Agenda item

Outline planning application for residential development of up to68 dwellings with access to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications on land at Willingham Road, Lea, Gainsborough.

Outline planning application for residential development of up to68 dwellings with access to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications on land at Willingham Road, Lea, Gainsborough.

The Principal Development Management Officer updated the Committee that the Local Education Authority figures quoted in the report as being required as an education contribution were based on the original application for 135 dwellings.  Updated figures were awaited, however the legal adviser noted that at outline stage it was good practice to quote a formula rather than specific figures, within any legal obligation.

Jane Brown, of Lea Parish Council, informed the Committee that there were strong objections to the proposals from both the Parish Council and local residents.  The Recent residents’ survey confirmed the majority did not want development on greenfield sites, with infill sites elsewhere considered preferable. Residents valued the application site as an important green area offering a safe environment used by residents, dog walkers, ramblers, offering views across historic parkland.  The Central Lincolnshire Local Plan identified an alternative allocation to meet the 15% growth requirement.  The landowner for the CLLP site was already working with the Neighbourhood Planning Group, to meet local needs. The landowner/applicant had not consulted or engaged with the Neighbourhood Planning Group or Parish Council or sought to work with the community.

David Hardy, representing the applicant, noted that he had sent a letter by email to all Members of the Committee with additional information.  A chance to settle future growth in Lea. He asserted that growth would happen in Lea, the 15% target growth for medium villages equated to an additional 68 dwellings in Lea.  Unusual that only two of twenty ‘medium villages’ had an allocation – Hemswell Cliff and Lea. Justification for Lea was less clear and had been challenged. The proposed site was felt to be better than that proposed to be allocated in the CLLP (site CL3044). Historic permission had been granted on application site, indicating that it was previously considered suitable for development. The allocated site had no relevant planning history. The allocated site would have significant harm, to the setting of Grade I Listed Church. The draft Plan only considered these matters at a very high level. CL3044 would result in the loss of important hedgerow, would also have parking and congestion problems, and constraints on site meant that 68 dwellings would not be possible, resulting in pressure elsewhere.  The allocated site was also within a Mineral Safeguarding Area. There were several benefits to the proposed site with up to 17 affordable dwellings, with a registered provider indicating a strong commitment to deliver within 12 months. There were no highway objections and infrastructure contributions were offered to improve sustainability. Contributions to health and education would be provided.

Councillor Jessie Milne, having stepped down from the Committee spoke as Ward Councillor for Lea, noted that this was the third application for Lea, one had been withdrawn and the second (450 dwellings) had been refused and was going to a Public Inquiry.  The CLLP had designated up to 68 houses for Lea, up to 2025, on a particular site (CL3044).  The Neighbourhood Plan was almost ready for submission before going to referendum.  There were no facilities within Lea, it did not have a shop, post office or doctors’ surgery, or facilities within walking distance and to access any would mean transport to Gainsborough.  The land was good quality agricultural land needed to produce food for an increasing population.  There was an abundance of wildlife, woodland, shelter for over wintering birds and a footpath in existence on the site and enjoyed by locals as designated parkland.  There were traffic, flooding, and drainage issues. There were numerous brownfield sites within Gainsborough which should be developed prior to greenfield sites such as this.

Councillor Milne left the meeting at 7.01pm.

The Principal Development Management Officer informed Members that the previously approved application was granted in the 1990s, and pre-dated the extant 2006 Local Plan, and had not manifested in an allocation within the Local Plan, the statutory document to consider the application against, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.  The historical permission had expired and should be afforded limited, if any, weight.   Regarding criticism of site CL3044, the Local Plan examination was the correct forum to determine its suitability. The site remained in the draft CLLP following the Hearings, and was a material consideration. The committee should consider the proposal before it, and as the draft CLLP stands, it was advised the application should be considered likely to be in addition to, not instead of, site CL3044.

Members noted that during the CLLP consultation proposed sites were requested to be submitted for consideration, and the CLLP sites were assessed at the appropriate level. Members considered they were not undertaking a comparative exercise, but would consider the application on its merits. Officers clarified that whilst a number of sites had been submitted, each had to be scrutinised for suitability and only one was felt appropriate for adoption.

Members debated the application but could see no policy basis on which to approve the proposals. It was noted that facilities were not within reasonable walking distance. The site was considered to be an unsustainable location in the open countryside. The recommendation to refuse permission was then moved and seconded.  On being voted upon it was AGREED that permission be REFUSED.

Note Councillor Milne returned to the meeting at 7.10pm.