Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the next application of the meeting, planning application 145047, seeking permission for the erection of 8 dwellings on land at Good’s Farm, Meadow Lane, Reepham.  The application had been brought before the Committee because of objections from the Parish Council and other third parties and having regard to the history of the site.

 

The Planning Officer presented the report and in so doing referred to an objection from Mr. D World of 1 Church Lane.  This address was one of those referred to in the report as objecting to the proposal.  Mr. World had commented along the following lines:-

 

“My comment from more than 2 weeks ago about the process relating to the above application has never appeared on the WLDC website and no apparent reference to it has been made.  I wrote expressing my concerns at the manner in which this application had been communicated to the public: -

 

“The latest amendments to the application fail to respond to the many comments, concerns or objections submitted. They do, however, appear to respond to the Conservation Officer’s and other local authority officers’ comments which have not been made public. It leads me to question whether the 9-month long process/evolution of this application is fair or transparent.”

 

Mr. World disagreed with the conclusion of the Conservation Officer and with the limited weight applied to the Draft Neighbourhood Plan.

 

The Planning Officer advised that the Neighbourhood Plan had undergone Regulation 14 consultation last year. It was now undergoing its final stages of consultation, with the final draft production after addressing feedback. This was prior to submission by the Parish Council for inspection. (The next Stage was submission to WLDC – Regulation 16 (submission), and then WLDC would consulton the plan. All comments received were then collated, and would  form part of the consideration of the Inspector appointed for the Examination)

As the Neighbourhood plan was at Regulation 14 stage only, limited weight could be attached to its policies. WLDC had no knowledge of what representations might be made in support or objection other than those made by WLDC when the Neighbourhood Plan had undergone Regulation 14 consultation last year. It was now undergoing its final stages of consultation, with final draft production after addressing feedback. This was prior to submission by the Parish Council for inspection.

Mr. World had stated that only now that the Conservation Officer’s report had been communicated to Members of the Planning Committee, could Members of the public access it. His concern was over incorrect assumptions and the omission of factors for consideration, namely: -

The re-positioning of the Highway on “The Green”. He had stated that the Conservation Officer had indicated this this would harm the character of The Green by some loss of the green verge, however, the proposal mitigated this with the extension of green verges on the northern side of the road. Mr. World felt that This would lead to an alteration of the curb-less green verge.

He had stated that the Officers had not acknowledged that this “mitigation” only partially balanced the gains of green extension to the North side of the road - which would exclude the increased width of the extended Tarmac road. This failed to equate to the loss of the entire length of green verge on the opposite side of the road. The consequence was a net loss of Green verge - thus turning “The Green” increasingly “black”. It had been contended that this conflicted with the Officers’ conclusion that “it would not harm the character that The Green offers” and had questionable balance and validity.

Mr. World had asked whether adequate safety considerations had been given to reduction of the green verge which also served as a pedestrian refuge? (There were no pavements at this newly created junction). Traffic movement considerations had appeared to have been given precedence over pedestrian safety.

He had contended that the applicant had used the Farmyard for the parking of an Articulated Lorry, which had negotiated the entrance successfully on an almost daily basis for an extended period. He felt that it was very difficult to justify the need to remove any of the green verges to accommodate movements of much smaller vehicles.

He had stated that there had been a failure to identify that this point in the village had a heavily used footpath entry/exit to the village. It was a transition between the Conservation Area and surrounding countryside. The proposed development was, in his view, starkly different from existing bungalows and older properties. This would increase the perceived separation between the Conservation Area and countryside and represented an impact on the character experienced by those arriving and leaving on foot.

He had also stated that the officer report also identified views to open countryside and into the Conservation Area (CA) that would be lost and although the report described mitigation measures to lessen the impact, the proposal did not satisfy LP25. He had stated that under LP25 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP, 2017), development affecting the setting within or views in or out of a CA should preserve or enhance the features that positively contribute the area’s character, appearance, and setting.

As previously mentioned the Neighbourhood Plan had undergone Regulation 14 consultation last year. It was now undergoing its final stages of consultation, with final draft production after addressing feedback. This was prior to submission by the Parish Council for inspection. The more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given.

Reference had been made to a number of the policies included within the draft Plan, including:-

• Policy 1: Historic Environment
• Policy 3: Residential Development on Infill site
• Policy 4: Housing Type, Mix and Affordability

The Planning Officer indicated that the Highway Authority had not raised any concerns in relation to this application.

Note: Councillor R. Patterson arrived into the Chamber at 7.02 pm.

 

The Chairman then invited the applicant, Mr. Ollie Clawson to address the Committee which he did so along the following lines:-

“Thank you Chairman. My name is Ollie Clawson and I am a chartered  Town Planner with Knights and as agent for the application, I am here to speak in favour of the proposal.

 

The applicant had previously sought planning permission for the erection of 25 dwellings on a much larger site than that which is currently before you. That site incorporates a significant portion of undeveloped land to the north of the existing farm yard and was refused planning permission in October 2018 before being dismissed at appeal in December 2020.

 

The scheme before you this evening is materially different to the appeal scheme - a fact acknowledged by the case officer. The site, which is the subject of this application, comprises solely of the existing farmyard, which the Inspector had confirmed is part of the line of development on the northern side of the green and is therefore physically part of the village. The site can therefore be defined as a formerly developed brownfield site which, as per the wording of policy LP4 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, is the most sequentially preferable location for new development within medium villages such as Reepham.

 

This is re-affirmed by the Officer’s report which considers the proposal in detail and confirms that the application would retain the core shape and form of the village and would therefore be an appropriate location for development.

 

As the planning policy position has not altered since the 2020 appeal, the Officer's report considers the current application against each individual reason set out by the dismissal.

 

I do not consider it expedient to discuss each of those issues in turn, but crucially, it should be noted that the applicant has worked closely with Council Officers in order to achieve a scheme which is acceptable from a highways, drainage and flood risk, Tree and landscape, archaeology and conservation perspective.

 

Accordingly, the Officer’s report confirms that this application adequately addresses each of the reasons considered at appeal and is therefore consistent with all relevant local planning policies.

 

It is, however, noted that the Councillor call-in request cites some concern over the proposal, the first of which questions the proposed site access arrangements and the impacts these would have on the existing properties along the Green.

 

Lincolnshire County Council's Highways Department has confirmed that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable harm in relation to matters of highway safety and that all works associated with the minor amendment of the junction between Meadows Lane and The Green will take place within the extent of Highways owned land.

 

The number of daily trips associated with the proposed dwellings is not considered to be significant and all dwellings benefit from off-street parking space for at least three vehicles.

 

With regard to accessibility, the application also presents an opportunity to formalise the existing routes of the public right of way which currently traverses the site. A separate application has been submitted to do so, and the applicant is committed to preparing and signing a section 106 agreement, which would prevent the construction of any plots which would interfere with the existing route until such a time as when that diversion is confirmed.

 

The call-in request also raises concern about the scale and mass of the proposed dwellings. The height of those properties would not significantly exceed the height of the existing agricultural buildings and as such, the case Officer confirms that this would not represent a reason to withhold consent for the scheme.

 

Additionally, the Trees and Landscape Officer confirms that the proposed soft landscaping arrangements would ensure that the scheme suitably assimilates with its wider context.

 

The call-in also queries the impact the proposal would have on the character of the Conservation Area and upon neighbouring residents. The Council's Conservation Officer has confirmed that the minor works to the site access would have no unacceptable impact on the Conservation Area and the Conservation Officer has played a central role in the design of the proposed scheme, providing the applicant with examples of design approaches and materials that they would like to see on site.

 

The applicant subsequently revised the proposals to account for the Conservation Officer’s input and, in doing so, also took the opportunity to reposition some of the proposed dwellings by separating the distance, between both existing and potential future residents. On that basis it is not considered that there is any valid reason to withhold consent and I would therefore respectfully urge Members to vote in accordance with the Planning Officer’s recommendation, and grant planning permission.  Thank you.”

 

The Chairman indicated that Councillor Patterson had joined the meeting during the item and reminded him that whilst he could participate in the debate, he could not vote on the item, having not heard all the information made available thus far.

 

The Chairman then invited Louise Carder and Fiona World to jointly address the Committee. Louise Carder spoke first, followed by Fiona World:-

 

“Good evening.  My family and I live in the property directly opposite the proposed development, and I have just three points -  one is personal and two are general. My personal comment relates to the impact of policies LP25 and 26.

 

The Officer’s report refers to the movement of the green verge; not referenced at all is the loss of amenity to my property if the verge is moved.  The proposed relocation of the green towards our property by 1.4 metres would reduce our off road parking to our two drives by approximately 16% and 20% respectively, resulting in less parking space. Approximately a whole car’s worth.  This would mean that we can no longer park our car on our own driveway or safely access our garage as our car would be partially obstructing the road while we opened the garage.  Moving green verges includes moving our two driveways. Be under no illusion, a driveway parking amenity for our property will become dangerous. Solving the problem on one side of the road is simply leading to another on the other side, and the Highway Authority has not responded to our queries on this.

 

My second point is about the setting of the church and planning policies LP17 and 25. The farmyard has a fine view of the Grade II listed St. Peter and St. Paul's Church. This is not recorded in the report or noted by the Conservation Officer. The view is visible from the corner of the current boundary of the Conservation Area from the public footpath in the farm yard. This view, and therefore the historical setting of the church, which affords a crucial historical connection from the farmyard to the church, will be lost with the proposed development.

 

The current documentation focuses only on the church views from the countryside and does not reference the view to the cathedral that will also be lost with the footpath change and development.

 

I know my technical history because I co-authored the Reepham Neighbourhood Plan, character assessment and page 25 of the officers' report actually does have incorrect statements on it.

 

We think Reepham  is a medium size village and the location is defined as needing to retain the core shape and form. Therefore, most of the proposed development sits outside the core shape and form, and does not meet policy LP24 or 25, and there are other sites available.

 

It is also not a brownfield site. In addition, the development would crucially increase the separation of the Conservation Area and the countryside at what has been defined as its most vital point, the north-east quadrant, where LP17 is also relevant. Lastly, nowhere are any enhancements to the Conservation Area noted which, in addition to preserving, is a key part of the test. This is no ordinary Conservation Area, so we would ask that you come and visit the site yourself, see the church setting, see my driveway and see that the decision is being made on partially flawed information. Thank you.”

 

Fiona World then began her statement:-

 

“My first point against this development is the appearance of the houses in the submission. They are at odds with the surrounding dwellings, which are bungalows and small terrace houses. That is a stark contrast which will dominate and form significant harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. They will spoil views looking into and out of the development.

 

Please note the Parish Council's objections. The houses being built off Fiskerton Road are now significantly higher than planned because of no topographical survey,  and there are no bungalows. These houses will dominate the north side of the village, as it is already higher when viewed or approached from that direction. There is a clear contradiction of LP17 concerning the  creation and protection of views. Please view this site if you have not already done so.

 

Next, the impact on our community. The Green is an essential part of the Conservation Area.  It is a lane, not a road - wide grass, verges no footpaths, children playing people walking dogs and stopping to chat to one another away from the busy road which passes through Reepham.  Shared vehicle and pedestrian use; carving out one side at the junction being created, will remove the green verge, prioritise traffic and reduce and harm the character of the Conservation Area. This removal is not being questioned by the Highways Authority or they would have noticed the impact on the drive opposite. With regard to the proposed new junction, the traffic increase, will far outweigh the seasonal farm use.  Add in building traffic and delivery vehicles, and the green soon becomes very grey.

 

Come and see for yourselves before making a final decision.”

 

The Chairman thanked Louise Carder and Fiona World for their comments and then invited the Democratic Services Officer to read out a statement from Mr. Mark Doughty:-

 

“Regarding planning application 145047, it is apparent the interests of all properties including and not excluding, 2 and 4 The Green, Blacksmiths Cottage and all properties located on Althea Terrace have been disregarded by the Good Family. All these properties have had historical views for over 60 years, in a large majority of cases for over 100 years.

 

Due to the proposed size of the properties and associated impact, it is apparent very little consideration has been given regarding the location of the development being in a Conservation Area. The proposed properties are out of character and very large in comparison to a large majority of surrounding residential properties, mainly consisting of bungalows and small cottages. It is my understanding, the size and types of properties – all large houses - is purely influenced by commercial viability and profitability, rather than that of the impact within an established, and protected Conservation Area.

 

If the development is to be permitted and results in the transfer of the farm to another

location, it is evidential the brick built barn (at the entrance to the proposed development) will no longer serve any purpose at all. Therefore, and as informed by the Good family, it is their intention to convert the barn into a residential property. Understandably, this raises further concerns, not just for ourselves but many of our neighbours. Thank you.”

 

The Chairman thanked the Democratic Services Officer for reading out Mr. Doughty’s statement.

The Chairman then invited the Planning Officer to comment on the statements.  The Planning Officer advised that the grass verge was actually part of the adopted highway and was not in private ownership.  It was under the control of the County Council as the Highways Authority, so it was not a private piece of land that was going to be taken away as a consequence of this development.

 

Members noted that the proposal had not been the subject of objections from the Highway Authority or the Conservation Officer and met the requirements of the NPPF and local planning policies.  With regard to the footway, it was confirmed that the applicant had submitted an application for its re-alignment.  They had been asked to enter into a legal agreement, the effect of which would preclude any construction works that would affect the footway until it had been legally diverted.

 

Reference was made to the size of the proposed dwellings and Members were advised that the Officers had taken care during discussions with the applicant to ensure that there was little or no detrimental impact on existing properties at this location. Members also learned the distances between the dwellings were set out in the report, and that consideration was given to not impact on the nearby residents.

 

During the discussion, several Members felt that having a site visit to review the character of nearby dwellings, the size and the keeping with the village, alongside access concerns, would be beneficial. It was justified that it would allow to gain a better understanding of the likely impact of the proposed development, including dwelling size and the effects on the local character of the area.

 

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.