Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the second application of the meeting, item 6(b), application number 146685, for the erection of 6no. detached bungalow dwellings & associated garages on land to the South of Legsby Road, Market Rasen. The Case Officer informed Members that there were no updates and gave a short presentation about the application.

The Chairman informed the Committee that there were five registered speakers and statements, and invited the first registered speaker, the applicant for the application, Mr Daniel Hyde, to address the Committee.

In his statement, the agent stated that a previous application in 2020 proposed five dwellings and established the principle of development on the site. The updated scheme achieved 11 dwellings per hectare and was of low density. He stated that the application would not adversely impact residential amenities and the external attributes would create a sense of place. This attribute was noted in the proposed block plan, and the submitted application would achieve a lower density than the bungalows on the neighbouring roads.

The agent explained Lincolnshire County Council Highways found the scheme acceptable, with no detrimental effects. The archaeological reports also reported consistency and expressed no detrimental effects from the submitted application. Members heard the energy statement submitted showed improved standards, and the preliminary ecological assessment would achieve a 30% net gain. The agent stated that the hedgerow units and development of the trees had been prepared specifically for the site. The indicative foul water plan had no objections from the statutory consultees, and the local pond nearby was prevalent at this time of the year. The speaker expressed that the flooding could be cleared through silting and the existing drain.

The agent then stated that the existing public footpath would not be blocked following completion of the development. He concluded by emphasising that boundary matters were not the concern of the Local Planning Authority, and asserted that the application would enhance the area.

The Chairman thanked the speaker for his statement and invited the Democratic and Civic Officer to read the first of two statements from registered objectors. The first statement, from Jenny Archer, was read aloud as follows:

“We, as noted on the screen, are the immediate residents, of Wetherby Close, The Ridings and Legsby road, connected to the land upon which the above planning application is made. We do have concerns with this proposed planning, which have been mentioned in the public comments of the application.  We would however, just like to voice our concerns once again at this meeting. The long narrow entrance to the proposed site could create a potential hazard with it being next to a road junction, the Ridings, a school entrance, with several cars parked twice a day and outpour of school children, running alongside a well-used public footpath, and a bend in the road with traffic approaching from Legsby.

Dispute of western boundary. The applicant is claiming his west boundary as up against the current residents’ fences.  In fact there is a registered well used public footpath and a hedgerow between those fences and his boundary, he does not own the footpath or the hedgerow.  Comments and proof of ownership of the footpath and the hedgerow have been provided in the public comments on the planning application.

Flooding.  This seems to be an issue that has not been recognised or regarded as a problem within the application itself.  In actual fact, as residents (and the local council) know full well, flooding does occur on this land.  Throughout the winter/spring, water can lie in a large area at the bottom northern part of the land.  With heavy rain the “pond” overflows, runs down the long entrance across the Legsby road and down the drain outside of the school.  Twice this year, three residents, 1 and 3 The Ridings, and Heathwaite, Legsby Road, have had their gardens flooded from this overflow, Photographic evidence has been provided in the public comments of this application.  Also land at the back of Heathwaite gets flooded, and this year a row of 5 very tall conifers, approximately 12 to 15 metres tall, have died due to being water logged.  Please see the photo on the screen.

I have been reading the agenda of the meeting and am so disappointed that some of the concerns local residents have don’t seem to be recognised.  The big upset to us all is the possible loss of the current footpath and hedgerow as it stands. On comments made in the agenda by the Planning department regarding the public footpath, it states: ‘The current Right of Way is partially overgrown and not particularly well defined’. This we do not agree to.  It is a perfectly good footpath as it is, well used for over 30 years, well kept by local residents and twice a year by the council, and perfectly well defined. Dog walkers, families and children use this footpath, including the local school.  The hedgerow provides a safe corridor for walkers, it is maintained and provides food, habitation and shelter for a variety of birds and wildlife.  It is all part of The Ridings.  Why take all this away to plant another hedgerow 90 centimetres high.”

The Chairman then invited the Democratic and Civic Officer to read the second statement from Hazel Barnard. The following statement was read aloud:

“I note that the planning officer feels that the public right of way that runs along the side of this site is ‘partially overgrown and not particularly well defined’. I believe that the existing hedging is in fact a very well defined and protective barrier to the footpath and should remain, allowing both walkers and wildlife space from the new development. I attach photographs showing the route of public right of way very clearly.”

The Chairman then invited the final registered objector, John Norburn, to address the Committee.

In his statement, the speaker referenced the site plan, which in his opinion, disrupted the public footpath, clearly showing the boundary hedge dividing up the site and the footpath. The developer had never opened this, and the previous landowner did not include the footpath in the sale. Mr Norburn stated the problem could be solved by the footpath being retained in its entirety and could be well pathed. He stated there was no reason for the natural path to be removed.

In his opinion on flooding and drainage, the speaker stated that the area does flood, and there was no additional drainage between the dwellings and the water run-off from the fields. He explained there was no drainage facility for the houses. In concluding his statement, Mr Norburn enquired as to who would look after the new hedges and dykes created.

The Chairman thanked the speaker for his statement, then invited the final registered speaker, Councillor Moira Westley, Local Ward Member, to address the Committee.

In her statement, Councillor Westley expressed that she still had serious concerns about the development on sites like these. With regard to surface water drainage, she stated that although the Environment Agency did not deem this to be a flood risk, in her view there was photographic evidence that contradicted this assessment.

She stated that though the flood risk assessment made provisions for swales to mitigate flooding, the responsibility of managing these was unclear and required further clarification. Councillor Westley raised broader environmental concerns, with climate change increasing extreme weather and water incidents, and that attempts should be made to mitigate flooding, such as through lobbying efforts to reflect the changing climate, to mitigate the ever-increasing 'one in 100 years' flooding occurrences. She requested a complete flood risk assessment for the area.

In relation to the public right of way, Councillor Westley stated her belief that it should be maintained in situ. She felt the plans were vague and did not illustrate where the re-routed path would go, with the current path being used frequently and flanked by the existing hedge row. She stated that the proposed pathway on the other side of the entrance would not benefit the dwellings and questioned about the trees remaining in place. She asserted that planting the shrubs would impede the Ridings residents from fully maintaining their fences. She concluded her statement by stating that unless the applicant could provide a clear path to the public right of way, the current pathway was more than adequate as it stood.

The Chairman thanked Councillor Westley for her statement and invited a response from the Case Officer. In his response, the Officer detailed that the principle of development was accepted three years prior, with the outline permission granting four dwellings that managed the south of the site. This original plan utilised an amended layout in a 'U' shape with the site's density lower than the surrounding dwellings.

There was no objection from Lincolnshire County Council Highways, and the number of four to six dwellings was not considered excessive. The Officer explained that images of flooding were deceiving and had minimal effects. The submitted application had a full flood risk assessment and indicative drainage plans, and had received comments from the relevant technical consultees. Members learned most of the water flooding flowed southwest, and the site itself was in Flood Zone 1, the lowest-rated category for flooding. A former Environmental Agency Officer had prepared the applicant's flood risk assessment report. With regard to the footpath concerns, the Officer explained that the diversion of the footpath would not result in a loss of access to the countryside. Members were further reminded that there would be a biodiversity net gain alongside landscaping and ecological plans.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his response and invited comments from Members of the Committee. In response to contributions about the public right of way, it was highlighted that this was outside the consideration of the Planning Committee, and the applicant would have to go through due process before commencing the application. In a related comment, Members learned that the entrance to the site was planned with a dedicated pedestrian footpath and that the amended Right of Way path for walkers would be slightly to the east and still connect to the open countryside.

In response to a comment about the viewing ability of the highways, Members heard that when Highways assessed a planning application, the Manual for Streets national guidance was used, and would base the speed limit on the visibility splays achievable.

In response to questions about flooding and the assessments taken, the Development Management Team Manager explained that the Environmental Agency national maps did not have publicly available updates. Members separately heard that it was still of low probability, with most of the land of the submitted application being the lowest rated risk for flooding. The Committee also heard that the current flooding situation in the town was at the maximum level presently and that the applicants had shown that it could be positively drained. Concerning a similar concern with the surface water, the drainage systems required confirmation as a pre-commencement condition.

During the discussion, several Members supported having a site visit to review the access, the road usage, and the hedges and trees on the site and surrounding areas, and thought it was necessary to understand the surrounding areas of the application site.

Having been proposed, seconded, and on taking the vote, it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the application be deferred for decision at the next available meeting, in order for a site visit to be undertaken.