Agenda item

Minutes:

The Principal Development Management Officer introduced planning application 138491 – land to the west of the A1133 Newton on Trent, Lincolnshire.  This was an outline planning application for a mixed use villageextension comprising of up to 325no. private and affordable dwelling units of use Class C3, community meeting rooms of use Class D1, with ancillary pub-café with use Class A4 and sales area with use Class A1, new landscaping, public and private open space with all matters reserved; a resubmission of 134411.

 

There were a number of updates to the application, listed below:

 

·         There was a slight amendment to ‘reason for refusal no.2’ – the second sentence should read:

 

insufficient evidence has been provided to determine whether development would sterilise mineral resources within the mineral safeguarding area, and it has not been demonstrated that development could not be reasonably sited elsewhere.”

 

The rest of the reason for refusal remained as printed;

 

·         There was an error on page 45 of the agenda pack for this meeting in relation to West Lindsey District Council’s (WLDC) consultation responses – it should have outlined that 76% of letters sent to households from WLDC supported the proposal, with 24% objecting.  This did not change the nature of the recommendation;

 

·         There were a number of additional responses:

1.    The Trent Valley Drainage Board noted an open water course to the southern boundary; consent would be required if development were within 9 metres of the top of the water course.  Surface water run-off must not exceed 1.4litres per second per hectare.  An area of open space alongside any maintained water course should be 9 metres in width and be provided to allow access for maintenance to the said watercourse.  None of this information changed the recommendations within the report;

2.    The agents and applicants team provided an initial response to the concerns of the mineral waste authority, and indicated that a further report was yet to be completed.  However, in summary that the key points which would be explored in more detail would be that mineral extraction from the site was likely to be restricted by physical and environmental constraints, such as the A1133 road to the east, existing flood defences to the west, Newton on Trent to the south and the east, and a power line crossing the site.

 

The Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) mapping was based on rather a large scale and included generalisations.  Therefore, whilst it was possible that there may be sand and gravel of up to 6 metres underlying the site this may not be specifically the case for the application site as a number of test pits dug in 2015 indicated that this was limited to 1 metre.  Sustainable drainage ponds could result in extraction of significant deposits should they be found.

 

Latest LCC figures show that the land bank was 8.25 years, which was above the 7 years required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) so extraction is not necessary;

 

·         Planning officers were recommending a technical reason for refusal; if the applicant wanted to provide additional information following determination of the decision, this could be considered;

 

·         Further information was supplied on the consultation process, and how it was conducted in a positive manner and without bias;

 

There were no speakers for this report, therefore Members and officers provided comment:

 

·         The application was not mentioned in, and was contrary to the Local Plan;

 

·         Newton on Trent is a small village and proposal would more than double the scale of the village. The application site fell within category 6, and paragraphs 79, 88 and 114 of the examination report of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP).  When weighing up these against the positive weight of development, the officer recommendation was supported;

 

·         The NPPF does indicate that in certain circumstances, large scale developments were often the best way forward.  The difference between this application, and a development such as the ‘urban extension’ in Gainsborough would be the sustainability of facilities.  The connections, bus services and facilities available in Newton on Trent were very limited.  The enhancements suggested by the applicant were not sufficiently robust to accommodate the volume of extra residents;

 

·         The benefits of the large scale development were outweighed by the location of the plans;

 

·         Some concerns raised with reference to applicants running their own consultation and vote even given the professional qualifications of those running it;

 

·         The proposal was to enhance the bus service in Newton on Trent; the current bus service was the 106.  This proposal would involve a considerable sum of money being put forward for a minibus service, partially timetabled, partially call connect linking up with the existing commercial 100/106 service run by Stagecoach.  The main commercial service could connect with the minibus at Saxilby, but as outlined within the report these measures are not deemed sufficient to create a sustainable alternative to the car for most;

 

·         The scale of the development would lead to considerable numbers of people using their cars in the area;

 

·         The amount of cars coming into the area as a result of the application would exacerbate traffic issues at the junction of the A57 and the A1133;

 

·         The Post Office and the store had gone, and the local school was oversubscribed;

 

·         The site was initially brought forward as part of the Local Plan process, but was rejected.

 

There were no further questions or comments and it was therefore moved, seconded and voted upon that permission be REFUSED, as per the officer recommendation in the report.

Supporting documents: