Agenda item

The Chairman introduced application number 138494, an outline planning application for the erection of up to 63no. dwellingswith garages, access roads, footpaths and open space-access to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications at land off The Hawthorns Nettleham.

 

There were no officer updates for this application, so Members first heard a number of speakers to the application.  The first speaker was Councillor John Evans from Nettleham Parish Council.  He raised the following points:

 

·         The first area of concern from Nettleham Parish Council was related to policy H1 of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan (NNP), which stated that ‘housing sites should be restricted to a yield of 50 homes, unless it can be demonstrated that their proposed numbers can be satisfactorily incorporated into the community, and also their proposed design, layout and dwelling numbers can be satisfactorily incorporated into their topology and landscape settings.’

 

Whilst acknowledging an that an indicative drawing had been supplied, the 25% increase in housing numbers from the CLLP and the Neighbourhood Plan could not be accounted for until a detailed plan had been seen.  However, an outline permission for 50 dwellings would be supported;

 

·         Avoiding ‘planning creep’ was desirable.  A final detailed plan with extra dwellings would not be wanted;

 

·         The second area of concern was around footpaths.  The proposal mentioned footpaths, and this was to be applauded as they were a featue of the NNP.   However, footpaths should form part of a Section 106 agreement, so that when the application moved to a detailed stage, they were not forgotten or ignored.  Nettleham Parish Council would want footpaths defined as ‘all-weather’ with a minimum width of 2 metres to encourage cyclists and horse riders;

 

·         The final area of concern was play equipment.  The nearest playground was on Larch Avenue, built some 15 years ago.  This was approximately a 100 metre walk from vehicular access to this site.  The area comprised of one slide, two climbing frames and other childrens’ rides, and was a small site that catered for around 40-50 houses.  To double the amount of houses using that site was wrong, and the new site should have its own play area.

 

The second speaker was Mr Phil Scrafton, agent for the applicant.  He raised the following points:

 

·         The application responded to material planning and amenity considerations satisfactorily;

 

·         The number of houses for development within the NNP was an indicative figure, therefore it was the applicant’s view that 50 houses was not intended to be an upper limit;

 

·         Paragraph 10.2 in the adopted Local Plan clarifies the above issue; the 50 houses in the NNP was an estimate based on the size of the site, the assumption of the development area, and the net residential density;

 

·         Paragraph 10.2 goes onto say that developers should produce the most appropriate design led solution, and they need not be constrained by the indicative figure;

 

·         Other schemes in Nettleham have been able to deliver more dwellings on a site that had a lower indicative figure; for example there were 36 additional dwellings at Deepdale Lane which made ‘effective and efficient use of that land’;

 

·         Development was restricted to 20 dwellings per hectare, with the footpaths and open space being incorporated;

 

·         Whilst the figure of 1,811 square metres of open space within the report was not incorrect, it only referred to the area identified south and west of the new access road.  An additional swathe of open space was included northwards of the site.  Including this area extended the provision, going beyond the 0.2115 hectare provision.  The applicant was happy to be bound by this higher figure;

 

·         The construction management plan was an important mechanism needed before the commencement of any development.  It would ensure the proper control of building activities such as the hours of work, so that residential amenities were protected as much as possible.  This would be controlled through a planning condition;

 

·         A direct connection could be made to the adjacent watercourse at a restricted greenfield equivalent rate; no additional burden would be put onto existing Anglian Water infrastructure.  Sustainable drainage principles had been met;

 

·         A planning obligation had been agreed in principle which provided for 16 affordable units and the desired footpath through the site and the neighbouring field, ending at Nettleham Beck;

 

·         This was precisely the type of development the planning process should be aiming to deliver.

 

The final speaker on this item was Councillor Angela White, who raised the following issues:

 

·         There was inaccurate information in the report regarding Nettleham’s schools.  There were two schools in Nettleham; Nettleham C of E Junior School, and the Nettleham Infant School;

 

·         The report states that Nettleham Primary School was incapable of expansion; this was incorrect, and the school had had no consultations with the education authorities;

 

·         There should be further clarification on why the section 106 money was going to a school in Lincoln rather than remaining in the village.  This was the second occasion this had occurred; previously monies had been granted to Monks’ Abbey Primary School in Lincoln;

 

·         This application was designated within the NNP.

 

Note: Following her speech, Councillor Angela White left the chamber and did not return.

 

Officers were then given the opportunity to respond to the comments raised by the public speakers:

 

·         The 50 dwellings yield in the NNP was an indicative figure; developers could be allowed over this figure provided that they could show policy H-1 of the NNP was being met;

 

·         The NNP explained that the figure of 50 dwellings for this site was based on residential density in Nettleham.  The density given by the application was similar to the figure given in the NNP, and the surrounding neighbourhoods;

 

·         There was an equipped play area in the proximity of the site and the development would be liable for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding, creating funds for the parish council to invest;

 

·         It was recognised that there would a requirement for a contribution to school provision that would be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement; this was advised by the Local Education Authority (LEA) on the basis that capacity would free up places at the Nettleham schools if children have capacity at schools nearer to them;

 

·         A public footpath was proposed all the way from the northern boundary, as is required by the NNP.  It was proposed that this be secured through Section 106 monies;

 

Members were then to provide comment and ask questions of officers.  Information from this discourse is documented below:

 

·         The NNP outlines a plan of 50 dwellings for this site; granting more dwellings on this application could encourage other developers to always go above the indicative figure suggested;

 

·         The NNP had a notional limit of no more than 20 dwellings per hectare, and does not limit developers to 50 dwellings.  The application must demonstrate that properties blend into the community;

 

·         There had to be fluidity within the Local Plan, but a 26% uplift in the number of dwellings was considerable;

 

·         A different interpretation of an indicative number of dwellings for this site around 50 would be somewhere between 45 and 55 dwellings.

 

Members then discussed the amount of dwellings they would like to see on the site. An amendment to the application was proposed, seconded and voted upon and approved; the amendment changed condition 12 in the report to read:

 

“the development shall comprise of a maximum of 50 dwellings.”

 

The amendment then became the substantive recommendation.  This was then voted on, and:

 

It was therefore AGREED that planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the conditions in the report (as amended).  There would be a delegation to the Chief Operating Officer to enable the completion and signing of an agreement under section 106 of the Planning Act 1990 (as amended) pertaining to:

 

·         The construction of 16 affordable homes with tenure to be agreed at reserved matters.  This is an indicative number dependant on the dwelling number applied for at reserved matters,

·         An NHS contribution to create additional consultation space at the surgery.  Based on an indicative number of houses and their size, which would only be determined at reserved matters, this could amount to £39,847.50

·         An LCC Education contribution towards additional classrooms at the Carlton Academy, Lincoln.  Based on an indicative number of houses and their size, which would only be determined at reserved matters stage this could amount to £135,517.00

·         Open space on the site including a management and maintenance plan.

·         Pedestrian footpath from the south boundary of the site to the Nettleham Beck and then south to the Anglian Water Sewage Works (see plan J1727 SK12 dated December 2018).