Agenda item

The Principal Development Management Officer introduced planning application number 136309 – Willingham Road, Lea - outline planning application to erect 61no. dwellings-access to beconsidered and not reserved for subsequent applications. 

 

In addition to the published paperwork, there was a further update for committee, as the Secretary of State was minded to consider to call the application in.  This did not mean that it would be called in, and no way indicated that the application was in error.  The call-in decision was not dependant on whether the committee decided to support the recommendation to approve or not; however, Committee would not be able to make a determination.  The Secretary of State’s casework unit would take over – there was no timeframe on this.

 

Further comments had been received from Lea Parish Council.  Since they made their initial response, the Lea Neighbourhood Plan (NP) had been made.  They also wanted to raise the following concerns:

 

·         Policy 1 did indicate comprehensive redevelopment off Willingham Road.  They questioned whether the bungalows at types 7 and 8 would be satisfactory for the development. Similarly concerns were raised that feature properties were not fully defined;

 

·         Criteria B of Policy 1 of the Lea Neighbourhood Plan – the Parish Council asked that West Lindsey District Council (WLDC) be certain there be no further risk of flooding or foul water;

 

·         Criteria D of Policy 1 of the Lea Neighbourhood Plan – concerned about traffic movements and parking around Stainton Close, and felt that the junction of Willingham Road and the A156 had been focused on instead of this.  They were particularly concerned about the levels of traffic around the school’s opening and closing times, and that this had not been properly assessed;

 

·         Criteria E of Policy 1 of the Lea Neighbourhood Plan – concerned about the overall height of certain bungalows on the development and the impact on residential amenity;

 

·         Criteria H of Policy 1 of the Lea Neighbourhood Plan – the Parish Council felt that there were very minimal areas of open space on the development, and felt that the Community Infrastructure Levy should be used on Lea Park;

 

·         The public footpath connection to the park was a concern, with respect to its location entering the park;

 

·         Questioned whether the off street parking for the proposed new residents was sufficient;

 

·         Concerned whether there was sufficient drainage;

 

The Principal Development Management Officer responded to this by saying that the majority of these points had been responded to as part of the committee report.  In terms of the car parking space – this was an indicative plan.  If the report was to be approved, then a reserved matters application would need to be submitted and would give a clearer indication of where, and how many, car parking spaces were proposed.

 

 

There was an error in page 27 of the reports pack, which should have read ’12 Willingham Road’, rather than ’14 Willingham Road. 

 

Finally, Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust did not wish to make any comments, and referred to the standing advice on newts and bats produced by English Nature.

 

Following this, Mr Simon Elliott, speaking on behalf of the applicants addressed the committee, and raised the following points:

 

·         The application site is proposed in the Lea Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and the Local Plan (LP);

 

·         The applicants had been in discussion with WLDC’s planning officers and the Lea Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group.

 

·         The number of proposed dwellings had been reduced to 61 units from 68 units, including 1 bedroom apartments, affordable houses, semi-detached units and bungalows;

 

·         The number of objections was acknowledged, but Mr Elliott considered that these had been dealt with by the officer’s report;

 

·         A number of consultation responses had been received by WLDC – the Highways authority had had no objections, Historic England and Natural England had no comments, and the Conservation Officer and local drainage engineers had no objections;

 

·         Additional screen planting and a comprehensive landscaping scheme were to be undertaken across the site.

 

Mr Robin Heppenstall then spoke in opposition to the application on behalf of the CLEAR group, and raised the following points:

 

·         The Planning Portal on the WLDC website stated that planning consultation was still underway, and there was no mention of any planning meeting;

 

·         The Lea Neighbourhood Development Plan accepted the presence of the site only as it was imposed by the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP).  However development on the site was only supported if it fitted into the historic landscape, and the historic core of Lea;

 

·         The NP should safeguard Lea from inappropriate development;

 

·         The application did not meet the criteria set out in the NP, in terms of the size and scale of the buildings, surface water run-off, and open spaces;

 

·         The road access is dangerous.  The proposed site access would be straight out into a plethora of parked cars, particularly difficult at school opening and closing times;

 

·         The response from the Highways department at Lincolnshire County Council says that no development should take place until various criteria have been complied with. This response, and the response from Lea Parish Council around non-compliance with its criteria should have been enough to refuse the application at this present time;

 

·         Only concern with the Parish Council’s response was around the use of the term ‘indicative’.  In Mr Heppenstall’s opinion, this meant that the discussions of the Lea Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group had been dismissed by the landowner, and that the NP had been disregarded;

 

·         This was not a village development, and did not meet the Central Lincolnshire criteria for villages.  It was an urban development, as part of Gainsborough’s expansion – however, it did not meet Gainsborough’s criteria either;

 

·         The application would do a disservice to residents of both Lea, and Gainsborough.

 

Councillor Jessie Milne spoke on the application as Ward Member, and stood down from her position on the Planning Committee.  The following points were highlighted:

 

·         This application was in the same part of the parkland, albeit to the side, as the previous application for this area.  The same issues were still present, namely endangered birds, and wildlife;

 

·         Part of the land was susceptible to flooding.  Surface water had always been a problem for the village;

 

·         When Lincolnshire County Council did the highways survey, they came at the wrong times.  The school and commute times were not taken into account.  Willingham Road had cars parked both sides of the road as the nursery finishes at a different time to the school;

 

·         The entrance and exit to the site was attached to a very busy road.  A potential for two vehicles for family would lead to a further 100-plus  vehicles in the area;

 

·         The primary school was excellent and popular with parents; it was currently at capacity;

 

·         The doctor’s surgeries allocated for Lea in Gainsborough were struggling, and Willingham surgery was full.  In addition, Willingham surgery do not dispense so medication would need to be picked up from Gainsborough;

 

·         This application was in the LP and the NP, but that did not mean it was the right place to build.  The application would have a major impact on the lives and homes of the people in Lea.  Councillor Milne could not support the outline application.

 

Note: Following her speech, Councillor Jessie Milne left the chamber for the remainder of the item.

 

The Principal Development Management Officer responded to the queries raised by speakers as follows:

 

·         The Planning department try to take comments on applications right up until the time of committee, hence why comments provided on the day of the meeting have been brought to the attention of committee. The web site was therefore right to state that consultation was on going. The Committee agenda for each meeting would be published on line in advance of each meeting and has been available for public viewing. Comments are put on WLDC’s website in advance;

 

·         The Lea NP does indicate an acceptance of development of up to 68 dwellings, with caveats.  It was considered that the application did accord with the points in the NP, and the applicant had tried to meet a lot of the concerns.  It was not considered appropriate to limit the dormer style bungalows as they could be designed in such a way that from the rear they could appear as bungalows, protecting residential amenity. These would be considered at a later date when reserved matters were submitted;

 

·         Highways officers have responded to WLDC officers outlining that they had looked at traffic on a number of occasions as part of the Local Plan and NP process, but also as part of the application.  The road access and parking was considered to be acceptable.  The works on the highway would be completed within specific timescales to maintain safety;

 

·         For car parking, there were a number of properties in the indicative plan that could accommodate longer driveways; this could be investigated at the reserved matters stage;

 

·         Drainage: surface water drainage issues in the area are noted but reports provided show the site could be drained via a mixture of soakaways and positive drainage. The central areas of the site had a clay consistency but the eastern and western areas were of a more sandy composition, so percolation could occur for drainage. In the central areas surface water would be transported via swales and pipes to a large attenuation pond.  The proposal has been looked at in detail by the lead local flooding authority, and they had not objected;

 

·         Severn Trent Water had been able to look at the foul water situation within Lea as part of their five year plan. The applicant had worked with them to see what extra load would be put onto the system and what enhancements were required.  There was also a condition within the NPPF to ensure these works had been done;

 

·         The applicant had undertaken a number of assessments on newts and bats.  Indications were that the use of the pond on site from newts was very low level; additional surveys had not managed to find any newts.

 

Bats were using the site, in particular a tree to the rear of number 12 Willingham Road, but there was no evidence that they were roosting.  There were however mitigating measures on tree felling on the site.

 

Note: Councillor Giles McNeill declared a personal interest as her knew Mr Heppenstall socially. 

 

He also declared a further interest as he had dined with the Secretary of State, but the conversation had not included the application in Lea.

 

Note: Councillor Judy Rainsforth declared an interest as she also knew Mr Heppenstall.

 

There was then the opportunity for comment from Members and responses from the Principal Development Management Officer.  Further points are highlighted below:

 

·         The development may have been better split into two rather than coming as one scheme for 61 dwellings, but this the Local Plan and NP supports a single site;

 

·         The Highways team at Lincolnshire County Council were specifically asked about the primary school opening hours, and have confirmed they are happy on a professional basis that the entrance/exit was safe;

 

·         A condition requiring a parking strategy as part of reserved matters could be added;

 

·         There was a mixture of house types; any future developer would have to outline the mix of housing, but a condition is proposed;

 

·         The outcome of the Lea NP referendum was almost 3 to 1 in favour of the plan;

 

Both Lea and Morton were considered to meet Gainsborough’s growth needs with reference made to paragraph 3.4.9 of the CLLP.

The application was proposed, seconded and voted upon and approved.

 

It was therefore AGREED that the application be GRANTED, subject to conditions, and delegated to the Chief Operating Officer, to enable the completion and signing of an agreement under section 106 of the Planning Act 1990 (as amended) pertaining to:-

 

·         The delivery of no less than 20% as affordable housing;

·         Measures to secure the delivery, and ongoing maintenance and management of public open space, drainage features and ecological and protected species works including potential mitigation and compensatory features/land;

• A capital contribution towards enhancements of Lea Park, playground and woodland walk and strategic sports provision.
• Provision and maintenance of a pedestrian footpath linking site to Lea Park

 

Members also requested additional conditions relating to parking, design, scale and the nature of the development, and also requested that the application came back at the reserved matters stage.

 

This was all subject to the Secretary of State not calling in the application.

 

Note: The meeting was adjourned at 1937 to allow some members of the public to leave the room.

 

Note: The meeting recommenced at 1938, and Councillor Jessie Milne re-joined the committee.