Agenda item

The Officer confirmed that since the deferral of this application, from the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday 5 February 2025, the applicants had agreed to the contributions required.

 

The Officer went on to present the site location and its two access points, explaining that the main vehicle access was situated at the southern end while a secondary access point to the east was designated for cyclists and pedestrians. Concerns regarding site density were addressed, with it being stated that the proposed density was low and could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site. Photographs of the site, including Ferry Road and Hall Lane, were shared to illustrate access points and the surrounding area. It was noted that Hall Lane was unsuitable for vehicle access and was instead deemed appropriate for pedestrian and cycle use.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his presentation and stated that there were three registered speakers; the first speaker, Councillor Walker, as Parish Meeting Representative, was not able to attend, so a statement was read out on his behalf by the Democratic and Civic Officer, as follows.  

 

“With reference to page 25 of the Officer’s report, titled ‘Increase in indicative Capacity’The final paragraph claims that 75% of the development area is 6.3Ha, this is incorrect. Both the CLLP and the applicants submitted documents state the development area to be 8.13Ha so 75% is only 6.09Ha which at 20dph=122 new homes.

 

The paragraph then goes on to say that if the total site area was developed then the uplift of housing to 150 could be justified. This is a ludicrous statement to make. Within the development area is an already existing surface water attenuation pond which is a vital section of the existing village flood defence system and under a long-term agreement between the land owner and (I think) WLDC to assure its long-term presence, therefore this area should not be considered or claimed to be a part of, or delivered by the new development, this is approx. 0.67Ha in size.

 

Later in the officers report it is stated the development will provide approx. 2Ha of open space, so the maximum developable area for this application can only ever be 5.46Ha or the CLLP allocated area minus existing infrastructure minus the allocated open space, which equates to only 67% of the designated 8.13Ha area. Therefore the assumption of 75% being developable is incorrect and completely unachievable. The uplift in housing is therefore neither appropriate nor justified, if anything the housing quantity should be lowered to 109 to match the true development area of 67% of the allocated 8.13Ha site at the recommended density of 20dph.

 

150 houses on a developable site of 5.46Ha equates to a density of 28dph which according to CLLP document HOU002-a makes this development more akin to a large village or town suburb not a medium village in the Lincolnshire countryside. Para 4.16 of HOU002a goes on to say the assumed figures are a starting point and where more accurate site-specific data exists that it would be used. The explanation above provides site specific data. The site allocation is 8.13Ha, only 67% is developable, at a density 20dph = 109 dwellings therefore this should be the ceiling figure.

 

It is quite clear a development of 150 dwellings on this site is unsuitable and unjustified and does not meet the guidelines set in the CLLP.

 

To apply a planning condition to restrict the maximum number of 109 dwellingson this site is appropriate and is supported by site-specific data.

 

The officers report sets out how this development will provide £94,875 to expand the Nettleham medical practice and £891,607 to expand the Cherry primary school. This allocation should be revised so that the investment in education is aimed at expanding the Fiskerton school which is within walking distance of the proposed development and the medical improvements should be allocated to improving the Cherry Willingham practice. Getting to the Nettleham medical practice involves a 1 hour bus journey followed by a 20-minute walk whereas the Cherry practice is only 10 minutes on a direct bus route. Both these allocations should be changed so that money generated from a development in Fiskerton is used to directly benefit the residents of that development and the local community.

 

Sole access via Corn Close for a development of this scale is inappropriate. LCC Highways will say, on paper, Corn Close can handle the extra traffic but in real life, due to the number of parked cars which are always present on Corn Close, it is in effect a single-track road. Consideration should be made on insisting a second access route is created on Hall Lane, which with an appropriate road layout within the new development would split the traffic flow 50/50 between Corn Close and Hall Lane.

 

A development of this size will take years to complete and will create hundreds if not thousands of HGV movements through the village, to mitigate this an alternative construction access route should be created from the north of the site across the disused Fiskerton airfield, similar to the construction access route provided at the Manor Farm development in Bardney.

 

Policy S81 of the CLLP sets out a number of site-specific requirements, one of these is a ‘Requirement to engage with the local community’. On the 27 February 2024 the applicant held a 4 hour drop in presentation in the village hall, as the Parish Council chairman I attended the full 4 hours of the event. Over the 4 hours the attendance was in the region of 150-200 people, and of them all I didn’t speak to anyone or overhear anyone who supported this development.

 

I had people asking, ‘How can they get away with this?’ and saying, ‘it’s too much’ and ‘in the wrong place’. Engaging the community isn’t just holding an event then ignoring what people have said, it cannot be accepted that effective engagement has yet happened and therefore the basic requirements of this application have not been met.

 

The Parish Council want to work with the landowner and the planning authority to deliver a proportionate and appropriate development within Fiskerton which will build and strengthen our community.”

 

The Chairman thanked the Democratic and Civic Officer for reading the statement and invited the second speaker, Ms Liz Wells, on behalf of the Applicant, to address the Committee.

 

Ms. Liz Wells introduced herself as the Assistant Director at Deloitte and the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, the Church Commissioners for England, who were identified as the long-term landowners of the site north of Corn Close in Fiskerton. It was explained that the Church Commissioners had been engaging with Officers and the local community over many years to develop options for the site in Fiskerton, with a commitment to ensuring that any development brought forward was sustainable and of a high quality.

 

It was outlined that the site was allocated in the adopted local plan for residential development, and the application under consideration was an outline application for up to 150 homes, with all matters reserved except for the vehicle access route off Corn Close. Ms. Wells noted that formal engagement on the proposals had included briefings with the Parish Council and Ward Councillors from Cherry Willingham in January and February 2024, as well as a public consultation event held in February 2024. She further highlighted that 18 letters of support for the application had been submitted to West Lindsey District Council and noted there were no objections from statutory consultees, who supported the principle of development at the site.

 

It was explained that the site was allocated in the most recent local plan of 2023 and had been independently assessed as a sustainable location for housing development in a medium-sized village. The scheme proposed up to 150 dwellings, equating to 18.45 dwellings per hectare. This density was confirmed to comply with Policy S4, which set a target density of 20 dwellings per hectare for a medium village such as Fiskerton. While acknowledging that the number of dwellings proposed exceeded the indicative figure in the local plan, Ms. Wells explained that the proposals were informed by a detailed assessment of onsite constraints and opportunities. She stated that the development struck an appropriate balance, taking into account the site and its wider context.

 

In terms of housing tenure and affordable homes, it was confirmed that the proposals were compliant and included the policy required number of self-build homes. Ms. Wells explained that all vehicle access would be taken from Corn Close, with the Lincolnshire County Council Highways Authority supporting the submitted transport assessment and its conclusion that the development would have a limited impact on the local highway network. No mitigation measures were required other than a tactile crossing at the junction of Corn Close and Ferry Road, which the applicant was agreeable to delivering. It was also confirmed that Hall Lane was not required for vehicle access but would provide a shared space for pedestrians and cyclists, with a dedicated link to Hall Lane included in the proposals.

 

All biodiversity net gain (BNG) and open space policy requirements would be met onsite, with the illustrative layout demonstrating that this was achievable. This would be confirmed at the detailed design stage through reserved matters applications. Flood risk and drainage were addressed with a strategy that considered the greenfield runoff rate and included a significant additional allowance for climate change. The technical work had identified the need for two attenuation basins, which were incorporated into the drainage strategy and shown on the indicative master plan.

 

It was further reported that, following February's Planning Committee, additional discussions had taken place regarding education contributions. Ms. Wells confirmed that full contributions would be made to cover the primary school places generated by the development. A formula would be included in the Section 106 agreement to calculate the required contributions based on the final house numbers, types, and sizes approved at the reserved matters stage.

 

Ms. Wells concluded by referencing the officer’s report, which supported the application and confirmed that the proposals were compliant with and supported the development plan. She expressed confidence that the development would deliver significant benefits to Fiskerton and requested support for a resolution to grant outline planning permission, subject to agreement on the Section 106 and detailed conditions as recommended by officers.

 

The Chairman thanked Ms Wells for her comments and invited the third speaker, Mr Carl Wager, as Objector, to address the Committee.

 

Mr Wager introduced himself as a resident of number Five, Corn Close, which he described as being situated at the northern end of the street. He began by expressing his gratitude to the Parish Council for their efforts in conveying the concerns of both objectors and supporters of the development in a balanced and constructive manner. He commended the Council for their time and dedication in producing such a comprehensive and professional contribution to the Officer's report.

 

Mr. Wager noted that, from the work undertaken by the Parish Council, it was evident that while the majority of residents objected to the development, their objections were primarily focused on the size of the development and the proposal for a single access point via Corn Close. He acknowledged that most residents, including himself and his wife, were not opposed to the concept of growth for the village but could not understand why the scale of the proposed development was so disproportionate to the size of Fiskerton itself. He stated that the proposed increase of 150 houses was contrary to the wishes of most residents, irrespective of their stance on the development. He expressed the view that the proposed scale appeared to prioritise the developers’ profits over the wishes of the community, which he argued was fundamentally wrong. He requested that Members consider reducing the scale of the development to a more manageable and harmonious size that would align more closely with the wishes of the local residents.

 

In addressing the single vehicle access point via Corn Close, Mr. Wager admitted that he and his wife had a personal interest in the matter, as they resided at the top of Corn Close and would be significantly impacted by the construction phase. He expressed concern about the potential upheaval, noise, and disruption that they and their neighbours would face during the initial five-year construction phase, as well as the longer-term effects following completion. While he acknowledged that reports within the Officer's report concluded that Corn Close was adequate for vehicle access, he contended that the statistical analysis did not reflect the reality of living on the street. He stated that he and his wife had reluctantly accepted that Corn Close would serve as the single access point for the development, which he described as their sacrifice for the project.

 

As a mitigation measure, Mr. Wager requested that the initial construction phase access point be relocated to the old airfield access road on Reepham Road. He explained that this change would alleviate the stress, disruption, and negative impact on residents of Corn Close and their neighbours during the construction phase. He emphasised that the road already existed and suggested that its use would likely involve only a lease agreement or similar arrangement. He maintained that this proposal was reasonable and practical and would result in a more harmonious development process. He further proposed that a construction site compound be located near the old airfield access road to reduce the impact of construction activities on the wider village.

 

Finally, Mr. Wager called for greater communication and consultation between the developers and those most directly impacted by the development as the process progressed. He requested that efforts be made to engage with residents of Corn Close and others whose properties directly adjoined the proposed development site to ensure that their quality of life, privacy, and right to a peaceful existence were respected. He highlighted the importance of harmony between the existing residents, the construction team, and the future residents of the development. In concluding his remarks, Mr. Wager stressed the value of avoiding conflict and urged the committee to give due consideration to his requests. Mr. Wager thanked the committee for their time and consideration.

 

The Chairman thanked the speakers and sought a response from Officers.

 

The Officer addressed the discussion regarding density and layout, stating that the calculations and the content of the report before members were accurate. It was stated that the proposed development, comprising 150 dwellings, would still represent a low-density scheme on the site.

 

The Officer acknowledged the concerns raised by residents regarding the use of Corn Close as an access point. It was highlighted that conditions had been imposed requiring the developer to submit further details for approval prior to any development taking place. These details would include the arrangements for construction vehicle access, the proposed hours of operation, and the location of the construction compound. Members were informed that these matters were controlled through the conditions outlined in the report.

 

In relation to concerns about noise and disturbance, the Officer explained that noise surveys had been undertaken as part of the application process, and predictions were made based on the anticipated traffic movements to and from the development. It was noted that the traffic figures used for these predictions had not been disputed by the Highways Authority. The Officer referred Members to the report, which indicated that while there would be an increase in noise, it would not be significant according to World Health Organisation standards.

 

The Officer concluded by confirming that conditions were in place to require the developer to submit detailed proposals addressing the location of construction compounds and the routing of traffic during the construction phase, ensuring these matters were appropriately managed.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for the information and opened to Members for debate.

 

Councillors debated the application with most matters reserved except for access. It was encouraged that the full application should return to the committee for further discussion rather than being delegated to Officers. The primary focus was on road access, with support expressed for a motor access from Hall Lane to ease traffic flow. Concerns were raised about flood management and the need for detailed drainage illustrations. Developer contributions were discussed, with suggestions to allocate funds to the medical practice in Cherry Willingham for easier access for residents. Contributions towards education were also considered, with primary school funding suggested for Fiskerton and secondary education funding for Cherry Willingham.

 

The drainage strategy was discussed, with detailed calculations showing the site was capable of handling the required attenuation. It was noted that flooding would not occur as a result of the development. Contributions to the NHS and education were clarified to be allocated by the respective authorities, not the Planning Committee. The principle of development was accepted but concerns about Corn Close being the only access road were raised, highlighting potential traffic issues.

 

A highways note supported the use of Corn Close, and it was shown that a second access from Hall Lane would not significantly reduce traffic. The density of the development was clarified, and it was noted that the Highway Authority had no objections.

 

During the course of the debate, and in accepting it was an outline planning application, the recommendation contained within the report was moved. Subsequently, a Member of the Committee, in consideration of the access concerns, proposed an amendment that a second access point be afforded to the site from Hall Lane, and that the full application be brought to the Committee. This was confirmed with the proposing Councillor to form part of the motion for decision.

 

In order to better understand the access concerns, a proposal for a site visit was moved and seconded. On taking the vote and it being an equal split of those in favour and those against, the Chairman used his casting vote, meaning the proposal for a site visit was lost.

 

With no further speakers indicated, and having a recommendation and amendment proposed and seconded, the Chairman took the vote and it was agreed that outline planning be GRANTED subject to the inclusion of an additional condition requiring a second vehicular access off Hall Lane, for the full application be brought back to the Planning Committee, and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.