Agenda item

Outline planning application for erection of 69 dwellings - access tobe considered and not reserved for subsequent applications on land at Brigg Road, Caistor.

Outline planning application for the erection of 69 dwellings - access tobe considered and not reserved for subsequent applications on land at Brigg Road, Caistor.  The application had been deferred from the previous meeting in order for a site visit to be undertaken.

The Principal Development Management Officer updated Committee Members on the revised drainage scheme received.  The proposal was for a hybrid scheme including swales, soakaways and drainage ponds.  The Lead Flood Authority (LFA) response felt that a hybrid proposal was not the appropriate solution, and a single scheme would be better.  An email had been received from the LFA stating that there was insufficient certainty for the prevention of flooding or potential pollution of chalk watercourses.  The applicant’s agent had stated that to undertake a full SUDS scheme would reduce the number of houses by 27, thereby making the proposals unviable.  The applicant was prepared to continue working on an acceptable solution, however a traditional pipe scheme would require further work and time.

The Town Council had submitted their representation at the previous meeting and had reiterated their concerns, requesting a number of conditions should the application be approved.

A further letter of objection had been received raising concerns regarding increased traffic, the possibility being around an additional 130 cars from 69 houses.  Residents knew the area better than ‘experts’.

Mark Hodson, agent for the applicant, thanked the Committee for undertaking the site visit, and described the proposals as an opportunity to deliver housing close to the amenities of Caistor.  The 8.5 hectare site was allocated within the CLLP and the proposals for a density of 8.12 dwellings per hectare were acceptable.  The previous meeting had agreed that all issues met requirements other than the drainage matters, and these could be resolved in time.  There were constraints due to the topography of the land, but it was necessary to maintain the number of houses proposed to ensure the viability of the scheme.

Paul Stubbs, local resident, spoke in objection to the proposals, citing the dangerous nature of the road, the already high level of traffic and its tendency to experience more severe winter weather due to it being higher above sea level.  A previous application had been refused on highways grounds, and there were more appropriate sites within Caistor.

The Principal Development Management Officer assured the Committee that Highways officers had given lengthy consideration to the traffic implications and, subject to a number of proposed improvements, had no objections.

Members acknowledged that the site was allocated within the CLLP, although Caistor Town Council had requested its removal, the document had now been submitted for examination.  Sites within market towns were being given further consideration.  There were no site allocations within the Caistor Neighbourhood Plan, but the ambition was to ensure development close to the town centre and on brownfield land where possible.  It was generally agreed that there was the potential for a high quality development, however the drainage constraints were of serious concern.  It would be up to the applicant to resubmit the application once a drainage solution had been found.

It was moved, seconded and voted upon that the application be REFUSED for the amended reasons as set out below.

Reason for Refusal

The surface water drainage strategy submitted is not sufficient to be able to conclude that the proposal would adequately dispose of water in a safe and sustainable manner without increasing the risks of: flooding on site and to adjoining land and pollution to the environment including local streams of ecological importance. In addition to this, the proposal fails to adequately justify measures to ensure foul water from the development can be disposed of viably to and within the existing foul drainage network. The proposed development is therefore contrary to saved Local Plan Policies STRAT1, NBE14 and RES1 of West Lindsey Local Plan First Review 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework.