Agenda item

The first application before the Committee was planning application 145047, relating to the proposed erection of 8 dwellings on land at Good’s Farm, Meadow Lane, Reepham.  The application had been deferred at the previous meeting to enable a site visit to take place.

 

As referred to in the Declarations of Interest, the Chairman had vacated the Chair and handed over to the Vice-Chairman, in the Chair, who presided over the consideration of this item. 

 

The Planning Officer presented the report advising the Committee that several late representations had been received which had been placed on the Council’s website.  These representations did not however raise anything that had not already been included in the report.  The Planning Officer clarified the position in relation to the grass verge which had been raised at the last meeting.

 

Having received the Planning Officer’s presentation, the Vice-Chairman welcomed the agent for the applicant, Mr Ollie Clawson, who addressed the Committee along the following lines:-

 

“Thank you Members for your time on site last week. I am conscious that I spoke at last month's meeting, and so I simply want to reaffirm several key points for you this evening.

 

Firstly, the appeal decision confirms that the site is physically part of the village. The scheme is therefore compliant with Policy S2 of the new CLLP with regards to the principle of development.  The applicant has worked at length with Highways Officers and this included pre-application discussions and a recognition that the existing access arrangement is less than ideal.

 

To address this, the application proposes to take a minimal amount of land from the south of the existing carriageway to realign the highway and achieve adequate visibility. The Highways Authority owns the entirety of that verge and has confirmed that the proposals are deliverable without the need to utilise any third party land.

 

The works would not therefore impact on any right to private vehicle parking, and residents of existing properties would simply have to park their vehicles within their plots rather than across Highways owned land as they may currently do.

 

The verge taken from the south, will be replaced at the northern side of the highway, as shown in green on the proposed site access drawing in order to maintain the character and feel of the Conservation Area.

 

Each of the proposed dwellings has been designed to be as energy efficient as they possibly can be, and your officer's report confirms that it would be unreasonable to ask for any further information in this respect.

 

All Council Officers, including the Conservation and Case Officers, are satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the Local Plan. It is therefore respectfully suggested that you vote in accordance with the Officers' recommendation. In doing so, you would enable the applicant to move their current operations to more appropriate sites away from the village core.  Thank you.”

 

The Vice-Chairman, in the Chair, thanked Mr. Clawson for his contribution.

 

The Democratic Services Officer was then invited to read out a statement submitted by a supporter of the proposal, Mr Vernon Stuffins:-

“Bringing a farm up to modern specifications is a difficult task, and one that those who do not work in the sector cannot begin to understand. The proposal that has been put forward is a well put together solution that (with moving the farm out of the village core) can continue a business that has been in the Parish for five generations.

This can be accomplished whilst remaining sympathetic to the Conservation Area and general aesthetic of the village. The layout proposed is an effective use of space; one that is not a linear development, something the village has previously voiced disquiet about. The proposed gardens are set away from pre-existing dwellings and there is ample space left around the old barn to maintain the Conservation Area. Previous developments of former businesses within the village have neglected some or all these points but this proposal (and by extension, the applicants) have given full consideration to these historic issues.

The amendment to the proposal on this brownfield site has a nice layout, whilst still maintaining views on The Green due to the natural drop of the site. In addition, the reduction of heavy-duty traffic will be of great benefit to the immediate area and in conjunction with this parking has been well provided for within this proposal, that would not impact on on-road parking, something that has been apparent in the village core for quite some time now.

The residents of the Parish have voted in favour of developing this brown field site twice now and yet a persistently aggrieved minority have objected to all proposals despite the applicants going above and beyond to address concerns.

In addition, this select quorum of discontent have held the majority share of seats on the neighbourhood planning group since its infancy and now presumably are the only ones left, bar the chairman. I say presumably because there has been a woeful lack of public communication from this group for the past few years. One of the mission statements from the start was to be open and transparent, yet this has not been the case and members that differ in their views have been made to leave the group with no credible reason as to why. I speak from first-hand experience and for other members of the Parish that were deemed to have pecuniary interests in this regard, despite no neighbouring steering groups with similarly interested individuals being asked to do the same. We were told this came under the general rules of participation akin to any Parish Councillor’s declarations etc, but this was not the case when we initially signed up.

Through this last year’s harvest, the Goods have had to endure much hardship from surrounding malcontents, one of which is a current Parish Councillor. This harassment has included intentionally inconsiderate parking near the main access point and road cones placed on land owned by the county council with “24/7 hour surveillance”. I have also fallen foul of these individuals with verbal abuse, such as being called the “village idiot” and the threat of legal action against me for taking photos of this ridiculous behaviour.

The reason I raise the above is because this group is running rough shod over local politics and trying to bend democratic processes to their will and ignoring the ample evidence sourced from the Parish. As we are all well aware, interest in local politics is difficult to begin or maintain and it is precisely because of malicious and ridiculous behaviour like the above, more and more people feel like it just isn’t worth it. It is my hope that common sense can finally rule the day and thoughtful developments such as this that are respectful of communities’ wishes can be assessed properly and not undermined by local busy bodies polishing their own egos under the guise of public service. Thank you.”

The Vice-Chairman, in the Chair, thanked the Democratic and Civic Officer for reading out the above statement and then invited an objector, Mr Chris Carder, to address the Committee along the following lines:-

“I speak on behalf of several residents of Reepham. This application fails to meet key 2023 CLLP Policies and as this plan has now been adopted as we have just heard I ask the Committee to reject the application, which should be judged against the CLLP policies.

 

The 2023 CLLP Policy S4 requires that proposed developments lie fully within the developed footprint. The application paperwork does not provide evidence that it is compliant.

 

Map 1 in our submission illustrates that it is not. The black line represents the edge of the current developed footprint, drawn between the 2 most northerly properties in the village located either side of the proposed development, 5 Althea Terrace and The Manor House. This, the line, which the Planning Committee walked, is a continuation of the “line of development along the northern side of The Green” identified by the Appeal Inspector. The agricultural buildings were built in open countryside beyond this line.

 

Map 1 clearly shows that plots 4-8 all fall outside of the developed footprint. Any proposed development North of the line fails the test of an “appropriate site within the developed footprint”.

 

The 2023 CLLP also states…. “agricultural buildings and associated land on the edge of the settlement” are excluded from the footprint. Land outside the footprint does not qualify for development just because it adjoins land that does.

 

The same applies to the undeveloped land behind 2 The Green and next to 5 Althea Terrace. This land also straddles the developed footprint and is in open countryside as you can see on map 2. It is excluded from the developed footprint. The 2023 CLLP states: “undeveloped land within the curtilage of buildings on the edge of the settlement where land relates more to the surrounding countryside than to the built up area of the settlement” is not suitable for an unallocated site development.

 

By developing outside of the footprint, the proposal further challenges the transition to open countryside due to the situation of the plots. Map 1 again clearly shows plots 5 – 8 would directly abut open countryside with no long garden interface like the rest of the historic north-east quarter. Lack of transition to countryside is at odds with the settlement’s character and appearance and also with historic environment policy as well as the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

Policy S57 states that “significant weight will be given to the protection and enhancement of Conservation Areas, and that existing street patterns should be retained to contribute to the character and appearance of the area.”

 

Let’s not forget also the views of the Church, which relate to its historical setting and would be lost with plot 1, contrary to Policy S57 and the 2017 CLLP. By basing his approval for this site on material considerations, the Planning Officer avoids crucial policies in the 2023 and 2017 CLLP. He also side-steps the settlement hierarchy sequential test which neatly ignores the Neighbourhood Plan’s alternative sites. He also incorrectly states that the site has not been included for development in that plan. In fact, it has but with a lower dwelling count.

 

So it needs to be spelt out that supporting this application would change the shape of the Historic settlement forever. It would entirely change the developed footprint of the village and encroach into open countryside to the North and harm the Conservation Area. Land Registry documents for the site define their space as the whole entrance to the yard, whereas the Good’s application does not appear to match this. Which one is correct?

 

In relation to the asbestos within the farm buildings and concrete flooring pads, safe removal is critical. Neighbouring residents may be impacted by health risks and disruption. They may have to vacate their homes during the dismantling period. Does the application budget for all of this? We don’t think so and we seek assurances.

 

Finally, with regards to the movement of grass verges on The Green even the Conservation Officer noted that moving The Green would cause harm and is against Policy. Highways did not object, but they also gave no consideration to the fact this is a Conservation Area. It was pleasing to hear finally that the drawings have been admitted to be incorrect and shows that there are measurement inaccuracies. The measurements are at least a metre out.

 

We have shared documents with the Planning Officer and Highways, but our concerns have also never been directly addressed, either with regards to the actual move or mitigation for our loss of parking amenity. There are other options that could be considered rather than reducing my parking amenity to potentially one useable space and reducing safety around my property. The reduction means that any visitors would need to park vehicles on the grass verge at the junction and near the blind corner of the Lane, which reduces safety for all road users, including pedestrians.

 

A decision that permits this application cannot be reversed, but by rejecting it, the applicant could apply again, this time with a plan that fits the 2023 CLLP without question and the Neighbourhood Plan and also still delivers profit, or the farm move that the applicants seek.

 

To conclude, we are not against development on this site, but we are against this particular application and would welcome a further application that we can all, including the Parish Council, support.” 

 

The Vice-Chairman, in the Chair, thanked Mr. Carder for his contribution and invited the Officers to respond to the statements made.

 

The Case Officer pointed out that the issue of asbestos removal was not a planning consideration and was a matter covered by other legislation.  He also indicated that the application had been looked at within the context of the new CLLP and he read out the relevant polices against which the application had been judged.

 

The Vice-Chairman, in the Chair, reminded Councillor Dobbie that as he was not present at the last meeting he could not vote on this application but he could speak.  The Committee was also reminded that only those Members who were present at the site meeting could vote.  The application was then opened up to discussion by the Committee.

 

During the debate, reference was made to the fact that the application would result in a reduction in heavy vehicle and agricultural machinery movements which would be of benefit to the local community.  There was some concern raised about the condition proposed by the Highways Authority, but it was confirmed that it was their view that the condition was necessary in the interests of highway safety.  The scheme as submitted had been the subject of detailed negotiations between the applicant and the Highways Authority.

 

Having been proposed and seconded, the Vice-Chairman, in the Chair, put the application to the vote, and it was agreed by majority vote that the application should be deferred and approval delegated to officers’ subject to completion of a Unilateral Undertaking under S106 not to commence construction of the plots (7 and 8) until such time that an order to divert footpath Reep/129/1 has been confirmed and subject to 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:

 

2. Prior to any development an addendum to the Ecology Statement shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority, which calculates the anticipated biodiversity net gain that will be achieved through the proposed mitigation, against Natural England’s Biodiversity Metric.

 

Reason: In order to demonstrate how the development will deliver measurable net gains in biodiversity in accordance with policy S61.

 

3. No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This scheme shall include the following:

 

1. An assessment of significance and proposed mitigation strategy (i.e. preservation by record, preservation in situ or a mix of these elements).

2. A methodology and timetable of site investigation and recording.

3. Provision for site analysis.

4. Provision for publication and dissemination of analysis and records.

5. Provision for archive deposition.

6. Nomination of a competent person/organisation to undertake the work.

 

7. The scheme to be in accordance with the Lincolnshire Archaeological Handbook.

 

Reason: To ensure the preparation and implementation of an appropriate scheme of archaeological mitigation and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and policy S57 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

4. No development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to occupation of any dwellings and maintained thereafter.

 

Reason: To ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided to serve the development in accordance with Policy S21 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

5. No development shall take place, until a Construction Method Statementhas been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planningauthority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout theconstruction period. The Statement shall provide for:

 

(i) the routeing and management of construction traffic;

(ii) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

(iii) loading and unloading of plant and materials;

(iv) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

(v) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including

decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where

appropriate;

(vi) wheel cleaning facilities;

(vii) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;

(viii) details of noise reduction measures;

(ix) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition

and construction works;

(x) the hours during which machinery may be operated, vehicles may

enter and leave, and works may be carried out on the site;

(xi) Measures for tree and hedgerow protection;

(xii) measures to protect Public Right of Way Reepham/129/1, and ensure its continuous use unencumbered and without obstruction.

 

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the development:

 

6.  No construction works above ground level must take place until the materials listed below have been submitted to or inspected on site, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

• a one metre square sample panel of brickwork, mortar and bond. The brickwork panel constructed must be retained on the site until the development hereby approved has been completed.
• roofing materials
• rainwater goods and downpipes including the colour
• all windows and, domestic doors and garage doors including section drawings

 

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and Reepham Conservation Area in accordance with policy S57 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

7.The local planning authority shall be notified in writing of the intention to commence the archaeological investigations in accordance with the approved written scheme referred to in condition 3 at least 14 days before the said commencement.

 

Reason: In order to facilitate the appropriate monitoring arrangements and to ensure the satisfactory archaeological investigation and retrieval of archaeological finds in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and

 

8. Following the archaeological site work referred to in condition 3 a written report of the findings of the work shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority within 3 months of the said site work being completed.

 

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory archaeological investigation and retrieval of archaeological finds in accordance with policy S57 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

9.The report referred to in condition 8 and any artefactual evidence recovered from the site shall be deposited within 6 months of the archaeological site work being completed in accordance with a methodology and in a location to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory archaeological investigation and retrieval of archaeological finds in accordance with policy S57 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

10. 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:

 

Proposed Block Plan 825-2D-101B;

Proposed Levels: 825-2D-105A;

Plot 1 Floor Plans and Elevations; 825-2D-201C

Plot 2 Floor Plans and Elevations; 825-2D-202C

Plot 3 Floor Plans and Elevations;825-2D-203B

Plot 4 Floor Plans and Elevations;825-2D-204C

Plot 5 Floor Plans and Elevations;825-2D-205D

Plot 6 Floor Plans and Elevations;825-2D-206C

Plot 7 Floor Plans and Elevations;825-2D-207C 

Plot 8 Floor Plans and Elevations;825-2D-208C

Soft Landscape Proposals 96/001/REV E

Materials Plan 825-2C-102

General Arrangement VD22649 Revision P01

 

The works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and in any other approved documents forming part of the application.

 

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

 

11. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied before the works to improve the public highway (by means of realigning the lane and junction of The Green and Meadow Lane) have been certified complete by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the provision of safe and adequate means of access to the permitted development in accordance with policy S47 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

12. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping (Drawing 96/001/REV E) shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the building(s) 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 in this rural edge location in accordance with Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policy S53

 

13. Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, AA, B, and C, of Schedule 2 Part 1 and Class A of Schedule 2 Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) Order 2015, or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, the dwellings hereby permitted shall not be altered or extended, unless planning permission has first been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To enable any such proposals to be assessed in terms of their impact on the living conditions of neighbouring dwellings and to safeguard the character and appearance of the dwellings and its surroundings in accordance with Policies S53 and S57 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

Note:               Councillor I. Fleetwood returned to the Chamber at 7.13 pm.