sustainablelocation foran additional230 dwelling scheme, whichyou mayrecall, had noneof theexemplar andinnovative sustainability elementsof theproposal before you.

Inthese circumstances theCouncil isrisking asubstantive awardof costsif thecurrent proposalhas to beappealed. Asa finalcomment, theconsultant teamand theapplicants aredisappointed byhow negatively the Councilhas approachedthis schemeto date.This isafter alla UKpilot for the BREEAMgarden villageaccreditation methodology,and ascheme withboth Parish Council andbroad communitysupport. Inthese circumstanceswe hadanticipated thatWLDC wouldhave worked withus more  positively to deliverwhat isa highlyprestigious scheme forthe Districtand anopportunity forvery significantenvironmental andcommunity facilitybenefits, inaddition toproviding muchneeded, highquality andvery environmentallysustainable housing. Itherefore respectfullyask theCommittee toallow usthe defermentwe haverequested until February Committeenext year,and thatconsideration nowbe givento putmore productive jointworking arrangementsin placebetween theCouncil andthe applicantsdevelopment team.

In response Officers confirmed their position in that they did not consider the application to be in accordance with the Development Plan or emerging policy within the Submission Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.  In response to a question regarding previous planning history for the site, Officers further confirmed that they were not aware of the reasons as to why the village community centre which was granted permission was not built.

The Committee then debated the application.  Confirmation was sought and received that a revised travel plan had not been submitted. A Member then moved the Officer recommendation subject to the following additional reasons for refusal, namely contrary to Policy NBE10 sub section 2 and NBE 20 sub section 2.   Prior to a seconder being sought confirmation was sought as to whether these policies carried any weight.  In response Officers advised that this was an outline planning application with all matters reserved and did not contain the information that would allow assessment in detail and so were not applicable at this stage.  In light of this the proposal was withdrawn.

Committee Members felt overly lobbied.  The District did have a demonstrable 5 year housing supply and had had for several months.  Furthermore West Lindsey Local Plan Policies from 2006 were still in force and carried weight until such time as the CLLP was approved.  Members were also of the view that even if the CLLP was in place this application would still not meet the criteria. The Joint Strategic committee had made numerous calls for land, and yet this site had never been offered up.  Saxilby was considered an unfair comparison as it was a primary settlement and deemed sustainable.  Members also disputed the vision to develop settlements along the A57.

The Case Officer responded confirming there was more than a 5 year housing supply. The site had come forward in a SHLAA exercise but carried no planning weight and was not progressed.  This was likely due to the site being in flood risk zones 2 and 3. The CLLP had no growth allocations for the settlement.

It was therefore moved and seconded and on being voted upon it was AGREED that the application be refused for the reasons detailed above namely: -

1. The development is proposed within an area at risk of flooding contrary to the sequential approach to site selection, with the aim of steering development to those areas at lowest risk of flooding advocated by the National Planning Policy Framework. The Development does not comply with the saved policies of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review (2006), most particularly STRAT 1.

2. Development of the scale proposed would result in the growth of this subsidiary rural settlement at unsustainable levels demonstrated by its inability to meet the infrastructure requirements.  Future occupants of the development would be heavily dependent on private vehicles to access employment, retail and other basic facilities leading to a significant increase in car travel. The adverse impacts of development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of development and the development does not meet the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development.  Development does not comply with the saved policies of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review (2006), most particularly STRAT 1, STRAT 12, STRAT 19, SUS 1 and RES 6.