Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the next application, item 6(c), application number 146151 seeking permission to vary condition 13 (for the developer to accordwith the proposed scheme to prevent vehicles from accessing the private drive that connected in a southerly direction with the A158) of planning permission 133284 (granted on appeal for the erection of up to 130 dwellings and a new building to provide up to 25 apartments for retirement living, associated hard and soft landscaping,  together with the change of use of land to provide a new area of open space, including the provision of new footpaths and sustainable drainage infrastructure, and to provide new community allotment facilities.

 

The Chairman invited the Planning Officer to present the report.  The Planning Officer indicated that he had been copied into correspondence sent to the Highways Authority by the applicants’ agents in relation to a potential revised scheme.  However, this had no bearing on the current application concerning which a decision could be made.  The report detailed the background to the site.

 

The Chairman welcomed Parish Councillor Andrew Cottam from Sudbrooke Parish Council who addressed the Committee along the following lines:-

 

“Sudbrooke Parish Council wish to object to planning application 146151 on the grounds that the proposal completely negates the intention of condition 13 of the appeal decision.

 

Main Drive is a narrow private road maintained by the residents, who have a right of way written into the deeds of their properties. It has footpath 160 running along its length at its junction with the A158. It has an entrance bordered by Grade II listed gateways comprising two former estate houses and ornate iron gates. It also has a listed grade II stone parapet bridge spanning the back to the north of the gates.

 

Since the initial application to build a parkland estate was made Sudbrooke Parish Council has expressed written concern over access through the main drive for vehicular traffic. We have held many discussions with representatives of the developers to seek a solution. Ideas put forward have ranged from lifting barriers, lockable gates and rising bollards but none have been adopted by the developers. Indeed, we have been told by the developer on multiple occasions that such a restriction would be illegal because of footpath 160.  However, the Parish Council find it difficult to believe that Her Majesty's Inspector would place a condition on appeal that would be illegal.

 

Currently, there are signs at either end of Main Drive stating that it is a private road and that construction traffic are not to use it but these signs are ineffective. Google Maps shows main drive as an accessible road and is the most direct route to the Parklands development from the A158. As such, it is an easy route for delivery drivers from the supermarkets and online firms. It is also now being used as a “rat run” by current village residents to circumvent traffic problems at the junction of Scothern Lane and the A158.

 

Sudbrooke Parish Council believes that the historic listed gates and bridge on Main Drive are in danger of being damaged by increased use of Main Drive if the “deter amendment” is accepted to replace “prevent”. The additional use of unauthorised vehicles is damaging the road surface and causing confrontation by main drive residents with said drivers. The only way to prevent further use and reduce tensions is to complete condition 13 of the appeal, which should have been done before commencement of the development.  Sudbrooke Parish Council therefore asks the Planning Committee to reject this application.”

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Cottam for his contribution, and invited Mr Keith Millard, another objector to the proposal, to address the Committee.  Mr Millard commented along the following lines:-

 

“I represent the residents of Sudbrooke Park who hold the rights of way along Main Drive from the A158. Since 2016 we have been living under the safe umbrella of condition 13, the appeals inspector and the developers’ own commitment to install a rising bollard to discharge condition 13 to control traffic flow along Main Drive. We assumed he exercised due diligence prior to submitting this bollard option.

 

Further, West Lindsey District Council approved the bollard on Main Drive as an overarching condition when granting the full planning permission. Installation was to happen at the end of the construction of the Phase 1 houses or at the end of March 2022 whichever came first. The imposition of condition 13 gave us comfort that Main Drive would not become the “rat run” that has ensued.

 

What was an unknown at the time of the original application was that when residents started to move in, all service vehicles would be routed down main drive under satnav. There are large numbers of home delivery service vehicles and supermarket deliveries, effectively magnifying the “rat-run” analogy.  The road surface on Main Drive has completely crumbled under the sheer weight of vehicles.

 

So what is the developer’s view of Main Drive and I refer to the following documents. I refer to the developer’s construction management plan where, in the local highway network section on page 3 he describes Main Drive as… “Main Drive, provides a further access to the site from the south via a priority junction with the A158.”  What he fails to mention is that Main Drive is a single track road not suitable for two-way traffic, with access passing through the historic Grade II listed gates and gate lodges and passes over the listed bridge, halfway along its length. It has public right of way status as a footway with occasional vehicular access.

 

Here is a copy of a register of title from the new Parklands development.  Note 3 of the title deed states… “the land has the benefit of a right of way over main drive."  This shows contempt of the planning laws, contempt to the existing rights of way holders and to the new owners of the houses when knowingly, he agreed to stop up Main Drive.

 

I would seriously question the legality of selling something that is not yours to sell.  To mislead the existing residents, several tactics were used to deceive the rights of way holders.  A scenario was created whereby the existing residents in a Northern group did not want the bollard, and a southern group of residents, who did want the bollard. I disproved this with a petition in December of 21 which proved categorically that all 23 property holders required the bollard.  Then they changed the argument to the bollard installation stating that it was illegal.

 

If you refer to the Highways Authority response to this application, you can see that LCC Highways are most insistent that the bollard control should be installed.  Another document shows how to achieve this.

 

The final attempt to confuse the residents into submission was to suggest that the appeals inspector, was acting ultra vires by imposing condition 13. Nothing could be further from the truth; every relevant authority, including the emergency services, have approved the bollard installation.

 

One other relevant point is that Main Drive was closed to all traffic for 18 months to allow the construction of infrastructure.  That closure did not present any problems to the circular walk around the village.  People enjoyed the quiet and amenity that this afforded.

 

The proposal to change the wording of condition 13 from “prevent traffic” to “deter traffic” is a complete nonsense.  It is inconceivable to come along five or six years later to change the wording of a condition that has been etched in stone since day one.

 

Bearing in mind that we are 13 months past the deadline date of March 2022, could consideration be given to recommend that the West Lindsey District Council Enforcement Team be asked to issue a prohibition notice to cease construction until a bollard is installed.”

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Millard for his contribution and then invited the Local Member, Councillor Waller to address the Committee.  Councillor Waller spoke along the following lines:-

 

“I am speaking as a Ward Member regarding this application, and, as indicated at the start of the meeting, will retire from the Chamber after this speech.

 

This development has been ongoing since 2016 when a developer won an appeal against this Committee's refusal to grant permission.  The development has had various issues over the years that have caused a lot of destruction, disappointment, and inconvenience to existing and new residents of Sudbrooke. 

 

However, tonight we are only dealing with the issue of the installation of the bollard on Main Drive to prohibit unauthorised access. I know this development very well, as I lived in a village for 12 years, only moving out last year.  When the original application was submitted, I was Vice-Chairman of the Parish Council (a year before I was elected to West Lindsey).  I feel I can speak on this application with some knowledge.

 

When the developer won the appeal, it was with various conditions.  One of the main conditions was number 13 to prohibit access for traffic from the new development along Main Drive to link up with the A158 through Grade II listed gates where the carriageway is fairly narrow.   The word “prohibit” was used, not the word “deter”.

 

You have heard from the Parish Council and an objector both of whom highlighted a lot of relevant and pertinent points.  It is a private road; it is a single-track road not suitable for two-way traffic.  There is a listed bridge along its route, and it is far from suitable for regular heavy traffic.

 

These are the main reasons the Inspector made a condition. The developer has in an open meeting, stated that residents of Main Drive do not understand what they are doing and what they are supporting by having a bollard in place.  In my view this insults their intelligence and integrity.

 

The developer wants to change the wording from “prevent traffic” to “deter traffic”.  I fail to understand why having agreed to a condition six years ago and having commenced building, the developer now says that having a bollard is illegal. The developer has included in the deed for of new properties on parts of the development that they have the right of way over Main Drive.

 

One questions whether this is this is legal.  I mention this as it impacts on the residents of all 23 properties in Main Drive.  The Highways Authority and every other authority, including the emergency services, have supported the installation of a bollard on Main Drive.  At a public meeting, when asked why the bollard was illegal, the site manager stated that Deliveroo and other fast food companies were not happy.  This, in my opinion, was a very flippant and unhelpful response.

 

If, as a Committee, we do not agree with the officers’ recommendations to reject this application, then I believe we will be failing in our duty to safeguard the rights of residents.  I urge you to refuse this application in line with the Officers’ recommendation.”

 

Note:               Councillor R. Waller left the Chamber for the remainder of the item at 7.40 pm.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Waller for his contribution and invited the Officers to comment on the statements made.  The Case Officer indicated that there was nothing further to add to the report submitted.

 

Members were opposed to any amendment to the original condition imposed in relation to this development and indeed considered that having regard to the current position, the matter should be referred to the Council’s Enforcement Team for further investigation.  This proposal was accordingly proposed and seconded.

 

Having been proposed and seconded, the Chairman put the application to the vote, it was unanimously agreed that planning permission, as detailed in the Officer’s recommendation, be REFUSED.

 

At the same vote, having been proposed and seconded, it was unanimously further

 

RESOLVED that the application be referred to the Planning Enforcement team for further investigation.

 

Note:               Councillor R. Waller returned to the Chamber at 7.45 pm.

 

The Chairman paused the meeting for a few moments, so Members could return from a comfort break before re-commencing the meeting.

 

Note:               Councillor D. Dobbie left the Chamber for a comfort break at 7.45 pm. He returned to the Chamber at 7.47 pm.

 

Note:               Councillor J. Summers left the Chamber for a comfort break at 7.46 pm. He returned to the Chamber at 7.48 pm.

 

Note:               Councillor M. Devine left the Chamber for a comfort break at 7.46 pm. He returned to the Chamber at 7.48 pm.