Agenda item

Questions, if received, under this Scheme will be published by way of supplement following closure of the deadline.

 

 

The Chairman advised the meeting that two questions had been received pursuant to Procedure Rule No.9, both from Councillor Lesley Rollings, Ward Member for Scotter and Blyton.   The questions had been circulated to all Members, separately to the agenda, and published on the website.

 

The Chairman invited, Councillor Lesley Rollings to put her first question to the Chairman of the Planning Committee, Councillor Matthew Boles, as follows:-

 

“The unfinished housing development at Hemswell Cliff (Wellington Way,) raises significant concerns regarding urban planning and residents' welfare. As the demand for housing continues to grow, it is imperative that West Lindsey District Council prioritises the completion of these projects and ensures they are delivered in a safe and proper manner.

 

The developer on this site went into administration, leaving footpaths and roads unfinished.  This has caused severe damage to several vehicles and left some residents injured through contact with dangerous extruding drain covers and kerbing, which causes particular problems in darkness. Also, thousands of tonnes of building material has been dumped adjacent to nearby residents properties which can only be described as an environmental disaster.

 

Despite efforts in recent months by the WLDC enforcement team, the developer now trading under a different business name has failed to keep to their promise of finishing the site and removing the tonnes of building material.  The large mound has become overgrown, with building debris dangerously jutting out, causing a particular danger to anyone who might climb on it - particularly children.

 

Unfinished developments often become eyesores that negatively impact local aesthetics and property values. The implications extend beyond mere economics - they affect community morale and cohesion. Residents deserve a vibrant living environment that reflects their aspirations for growth and stability. Therefore, it is crucial for West Lindsey District Council to provide transparency regarding the reasons behind these delays and outline a concrete plan for moving forward.

Addressing the unfinished housing development at Hemswell Cliff is not just an administrative duty but a moral obligation towards fostering sustainable communities.

 

The council must take decisive action to resume construction efforts and effectively communicate with stakeholders about progress and challenges.

 

Could the Chairman of Planning please explain why the WLDC enforcement team have not taken firmer action against the developer and outline what legal action can be taken to protect the interests of the local community and restore this site to a safe condition.

 

Thank you”

 

Concluding the question Councillor Rollings advised that since its submission, work appeared to have started on the actual road and pavement, with good progress being made. However, other areas still posed a danger and were somewhat of eyesore in her opinion.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Rollings for her question, and invited Councillor Matthew Boles, in his capacity as Chairman of the Planning Committee, to respond, with the response being as follows: -

 

Firstly, I am very sorry to hear of the issues that the residents of Wellington Way are experiencing and would like to thank Cllr Rollings for bringing this matter to my attention.

 

As Councillor Rollings will be aware, in her role as Chair of the Prosperous Communities Committee a revised Local Enforcement Plan was approved in September 2023, which sets out how the Council deals with planning enforcement complaints such as this. At this site, the Council have been seeking to bring the matter to a resolution, within the constraints of the powers that they have.

 

There is no power available to the Council to expedite the completion of a development, however we do recognise the impact that this can have and the frustration it can cause if progress is not made and timescale commitments not met. Officers have been in communications with the developers on this matter and are working to try to bring the matter to a resolution. These efforts are being made outside of our usual planning enforcement remit as we recognise that it is a matter that the community wishes to see resolved. On that basis we will continue to work to bring this to a resolution and are already in the process of organising a site visit for residents and the developer to seek to establish a timescale for completion.

 

The above efforts, where Officers are going above and beyond to try and bring the matter to a resolution, suggests to me that there is a very clear recognition that this is an issue that requires resolving and an understanding that it will benefit the community. The fact remains though, that the obligation to complete the development remains with the developer and there is no ability for the Council to formally require them to complete the road surfaces.

 

The Council has also sought to address the debris left on site and has been very clear with the developer that failure to clear this may result in a breach of condition notice being served. Whilst the Council retains the right to take this formal action, we are very conscious that the focus here needs to be on resolving the issue and clearing the debris, which to date has only been partly done. Should a breach of condition notice be served, it would not necessarily mean that the matter would be resolved and could result in the Council becoming engaged in legal proceedings at a cost to both the developer and the council tax payer. We are however considering the serving of such a notice in the coming weeks if our discussions on completion are not satisfactory.

 

I recognise that there has been delays to the timescales committed to on the above issues, however I am hopeful that we can bring the matter to a resolution in good time through the continuation of our dialogue with the developers. Where delays have occurred, reasons have been cited by the developer and we are continuing to seek to work with them to resolve the matter.

 

The Council receives around 250 reports of planning enforcement issues annually and we have an obligation in all of those cases to investigate them in line with our agreed policy. Where we consider taking formal action, we also have to consider the expediency of doing so, the associated public interest and the cost to the council tax payer. Alongside this, the resources that the Council have available to investigate planning enforcement issues are not infinite and we have to ensure that these resources are focussed on the planning enforcement breaches that are the most serious.

 

I have asked Officers to ensure that Councillor Rollings is kept up to date on the matter and made aware as to the arrangements for any future site meeting.”

 

Councillor Rollings thanked Councillor Boles for the response and with permission of the Chairman made further supplementary comments during which it was noted   that she considered the enforcement breach to be serious in nature but recognised that Officers had worked very hard to demand that developers completed the development to a safe and satisfactory standard.  She was pleased to see that that works was now underway on the road resurfacing. However, reputationally she considered it essential that West Lindsey was not seen to tolerate developer behaviour that caused such a high level of stress and upset amongst residents, as was the case at this site. She considered it essential that the Council were seen to be doing everything in its power to secure positive outcomes, referencing significant snagging issues concerns over the development that needed to be addressed.

 

Acknowledging the Council had a policy that related to enforcement, Councillor Rollings was of the view that the public did not always believe that it was applied consistently.  In respect of this case, even if costs were involved, the community, the parish council and individuals affected should be supported to the best of the Council’s ability.

 

In responding Councillor Boles offered further reassurance and his agreement to the issues raised, recognising that many Councillors would have similar sites in their wards.  The commitment to hold a site meeting was reaffirmed, with the developer and interested parties such as residents and the local parish council to be included, with Councillor Boles keen to see the site for himself.  A commitment to arrange the meeting was again stated.

 

Councillor Rollings thanked Councillor Boles for the response.

 

The Chairman invited, Councillor Lesley Rollings to put her second question to the Chairman of the Council as follows:-

 

“In recent weeks the residents of Scotter have yet again been subject to a serious flood incident that involved many properties on Lindholme and Riverside, causing considerable upset and stress.  Since 2007 the maintenance of the river running through Scotter and downstream of the village and the maintenance and the operation of the penstock gates at the outlet onto the River Trent has quite frankly been a disgrace.

 

Members of the Scunthorpe and Gainsborough Water Management board, managed to secure an agreement with the EA that enabled them to carry out maintenance – de-silting and de-weeding, which residents and indeed the Parish Council hoped would improve flow through the village and allow water to get out into the River Trent at low tide, keeping levels as low as possible in preparation for intense rain events.

When the Water Management board contractors arrived to begin work, the EA ( with astounding promptness) arrived and threatened the contractors with legal action, should they clear more than the centre metre of the river.

 

The river as it runs into Scotter is a mess – decades of overgrown trees, reeds, bushes etc causing the river to leave its natural course and run through the back gardens onto Lindholme BEFORE the river bursts its bank.  The river running through and downstream of Scotter is a mess.  It is clear where it originally ran and it is clear where the EA’s re-wilding is slowing the water flow down and decreasing the depth and width of the river.

 

The Parish Council had earmarked funding as a contribution to enable the work to be completed, but the EA said that they would fund the work and the Parish Council re-allocated the funding to another large community project in the village, only to be disappointed that maintenance had not improved.

 

The EA had said that in the winter months the gates at the Susworth outlet should all be open to keep water levels as low as possible to help get rid of as much water as possible, in preparation for heavy rainfall. But the weekend before the latest flood event, one of the gates was CLOSED causing water to back up in the river. We later found out that the gate was damaged and they were afraid to open it.

 

The EA promised to automate the opening of the gates, but this has never happened.

 

There is clearly an issue of conflict between the environmentalists at the EA who want to re-wild the river, protect water voles and those who want to prevent property flooding.  However, the river is now so silted up that in drought conditions, the river dries up, killing fish and river creatures.

 

At every turn, residents who have lived alongside the river without being flooded for decades are now told that the catastrophes are caused by climate change and that we have to accept that some properties will be lost to flooding, when in the case of Scotter, poor maintenance and ridiculous working practices of maintenance teams is largely the cause of the problem.

 

The residents of Lindholme and Riverside have had enough.  They pay council tax but now own houses that they cannot sell and that are worth a fraction of the value of their original Council Tax valuation.

 

During the flood events, the County Council and the EA are nowhere to be seen, with the District Council left supplying sandbags. We need the County Council, as the lead flood authority to be more actively involved to ensure that all the small improvements and changes that can be made to the river, are made.

 

Chairman in your capacity and through your role on the Lincolnshire County Council Flood group are there any actions you could take to assist in bringing this matter to the attention of those lead authorities these being EA and LCC.

 

Thank you”

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Rollings for the question and made the following response: -

 

Cllr Rollings, thank you for your question. As you know I hold positions pertinent to this question in my role as a County Councillor not as Chairman of this Council. However, I am happy to present the information you have provided to the Flood and Water Management Scrutiny Committee of Lincolnshire County Council and to the appropriate County Council Officers in their capacity as Lead Flood Authority.  If I require further information I will get in touch with you outside of the meeting.

 

I will seek to ensure LCC request the EA properly de-weed and de-silt the river upstream and downstream of Scotter, restoring the river to its former depth and width and a timescale for this.

 

I will ask that the EA automate the gates at Susworth as previously indicated and that one person is identified whose job it is to ensure that at crucial times, ALL the gates are open.

 

After the monumental events of Storm Babet and Henk the Flood and Water Management Committee set up a Working Group to look into the response of the various bodies to the damage caused by the storms and to make firm recommendations on what improvements can be made.  The Group has gathered evidence from the Environment Agency, Anglian Water, the carious Internal Drainage Boards,, County Highways, The Lead Flood Management team, Parish Councils, residents etc and various draft conclusions and recommendations have been written for approval – which as you can see had not occurred before recent storms on January 6^th and 7^th.

 

Included in these recommendations on river maintenance, clearing and desilting, along with recommendations on striking a sensible balance between the need for environmental protection and the need to protect assets from flooding.”

 

Having heard the response and with the permission of the Chairman, Councillor Rollings posed further supplementary comments, whilst expressing her pleasure that a County Council Working Group had been set up, there was concern that often the reports that arose from such groups were not specific enough, with generalised recommendations, which were not often followed through. The costs were often cited as a barrier, or flooding was put down to climate change, which in her view was just not acceptable.

 

In respect of Scotter, Councillor Rollings considered it essential that Lincolnshire County Council were more rigorous around riparian owners

and worked more closely with the parish council to better connect and to ensure that improvements to water courses were made.

 

She requested that Lincolnshire County Council have greater transparency from the Environment Agency in respect of maintenance on the river, particularly relating to the rewilding and desilting. It was suggested that the community felt that wildlife was being put before property and the public deserved to know where the Environment Agency stood on such matters.

 

The Chairman again responded, thanking Councillor Rollings for the points she had raised, particularly in respect of riparian rights and responsibilities.

 

He supported the view that detailed knowledge of ownership would certainly be a positive move in flood protection work.  The Chairman undertook to raise Councillor Rollings initial concerns and her request for LCC to liaise with Parish Councils to produce a detailed knowledge base of riparian ownership.  Giving his assurance that the matters would be forwarded to the correct bodies.

 

The Chairman also sought to ensure that any work done by agencies to date would be communicated to parishes and members of both the county and various district councils in Lincolnshire. He was in absolute agreement around the importance of two-way communication, the need for greater transparency around planned works and timescales and working towards improvement rather than looking for excuses. He concurred with the need to find a balance between environmental protection and protecting assets and suggested other agencies could have a greater role in this aspect.