Agenda item

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the next application of the meeting, planning application 145360, to erect 7no. dwellings and associated infrastructure, on land to the rear of Marquis of Granby, High Street, Waddingham, Gainsborough, DN21 4SW.

 

The Officer informed Members of the Committee of a few updates. The first was that there had been five further objections. The second was that the report had excluded the non-designated heritage asset identified in the Officer’s presentation. This included the former schoolhouse in Waddingham. The Officer explained that the NPPF provisions, in paragraph 203, stated that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be considered in the determination of the application of whether it directly or indirectly affected the non-designated asset. It was the Officer’s opinion that this application would not mean losing the heritage asset or affecting its fabric, though it would be within its setting. This had been confirmed with the Conservation Officer. The Senior Development Management Officer then gave a short presentation on the application.

 

The Chairman advised that there were four registered public speakers. The first was a statement to be read by the Democratic and Civic Officer, from the Chairman of Waddingham Parish Council, Councillor Lauretta Williams. The following statement was read aloud.

 

“Waddingham Parish Council would like to thank the relevant officer for the thorough Officer’s report for this planning application and thank him for taking notice of the comments of Waddingham Parish Council. We agree with the amendments, conditions and conclusions noted in the report and hope and expect that the developer complies with them all if the application is passed.”

 

The Chairman thanked the Democratic and Civic Officer for reading the statement, and invited the agent for the application, John Benson, to address the Committee.

 

In his statement, the speaker stated that the last time he addressed the Committee was on the change of use for the adjacent former public house. He expressed his appreciation to the case officer and wanted to resolve the problem. The speaker explained that the 2019 granted outline application, followed by the 2021 detailed full application being refused, was justified due to the high concern about the design proposals. This refusal led to the speaker’s involvement in the process.

 

The speaker then stated that this application had gone through the pre-application route and received a clear brief of what was acceptable, which included the design of the dwellings, following a standard set, and highlighted the variety of dwelling sizes for the proposed site. The agent’s view was that this was to respect the historic place of the site and referenced the Conservation Officer’s support for the application. This included reducing the height and massing of some of the dwellings and mitigating concerns about drainage and highway matters.

 

The speaker commented that all the dwellings exceeded the parking requirements and that Lincolnshire County Council Highways were satisfied with the access on and off the site. It was also referenced that Condition 8 would mean no harm to the village as a whole. In concluding his statement, the agent stated that he and his team had done everything possible to ensure the development’s policy compliance and to mitigate any concerns about changes in this rural area.

 

The Chairman thanked the speaker for his comments and invited the next registered speaker, Tony Grafton, an objector, to address the Committee.

 

In his statement, the speaker stated that after the outline planning application, the previous application was refused on each aspect, including scale, appearance, layout and density. He asserted that these did not meet the local needs and harmed the street scene and the historic village centre, and were not deemed high quality.

 

The speaker asserted that the application conflicted with core planning principles and had concerns about increased flooding risks, referencing that if the development had been in place in 2007, it would have caused more flooding in the adjacent streets. Speaking to the site design, the speaker exclaimed that it was to be wall to wall, block paving concrete and tarmac, and speculated that other applications with smaller dwelling sizes had been refused.

 

The speaker then stated that there would be a very slow draining of water, potentially affecting the public footpath access on the west part of the site. It was then referenced that there was no change from the previously refused seven dwellings in 2021, and the ground remained the same hardness as before. Moving to a previous appeal on a different site entirely, the speaker stated that planning should seek to secure a good standard of amenities for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

 

The speaker then explained that the properties could only be of value in turning Waddingham into a dormitory village, with no amenities, no buses, no real, local jobs, no shops, no public house and a closing post office. The speaker said that the site was tightly bounded by a lorry yard and was unsuitable for seven dwellings of this size. The speaker concluded his statement by saying that these buildings had crept closer to the boundaries. A previously refused application that affected an ancient orchard meant that this application was pointing to a possible future development elsewhere in the village.

 

The Chairman thanked the speaker for his statement and invited Councillor Jeff Summers, the Local Ward Member for Waddingham and Spital, to address the Committee.

 

In his statement, the Member asserted that this application had gone through a long process simply because of a supposed hungry ambition to over-develop the village centre with inappropriate design and density, on a clay site, with minimal ability to drain away moderate levels of rainfall. The Member commented that the percolation test showed surface water added to the soil.

 

Moving to the flooding, the Member commented that the village had been excessively flooded over the last 20 years, with one case of 18 inches of water that had deposited raw sewage, other materials, and people’s belongings into the system. The Member asserted that though the Officer’s report said percolation was almost non-existent, the solution described was not an answer, suggesting a solution that should be outlawed and never be part of the planning system.

 

Councillor Summers declared his belief that other conditions in other applications were not being applied and that the conditions in the Officer’s report would do little to improve the situation. The Member then moved to hope for a guarantee that residents would be compensated for any houses flooded following the development of this site and that it was not appropriate to re-create another infestation of surface water being mixed with the sewage water.

 

In concluding his remarks, Councillor Summers stated his opinion that biodiversity enhancements would most likely not happen and not be monitored. He noted that sufficient detail had yet to be provided and again expressed that conditions would not be kept. The Member stated that the Committee should refuse the application until the necessary information and questions and density concerns were answered.

 

Note:               Councillor J. Summers left the Chamber at 8.48 pm.

 

The Chairman invited the Senior Development Management Officer to respond. In his response, he stated that the Committee could only look at the application before them. Noting the history of the site, which included the outline and appeals, he stated that drainage plans and the evidence had been submitted and was considered by the Officer.

 

Note:               Councillor R. Patterson left the Chamber at 8.49 pm.

 

The Officer also clarified that the site was not suitable for infiltration for drainage purposes, and there were no other surface water bodies around the site that could have been used. In response to a question, the Officer clarified that the Drainage Scheme was based on a 1 in a 100-year weather event plus 40% climate change, in line with other planning applications.

 

Note:               Councillor R. Patterson returned to the Chamber at 8.53 pm.

 

The Chairman invited comments from Members of the Committee. References included concerns about Waddingham Parish Council’s statement, the proposed design of the dwellings, the impact on public access to the Western part of the site, the use of concrete and the effect on water drainage. There was also a reference to the possibility of the dwellings not being in character of the village.

 

Responding to a query about the Conservation Officer’s comments and their coverage in Condition 5, the Senior Development Management Officer explained that the condition included details for external materials, including sample panels of stonework, brickwork, roof material samples, and colour finish windows and doors.

 

During the debate, a Member felt he needed to know if the application and the proposed design were in keeping with the surrounding village. A site visit was proposed to better understand these factors before the Committee.

 

Having been proposed, and 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:               The meeting was adjourned at 8.55 pm for 5 minutes to allow a comfort break. The meeting reconvened at 9.01 pm.

 

Note:               Councillor J. Summers returned to the Chamber at 9.01 pm.

 

Note:               Councillor D. Dobbie left the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting at 9.02 pm.

 

 

Supporting documents: