The Chairman introduced application number 138563, an outline planning application to erect 6no. dwellings with all matters reserved – a resubmission of 136727 -  at land off Dunholme Road, Scothern, Lincoln LN2 2UD. 

 

Prior to receiving updates from officers, the Chairman read out a statement regarding the proposed financial contribution from the developer to the local community, should the application be approved.  The contribution had been referred to within the application, but should not form part of the decision to be made by committee.  As acknowledged by the agent in recent correspondence, it could not be a material consideration for the planning application – therefore it was not a matter that should be discussed further or give weight to, as only material planning considerations can be taken into account in the determination of planning applications.

 

There was one update to the application from the Senior Development Management Officer, which was an additional letter of rejection from a resident – the points listed were:

 

·         10% growth in the numbers of dwellings had already been exceeded;

·         There were existing problems in the village with traffic speed;

·         The money offered to the village should not come into the equation;

 

This late update did not change the officer recommendation in the report.

 

The first speaker on this application was Councillor Cathryn Nicoll from Scothern Parish Council.  She made the following points:

 

·         Following a parish council meeting on 22 November 2018 Scothern Parish Council submitted comprehensive comments against this application;

 

·         The offer of £150,000 for the village hall had been noted, but not considered as part of the application as this was a private arrangement, not a statutory S106 planning agreement or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL);

 

·         This was development outside of the continuous form of the village.  The development area could not be considered infill, as it was within the Manor’s parkland; the site was bounded by areas used for sheep grazing at this current time;

 

·         The CLLP identified Scothern as requiring 10% residential development, which would equate to 36 dwellings.  Planning had already been granted for over 70 dwellings;

 

·         The Manor House had been on the application site since the 13^th century.  The park attached to the house was detailed in probate will as being of historic importance, and was catalogued extensively in the Scothern Neighbourhood Plan;

 

·         Information had been distributed to residents by the applicant; many residents had not received this, and Scothern Parish Council were unsure whether all dwellings had received this information.  The analysis of the responses was within the Design and Access statement for the application;

 

·         There were already ample properties of the same type under construction opposite this proposed development, and 8 large dwellings were being constructed at the east side of the village.

 

The second speaker was Mr Andrew Clover, speaking on behalf of the applicant.  He raised the following points:

 

·         The growth level for Scothern, identified in the Local Plan had been reached, therefore policy LP2 outlined that clear local support was required for any further applications to be successful.  A questionnaire had been sent to 364 properties in the village, with 105 responses received.  70 of these responses had been in favour of the proposals.  This level of support was similar to an application approved in Marton, and greater than an approved application in Scothern itself.  These were approved under officer’s delegated powers;

 

·         An inspector stated in a recently allowed appeal in Langworth that applications approved before the Local Plan was adopted should not be included in growth figures.  If this appeal was given weight, then this would equate to a growth level of 33 dwellings remaining in Scothern – this had not been referenced in the report;

 

·         There were no brownfield or infill sites available in the village.  Allocated sites were all on the edge of the village;

 

·         In terms of the Heritage Impact Assessment, no substantial harm would be caused to the Manor House.  Any harm arising from development would be outweighed by the benefits to the village;

 

The third speaker was Mr Steve Taylor, a supporter of the application.  He raised the following points:

 

·         Policy LP15 of the Local Plan outlined support for community facilities, and this was not referred to in the officer’s report.  Over the past three years, Scothern had had developments approved, but received no money for community facilities.  The philanthropy associated with this development was positive.  The late Councillor Stuart Curtis instigated this way of funding community facilities as a way of resolving the lack of planning monies, and to make sure there was a sustainable, fit for purpose village hall;

 

·         Under policy LP15, it was possible for developments to pool together planning monies for community facilities.  If the applicant was prepared to work with WLDC on the provision of Section 106 monies, then this should be taken into account.  This would not be dissimilar to applications within Gainsborough, such as the recent hotel development;

 

·         The application could be deferred to allow further thought as to how the section 106 agreement could be used for cumulative effect of 70 dwellings in Scothern;

 

·         Village halls should not be left to rot and collapse; if facilities at Scothern Village Hall cannot be improved soon, the prospect of non-viability and closure was real.

 

The final speaker was Councillor Robert Waller, who stood down from his role as Planning Committee member for this item and spoke as Ward Member.  He raised the following points:

 

·         This application was first submitted as outline planning application 136727 and was subsequently withdrawn following the death of district Councillor Stuart Curtis, who had been a supporter;

 

·         Councillor Waller had been lobbied by both supporters and objectors of this application on numerous occasions;

 

·         This application was somewhat different in that the developer had entered into a unilateral agreement with the village hall.  This should not have any bearing on the decision of the committee; in fact some residents had seen this as an attempt to ‘buy’ the planning permission;

 

·         The application was perceived by objectors not to be in accordance with Scothern Neighbourhood Plan and contrary to the CLLP, and policies LP2, LP4, LP26, LP55 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan;

 

·         Residents in favour of the application saw that the 6 dwellings was a small price to pay to give the village hall a new lease of life.  The development was on the edge of the village and would provide funds to the upkeep of the Manor House;

 

·         Some letters of support were from outside of the county;

 

·         No objections had been raised from LCC Highways, the Drainage Board, or from ecology advisers;

 

Note: Following this speech, Councillor Robert Waller left the Chamber for the remainder of this item.

 

Following on from the public speakers on this item, the Development Management Team leader and the Legal Adviser provided feedback on the points raised:

 

·         Reference had been made to a unilateral agreement; this was not a part of the planning application under consideration and was not a material planning consideration before the Committee today.  The decision reached at committee would need to be taken against the Local Plan, adopted policies and the Scothern Neighbourhood Plan;

 

·         Obligations and financial contributions within a Section 106 agreement were subject to three legal tests.  In this instance, a contribution to a village hall would not meet those tests – planning obligations need to mitigate developments, in this case being six homes;

 

·         A private agreement was not a planning obligation; this was something entered into between the developer and a village hall trust outside the planning process.

 

Members then provided comment on the application, and asked questions of officers.  The following information was highlighted:

 

·         There was merit in taking into account the heritage on the site, as there was a threat to the historic nature of the property;

 

·         During development of Burton Waters, it was decided that the provision and adaption of a ‘meeting place’ was beyond the scope of an application for 295 dwellings; the application before Members tonight was for only 6 dwellings;

 

·         Planning Officers reiterated the statutory tests for a lawful S106 planning obligation. Within the adopted Local Plan, there was the adopted supplementary planning document that addressed funding for the village hall to be made through raised CIL monies;

 

·         Views were raised as to whether it was the right development, but in the wrong place;

 

·         If a Councillor were not involved in the application, then it would have been decided under officer delegations, and would have been refused as being contrary to both the Local Plan,  and the Scothern Neighbourhood Plan;

 

·         Both residential development sites in proximity to the application had been allocated within the Neighbourhood Plan and were accounted for in growth levels and the village growth allowance had already been significantly exceeded.

 

Members then moved and seconded two separate motions; one in support of the officer recommendation of refusal, and one for a site visit.  The vote on refusal was taken first, and therefore it was decided that permission be REFUSED, as per the officer recommendation in the report.