Agenda item

The Committee gave consideration to application number 145475 (WL/2024/00015) seeking approval for permissions to erect 66no. residential dwellings together with associated access, parking and landscaping.

 

The Officer provided an update to the Committee, confirming that correspondence had been received from Sir Edward Leigh MP in support of objections raised by the occupants of 20 Bay Willow Road, Burton Waters. It was reported that negotiations regarding the viability clause remained ongoing with the applicant. The Officer advised that, should agreement on the clause wording not be reached, the application would be returned to the Committee with revised wording for consideration.

 

The Officer’s presentation continued, outlining the application for 66 dwellings, access roads, parking, and associated landscaping on land to the south-west of Woodcock Lane, Burton Waters. It was confirmed that the site formed part of an allocation within the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and that extant permission existed for 18 blocks of terraced properties, which constituted the fallback position.

 

It was explained that a Lawful Development Certificate had been granted on the basis that a material start had been made and that the dwellings could be classed as C3 dwelling houses, due to the absence of conditions or legal agreements to secure the dwellings as a C2 use. The proposed site layout was presented, including open space, a small woodland area to the north, and a one and a half metre landscape buffer along Woodcock Lane. Site levels, street scenes, floor plans, and elevations were also shown, along with photographs illustrating the site context and surrounding area.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her presentation and stated there were six registered speakers for this application; the first speaker, Councillor Sue North, as Chairman of Burton-by-Lincoln Parish Council was invited to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Sue North, the Chair of Burton Parish Council stated that when the original concept for Burton Waters had been proposed, the then Parish Council had objected to the development, although support had been expressed for elements such as single storey lodges, assisted housing, and the inclusion of a nature reserve.

 

Reference was made to the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, in which the parcel of land in question had been allocated for approximately one hundred units of extra care housing. It was asserted that this allocation remained in place. Concern was raised that Burton Waters, classified as a medium village, would typically accommodate growth of up to ten dwellings, whereas the current application proposed 66 dwellings with no provision for assisted living. It was stated that the scale and nature of the proposal were at odds with the existing community, which was characterised by over-50’s living and single storey properties.

 

Councillor North emphasised that the Parish was not opposed to development in principle but considered the current proposal to be unsuitable and non-compliant with the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan. It was noted that Burton Waters fell within Zone Value B for affordable housing, which required a twenty percent provision, yet none had been proposed.

 

Concerns were also raised regarding the existing drainage system, which was reported to be problematic, with regular visits from tankers required to address blockages and assist water flow. It was stated that this issue should be resolved prior to any further development.

 

Further objections were expressed in relation to the proposed number of vehicles, with over two hundred parking spaces included in the application. It was suggested that the nearby A57 roundabout already experienced significant congestion, which would be exacerbated by the development.

 

The speaker urged Members of the Committee to visit the site to observe the contrast between the proposed development and the existing community, which included Burton Waters Lodges, Lakeshore, and The View – all described as single-storey, low-density, age-restricted homes set in a lakeside or woodland parkland setting. It was stated that the proposed development was the opposite of this character.

 

The speaker concluded by requesting that a decision be deferred until a site visit had been undertaken and the objections submitted via the West Lindsey planning portal had been reviewed.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor North for her comments, and invited the second speaker, Mr David Barker, as Agent to take his seat.

 

Mr Barker addressed the Committee, stating that the proposal was the result of over two years of work with a range of stakeholders. It was explained that the application had evolved through careful consideration and in response to advice from planning officers and consultees. The site was confirmed to be allocated for development in the Local Plan and to benefit from extant planning permission for one hundred market homes, including a significant proportion of two-storey buildings.

 

It was stated that the landowner had held land in this part of Burton Waters for twenty-two years, with the intention of delivering a high-quality development and completing the settlement. The speaker noted that extra care housing was not viable on the site due to the presence of an existing care home at Burton Waters. The current proposal for 66 homes was described as a lower-density alternative to the extant scheme, offering reduced traffic, increased landscaping, larger plots, and more generous gardens. These features were said to enhance residential amenity, support biodiversity, and provide additional open space along the Fossdyke.

 

Mr Barker confirmed that no objections had been received from statutory consultees, including the Highways Agency, Environment Agency, Drainage Officers, Education Authority, NHS, Wildlife Trust, Canal and River Trust, County Archaeology, Environmental Health, Strategic Housing, Tree and Landscape Officer, Anglian Water, Police, or Fire and Rescue Service. It was acknowledged that some residents preferred the site to remain undeveloped or to be developed differently, but it was emphasised that this part of Burton Waters had remained incomplete for many years.

 

Mr Barker stated that approval of the application would facilitate the completion of Woodcock Lane and the nature reserve to the north of Burton Waters. Reference was made to national housing targets and the importance of delivering allocated sites. It was noted that Ripon Homes, the intended developer, was no longer trading, but that Quintor would seek another local builder to deliver the scheme.

 

The proposal was said to include a £41,000 NHS contribution and to offer affordable housing if the viability of the scheme improved. Public open space would be provided, and the scheme was described as offering improved energy efficiency, electric vehicle charging points, and thirty percent M42-compliant homes. Flood risk would be addressed through ground level adjustments, supported by the Environment Agency and local flood authorities. Biodiversity gain would be delivered, including the use of hedges in place of walls and ecological monitoring during construction.

 

Mr Barker concluded by stating that the proposal complied with planning policy, offered significant benefits over the extant scheme, and represented the best opportunity to complete this part of Burton Waters. Support for the application was requested.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Barker for his comments and confirmed that three objectors had registered to speak. It was noted that all three had agreed for the first registered speaker, Mr Anderson, to speak on their behalf for the full five-minute allocation. Mr Anderson was then invited to take his seat.

 

Mr Anderson began by thanking the Chairman and Committee for the opportunity to speak. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Burton Waters Management Company, the Burton Waters Residents Group, the recognised Tenants Association, and, he believed, the majority of the audience present. He introduced himself as a chartered town planner and chartered surveyor specialising in development.

 

He clarified that the community was not opposed to development, but wished to see the right type of development brought forward. He expressed concern that the application demonstrated little regard for the principles of community and placemaking upon which Burton Waters had been established. Reference was made to several policies of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, including Policy S4, Policy S81, Policy S22, and Policy S53, which were cited in relation to the principle of development, lack of affordable housing, and the design’s adverse impact on local character.

 

Mr Anderson stated that the site was allocated for one hundred extra care dwellings, not private housing. While acknowledging the extant permission and the Lawful Development Certificate issued in 2019, he emphasised that the current application should be assessed on its own merits. He noted that the original intention for the site had included extra care housing, park homes, a visitor centre, and a nature reserve, all of which were considered more appropriate for the character of Burton Waters.

 

Concerns were raised regarding the viability of the scheme, particularly in light of the insolvency of Rippon Homes, the intended developer. Mr Anderson questioned whether the scheme could be delivered and suggested that it might serve only as a gateway to a future, undefined proposal. He criticised the absence of any affordable housing contribution and noted that the site’s allocation for one hundred units meant the current proposal would reduce the housing supply by thirty-four units.

 

In terms of design and scale, Mr Anderson argued that the proposed estate-style housing was incongruous with the existing settlement, which was characterised by low-density, single-storey park homes and lodges. He noted that the extant permission had included single-storey dwellings along the eastern edge, whereas the current proposal introduced two-storey dwellings in that location, which he believed would adversely affect the amenity of existing residents.

 

He further highlighted concerns regarding the unadopted status of Woodcock Lane and the increased pressure the development would place on it. He concluded by urging the Committee to either refuse the application or defer it to allow Members to undertake a site visit and assess the context in person. He reiterated that the community supported appropriate development but believed this proposal did not meet that standard.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Anderson for his comments and explained that there had been two registrations to speak in the Ward Member capacity so the time would also be shared.

 

Councillor Brockway began by expressing support for the calls for a site visit. She stated that there were inaccuracies in the information presented to the Committee, particularly the claim that the proposed development would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the area. She disagreed, noting that the area was a retirement community comprising three retirement developments and a care home at the entrance to the road. She emphasised that it was a child-free area and that this was a key concern.

 

While supporting the points raised by previous speakers, Councillor Brockway highlighted what she considered to be a serious safety issue. She explained that there were no social or educational facilities in the area for families or children, and that there was no school within safe walking distance. The A57 was described as lacking footpaths for much of its length, making it unsafe for children to walk or cycle to school. She expressed doubt that any parent would consider the route safe for primary-aged children.

 

She further stated that, despite being informed there was no objection from the education authority, a local school had confirmed that no one had contacted them regarding capacity. She considered this a significant oversight. Concerns were also raised about the presence of two-storey houses in a community of bungalows, which she believed would be out of keeping with the area and likely to have a negative impact on residential amenity.

 

Additional concerns were expressed regarding drainage and flood risk, particularly in relation to the proposed raising of land levels and the potential impact on nearby lodges. Councillor Brockway concluded by stating that the proposal did not serve the public interest and would negatively affect existing residents. She also noted that no consideration had been given to the safety of families and children using the adjacent road.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Brockway for her comments and asked the Officer if she had any response to the statements.

 

In response, the Officer addressed several points raised during the discussion. It was clarified that Policy S4 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan was not relevant to the application. The Officer explained that Policy S4 relates to Large, Medium and Small Villages, as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy in Policy S1, which will experience limited growth to support their role and function through allocated sites of 10 or more dwellings in the Local Plan the application site is allocated under Policy S81, which was the applicable policy in this case.

 

With regard to affordable housing, the Officer confirmed that no provision had been included within the proposal. It was stated that viability assessments had been undertaken throughout the application process and had been reviewed by the Council’s consultants, who concluded that the scheme was not viable to support affordable housing contributions.

 

In relation to highways, the Officer reported that Lincolnshire County Council, as the highways authority, had been consulted and had raised no objections concerning the capacity of the A57.

 

Finally, the Officer addressed the matter of education contributions. It was confirmed that Lincolnshire County Council, as the education authority, had been consulted and had not requested any contribution in connection with the application.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her response and opened the floor for discussion. Councillor Fleetwood declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Witham Third Internal Drainage Board, which had submitted comments in relation to the application.

 

Councillor Barrett also declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Witham Third Internal Drainage Board and noted concerns regarding drainage and flood risk associated with the proposal.

 

Councillor Tom Smith declared a pecuniary interest due to his employment with Sir Edward Leigh MP, as recorded in his declaration of pecuniary interests. He confirmed that he had not communicated with or undertaken any work related to the application.

 

Members discussed the history of the Burton Waters development and acknowledged the presence of residents attending the meeting. It was noted that the community had developed over the past twenty-five years and that the application before the Committee represented a significant proposal for the area.

 

Reference was made to the comments submitted by the Internal Drainage Board, which had objected in principle to new development. Concerns were raised regarding site levels and the potential for flooding, particularly in relation to nearby lodges. It was questioned whether the proposed operations would adequately address these issues.

 

Support was expressed for a site visit, with Members noting the strong level of local interest and the importance of understanding the site’s context. It was suggested that a visit would allow Members to assess the relationship between the proposed development and the existing community.

 

Clarification was sought regarding the outline planning permission and whether it had specified the type of development expected on the site. The Officer responded that the earlier permission had been for a larger development and that the current application represented the reserved matters for this part of the site.

 

Further questions were raised regarding the provision of fire hydrants, as recommended by the Fire and Rescue Service. Officers confirmed that this matter would be addressed through building regulations.

 

Concerns were also expressed regarding the process by which the site had transitioned from a C2 to a C3 use through the granting of a Lawful Development Certificate. It was emphasised that lessons should be learned to prevent similar situations in future.

 

Members requested that Officers provide a clear explanation of the betterments offered by the current proposal in comparison to the scheme. It was stated that if no material improvements could be identified, the application should be refused. However, if betterments were present, these should be clearly outlined in advance of any site visit to assist Members in their assessment.

 

The Officer responded to queries by confirming that the permission was for a denser development comprising eighteen terraced blocks of properties. While the current proposal was still considered relatively dense, it was stated that it offered improvements in comparison, including increased landscaping, enhanced parking provision, and efforts to meet biodiversity net gain and energy efficiency standards, which would not be delivered under the extant scheme.

 

A Member raised questions regarding the unadopted status of the road serving the development, noting the presence of poles in the carriageway and querying whether the road would be adopted upon completion. The Officer confirmed that the road would remain unadopted. A further question was raised regarding bus infrastructure, referencing a trigger point in a previous planning application. The Officer advised that a bus stop was located further along within the Lakeshore development.

 

A proposal was then made and seconded that a site visit be undertaken. Upon being put to the vote, it was

 

RESOLVED that the application be deferred for a site visit to be held, to afford Members a greater understanding of the potential development site including the safety of the location, and access to the site.