Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the first application of the meeting, item 6(a) 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, and was initially deferred from 12 July 2023 to request for further information on drainage. The Legal Advisor clarified that following the deferral and re-consultation, the decision needed to be centred on the reasons for the deferral, and the new information presented to the Committee as a result.

 

The Case Officer explained there had been some updates since the report had been published. These focused on the review of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan, which had been submitted for regulation 16 consultation, and also comments received from Nettleham Parish Council. These were specifically relating to drainage maintenance and a request for further soakaway calculations. In addition, it was highlighted that an agreement had been reached to extend the deadline for determination to 6 October 2023. The Officer continued with his presentation of the application, after which the Chairman thanked him for the detail and invited the first of the registered speakers to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Angela White, Chairman of Nettleham Parish Council, raised the following concerns. She stated that the indicative surface water drainage scheme provided insufficient detail of the drainage design and there were no measurements indicating the size of the soakaways. It was also not clear what design of soakaway was to be used, therefore, the Parish Council felt it was not possible to determine the exact surface water discharge rate or the impact within the flood risk zone and the wider area. Additionally, there was no indication of the permeability of the material to be used for the proposed hardstanding areas. Councillor White explained that the proposed houses would be on top of the slope which descended towards the beck, stating that it was therefore likely that the excess water would drain in that direction, hence the concern that excess water should be managed on site. She added a further concern was that surplus building materials or tree remains could also go into the beck, requesting that there be measures in place to prevent that happening. Further concerns were raised regarding the width and visibility of the driveway, particularly for the use of emergency services vehicles. To conclude, Councillor White requested there be assurances that conditions to prevent flooding and the entry of excess water and materials into the beck had been met.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor White for her statement and invited the next speaker to address the Committee.

 

Mr Michael Orridge, Agent for the Applicant, that the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to speak. He explained that he and the applicant had continued to work closely with the Case Officer since the deferral of the application at the Planning Committee in July 2023. He highlighted the primary reason for deferment previously related to surface water and flood risk concerns. He stated that the application was now supported by a revised and updated percolation test report and Flood Risk Assessment, which included a surface water drainage strategy document, and an indicative surface water drainage plan. He stated this demonstrated that the site would not increase risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere. He highlighted the application was for outline permission, with all matters reserved. Future submissions would contain full technical details for all aspects discussed. Mr Orridge confirmed that the crate soakaways on the submitted drawings had been corrected to demonstrate and accommodate the surface water requirements of the indicative layout. He also confirmed that no rubble filled soakaways would be used as part of the development, in accordance with the building regulations and best practice. Furthermore, as was the norm for this type and size of application, details relating to the maintenance of the foul and surface water drainage design would be submitted at the reserved matters stage of the project as part of the details associated with condition 8. He explained that the soakaway crates would be wrapped and use silt traps to ensure they performed adequately for the lifetime of the development. Mr Orridge concluded by stating the development did not cause any harm or impact on the village of Nettleham or the beck, and it had been demonstrated that the development could ‘look after itself’ with regards to surface water, runoff and percolation. He stated there was no legitimate planning reason for the application to be refused.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Orridge for his statement and invited the final speaker, Mr Mick Carling, to address the Committee.

 

Mr Carling was speaking in objection to the application and highlighted the significant issues of flash-flooding in Nettleham. He stated that he believed the cause of the flash flooding to be the overdevelopment of the banks and slopes of the beck, and the tarmacking over of once natural soakaway land. Mr Carling raised concerns regarding the percolation tests, explaining that one of the trials had been removed from the test as the water flowed too fast, and he questioned how it was possible to be sure the soakaways would work. In relation to the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan, he stated it was clear that no new homes should be built on the land adjacent to the beck. In referring to the Officer’s report, Mr Carling highlighted that there was no paragraph 3.7, point 3, in the Central Lincolnshire Flood Policy, despite the fact it had been used to contradict the Neighbourhood Plan. He asserted that the difficulties with flooding in Nettleham would not only continue, but also worsen, as they had over the preceding years, and he stated his assertion that the proposed development failed to meet the necessary conditions and should not be granted.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Carling, and all speakers, for their time and invited the Case Officer to respond. He explained that the main drainage condition had been modified to be more appropriate to the site, which included details of the run-offs, and there was no impact on the beck. He further clarified that hardstanding was a landscape issue and was for consideration at reserved matters, and it was not the developer’s responsibility to resolve existing issues, however, the development should have a suitable drainage scheme in place. He confirmed that the indicative drainage scheme was suitable. He clarified that the applicants had submitted a drainage plan, with percolation tests, both of which had been examined by the West Lindsey Building Control Team, who accepted the indicative scheme and stated the percolation tests were undertaken in a professional manner. Furthermore, details of the soakaway designs were in the appendices of the Flood Risk Assessment; the recommended drainage condition had been modified to include the submission of details of surface water run-off and the impact on the Nettleham Beck. The indicative plan showed that the dwellings were in Flood Zone One and there was an additional condition recommended to the Committee that no development should take place in Flood Zones Two and Three. The Officer concluded by stating that, as the dwellings were in Flood Zone one, they were sequentially in the preferred location and passed the flood risk sequential test.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his reply and invited comments from the Committee. Members raised concerns regarding the use of an outline application meaning they were not fully able to comment on the specifics of the design.

 

Note:              Councillor D. Dobbie left the Chamber at 7:00pm and returned at 7:02pm.

 

Members of the Committee remarked they would prefer some planned porosity in the access and car parking sections of the development at this point, and that a permanent barrier could be constructed to prevent run off. There were concerns as to whether the proposed dwellings could increase in size and whether the Neighbourhood Plan was being ignored. Members also questioned whether there was a  possibility of a bank being built at the bottom of the beck, with the ability to retain water and restrict the water flow. In response, the Development Management Team Leader explained that it would have to deal with the site as constructed, and it should be able to deal with the added hardstanding and the built form. It was explained that putting a clay bank on there could potentially cause other issues further downstream. The applicant submitted a Flood Risk Assessment stating that the scheme submitted would reduce runoff by 30% and be a betterment in terms of runoff into the beck.

 

In response to comments about hardstanding, Members were told that an advisory note could be possible to recommend the use of permeable surfaces. In terms of a barrier there was one committed to already, for ecological reasons as the ecology survey stated that there must be a barrier put in place three metres from the beck, otherwise, the applicants would be required to undertake further water vole surveys. This formed part of condition 5 with the construction method statement and asked for the protection of the beck including the buffer zone.

 

Finally in response to drainage issues, the Officer clarified these were dealt with through the conditions, such as submitted materials, with consideration and advice to be taken from the Building Control Team.

 

There was further debate regarding the potential impact of the proposed development, the existing difficulties in Netteham and how it might all be improved. Members were reminded this was an outline application only. There were suggestions made regarding the removal of permitted development rights for the site, to alleviate concerns about flooding. Officers explained that should the Committee feel it necessary, and provided clear reasoning especially at outline stage with only indicative plans available, this would be possible. It was caveated that only plot three could be extended further.

 

On the back of such debate, a proposed advisory note on porous driveways, and an additional condition on the removal of permitted development rights was proposed, seconded and voted upon. It was also requested by several Members that the reserved matters application for this site be considered by the Committee.

 

Having been proposed and seconded, the Chairman put the application, advisory note and additional condition, to the vote. It was agreed by majority vote that permission should be GRANTED subject to the following amended conditions:

 

Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:

 

1.    Application for approval of the reserved matters must be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason:  To conform with Section 92 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

2.    No development must take place until, plans and particulars of the access, appearance, layout and scale of the buildings to be erected and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development must be carried out in accordance with those details.

 

Reason:  The application is in outline only and the Local Planning Authority wishes to ensure that these details which have not yet been submitted are appropriate for the locality.

 

3.    The development hereby permitted must be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

 

Reason: To conform with Section 92 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the development commenced:

 

4.    No development must take place until full details to protect all the retained on site and boundary trees and their root protection areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved protection measures must be installed prior to the commencement of development and retained in place until the development has been fully completed.

 

Reason: To safeguard the existing trees on or adjacent the site during construction works, in the interest of visual amenity to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policy S60 and S66 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023.

 

5.    No development must take place until construction method statement has been submitted and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.  The approved statement(s) must be adhered to throughout the construction period.  The statement must provide for:

 

1. the routeing and management of traffic;
2. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
3. loading and unloading of plant and materials;
4. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
5. wheel cleaning facilities;
6. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt;
7. protection of the Nettleham Beck including buffer zone (see page 21 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by CGC Ecology dated June 2023);
8. details of noise reduction measures;
9. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste;
10. the hours during which machinery may be operated, vehicles may enter and leave, and works may be carried out on the site;

 

Reason: To restrict disruption to the living conditions of the neighbouring dwelling and surrounding area from noise, dust and vibration and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023.

 

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

 

6.    With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved must be carried out in accordance with the following proposed drawings:

 

• J1852-PL-01 Rev P01 dated 8^th March 2023 – Location Plan

 

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

 

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, local policy S1, S4 and S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023.

 

7.    No development hereby permitted must take place within flood zones 2 or 3.

 

Reason:  To ensure the dwelling are located in an area at the lowest risk of flooding in accordance with policy S21 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and Policy D-3 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan.

 

8.    No development above ground level must take place until full details of a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water (including any necessary soakaway/percolation tests) from the site and a plan identifying connectivity and their position has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The Drainage Strategy should comply with the principle of the Flood Risk Assessment (version A02) and will need to identify how run-off from the completed development will be prevented from causing an impact elsewhere.  No occupation of each individual dwelling must take place until its individual foul and surface water drainage connection has been fully installed in strict accordance with the approved details.  The approved drainage scheme must be retained as such thereafter.

 

Reason: To ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided to serve each dwelling, to reduce the risk of flooding and to prevent the pollution of the water environment to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policy S21 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023.

 

9.    Any reserved matters planning application submitted to the Local Planning Authority which relates to the layout of the development must accord with the parking standards identified in the relevant policies of the development plan.

 

Reason:  To ensure the dwelling served by acceptable off-street parking in accordance with policy S49 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and Policy D-4 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan.

 

10.Any reserved matters planning application submitted to the Local Planning Authority must include the details listed below as recommended in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by CGC Ecology dated June 2023:

 

• Hedgehog appropriate fencing including elevation plan.
• Integral swift box (Manthorpe Swift Brick, Woodstone, Vivara Pro or Schwegler type) identified on the northern or eastern elevation of each dwelling.
• Integral Habibat, Ibstock or Woodstone bat box identified on the southern or eastern elevation of each dwelling for use by pipistrelle bats.
• Retention of the orchard or justification for its removal with appropriate compensation by re-planting
• Nettleham Beck enhancements

 

The details submitted must be in accordance with the positions, types and specifications identified in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by CGC Ecology dated June 2023.  The approved details must be installed prior to occupation of each individual dwelling and must be retained as such thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interest of nature conservation and to respond to the enhancement recommendations of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by CGC Ecology dated June 2023 and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, local policy S59 and S60 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023 and policy E-5 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan.

 

11.Apart from the details described in condition 8 of this permission the development hereby approved must only be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in section 5 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by CGC Ecology dated June 2023.

 

Reason: To respond to the enhancement recommendations of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by CGC Ecology dated June 2023 to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, local policy S60 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023 and policy E-5 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan.

 

12.The proposed development hereby approved must be completed in strict accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment by Origin Design Studio Ltd dated 24th August 2023 and the following mitigation measure detailed on page 10:

 

• Standing advice requires finished floor levels (FFL) should be a minimum of whichever is higher of 300mm above the average ground level of the site, adjacent road level to the building and estimated river or sea flood level.

 

Reason:  To prevent flooding and protect the future residents to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, local policy S21 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036 and policy D-4 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan.

 

 

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

 

13.Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development shall take place within those areas identified as being within flood zone 2 (medium probability) and flood zone 3 (high probability) unless planning permission has first been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: Part of the site is identified as being in flood zone 2 and flood zone 3 by the Flood Risk Assessment by Origin Design Studio Ltd dated 24th August 2023.  To enable any such proposals within these zones to be assessed in terms of their impact on the flood risk of the site and the surrounding area including the Nettleham Beck to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, local policy S21 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023 and policy D-4 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan.