Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the next item, application number 145135, for the change of use of land for the siting of 12no. gypsy/traveller residential caravan and the erection of 2no. amenity buildings, on land rear of Watering Dyke Cottages, Grange De Lings, Lincoln.

The Officer informed Members of the Committee that there was one update, which was a letter of support for the application, the family on the site, and highlighted the standards on the site. The Officer then gave a short presentation, and highlighted the relevant policies to the discussion.

The Chairman advised that there were 3 registered speakers, all of whom were objectors. He invited the first registered objector, Alex Wright, to address the Committee. The following statement was read aloud.

“The objections presented tonight are raised by the Watering dyke cottages, the closest households to the development. We strongly wish to object to this proposal; this has been a disastrous 6 months since they have occupied the site with constant disruption caused to our lives. We have received verbal abuse from the applicants on multiple occasions including receiving multiple threats to rip out our septic tank which is on our site. On one occasion the applicant came to my house being very aggressive, shouting, swearing, and making various threats to me and my neighbour. This is despite The LP56 referenced in their application states they want to live peacefully with the other residents.

We haven’t used our garden as much because of the overlooking from the shared driveway, the noise pollution, the traffic disruption, the aggressive behaviour, and excessive shouting from the site. My children are already scared and intimidated by the shouting and disruption from the site, they don’t like being in the garden as much. What was once a lovely green space now looks industrialised from the driver entrance. Most sites are a distance away from other properties, this development is adjoining our properties making disruptions significantly worse and will do so even more if it is passed and triples in size.

This Development is also having a significant impact on our need to replace our septic tank. The development has and will further make it very difficult to install new needed sewage provisions which we have rights to on their land due to the sheer lack of room now and hardstanding.

This application could lead to 25 plus vehicles onsite, I believe it will be disastrous. There have already been 3 accidents on the junction outside our house to the A15 this year. To access their site, you must drive right next to our houses which is intrusive and dangerous especially getting my children in and out of the cars. Hall Lane, the road used for accessing the shared driveway often gets congested with people who are waiting to turn onto the A15. this will get worse and could impact us exiting our driveway. We will also have a loss of garden privacy from passing traffic and a lot more people walking from the site.

We believe this site is an overdevelopment and an unsuitable location for the already completed and further works. This will dominate the outside community, 12 caravans could lead to potentially 30 plus residents, significantly larger than the 5 adults living in our adjacent houses. The footprint of the development appears to be more than double the size of the Watering dyke cottages, making the development much larger than the existing community. Our family home and lifestyle have been taken away. We do not have the same quality of life as we had previously, due to the disruptions mentioned.”

The Chairman thanked the speaker for his statement, and invited the next registered speaker, Peter Metcalfe, to address the Committee.

The speaker stated that there was no consultation with the decision recommended and no engagement with the local community. The speaker asserted that the original plan was for a few horses and a stable and contacted West Lindsey District Council when an excavator arrived. He suspected something more significant was afoot, with caravans having arrived a month before.

The speaker asserted that the applicant had been deceitful, ignored the planning law and that the development requesting retrospective approval contravened the 2015 Ministerial statement on intentional unauthorised development.

The speaker referenced LP 26, and that ribbon development must not be built in the open countryside and must protect important local views, and blocked the view to Lincoln Cathedral from the nearby properties. The statement progressed to say that the Planning Officer’s report casually dismissed the geographic and population issues, and that the three caravans had doubled the population compared to the three homes adjacent to the site.

The speaker explained alleged harassment, that he had been intimated to not object to the application, and asserted abusive language by the applicant had been used against the residents. He concluded his statement that they did not want the applicant to ride roughshod over the planning laws, and that approval set a dangerous precedent for all future decisions.

The Chairman thanked the speaker for his statement, and invited the final registered objector, Mara Metcalfe, to address the Committee. The following statement was read aloud.

“This development is a case of “act now, ask after.” Since 2015, the government wants you to stop “intentional unauthorised development” – such as in this case. Plus, the NPPF says “planning decisions should aim for safe places so that the fear of crime does not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.”

But we have faced numerous threats from the applicant. He’s threatened to beat us up, pull down our hedge, rip out our septic tank. All because we filed legitimate complaints through the correct channels. Even standing before you now makes us vulnerable to his intimidation and retribution.

We have lived in the house next door for 10 years. It is our first home and we bought it for the quiet and the outside space. In a labour of love, we added habitat by planting a hedge of 400 trees. We have watched meteor showers and eclipses from our garden. During the pandemic, it was our oasis and our haven. But no longer.

Now, floodlights illuminate our house and garden at night. Our days are sound tracked by a cacophony of dogs howling and barking and people shouting. They shovel animal waste over their fence onto land which is not theirs. These unauthorised works, the noise, light pollution, extra traffic, and especially the aggression have floored our daily lives and mental health. That is with 4 caravans on site. The proposals, if approved, would triple that. Decline them in line with the law to protect our safety.

We’ve followed the law – they haven’t. I repeat: this is a case of “act now, ask after.” Please don’t set a precedent by sanctioning it.”

The Chairman thanked the speaker for her statement and invited a response from the Planning Officer. The Development Management Team Leader stated that even though there were emotive comments, the main concern for the Planning Committee was the land use for planning permission and looking at the implications.

The Officer re-emphasised that the Committee needed to be deciding in comparison with LP 56, and the criteria within the policy. The Officer explained that the focus should be on residential amenities. The Officer clarified that retrospective applications were allowed in the Planning Act and were not a breach of law. Members also heard that the restrictive covenants were outside the Committee's remit.

The Chairman invited comments from Members of the Committee. Members raised multiple points, which included sceptic tank concerns, the behaviour of the applicant, the usage of retrospective applications, the comparison with other development in the open countryside, the application of LP 56, road disturbances, and environmental health concerns.

Responding to a query about categorising caravans as dwellings, the Development Management Team Manager explained whether it met the description in the Caravan Act and that a caravan could be treated as a mobile dwelling.

Responding to a statement about comparing this application to other developments in the open countryside, the Development Management Team Manager explained that there were specific policies for traveller communities. This included LP 56, the National Policy Statement, which detailed specific needs, and a need for sustainability of the location in Criteria F. The Officer further clarified that in that Criteria, for non-allocated sites, it had to be within a reasonable distance and this was something that the Committee had to take a view on.

In a query about the site's ownership, the Senior Development Management Officer explained that the access was not in the applicant's ownership during the application process.

Early in the debate, a site visit was proposed, with some Members commenting that they did not have complete information about the site. The reasons included assessing the number of caravans, the layout, and the space placement of the caravans. There was additional reasoning for determining the access from the road and the configuration on the road up to the adjacent A15.

Having been proposed, and seconded, 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 D. Cotton left the Chamber at 7.28 pm. He returned to the Chamber at 7.29 pm.