Agenda item

The Committee then gave consideration to the first application on the agenda, application number 145475 (WL2024/00015), seeking planning permission for the erection of 66 residential dwellings with associated access, parking, and landscaping, on land at Woodcock Lane, Burton Waters.

 

The Officer confirmed that there were no updates, however, it was noted with regard to the wording of the viability clause, negotiations with the Applicant were still ongoing. In the event that agreement on the wording could not be reached, it was recommended that the application be referred back to Committee to consider an alternative form of the clause, subject to agreement.

 

The Officer made reference to the fallback position previously discussed at the last meeting, which had been confirmed through a Lawful Development Certificate; it was stated that the evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that a material commencement had occurred. It was also clarified that the extra care housing provision had not been secured and, as such, the dwellings could be categorised as C3 dwellings.

 

Matters arising from the Committee site visit on 11 July 2025 were subsequently addressed. Questions had been asked regarding whether a particular area was subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO); it was confirmed to be a group TPO. A tree protection measures plan had been submitted in support of the scheme and was recommended to be secured via condition.

 

It was explained that at the site visit further clarification was sought regarding the location of the attenuation pond, and it was identified on the plan north of the application site. In addition, the matter of the cut and fill exercise was discussed. Reference was made to the existing topographical survey, it was observed during the site visit that the land exhibited notable variation in elevation, thereby confirming existing contours across the site. The proposed contour cut and fill plan was then presented. It was explained that the intended effect of the cut and fill exercise was to elevate the development out of Flood Zones 2 and 3, positioning it entirely within Flood Zone 1. The presentation concluded with the Officer presenting the site plan, floor plans, and photographs of the location and surrounding area.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her presentation and stated that there were six registered speakers; the first speaker, Cllr Sue North, as Parish Council Representative, was invited to address the Committee.

 

Cllr North gave a summary of the differences between the existing communities and the proposed development, and the extent to which the proposed plan conflicted materially with the established residential character of the locality. It was noted that, over a number of years, the Planning Committee had supported the development of three older-living/retirement communities. Cllr North explained that approval had previously been granted by for age-restricted dwellings, one community designated for those over 45 years of age and two for those over 55. The existing developments were comprised of single-storey lodges or bungalows with large areas of natural open space, whereas it was claimed that the proposed units were to be much larger in comparison, with minimal surrounding open space.

 

Vehicle usage within the existing communities was reported as minimal, with most residents possessing a single vehicle and generally not requiring travel for work or education. The proposed development was expected to introduce multiple vehicle ownership per household and a regular need for travel related to school, work, and leisure, thereby contributing to a significant increase in vehicle movements.

 

It was asserted that the proposal conflicted markedly with the adjacent communities in all significant respects. Although it was acknowledged that the previous classification error between C2 and C3 was regrettable, it was stated that such a mistake did not necessitate the approval of a C3 application in this form. Cllr North emphasised that all proposals were still required to make a positive contribution to the locality and to respect and reflect the character of the area in both use and design.

 

Vegetative screening was identified as a critical consideration, particularly along the Foss Dyke Canal, Woodcock Lane, and the A57. It was pointed out that the screening vegetation in question was deciduous, rendering it less effective for nearly half the year. During this period, unobstructed views were anticipated from the Foss Dyke towpath through the proposed development, across the Burton Waters lodges, and onwards to the A57. Cllr North concluded by urging the Committee to acknowledge the distinctive nature of the communities already established and supported in this area, and to reject the current proposal for predominantly large, four-bedroom family homes.

 

The Chairman thanked Cllr North for her comments and invited the second registered speaker, Mr David Barker, as Agent, to address the Committee.

 

Mr Barker explained that the proposal had resulted from over two years of collaboration with Planning Officers and various stakeholders. It was stated that the site had been allocated for development in the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP), with existing consent in place for 100 market dwellings, predominantly arranged in sizable two-storey blocks. The Agent stated that scheme currently before the Committee comprised 66 dwellings, a lower density than the consented 100. It was noted that this reduction would improve residential amenity for existing residents, enhance open space provision, and create greater scope for wildlife habitats.

 

It was explained that areas of Burton Waters located to the north of the Leisure Centre had been designed to be flood resilient at the time planning permission was granted in 2013. Mr Barker highlighted that while much of this flood mitigation work had already been completed, the application site remained the key outstanding area within the approved compensation strategy. It was stated that the scheme had been specifically designed to address flooding concerns affecting adjacent land, including the fishing lodges and the Lakeshore development.

 

The Agent confirmed that each relevant flood authority had expressed satisfaction with the drainage arrangements, and the Environment Agency had also confirmed its agreement. It was stated that approval of this proposal would substantially reduce the flood risk on the application site and offer wider benefits to northern areas of Burton Waters, constituting a solution to ongoing flooding concerns rather than creating new challenges.

 

The Agent made reference to observations from the Committee site visit. It had been noted that a roadway and tree belt separated the proposed homes from the existing lodge development. The designers had reportedly taken care to ensure that no loss of amenity would occur for the lodge residents. The trees along the Woodcock Lane boundary were either currently protected under Tree Preservation Orders or would be subject to protection via conditions on any forthcoming planning approval. The current proposal was said to retain more trees than the extant scheme and it was noted that no objections had been received from statutory consultees.

 

It was further reported that medium-sized sites such as the application site were important to local housebuilders and the Applicant had committed to identifying a local builder to deliver the scheme.

 

Concerns regarding the two-storey nature of the proposal were acknowledged. However, it was stated that the proportion of single- and two-storey dwellings within this proposal mirrored that found within the extant 100-dwelling scheme.

 

Mr Barker continued, adding that application had been amended to comply with new CLLP policies, and now satisfied more stringent requirements related to sustainability and biodiversity. It was confirmed that a financial contribution of £41,000 to the NHS was offered as part of the scheme, along with a substantial payment through the Community Infrastructure Levy. The Agent confirmed that all proposed dwellings were to be equipped with electric vehicle charging points. Thirty percent of homes were to be M42 compliant, and car and cycle parking provision met current standards.

 

Mr Barker stated that affordable housing could be delivered if viability conditions improved, and a financial contribution could be made to support provision where needed in the wider district.

 

In terms of biodiversity, it was highlighted that the proposal was expected to deliver biodiversity gains, with 10% net gain achieved on-site. It was explained that completion of Woodcock Lane was also included in the proposal, improving pedestrian safety. Local concerns regarding road conditions had recently been raised, and the scheme was presented as a positive response to those issues.

 

The Agent made reference to comments suggesting that the character of Burton Waters would be altered by family occupancy. It was clarified that more than 350 dwellings in the area currently had no occupancy restrictions, and as such the application would not alter the established residential character.

 

It was stated that the site had remained incomplete for many years and that approval of the current application would help bring closure and completion. A low-density approach was considered the best option for the site and most likely to result in timely delivery. The fallback scheme for 100 homes was said to lack the improvements required under the new CLLP, and if refused, would represent the only viable alternative. It was further stated that the fallback scheme would not deliver the same benefits in terms of biodiversity, NHS contributions, or the community infrastructure levy. The Committee was asked to support the proposal.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Barker for his comments and invited the third and fourth registered speakers, Mr Alistair Anderson and Mr Mike Bryan, as Objectors, to address the Committee. It was explained that Mr Anderson and Mr Bryan would be sharing the allotted five minutes speaking time between them.

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Alistair Anderson, representing the Burton Waters Management Company, the Burton Waters Residents Group, and the Recognised Tenants’ Association. It was stated that the Committee was faced with a difficult decision resulting from an error in 2013, when planning permission had not been legally bound to the intended provision of extra care. This error had led to a series of events which had rendered the site vulnerable to inappropriate development. It was acknowledged by Mr Anderson that the extant permission could not be altered. However, it was emphasised that the Committee retained the ability to act proactively in the interests of good planning and design. Support for development on the site was expressed, though it was noted that the application in its current form contained significant inefficiencies.

 

Concern was raised that 92% of the proposed dwellings would be two-storey structures situated within an established area of single-storey lodges. The scale of the proposed development was considered incongruent with the character of the surrounding environment and detrimental to neighbouring residents. Mr Anderson explained that the extant permission had included single-storey buildings along the Woodcock Lane boundary. It was stated that no upgrade to the road or connected pavements in the area had been proposed, resulting in a gap of approximately 50 to 60 metres of unpaved road which pedestrians, including children, could be required to navigate.

 

Mr Anderson stated that no provision for affordable housing, either on-site or elsewhere, had been made in the proposal, and it was reported that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) had assessed the scheme as unviable and undeliverable. A housing shortfall had also been identified, with only 66 dwellings proposed compared to the previously allocated 100. A contradiction was noted in contributions related to site viability, which were deemed inconsistent with the decision not to maximise the quantum of development.

 

It was explained that a biodiversity net gain shortfall had been highlighted within the Committee report, following consultation with the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust. Concern was expressed by Mr Anderson regarding the application of policy leeway based on the determination date occurring prior to the adoption of new policy.

 

Reference was made to Policy S61, which set minimum standards supposedly not met by the current scheme, and to Policy S53, which required proposals to respond positively to local character and context, a criterion that was considered unmet in this instance. Nonetheless, it was reiterated that support remained for the development of the site, provided it represented good design. Finally, concerns relating to design scale, biodiversity net gain, affordable housing, and highway safety were cited as reasons why the application should not be approved; Mr Anderson concluded by advocating a redesign in collaboration with the community.

 

Mr Mike Bryan then addressed the Committee. He identified himself as a resident of one of the lodge sites and expressed appreciation for the Committee's historical support of older living and retirement communities in the northern part of Burton Waters. Reference was made to the Barchester Care Home, three age-restricted lodge and bungalow developments, and the extant plan for extra care homes, which together had created what was described as a potentially unique retirement village, embraced by the residents. It was highlighted by Mr Bryan that the proposal would materially alter the nature, appearance, and atmosphere of the area, and that approval would undermine the potential completion of a cohesive retirement village.

 

Concern was raised that the current proposal conflicted with existing communities, the extant plan, and the broader vision for the area. It was noted that the debate surrounding the application was a consequence of the misclassification error between use classes C2 and C3. While it was accepted that the error could not be undone, it was suggested that the Committee had an opportunity to mitigate its impact.

 

Reference was made to the demand for age-restricted retirement homes and to the active interest of developers in acquiring land for such projects. The Committee was encouraged to reject the application, protect the existing developments, and invite the submission of an alternative proposal in partnership with a retirement housing provider.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Anderson and Mr Bryan for their comments and invited the fifth and sixth registered speakers, Cllr Jackie Brockway and Cllr Paul Lee, as Ward Members, to address the Committee. It was explained that Cllr Brockway and Cllr Lee would be sharing the allotted five minutes speaking time between them.

 

Cllr Brockway began by expressing full support to the representations made by residents earlier in the meeting. Attention was drawn to the merits of both the extant and proposed plans, on the basis that it had been stated during the previous meeting that, in the absence of any material improvements, the application should be refused.

 

The Ward Member stated that the extant scheme was designed with area and residents in mind, open, with no private gardens or garages, with the inclusion of extensive communal grounds with a variety of habitants and diverse planting. In contrast, the current application was described as a conventional housing estate, offering private gardens and garages with limited communal open space. Five bungalows were proposed adjacent to the Foss Dyke Canal, though it was stated that they provided no appreciable mitigation of the wider visual impact. The demographic addressed by the scheme was assumed to be families with children, yet it was stated that no facilities or provision for children had been included, nor sufficient space to incorporate such infrastructure in future. Concern was raised that the development would open directly onto a dangerous road, with limited opportunity for safe pedestrian movement or for families to walk children to school. The proposed scheme was stated to clash markedly with both the extant permission and the character of adjacent communities.

 

Specific concern was directed towards the interpretation of build density. It was argued that a misleading comparison had been made, noting that the extant scheme had comprised small one- and two-bedroom extra care homes, including 34% apartments. By contrast, it was explained that the proposed scheme comprised 66 dwellings, predominantly large four-bedroom family homes, averaging 3.8 bedrooms each. It was stated that many of the new homes could physically accommodate two of the smaller units found within the extant scheme, raising questions about the accuracy of density assessments expressed as dwellings per hectare.

 

Cllr Brockway identified vehicle movement as a point of concern. Given the anticipated needs of elderly residents, who it was explained typically did not travel regularly for work, school, or leisure, it was considered the current proposal would result in a substantial increase in vehicle movements across the site.

 

Although it had been suggested that the proposal offered improvements in other areas, Cllr Brockway concluded that no net gain could be identified when assessed against the extant scheme.

 

Cllr Lee subsequently addressed the Committee. It was stated that Ward Members had been elected to serve their communities and make decisions that benefit both the wider community and individual residents. While it was stated that numerous surveys and technical reports had been commissioned on the potential impacts of the proposed development, emphasis was placed on maintaining focus on the lived experience of existing residents in Burton Waters. It was noted that residents had chosen to move to Burton Waters for a peaceful and low-stress lifestyle. Concern was expressed over the stress caused by the tone and nature of the current planning application.

 

The Ward Member acknowledged that the decision before the Committee was difficult and that the correct course was not necessarily the easiest one. However, it was stated that the long-term interests of the community would best be served by rejecting the proposal, thereby preserving the opportunity to fulfil and complete the original vision for Burton Waters.

 

The Chairman thanked Cllr Brockway and Cllr Lee for their comments and invited a response from the Officer.

 

The Offer noted that comments from speakers had focused on the perception of the area as a retirement community for those over 45 or over 55. Reference was made to Policy S23 of the CLLP, concerning the accommodation needs of the housing market area. Under the policy, it was explained that developers were expected to provide housing solutions that contributed to meeting those identified needs. The Officer stated that new residential developments were required to maintain, provide, and contribute to a mix of tenures, types, and sizes of housing in order to support the creation of mixed, balanced, and inclusive communities.

 

Further clarification was provided in respect of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), following comments regarding the application’s failure to achieve the full 10 percent. It was stated that the application had originally been submitted in 2022 with a determination date of November 2022, as such, it had preceded both Policy S61 and the statutory requirement for 10 percent BNG.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her comments and reiterated that only the Members that were present at both the previous Planning Committee meeting on 25 June 2025, and the 11 July 2025 site visit, would be eligible to vote on the item.

 

The floor was then opened for further discussion. A Member of the Committee drew particular attention to a grouping of trees located at the northeastern end of the proposed development. It was considered important that this area be retained as a buffer zone, and it was noted that several trees within this group were protected under Tree Preservation Order (TPO) designations.

 

Attention was then drawn by the Committee Member to the comments made by the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust concerning hedgehog access between gardens. It had been noted that several garden boundaries within the proposal did not include hedgehog passes. Reference was made to existing conditions requiring surveys for badgers and otters, and it was formally proposed that an additional condition be added to ensure the inclusion of hedgehog passes in all gardens, given the importance of maintaining safe movement routes.

 

The proposed elevation of the development site away from the Foss Dyke Canal was welcomed. In the context of global warming and increased flood risk, it was considered important that the site had been raised from its previous classification of Flood Zone 3 to Flood Zone 1, thereby offering improved protection against future flooding.

 

Councillor Smith then addressed the Committee. It was noted that he had been unable to attend the site visit due to a longstanding personal engagement. However, it was confirmed that he had been present at both meetings and had listened to the discussions with interest. Reference was made to earlier applications and to the technical errors that had led to the current situation. It was stated that, ideally, the matter would not have come before the Committee, and the need to ensure such administrative issues were avoided in future was emphasised. The Committee Member urged Members of the Committee to consider the impact of the proposed development and stated that the extant scheme presented less of a harm to current residents and occupiers.

 

A question was raised by a Member of the Committee regarding the management of open spaces within the proposed development. Reference was made to ongoing concerns about transparency and accountability in management arrangements. In response, it was confirmed by the Officer that no details regarding the future management company had yet been provided. It was explained that arrangements for the management and maintenance of open space would be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement.

 

The Chairman referred to the 11 July 2025 site visit, during which Officers had been asked to address flood risk concerns, which the Chairman felt had been sufficiently addressed. It was stated that Members of the Committee had viewed substantial areas of mature vegetation, with much of it in full leaf in July. However, it was confirmed that much of the area was not protected, with the exception of designated TPO zones, and that the extant permission could permit the removal of vegetation within unprotected areas. The Chairman continued, noting that the site visit had enabled views of the lodges through the trees and included observation of the tree preservation area, access gates, and the northern lodge site located beyond the TPO boundaries. Members of the Committee were asked during the visit whether any additional matters required consideration, and it was agreed that the visit had provided a comprehensive overview of the site’s context. Therefore, the Chairman proposed to accept the recommendations outlined in the Officer’s report, with the addition of the proposed amendment to include hedgehog passes in all gardens.

 

A Member of the Committee made a query regarding the unadopted access road. In response, the Officer clarified that any damage to the road during construction would be a matter for resolution between the landowner and the owner of the road. It was explained that from a Highways perspective, the road was deemed to be of an acceptable standard, although ownership of the access route lay with a separate party and had been acknowledged through the signing of Certificate B. The Committee Member requested that the developer be asked to liaise with the landowner to ensure that any necessary remedial works were undertaken upon completion of development; the Officer confirmed that an informative note could be added to the decision notice to reflect this.

 

The Committee Member expressed frustration that no stipulation had been made regarding occupancy for residents over the age of 55, although appreciation was expressed for the Applicant’s response to flooding concerns. Sympathy was conveyed towards local residents, though it was acknowledged that planning regulations must be adhered to in determining the outcome. It was highlighted that refusal of the application would likely result in an appeal, which could impose financial costs on ratepayers.

 

A Member of the Committee expressed concern over the proportionality of the development. It was stated that although approval for up to 100 dwellings was acknowledged, the predominance of larger house types over smaller units was viewed as disproportionate.

 

With no further comments, and having been proposed and seconded, with the amendment of an additional condition requiring a site plan for hedgehog passes noted, upon taking the vote, it was

 

RESOLVED that approval to GRANT planning permission be delegated back to Officers subject to conditions, with the additional condition requiring a site plan for hedgehog passes to be agreed, and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement that secured:

 

·         NHS Contribution of £41,745;

·         The inclusion of a Viability Clause to detail a mechanism within the S106 legal agreement to request that an assessment of costs and values towards the end of the development is carried out to see if there is scope to make a commuted sum contribution toward affordable housing. The clause will also ensure a full viability assessment is carried out in relation to any variations (Section 73 Applications) made to the scheme.

·         Open Space and Landscaping- Details of future management and maintenance.

 

Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:

 

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason: To conform with Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the development commenced:

 

2. Prior to any development a scheme for on-site foul water drainage works, including connection point and discharge rate, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the occupation of any phase, the foul water drainage works relating to that phase must have been carried out in complete accordance with the approved scheme.

 

Reason: To ensure the development is served by an acceptable foul water drainage system in accordance with Policy S21 of the CLLP and the NPPF.

 

3.No development, including any site clearance shall take place until the results of the further Otter survey as detailed within Section 5 of the Badger and Otter Survey Report dated April 2024 by Kedd Limited. Details of any mitigation measures shall also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only proceed in accordance with the approved mitigation plan.

 

Reason: In the interests of protected species in accordance with Policy S60 of the CLLP 2023 and the NPPF.

 

4. No development, including any site clearance shall take place until a reptile mitigation plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with mitigation recommendations contained within Section 6 of the Reptile Survey Report dated April 2024 by Kedd Limited. The development shall only proceed in accordance with the approved mitigation plan.

 

Reason: In the interests of protected species in accordance with Policy S60 of the CLLP 2023 and the NPPF.

 

5. No development hereby permitted shall take place until a Construction Management Plan and Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan and Statement shall indicate measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of vehicle activity and the means to manage the drainage of the site during the construction stage of the permitted development. It shall include;

 

• the phasing of the development to include access construction;

• the on-site parking of all vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

• the on-site loading and unloading of all plant and materials;

• the on-site storage of all plant and materials used in constructing the development.

• wheel washing facilities;

• the routes of construction traffic to and from the site including any off-site routes for the disposal of excavated material.

The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan and Methods Statement.

 

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and the safety and free passage of those using the adjacent public highway the permitted development during construction, in accordance with Policy S47 and S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, and the provisions of the NPPF.

 

Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the development:

 

6. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings:

 

Site Location Plan 1621-01 Rev A

Landscape Layout (April 2024) KD.BRTW.D.001A

Planning Layout (1:500) | 1621-02 - Rev S

Planning Layout (1:1000) | 1621-54 - Rev C

Pedestrian & Vehicle Movement Plan | 1621-03 - Rev E

Landscape Management & Maintenance Plan | 1621-04 - Rev F

Refuse Vehicle Tracking Plan | 1621-06 - Rev E

Material Finishes Layout | 1621-08 - Rev E

Boundary Treatments Layout | 1621-09 - Rev E

Ecological Enhancement Plan | 1621-10 - Rev E

Parking Strategy Layout | 1621-11 - Rev E

Tree Protection Plan | 1621-55 - Rev C

FVA Area Plan | 1621-65 - Rev B

ASHP & PV Panel Locations | 1621-66

Typical Street Scenes (Sheet 1 of 3) | 1621-12 - Rev F

Typical Street Scenes (Sheet 2 of 3) | 1621-13 - Rev F

Typical Street Scenes (Sheet 3 of 3) | 1621-14 - Rev F

Site Sections (Sheet 1 of 2) | 1621-15 - Rev F

Site Sections (Sheet 2 of 2) | 1621-56 - Rev B

House Type 3D9 - M4(2) - (as) | 1621-23 - Rev B

House Type 3D9 - M4(2) - (opp) | 1621-24 - Rev B

House Type 3D9 - M4(2) CLAD (as) | 1621-60 - Rev A

House Type 4D48 (as) | 1621-25

House Type 4D36G (as) | 1621-29 - Rev A

House Type 4D36G (opp) | 1621-30 - Rev A

House Type 4D36S (as) | 1621-31 - Rev A

House Type 4D36S (opp) | 1621-32 - Rev A

House Type 4D36S CLAD | 1621-59

House Type 4D52 (as) | 1621-33

House Type 4D52 (opp) | 1621-34 - Rev A

House Type 2B4 (as) | 1621-45

House Type 2B4 (opp) | 1621-46

House Type 3B17 (as) | 1621-47

House Type 3B17 (opp) | 1621-48

House Type 4D50 (as) | 1621-57

House Type 4D50 (opp) | 1621-49 - Rev A

House Type 4D32 (as) | 1621-50 - Rev A

House Type 4D32 (opp) | 1621-51 - Rev A

House Type 4D32 CLAD | 1621-61

House Type 4D32 CLAD | 1621-62

House Type 4D20 - M4(2) - (as) | 1621-52 - Rev C

House Type 4D20 - M4(2) - (opp) | 1621-53 - Rev C

House Type 4D20 - M4(2) CLAD (as) | 1621-63 - Rev A

Single Garage | 1621-39 - Rev A

Double Garage | 1621-40 - Rev A

2 Car Garage | 1621-41 - Rev A

900mm High Native Species Hedgerow | 1621-44

1.2m High Palisade Fence Detail | 1621-58

1.5m High Panel Fence with 300mm Gravel Board | 1621-42

High Brick Screen Wall Detail | 1621-43 - 1.8m

Proposed Contouring | 202.DR.002 Revision B

Cut and Fill Exercise | 202.DR.001 Revision C

Cross Sections | 202.DR.004

 

The works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and in any other approved documents forming part of the application.

 

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

7.The development hereby approved must only be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in sections 3 and 4 of Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) completed by Kedd Limited dated May 2023.

 

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved management plan and to protect the habitats and wildlife on site to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and S60 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

8.No development above damp-proof course level shall commence until a detailed scheme for the disposal of surface water based on the principles as set out in the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall proceed in accordance with the approved scheme.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development is served by an appropriate surface water drainage scheme in accordance with Policy S21 of the CLLP and the NPPF.

 

9.No occupation of any dwelling shall occur until the ecological enhancements as shown on plan ref 1621-10 Rev B have been implemented and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of protected species and enhancing the biodiversity of the site in accordance with Policies S60 and S61 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the NPPF.

 

10. Notwithstanding the mitigation plans detailed within conditions 4 and 5 of this consent. The development shall proceed in accordance with the ecological recommendations contained within the following reports;

·         Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) by Kedd Limited dated May 2023

·         Bat Survey Report (April 2024)

 

Reason: In the interests of protected species and enhancing the biodiversity of the site in accordance with Policies S60 and S61 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the NPPF.

 

11.No development above damp-proof course level shall take place until details, including specifications of all the proposed facing materials to be used in the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only proceed in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity to accord with Policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023.

 

12.No occupation of each individual dwelling must take place until its individual access and driveway identified on Proposed Site Plan: 1621-54 - Rev C has been fully completed and retained for that use thereafter.

 

Reason: To ensure safe access to the site and each dwelling in the interests of residential amenity, convenience and safety, and to allow vehicles to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear in the interests of highway safety to accord with Policy S47 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

13. The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to ensure that the consumption of wholesome water by persons occupying the dwellings is in accordance with the Building Regulations Approved Document G, Requirement G2/Regulation 36 Optional Technical Requirement of 110 litres per person per day.

 

Reason: To minimise impacts on the water environment and to accord with Optional Technical Housing Standards to accord with Policies S12 and S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

14.Prior to occupation of the approved dwellings, evidence must be submitted to the local planning authority that a rainwater harvesting butt of a minimum 100 litres has been installed.

 

Reason: In the interests of sustainable water management in accordance with policy S12 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

15.The development hereby approved must only be carried out in accordance with the tree protection measures set out in the Arboricultural Assessment, Tree Protection Plan 1621-55 - Rev C completed by Kedd Limited. The tree protection measures as shown on plan reference 1621-55 Rev C shall be erected and retained in their position prior to and for the duration of the construction works.

 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure all parties are aware of the approved operations, whilst ensuring the continued well-being of the trees in the interest of the amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy S66 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, and the provisions of the NPPF.

 

16. The development hereby permitted shall proceed in accordance with the Amended Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment and Metric dated April 2024.

 

Reason: To ensure the development delivers the on-site Biodiversity Net Gain in accordance with Policy S61 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023.

 

17. No development, apart from site clearance shall occur, until an external lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation in accordance with policies S53 and S60 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

18. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the details set out in the submitted Amended Sustainability Statement dated September 2024, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development takes place in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the provisions of Policies S6 and S7 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan

 

19.Prior to occupation of the buildings, a written verification statement shall be submitted to demonstrate that the approved scheme has been implemented in full, in accordance with the submitted Energy Statement dated September 2024, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development takes place in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the provisions of Policies S6 and S7 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023.

 

Conditions which apply or are to be observed following the completion of the development:

 

20. The scheme of landscaping as detailed on plan reference KD.BRTW.D.001A shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

 

Reason: To ensure that an approved landscaping scheme is implemented in a speedy and diligent way and that initial plant losses are overcome, in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjacent buildings and in accordance with Policies S53, S60 and S61 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

21. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no domestic oil tanks or domestic gas tanks shall be placed within the curtilage of the dwellings hereby approved.

 

Reason: In the interests of energy efficiency to accord with Policies S6 and S7 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.