Agenda item


The Chairman introduced application number 143957, to erect 1no. detached dwelling and creation of vehicular access, on Land adjacent to Manor Cottage, Saxby. The Officer informed the Members of the Committee that there were no updates on the application. A short presentation was then given by the Officer.

The Chairman invited the register Speaker, the applicant, Mr Tom Neave, to address the Committee. The following statement was made.

Mr Neave stated that he was to address the reasons for refusal. He stated that the Officer accepted that there were enough dwellings and the village did not form a single cluster, with the proposed development forming part as a single and compact settlement. Whilst there is some open space, the Speaker pointed to nearby land and that this did not form a compact cluster, did not separate the village and therefore met the definition of a hamlet. He said that the Officer viewed the application as finely balanced, and then commented that the application was an ‘infill’, as it was immediately east of one property, and the adjacent side was the access to Manor Farm.

The applicant stated it was within a developed boundary, and continuous frontage and met the requirement of policy LP2. The speaker commented that the design objections were subjective, with the property being in a wider setting of the church and farm buildings, with no impact on the heritage, mimicked a converted barn, and was designed to blend into the surroundings. The speaker concluded that the application was careful to not propose a typical building harmful to the village. He concluded his remarks by saying that he was actively involved in the family’s farm and wanted to be able to work and live in the village.

The Chairman thanked the applicant for his comments, and invited the final Speaker, Local Ward Member Councillor Jeff Summers, to address the Committee.

The Member stated that the Neave family had lived in the area for four generations, and that he felt the family’s history encompassed the village. He informed Members that he was going to run the farm, and that the responsibilities of doing so required a suitable house nearby, and the development would have to be onsite particularly to deal with instances including fire, and protecting livestock. The Member stated that the application site was alongside the farmers’ entrance.

Commenting on the Officer’s report, the Member said St. Helen’s Church was 150 metres away from the site, with 1 house in view within 30 metres of the church, and that you could not see the property site from the church. Remarking about the design, the Member referenced that though the proposed dwelling was of a modern style, it was 100 years since the adjacent house was built, meaning that design practice would have changed, and that the Cliff Road properties had different mixture of stone and red brick design, which the Member stated was seen in the proposed application. The Member then stated that in his view, there was not a major contravention of several planning policies in the proposed application, including amenity, footprint, and agricultural need.

Note:            Councillor J. Summers stepped down from the Committee for the rest of this item and left the Council Chamber at 7.44 pm.

The Chairman then invited comments from Members of the Committee.


Debate ensued, and there followed significant discussion on the development of the application, the materials used, and the reasoning for the proposed development. One Member brought a possibility of conditions for granting that could have included the usage of different materials, such as stone and cobbles to be more sympathetic with the surrounding area. This was confirmed as an option for the committee if they considered it was necessary, by the Planning Officer.

Note:            Councillor D. Cotton declared that he was a Member of the Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee.

It was noted by Members the reasons for the applicant to live in the village, and to grant the application were important to the running of a nearby farm, and that the applicant did have familial links in the area. A Member raised that occasional development in the countryside was fine in his interpretation, and that the church was not viewable from the site.

In response to a question regarding a comment by the Health and Safety Executive, Members learnt a Hazardous Zone was a constraint placed on some sites, such as those with unidentified pipelines, and requiring consultations.

Note:            Councillor I. Fleetwood declared that he was a Member of the Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee.

Note:            Councillor R. Waller declared that he was a Member of the Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee.

The Planning Manager informed Members that the application did not state that the development was for an agricultural worker and would have received different analysis. He also informed the committee that the Planning Department did not feel Saxby was a hamlet as defined by LP2. Members also heard that if they were minded to grant the application, they were able to condition the materials used.

It was confirmed by the Planning Manager that the application was not put forward as a building for an agricultural worker, and that no evidence of such was presented in the application. The Officer confirmed that if it was considered to be a hamlet, then the proposed application would need to be an ‘infill’ site – officers were not convinced that it was a hamlet, or an infill plot and would be a departure from policy, but committee would need to consider whether they think it met with the definitions.

On hearing further comments regarding the design of the property and the hamlet discussion, the Chairman proposed a site visit, in order for Members to better understand the proposed application. This was seconded and, on taking the vote, it was


RESOLVED that the application be deferred for decision at the next available meeting, in order for a site visit to be undertaken.


Note:            Councillor J. Summers returned to the Council Chamber at 7.56 pm.


Supporting documents: