Agenda item


The Chairman introduced the second application of the agenda, application number 144010, for two dwellings at 18 South Drive, Stow, Lincoln. The Development Management Team leader informed Members that that there was an update to the application, with the Landscaping Officer having visited the following a request from the neighbour to assess the existing trees and place a Tree Preservation Order. The Landscape Officers comments were read out.


“I visited the property with the 2 ash trees adjoining the west side of the dev site yesterday. Although both trees are very large and clearly visible, they are both low quality trees and do not meet the criteria for a TPO. The southerly ash of the two trees is and adequate distance from both the house and garage of the adjacent plot. This tree is infected with Inonotus hispidus which causes decay and significant loss of wood strength over a short period of time.


It appears to be two trees that have grown very close together with the bases moulded around each other. The southerly stem has a significant lean to the southeast, and the more upright stem has a low fork with included bark that could potentially split apart as they continue to grow in diameter with annual growth. The northerly tree of the two is forked into three from just above ground level, and appears to have early stages of Chalara ash on them.”


Note:               Councillor C. Darcel returned to the Chamber at 7.41 pm.


The Officer then gave a short presentation on the application.


The Chairman invited the first registered speaker, the Parish Council representative from Stow Parish Council, Councillor Chris Turner, to address the Committee. The following statement was made.


“Stow Parish Council objects to the application as it stands. We do not object to development on this site, but we do object to the size and scale of the dwellings proposed. The application is for two 3 storey houses of substantial proportions with each having six bedrooms, two bathrooms plus three en suites, which was 5 bathrooms, an office and a gym.


As pointed out at the previous meeting, the Sturton by Stow and Stow Neighbourhood Plan states: "We need a range of low carbon and energy efficient homes in terms of size and affordability to meet the needs of local residents including provision of smaller homes, both as starter homes allowing young people to remain within the area, and for older people downsizing...” Policy 1a goes on to say we will support development where: "new homes are of size, type and tenure that meet local housing requirements;” 


While the Housing Needs Assessment for Central Lincolnshire may consider the evidence implies a need for larger family homes, there is nothing to suggest that ‘larger’ means six bedrooms (plus bathrooms, en-suites, offices and gymnasia). How many families with five children do you know who need to have a six bedroomed house to provide a separate bedroom for each of the children? We certainly found no such evidence of that need in our area in all the consultation work we undertook during the making of the Neighbourhood Plan.


Any development in Stow is likely to be one or two houses given the space available so the ‘mix’ across any site is important to the villagers in the context of other developments.


There have already been 3 three storey six bedroomed houses recently built in the village. We are a small compact village. We do not need more six bedroomed houses. Latterly, there have been successful applications for 3 and 4 bedroomed houses, some of which have been completed and are now occupied. We would not be averse to 3 or 4 bed two storey houses being built on the site. They would be more in line with locals’ views, wishes and needs although we would have liked to see some single storey dwellings as well.


As stated above, Policy 1a of Sturton by Stow and Stow Neighbourhood Plan says we will support development where: "new homes are of size, type and tenure that meet local housing requirements;” and Policy 4 seeks a locally appropriate market housing mix. We believe that the application is not in accordance with either Policy 1a or 4.”


The speaker then concluded his statement by rejecting the assertion from the agent for the application that the Parish Council was lobbied to change their minds. The Councillor stated that this was a procedural error and that the wrong submission was filled for the application.


The Chairman thanked the speaker for his statement, and invited the next registered speaker, the agent for application, Rob Bradley, to address the Committee. The following statement was made.


The speaker thanked the committee, the numerous approvals for the proposed application, and asserted that the growth of the village would be in line with policy. The speaker stated the application followed planning policy, and was in with the neighbourhood plan. It was then referenced that though large, there was nothing stopping the development for any relevant planning policy reasoning, and that the plot suited the six-bedroom sized properties.


The speaker progressed to mention that there was nothing in the Neighbourhood Plan that prevented the development, and that properties must be for affordable housing. The speaker asserted that the dwellings would not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area, and were appropriately distanced. In concluding his statement, the speaker stated that the main policy stance, despite the new Neighbourhood Plan had not changed, and explained that the dwellings were not aimed at the low-cost market, considering that the application was only for two dwellings.


The Chairman thanked the speaker for his statement, and invited the final registered speaker, an objector, Deborah Rose, to address the Committee. The following statement was made.


Having given thanks for visiting the site, the speaker stated that the proposed balconies would have a viewpoint onto Horseshoe House, its garden, and that the dwellings would remove the views that has been used by the dwelling owners for a long time. The statement progressed to mention about low-level dwellings in front of the nearby Rectory that were designed to not spoil the view points, and asked for a similar proposal to prevent any issues of privacy.


The speaker expressed concerns over privacy issues with the proposed dwellings, and that it might affect the already approved ‘B and B’ on her site. Regarding the vehicle access, the speaker commented that there was concern over the narrow access, and questioned officers’ if the access was suitable for a possible 12 cars. The speaker then asserted that the increased size and scale of the dwellings was a possible attempt to plan by stealth, and was contrary to the planning policies in place.


She then questioned the Officer to explain how much of the application could be justified over the existing permission. She asserted that it was contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan, the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, and NPPF policies, due to the lack of support from the Parish Council and the community, and that the lack of space surrounding the site multiplying the problems with the proposed application.


The speaker then progressed to talk about past comments about influencing the decision of Stow Parish Council, and that she and the other occupants of Horseshoe House had no association and that she had never attended a meeting of Stow Parish Council. She stated that the accusation was a slur to question the integrity and professionalism of the Parish Council. The speaker asserted it was unfair and unsubstantiated.


The statement progressed to assert that the real issue was the misleading factually incorrect information and omissions on the plans submitted over five years for a linked development were likely to erode confidence in the process. The speaker concluded her statement remarking about Condition 3, with regard to the tree landscaping, and that the applicant had taken down substantial trees, which affected the visual screening and raised concerns about protecting trees both on and adjacent to the site.


The Chairman thanked the speaker for her statement, and invited the Development Management Team Leader to respond. In his response, the Officer highlighted that the previous permissions had a long history of approval, and that the previously approved permissions had expired. The current extant approval was for one dwelling. The Officer explained that the proposed application had enough space, and had an acceptable relationship with the nearby boundary properties.


The Officer then stated that whilst the policy in the Neighbourhood Plan supported a mix of dwelling types it did not mean that it would be refused if it did not deliver this. The officer also pointed to the small size of the development in terms of being able to deliver a suitable housing mix which would be more practical for a larger development. The Officer concluded his response to state that this would not justify a refusal pointed out that the site was identified as falling within a built-up area in the Neighbourhood Plan which supported residential development in principle.


The Chairman then invited comments from Members of the Committee, and debate ensued. Members brought up multiple points, including the balcony overlooking, the location within the Stow village, and the orientation of the buildings. Members also commented about the condition and traffic of the adjacent roads, and utilised the site visit experience made.


Responding to a query about the balcony potentially overlooking the neighbouring properties, the Officer confirmed that the balcony was at the first-floor level, and would have 2 metre high obscured glass along the majority of both sides of the balcony. It was then remarked that only a small section of the side would have potential visibility and even in this instance it would necessitate a conscious effort to look over towards the neighbour and this would be 12.2 metres away from the neighbours.


Having been proposed and seconded, the Chairman took the vote and it was agreed that permission be GRANTED subject the following conditions:


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


1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.


Reason: To conform with Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).


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:


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


Site Layout with boundary details and Landscaping Dwg. No. 129/21/07/E

Plot 1 Ground Floor Plans and Front Elevation Dwg. No. 129/21/01/B

Plot 1 Floor Plans and Elevations Dwg. No. 129/21/02/B

Plot 1 Garage Details Dwg. No. 129/21/05

Plot 2 Ground Floor Plan and Elevations Dwg. No. 129/21/03

Plot 2 Ground Floor Plan and Elevations Dwg. No. 129/21/04

Plot 2 Garage Details Dwg. No. 129/21/05


Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of proper planning.


3. No development, other than to foundations level shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of surface waters (including the results of soakaway/percolation tests) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details and prior to occupation of the dwellings.


Reason: To ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided to serve the development in accordance with Policy LP14 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.


4. No development, other than to foundations level shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of foul waters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Foul drainage shall be to the main public sewer unless detailed evidence is submitted demonstrating that this is not feasible, for costs or practicality reasons. The agreed details must be implemented in full prior to occupation.


Reason: To ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided to serve the development in accordance with Policy LP14 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.


5.The materials used in the development shall match those previously approved by application 141102 on 9th June 2020


Facing Bricks- Ibstock Alderley Rustic Blend

Roof tiles- Sandtoft Humber plan tiles- Natural red


Any variation must be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


Reason: As these are the materials proposed and considered acceptable to secure a satisfactory visual appearance in accordance with Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan


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


6.All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shown on Dwg. No. 129/21/07/E shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.


Reason: To ensure that an approved landscaping scheme is implemented in a speedy and diligent way and that initial plant losses are overcome, in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in accordance with Central Lincolnshire Local Plan policies LP17 and LP26.


7.The boundary fencing shown on Dwg. No. 129/21/07/ E must be implemented in full prior to occupation of any dwelling and retained thereafter.


Reason: To restrict overlooking of neighbouring dwellings in accordance with LP26.


8. 2m high glazed screens to the sides of the first-floor balconies on the rear elevations shall be in place prior to occupation of the dwellings and maintained thereafter.


Reason: To restrict overlooking of neighbouring dwellings in accordance with LP26.


Supporting documents: