Agenda item

Outline planning application for proposed development for ninedwellings with access to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications on land south of Eastgate, Scotton.

Outline planning application for proposed development for ninedwellings with access to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications on land south of Eastgate, Scotton.

The Senior Development Management Officer informed the Committee that further representations had been received but which had raised no new issues not covered within the report.  Comments had been received from Historic England who had advised that the application be determined in accordance with local guidance and in house specialist conservation advice.

Ian Hutchinson, agent for the applicant, spoke on the application stating that the applicant had been a local resident for many years and the development had been designed to suit the village.  Policy LP2 of the CLLP advised ‘reasonable’ growth in villages.  As a medium village Scotton had a recommendation of 10% which equated to 20 dwellings and the current application was for nine.  A sequential test had been undertaken and few other suitable sites identified.  Concerns had been raised about the damage to the hedgerow, however the development would improve the hedgerow.  A mix of development was proposed on what was poor quality land, the road was to be widened, and a footpath provided.

Dave Burke, spoke on behalf of a number of residents, stating that in the currently adopted West Lindsey Local Plan 2006, the proposals failed under Policies STRAT12 and 9, and that full weight could only be given to new policies once adopted, as echoed by Sir Edward Leigh MP.  The development was not necessary for open countryside, and as greenfield land was in the lowest priority identified for housing.  It was requested that the applicant comply with CLLP policy LP4 and undertakes a sequential test.  Residents had identified alternative sites with potential for five infill dwellings.  A recent application for a single dwelling had been refused due to visual impact, overbearing nature and unsustainability.  The same officer was now advocating that there would be no detrimental impact from the current application.  There were issues of size and scale, and also discrepancies in the report regarding the size of the site which equated to being larger than the retail space of Marshall’s Yard.

The local Ward Member, Councillor Lesley Rollings, spoke on the application noting that there were two main issues.  The Council was supporting communities to develop Neighbourhood Plans, and Scotton had started the process to consider what was desirable for the village, with no facilities, and where a car was a necessity.  The roads were not appropriate for cyclists or pedestrians and residents wanted to keep the village small.  The proposed site was greenfield with crops planted, although worth more for housing.  There was a responsibility to protect land, and the applicant should be given the opportunity to identify alternative sites.

The Senior Development Management Officer reminded Members that the application was for Outline Permission with access to be considered at this stage and that Reserved Matters such as residential amenity and visual impact were to be determined at a later stage.  The CLLP was now well advanced and carried significant weight in the determination of applications.  The site was Grade 3 agricultural land designated as good to moderate quality, its loss had to be balanced against the benefits of the development.  The Conservation Officer has recommended a comprehensive condition to enable the preservation of the Grade 1 Listed Building.  Members were also reminded that any potential future development could not be taken into account in determining this application.  Neighbourhood Plans could not be taken into consideration until sufficiently advanced.

In discussing the application Members acknowledged that there was little reason to enable a refusal.  As the CLLP advanced the WLLP carried less weight, and as there was no Neighbourhood Plan in place there were few Policies against the development.  The agricultural land was not designated as high quality.  It was acknowledged that the Conservation officer had raised concerns regarding the setting of the church Listed Building and would wish to closely monitor the development.

Further concerns were expressed on the visual impact and the single track road, and it was felt that there were other available sites which would not have the same detrimental impact.  However it was felt that if the Reserved Matters application were to be considered by the Committee there was an opportunity to secure a good quality development which would help to improve the current setting.

Having agreed that there were no planning policy reasons to refuse the application the recommendation in the report was moved, seconded and voted upon.

It was AGREED that outline permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions as set out in the report, and subject to the requirement that the Reserved Matters application be submitted for Committee determination.

Note Councillor Jessie Milne requested that it be recorded that she had voted against the application.