Agenda item

The Committee then moved on to consider the last application of the meeting, item 6(c) application number 146424 seeking outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for the erection of 3 dwellings on land adjacent to 51A Washdyke Lane, Nettleham. The application had been referred to the Committee following the receipt of third party representations including from Nettleham Parish Council, referring to the Neighbourhood Plan policy.

 

The Chairman invited the Planning Officer to present the report, concerning which there were no updates.  However it was indicated that condition 5 referred to a construction method statement but unfortunately it referred to a demolition and construction method statement.  The word “demolition and” should therefore be deleted from the condition as no demolition was involved.

 

The Chairman welcomed Parish Councillor Angela White, Chairman of Nettleham Parish Council to address the Committee.  Parish Councillor Angela White commented along the following lines:-

 

“Good evening. I am Angela White, chairman of Nettleham Parish Council. I am here to represent the objections agreed by the Nettleham Parish Council, as listed on page 67 of the officers’ report.

 

I would query the comment on page 75 of the report that the existing Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan is silent on smaller residential development within the developed footprint of the settlement.  Policy D6 Design of New Development includes infill and so D6C referring to housing proposals reflecting existing residential density in the locality of the scheme could be taken into consideration.

 

Despite the fact that Highways say that the driveways are of adequate width and visibility this is still an area of concern at this stage, although it will be finalised in reserved matters.

 

I do not know the exact length of the driveway, but it is much longer than the 10 metres recommended to be widened from 3.4 metres to 4.1 metres.  It has three sharp turns and is the only access to four properties. There is mention of a turnaround area for emergency vehicles, but will the driveway be wide enough for access?  Furthermore has there been any consideration of pedestrian access: the definition of access on page 82 of the report includes vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.

 

Trees have already been removed on the proposed development site and numerous others will be felled if the application is approved. It will be desirable to retain enough trees to ensure that there is a green barrier between the properties and the adjacent houses.

 

So should the application be approved, condition 4, in response to the comments made by the West Lindsey Tree Officer should be closely monitored as there are no tree protection orders in force.

 

Most of the other provisions of D6 Design of New Development in the existing Neighbourhood Plan, and the review will be considered in reserved matters.  But I will indicate some of them here, as they were important considerations in our response.

 

Protecting natural assets, incorporating adequate landscaping, to mitigate the visual impact and seeking to retain mature or important trees. Thank you”.

 

The Vice-Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Angela White for her contribution and invited the agent for the applicant, Mr Michael Orridge to address the Committee and he did so along the following lines:-

 

“Good evening Vice Chairman and Councillors.  Thank you for allowing me to speak to you this evening on behalf of the applicant in support of this application.  As agent and architect for the scheme, we have worked closely with the case officer during the formal pre-application stage with a view to gaining approval of this application.

 

As outlined in the officer’s presentation, the application complies with the relevant planning policies and there are no outstanding technical matters associated with this outline planning application.  We have carefully considered all constraints; for example, we have considered the layout and the orientation of the proposed dormer style dwellings to respect the privacy of nearby existing properties and the tree constraints and to ensure that all new dwellings are located in Flood Zone1.

 

The overall site straggles all 3 flood zones and the flood risk assessment submitted demonstrates how the development will not flood on the application site or cause flooding to the community.  The new dwellings will be located wholly in Flood Zone 1 along the private driveway shared service access which will come facilitate cars and pedestrians for safe ingress to and access from the site.

 

Therefore the development satisfies the criteria in the Local Plan and the NPPF to ensure the new dwellings are located in the area of lowest flood risk.  Finally, neither the Environment Agency or the local planning authority have raised any objection about the potential of surface water flood risk.   The full details of this project will be dealt with at reserved matters stage.

 

These details will ensure that the new dwellings provide enhancement to the future housing stock of the village of Nettleham, they also provide a windfall site for the sustainable settlement.

 

All matters raised by the Parish Council in April 2023 were taken account of by the revised proposed site plan, submitted on the 5th of May 2023.

 

In conclusion, there is no legitimate planning reason for refusing this application in front of you this evening, as it fully complies with the relevant planning policies in the Central Lincs Local Plan and the NPPF.  And, further to this, the scheme complies generally with the applicable policies within the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan review document, which only carries some weight in the decision making process currently.

 

Therefore I encourage you to support this well considered scheme in line with the officers' recommendation and grant outline planning permission this evening. Thank you for your time”.

 

The Vice-Chairman thanked Mr Orridge for his contribution and invited Mr Michael Carling to address the Committee.  Mr Carling commented along the following lines:-

 

“Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.  Nettleham is blighted by flash flooding. If there are thunderstorms or heavy rain, the centre of the village floods although this does not occur if there is steady rain which the current system can deal with.

 

This is a problem that is getting worse in the 20 years that we lived in the village.  When we arrived, thunderstorms would lead to large puddles around drains; what happens now is that the businesses and homes in the centre of the village flood and this has become almost an annual event.

 

If you look on Nettleham’s Facebook page when a thunderstorm is predicted or is taking place, you will find desperate pleas for extra sandbags, and if you talk to friends of mine who live opposite the church by the beck, even these sandbags will not help because the flooding will come up through the floorboards.  The reason for this is quite simple - it is the development of the village, particularly to the north side, where essentially the hill is now completely tarmacked over and completely developed, and also by the development to the west of the village, through the Beck, where the developments on the edge of the Beck increase the flow of water when you get flash floods.  

 

What I would argue is that Nettleham has been the victim of weaknesses in the planning system and piecemeal developments, each of which add an incremental increase in the amount of water.  In the event, flash floods have now got to the stage where they are blighting the life of the villagers themselves.   Section 5.2, of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan states:- “in order to minimise the risk of the effects of flooding, especially flash flooding on the centre of the village, it is considered essential. that no new homes should be built on land that lies adjacent to the Nettleham Beck”.

 

For anybody who lives in Nettleham, and I hope that the Chairman of the Parish Council agrees, this is a statement of the blindingly obvious.  There is a statement indicating it is considered essential that no new homes are built by the Beck because of our endemic flash-flooding problem.  Paragraph 3.7 of the local policy, section 21 states the need for a sequential test risk based approach to the location of development.  The officer presentation shows a flooding plan and that these houses are safe.  The problem in Nettleham is the way in which the flash flooding affects the centre of the village and these houses will make that worse.

 

The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding of any source.  Again you have to consider flooding as a whole not just these three houses.  What I would like to say is that there is an endemic flooding problem caused by development on the edges of the beck.  This development is another incremental increase in flash flooding and should be rejected.

 

If you do decide that the flash flooding is not your concern, could I ask that paragraph 7 of and conditions include sewerage, because that comes through our house.   It is already blocked and having three extra houses on that site will cause us problems.  Thank you”.

 

The Vice-Chairman thanked Mr Carling for his contribution and invited the officers to comment.

 

It was indicated that in terms of flooding, the application included a flood risk assessment and there had been no objections from the Environment Agency.  Access and landscaping were reserved matters and were not for determination at this stage.  The trees on the site were category C and their removal was not seen as a constraint to development.  There was expected to be some mitigation through the landscaping scheme which was a reserved matter.

 

The application was then open to debate by the Committee and Members indicated their concerns over a number of matters but particularly the flood risk issues having regard to the comments of the speakers.

 

It was reported in response to Members’ concerns about specific issues; particularly around flooding, that when determining a planning application, the Council had to be satisfied that the application could mitigate the impacts that it generated. The developer had to ensure that flooding was not made worse by the construction of the three dwellings on this site.

 

Officers explained that drainage schemes for the treatment of foul and surface water were going to be conditioned and thus would need to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, taking expert advice as and when appropriate. These properties would be constructed within flood zone 1.  Officers were of the view that this development was capable of mitigating itself and would therefore not make the wider village problems worse. That was the statutory test in determining planning applications.  If officers felt that a development on this site would make matters worse this would have been explored with the applicant. 

 

The purpose of the application was to consider the principle of development, which included the residential amenity, local character, flood risks and highway safety.  It was a matter of planning law that there was the ability to submit an outline application which simply sought agreement to the principle of development on a particular site, with the details to be approved in due course. The Legal Advisor stated that it was up to Members to decide whether they thought the three dwellings were capable of being sited on the proposed plot site, to which officers had recommended that the application met the relevant criteria.

 

After further discussion, it was proposed and seconded that permission be granted subject to condition 5 being amended to exclude the word “demolition and”.  Upon being put to the vote the proposition was, by a majority vote, declared to be LOST.

 

Upon a proposal to refuse the scheme being made the Vice-Chairman agreed to a five minute adjournment to enable Members and Officers to gather their thoughts and consider possible reasons for refusal and how best to take the discussion forward in the best interests of the applicant and residents.

 

Note:               The meeting was adjourned at 8.25 pm for 5 minutes to allow Members a discussion on the next steps. The meeting reconvened at 8.30 pm.

 

Note:               Councillor I. Fleetwood declared a non-pecuniary personal interest that he was a Member of the Witham Third Drainage Board, and a Member of the Environment Agency Regional Flood Committee.

 

Upon return from the adjournment, it was proposed and duly seconded that the application be deferred to seek further information from the applicant on the type of dwellings proposed and details of the actions that were proposed to mitigate flooding showing in particular how this development would not make the flooding issues already experienced within the village worse.

 

Having been proposed and seconded, upon being put to the vote, it was

 

RESOLVED that the application be deferred for the reasons outlined above.