Agenda item

The Planning and Development Manager introduced planning application number 137374 – 36 Sussex Gardens, Scampton LN1 2UL.  This was a planning application for the erection of 2no. dwellings and car parking,  He also read out a note on Scampton Village and Scampton Former RAF settlement growth levels, which had been included in the agenda pack.

It was confirmed that the position statement read out by the Planning and Development Manager would be taken to a future meeting of Prosperous Communities Committee for further discussion.  The Planning and Development Manager and the Council’s solicitor both confirmed that the existing policies set out in the adopted Local Plan provided a clear direction and sound policy basis for making a decision on this planning application, and advised that the Council was therefore required to determine the planning application expediently.

The only speaker on this application was Councillor Roger Patterson, Ward Member for Scampton, who stood down from his role on the Planning Committee for the duration of this application.  The following points were made by Councillor Patterson:

·         The RAF base at Scampton is current and still active.  The roads and infrastrucutre around the site were jointly owned by the Ministry of Defence and two local residents’ associations;

·         Inset 1 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan showed Scampton, and RAF Scampton as one whole settlement.  A historic footpath linked the two conurbations;

·         There was a joint parish council for Scampton;

·         The builders started digging out footings on the site without planning permission;

·         Another application, not inkeeping with the area that had been passed without coming to Planning Committee had undergone building work without having previous planning permission;

·         There had been no direct consultation with residents; the only notice displayed in the area was around 100 metres away, and behind a tree;

·         There was contamination on the land; however it was not clear what the type of contamination was, and what action had been taken;

·         Scampton and RAF Scampton should be counted as one settlement until such time that the situation was reviewed, and adopted by Council;

·         Under LP4, the application should be refused as Scampton had already met its full quota of development.

The Planning and Development Manager, the Planning Officer and the Chairman then replied to some of these points:

·         The application for a home office would not normally come to Planning Committee unless there was a specific request for it do so, which had not been forthcoming.  There was an enfrocement case underway;

·         Officers follow policies set for them; the professional opinion of the officers was as set out in the report.  It was unfortunate that this settlement was omitted from the local plan;

·         The Chairman commented that the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan was adopted in 2017 and all parish councils were included at every stage of consultation prior to adoption.  It had subsequently been adopted by the Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee and was now the development plan in place for this area and was supported by all four partner authorities (WLDC, North Kesteven District Council, City of Lincoln Council and Lincolnshire County Council);

·         Only the historic part of the village was shown as Scampton on the inset map as part of the CLLP. The two settlements were separate;

·         Section 73a of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dealt with developments that had been started, or carried out, before the date of the application.

Sub section 1 deals with developments that had been carried out:

(a)  Without planning permission;

(b)  In accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period;

(c)  Without complying with some conditions subject to which planning permission was granted.

Following further queries from Members, the following information was provided:

·         The former RAF housing was not within the Area of Great Landscaped Value (AGLV).  There may be footpaths that connect the two areas, but there was degrees of separation for the settlements;

·         It cannot be said that the settlements are linked for planning considerations just because they had one parish council;

·         This was a retrospective application, which would complete the end of a row of housing, similar to other rows on the site.  The two additional dwellings were, taking into account all of the above, otherwise acceptable in planning terms;

·         The car parking with the dwellings was separate land, which the applicant does not own.

The recommendation to approve the planning application was moved, seconded and voted upon and it was AGREED that planning permission be GRANTED with the conditions as set out in the report.