Agenda item

The Senior Development Management Officer introduced application number 137789, an outline planning application for up to 9no. dwellings with all matters reserved at Land East of Laughton Road, adjacent to Irwin Road, Blyton.

 

There was no planning officer update on this item.

 

The first speaker on this item was Councillor Mark Harrison of Blyton Parish Council, who raised the following points:

 

·         The development would be using existing drainage on Irwin Road, which would overload a system which was not suitable in the first place;

 

·         The area of the application was a flow risk; more and more planning applications were being put forward and approved, but the dykes remain of the same size and condition and were very rarely maintained;

 

·         In 2007 the dykes hadn’t been maintained for 40 years;

 

·         The drains in the village remain broken and disconnected;

 

·         There was a total disconnect between Planning, and other areas such as Highways.  When people have a problem in the village, there was no money to fix an antiquated system;

 

·         When it rained hard the dykes were overflowing into the beer garden of one of the village pubs;

 

·         The sewers were not coping with the foul water and sewerage on Irwin Road;

 

·         There needed to be consistency with how costs were distributed on the access road; some houses did not currently contribute to the cost of the upkeep of the road.

 

The next speaker was Mr Philip Marris, the applicant.  He raised the following points in respect of the application;

 

·         All issues with the proposal had been addressed to a satisfactory level in accordance with local and national planning policies.  The Planning Officer’s report demonstrates this, and gives good clear reasoning.  The number and location of the dwellings was acceptable in principle;

 

·         The impact on potential mineral resources was acceptable;

 

·         The impact on highway safety and convenience was acceptable;

 

·         There were no open space requirements from the proposal;

 

·         There was no harm to amenities or ecology arising out of the proposal;

 

·         A foul and water drainage solution exists; there were no technical problems with the application;

 

·         There was no Neighbourhood Plan for Blyton;

 

·         Objections had been listened to and relevant documents produced.  History showed that the applicant had listened to WLDC’s guidance; evidenced by the number of time extensions agreed with WLDC;

 

·         All of the objections raised were from Irwin Road residents, and not the wider community;

 

·         It was requested that the committee approve the application.

 

The third speaker was Marcus Walker, an objector to the application.  He raised the following points;

 

·         This application had been received before, and was the same arable field tagged onto the edge of the village on a steep hill, which abutted the residents of Irwin Road;

 

·         There had been two studies; one on the sequential test, and the other being on a potential future solution to the drainage problems.  A potential future solution to the drainage was insufficient, as the lives of Irwin Road residents were affected directly by this;

 

·         Opposition to this development was staggering and overwhelming in Blyton; no-one in support of the application could be found.  Two Ward Members were against the application;

 

·         There had been flooding in the past, and no more was desired in the future;

 

·         Irwin Road was a small estate of 52 houses and flats; 66 residents had signed a petition against the application;

 

·         Irwin Road was built 13 years ago with sub-standard drainage; the sewer remains unadopted and was in a poor state;

 

·         When the estate was built it was conditioned to have hedgerows, subject to a management fee.  These would be destroyed if the development went ahead;

 

·         The highway was five metres wide upon entering the estate; there was a huge problem with car parking;

 

·         The site was unsustainable; it was 1 kilometre from the nearest shop and school.  It did not provide affordable housing;

 

·         The application should not be granted.

 

The final speaker was Councillor Lesley Rollings, one of the Ward Members for Scotter and Blyton, who raised the following points:

 

·         The drains cannot cope in the area;

 

·         The development sought to add to a housing development on Irwin Road that was still unadopted; the residents believe that the developer had walked away;

 

·         Anglian Water did not have to comment on applications of less than ten houses;

 

·         It was understood that Severn Trent Water had not responded to requests to comment on the application even though they had been contacted several times;

 

·         It was not clear what the application would add to the village of Blyton;

 

·         The village received no section 106 payments;

 

·         The pavement leading from Irwin Road was very narrow and caused problems, with on example being people with pushchairs;

 

·         Lincolnshire County Council deals with the rise in water levels.  It was not acceptable to be approving ‘bolt-on’ developments;

 

·         Committee were urged to reject the application in light of the problems with flooding in the village, and because nothing will be added to the village by this application.

 

Note:   Following her speech, Councillor Rollings left the Chamber.

 

Members then had the opportunity to provide comment, and also ask questions of the Senior Development Management Officer.  Further information was provided, as below:

 

·         The lead local flood authority had been consulted, and following amendments to the drainage strategy, they were satisfied it would be possible to drain the surface water from the site in an appropriate manner; this could be via infiltration to the ground, or through the watercourse to the south-west of the site;

 

·         Severn Trent Water had not objected to the application on the grounds of foul water drainage; it would always be possible to upgrade sewerage infrastructure.  If, in time, the sewers were adopted by Severn Trent, they could be updated by Severn Trent’s legal process;

 

·         There was no requirement for Severn Trent to respond to the application;

 

·         The eventual layout of the site could be changed; a new condition had been attached to the application which would consider a wholescale look at the surface and foul water drainage;

 

·         Surface water from this development would not drain into the adjacent estate; a soakaway test had been done by the applicant, and this was successful;

 

·         According to government guidance, Infiltration and soakaways were the preferred method of sustainable drainage, followed by discharge into an existing watercourse, and then existing sewer capacity;

 

·         Comments from the Environmental Protection Officer were overcome by the latest submitted drainage comments;

 

·         The site was located on grade 3 agricultural land.  LP55 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP) supported the officer’s view that the site was outside of the footprint of the village of Blyton;

 

Note: Councillor Matt Boles left the meeting at 1924 and did not return.

 

·         LP4 of the CLLP does permit development of greenfield land and was acceptable as a matter of principle.  It was considered that the site passed the sequential test provided by LP4, and would result in the loss of a very small parcel of grade 3 agricultural land.

 

The opportunity to undertake a site visit was proposed, seconded and voted upon and approved.

 

A site visit was therefore AGREED, with a time and date to be decided by Members for the earliest available date.

 

Note: The meeting was adjourned at 1929.