Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the first of the applications to be considered by Committee and stated there were two speakers registered. He explained the process for hearing the application and invited the Development Management Team Leader to present the item to Committee.

The Development Management Team Leader advised Committee that in relation to application 137381 (referenced in the report), this had been determined on 25 May 2018. He explained that the condition that had required a footway across the entire frontage of the allocated site had been removed and that condition 15 now only required that they provided a footpath north to the village. Consequently, they were no longer required to provide a footpath within Lodge Lane that would have connected to the application site at 40 Lodge Lane (application 137531).

He added that the applicant had written to advise that, ‘whilst they were intending to market these properties to retirees / older persons from Nettleham Village, they realised that some of the properties would be suitable for wheelchair users. Therefore they would prefer not to have a planning obligation to market the properties solely to those over 55 however, if WLDC and/or the Planning Committee saw that an Over 55’s development would be the difference between being exceptional and not, then they would be agreeable to secure by a planning obligation’.

It was also explained to Committee that 40% of the parish were over 60 years of age where the average across West Lindsey was 29.1% and that the Nettleham Local Plan had allowed for provision of older adult accommodation. He detailed other allocated sites in the neighbourhood area which would provide some, albeit not all, of the identified needed homes. This included a dedicated site (site CL4663/D) for older persons. He concluded with the addition to the Officer recommendation that “dedicated provision of higher accessible homes for older persons, for which there is an identified need, would be a benefit of development. However, releasing an unallocated site outside the development footprint (now without a footpath link) would undermine those accessibility credentials and would not result in “exceptional circumstances”.”

The Chairman invited the first speaker to address Committee. He introduced himself as Mr Steve Gelder, speaking in favour of the application, as the applicant. He explained to Committee that he had been perplexed by the objections from the Parish Council as they had been consulted, their discussions had been minuted and he had understood they were remaining neutral. He had also thought they had the support of the Planning Officer and had been surprised to see the recommendation on the report. Mr Gelder stated that this was a planning application with integrity, that there was a distance of only 100m to the doctors’ surgery and 200m to the local store. He stated this was an easily accessible site and they had received letters of support from neighbouring properties and the local rugby club. He further added that the under construction residential site was now almost completed and therefore the proposed development would now arguably constitute infill. Mr Gelder stated that they would be providing 100% higher accessible bungalows (above policy) as well as 100m of public footpath to connect the development with local amenities and social areas. He asked Committee to consider what be accepted as ‘exceptional’ and questioned what more they could do in order for the application to be granted.

The Committee were then addressed by the second speaker, Councillor John Evans of Nettleham Parish Council. He explained he had been involved in the development of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan and that the Parish Council could not support the planned development as it was not an allocated plot in either the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan or the Lincolnshire Local Plan. He stated the site constituted build into the countryside and that it was questionable whether the development could be considered sustainable. Councillor Evans stated that there were three sites already agreed for development and as such, it was not possible to say that the additional seven home within this application were necessary. Councillor Evans concluded by highlighting that the proposed development contradicted the Neighbourhood Plan and so should not be agreed.

There were no further comments from the Development Management Team Leader and so the Chairman invited discussion from Committee Members. There was significant discussion regarding the lack of single storey accommodation in the district, the importance of providing easily accessible homes but also the relevance of Neighbourhood Plans.

Members gave consideration to the location of the site and whether it would be considered ‘land adjacent to’ or ‘infill’. It was commented that by agreeing the application the footprint of the village could be fundamentally changed and Members questioned whether this could, or should, be done against the wishes of the village. Members also enquired of the Development Management Team Leader as to the nature of the letter of support Mr Gelder had mentioned in his address to Committee. It was confirmed that a letter from the rugby club had been included in the planning application, not representations received by the council directly.

It was highlighted that the development would be within walking distance of public transport therefore increased car use would not be an issue and a Member of Committee also noted that there was no provision in existing plans for housing as proposed in application 137531 and as such it should be considered exceptional. There was concern that to consider a development of bungalows exceptional enough as to override the Neighbourhood Plan would be to minimise the relevance of the Plan and set a precedence for any Neighbourhood Plan to be disregarded in the future.

It was highlighted by a Member of Committee that discussion appeared to be focussed on the provision of bungalows for the over 55’s however the application as it stood was for the dwellings to be sold on the open market, that is to say, not specifically for the over 55’s. This was in relation to the accessibility of the bungalows and so as not to discriminate against younger residents who may also need easy-access properties. It was felt that this would not be considered as exceptional and it was necessary to adhere to the Neighbourhood Plan.

The recommendation in the report to refuse the application was proposed, seconded and voted upon and it was therefore agreed that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The application seeks residential development on a non-allocated site outside of, but immediately adjacent to the developed footprint of Nettleham, a large village. Policy LP2 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan seeks that most large village growth to be via sites allocated in the development plan, or appropriate infill, intensification or renewal within the existing developed footprint. It is only in exceptional circumstances that additional growth may be considered in such locations. It is considered that exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated that may justify additional growth outside of the developed footprint. Development is therefore contrary to the provisions of the development plan, in particular policy LP2 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.