Agenda item

Minutes:

The Development Management Team Leader introduced application number 138097, for the proposed erection of 2no. dwellings at Church Road, Stow.

 

There were two updates to the report:

 

·         An extension of time on the application had been agreed to the 19October 2018;

·         The applicant had agreed to the pre-commencement decision on materials.

 

Councillor Chris Turner spoke on behalf of Stow Parish Council, and highlighted the following five objections:

 

1.    In the opinion of the Parish Council, conditions 4 and 5 of the outline planning permission had not been met.  There related to surface, and foul water drainage issues on Church Road, which was prone to flooding.  The officer’s report confirmed these conditions had to be met at some time in the future, but that it did not relate to reserved matters in this application.  It would be difficult to consider drainage after approval had been granted for development;

 

2.    Permission for a small bungalow immediately to the north-west of this application was refused.  The applicant in that case appealed; this was unsuccessful; the proposed bungalow would have damaged the view of the open countryside from Church Road.  For application 138097, this appeared to have been addressed by the officer under the ‘views’ section.  Extensive bedrooms in the roof will make them appear like three-storey properties, which again would damage the view of the open countryside from Church Road;

 

3.    It was hard to envisage a house with five bedrooms, a large number of toilets and a double garage conforming to low carbon living;

 

4.    There was no requirement for an archaeological survey;

 

5.    There was a vibrant community in Stow; what the village needed was affordable housing for families.

 

The next speaker was Mrs Carolyn Turner, who was objecting to the application.  She raised the following points:

 

·         Mrs Turner was a local resident of 35 years;

 

·         Earlier in 2018 planning permission for a small bungalow adjacent to the plot for application 138097 was refused because it would detract from the view of the countryside from Church Road;

 

·         The proposed dwellings were totally out of character with the area.  They contained many windows, and did not blend in with the tiny single track road on Church Lane;

 

·         The submitted plans show a laudable attempt at fitting into the surrounding landscape; however, closer inspection shows that hedges were to be destroyed as they were overrun with species.  In fact, the hedgerow could be seen as a haven for flora or fauna;

 

·         Bulldozers had already decimated the area;

 

·         LP4 of the CLLP advised that Stow should accommodate small scale development of a limited nature in an appropriate location; this development was neither small-scale nor appropriately located;

 

·         The drainage in place could not cope with a one in ten year event;

 

·         The application was totally inappropriate in terms of appearance, style, and landscape.

 

Following these comments, the Development Management Team Leader responded:

 

·         Planning permission had already been granted on this site; this application is for reserved matters only;

 

·         Drainage was a condition of the application.  The applicant would need to submit these details and it would need to be agreed.  The lead local flood authority did not raise objections at the time of granting planning permission;

 

·         The bungalow to the north of the site was refused; however the application before Members was independent of that application and was not seeking planning permission;

 

·         No conditions were required for archaeology, nor the ecology of the site st the time of granting permission;

 

·         Consideration was required purely for the reserved matters - scale and appearance of the buildings, and the layout of the site, landscape and access.

 

Members then provided their comments on the application.  Following this, further information was provided;

 

·         The proposed houses had dedicated garages to their front, with ample off-road parking;

 

·         If the landowner had not been an immediate family member of a Councillor, the application would have been an officer decision;

 

·         On previous applications when a site visit had been requested, the developer had put up height indicators so it would be clear how much massing there would be;

 

At this stage in proceedings, it was moved and seconded that the committee go on a site visit, but this was REFUSED.

 

Further comment was provided:

 

·         The last assessment Strategic Housing Market Assessment was in July 2015; it outlined that houses of all types were needed in Central Lincolnshire.  The greatest need was for small properties, but all types were needed;

 

·         When speaking to businesses in the area, their preference was for more executive homes in West Lindsey;

 

It was proposed, and seconded that Members support the officer recommendation in the report, but this was REFUSED.

 

There were no further questions or comments and it was therefore moved, seconded and voted upon that permission be REFUSED.  Thescale of the development does not relate well to the site and surroundings and therefore does not achieve a high quality design that contributes positively to local character and is contrary to the provisions of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, in particular policy LP26.

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: