Agenda item

Major - Full Planning Permission

 

Proposed residential development of 89 dwellings and associated infrastructure, drainage and open space in accordance with amended plans received by the Local Planning authority on 31-Oct-2024

           

Land to the East of Gaysfield Road, Fishtoft, Boston PE21 0SF

 

Full Planning Permission

 

Proposed residential development of 89 dwellings and associated

infrastructure, drainage and open space in accordance with amended

plans received by the Local Planning authority on 31-Oct-2024

 

Land to the East of Gaysfield Road, Fishtoft, Boston PE21 0SF

 

Councillor Sharpe returned to the Committee for deliberation on this item.

 

The application had been called in for Committee determination by ward member, Councillor Helen Staples, to allow discussion of the following issues:

 

1. The impact of the new development on existing neighbours;

2. The number of dwellings and the density of the proposal and its relationship to the character of the village;

3. Access and egress, and the impact on the local highway network;

4. Access to the development for emergency vehicles;

5. Design of the dwellings including room sizes and storage space, and their suitability as family homes; and

6. Flood risk and drainage, and the drainage impacts of the proposal on existing residential neighbours and other buildings.

 

The application site was an area of arable field 3.83 hectares in extent lying to the east of Gaysfield Road, Fishtoft. The western boundary was marked by existing linear housing development on Gaysfield Road with further residential development around Fishtoft Manor on the northern boundary. To the south and east was open farmland. There was also an existing Scout Hut, located to the west, with an enclosed triangle of land also associated with Scouts’ facilities to the south, which would be adjacent to the development.

 

The topography was largely flat although there was a slight rise toward the northern boundary. Access would be via a new connection adjacent to the Scout hut, the southernmost building on Gaysfield Road. The existing housing on the western boundary were mixed, with mostly modern houses and bungalows. The site was in Flood Risk Zone 3 (FRZ3).

 

Fishtoft was classified as a Minor Service Centre in Policy 1 of the Local Plan. Part of the site had been allocated for housing in the Local Plan as allocation Fis046 on Inset Map 15.

 

The proposal was for a residential development of 89 dwellings and associated infrastructure, drainage and open space. The submission included 20% affordable housing. The application had been amended  since the original submission, including revised layouts, amended house types and materials specifications and an augmented drainage strategy.

 

The Development Manager presented the officer’s report and referred to the supplementary report, which included an amended plan that had been received from the applicant, showing the location of the affordable dwellings proposed, which had been accepted by the Council's Housing Team. The supplementary report also included comments that had been received from an objector which had been addressed. He confirmed that the supplementary report did not alter the officer's assessment of the proposal.

 

The site plan was presented to the Committee. To the east of the site was open countryside. The plan demonstrated the location of existing properties that formed the current limits of Fishtoft in that locality. The proposed access points on to the public highway were demonstrated.

 

A large proportion of the site was already allocated within the Local Plan for housing. By reference to the site plan, the Development Manager advised that the allocation did not cover the entire site but a significant proportion of it.

 

The layout of the site was demonstrated. The Development Manager identified the main internal spine road and a number of small cul-de-sacs. The layout showed the attenuation ponds linking to the drainage and areas of public open and green space.

 

The drainage plan was presented and the Development Manager indicated that infiltration was not a viable option, therefore the applicant was proposing a SUDS scheme using a series of roadside swales and network of underground drains to capture and channel surface water, which would then head to the attenuation pond shown on the plan. This would then lead to a pipe taking it to the existing drainage board water course and the land drains identified.

 

In terms of the landscaping plan, the green space and plantings were outlined. The plan included a proposal to plant and enhance the western boundary of the site where it ran adjacent to a number of properties.

 

Examples of house types were provided to the Committee as well as photographs of the location. The location of other buildings, including the Scout hut, primary school and existing properties were identified.

 

In terms of the principle of development, the Development Manager confirmed that a large portion of the application site was located within the Local Plan for 45 dwellings, being predominantly the northern part of the site.

 

Planning permission had previously been granted which covered a large area of the southern part of the site. The application did not cover the entirety of the two plans. There was a slight extension to the site along the eastern boundary, but in the view of the Development Manager this was largely incidental to the allocation and to the planning consent that had previously been granted and still existed for the site. As such, in the opinion of officers, it could be taken that the principle of the residential development of the site (or the majority of the site) was acceptable and established through the allocation and also through the extant planning permissions that existed.

 

The Development Manager indicated that the issues to consider were the number of dwellings, their design and all other material matters. In relation to the number of dwellings, he recommended that the density proposed was acceptable. He acknowledged that the density proposed to this site may not mirror every element of the settlement itself, but it was the officer’s view that it was reflective of some of the more modern parts of the settlement that had been granted consent and taken place over recent years and would not be entirely at odds with the existing built environment or the existing settlement pattern of Fishtoft. In terms of harm that would be generated, he indicated that he did not believe this would be significant or adverse.

 

In relation to the design, in response to concerns raised by the case officer regarding the layout and the design of the properties, the applicant had worked proactively and positively with the Council, making a number of amendments to the scheme. It was the view of officers that the amendments had cumulatively resulted in a much better overall and more organic scheme, which was of a suitable quality design.

 

The Development Manager indicated that the layout would not be visually harmful and responded well to the character of the locality. The development would also benefit from a landscape scheme which would help to further soften the visual impact to a satisfactory manner.

 

In relation to neighbouring amenity, it was acknowledged that the development would result in a change of outlook for the properties that bordered the site, but it was important to note that a property did not have a right to a view in legislation, and the principle of the development of the site had already been established on the loss of the field for development through the extant consents and the Local Plan allocation. As a result, it did not represent justified reason for the refusal of the application. Separation distances would exist and would not result in any loss of light to any neighbouring dwellings.

 

The Development Manager confirmed that in terms of amenity, some harm would arise to the loss of the field and the extent of the harm was not considered to be significantly adverse or unacceptable. Where any harm would arise, that harm was outweighed by the benefits of the scheme, including affordable housing for the borough on an allocated site.

 

In relation to flood risk and drainage, the Development Manager acknowledged that the site was within Flood Zone 3, although it was more favourable than other sites within Fishtoft, hence its allocation within the Local Plan.

 

Following a consultation exercise, there were no objections raised to the proposal from any statutory consultees. In relation to drainage, subject to further mitigation measures, including a roadside swale network of the underground drains leading to the attenuation basin, which would be secured through condition. It had also been proposed to install an interceptor drain along the boundary with a number of neighbouring properties which would help capture surface water in the area. It was considered that the proposed development could be satisfactorily serviced by appropriate drainage infrastructure, secured through condition, and as such the development would not result in an adverse increase in flood risk.

 

In terms of highways, the application had been supported by a series of plans and assessments from the applicant, which demonstrated that the surrounding network could absorb the level of traffic that would be generated both from a highway safety and capacity perspective. There had been no objection from the Highways authority and conditions were recommended to overcome any concerns that had been raised by the Fire and Rescue service. Access roads would be constructed to the standard required by the Highway authority's design codes and in the opinion of officers, concerns about highway safety would not warrant the refusal of the application.

 

The proposal would provide affordable housing. The applicant had submitted a viability appraisal, which had been subject to an independent review. It had demonstrated that a lower provision of affordable housing and contributions was reasonable. Officers had recommended the provision of 20% on site affordable provision and a financial contribution of £400,000 towards education provision and healthcare, which was a proportionate planning gain.

 

In relation to ecology, the amended layout demonstrated that sufficient ecological enhancements could be achieved, with 10% biodiversity net gain, which would be secured through condition.

 

In conclusion, the Development Manager indicated that the principle of the residential development of the site had been accepted and would deliver benefits through the provision of housing and the provision of affordable housing on a site that was in the main allocated for such in the Local Plan. It was the view of officers that the amount of development proposed could be accommodated within the site without resulting in significant or demonstrable harm being caused to the locality, to neighbouring residents or to the environment, subject to the conditions within the report. He advised that the application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement.

 

Mr Ian Scott, who was speaking in objection to the application, addressed the Committee.

 

Mr Scott stated that 44 dwellings should be removed to ensure compliance with the Local Plan of 45 maximum and the removal of 1.14 hectares from the site for non-compliance with the Local Plan. He indicated that rainwater flood mitigations still excluded key waterfalls, with SUDS providing less than 25% of the capacity needed.

 

Mr Scott advised that 18 dwellings should be removed for boundary privacy along the western boundary, as they ignored government policy. He urged the Committee to reject the application and resubmit it to comply with the Local 10-year Plan, and  went on to outline key points from his supporting documents. The area of land of Fist 46 was a clearly defined boundary. The area was 2.69 hectares, not 3.8 hectares which was an excessive 42% overall allocation. The maximum number of dwellings was 45 rather than 89, which was 98% more than the Plan required.

 

Mr Scott indicated that there had been two unacceptable e-mail discussions from planners: in November 2023 from the Boston Forward Planning Officer to the Planning Department giving inaccurate and false opinions and (ii) in April 2024, with requirements from the Planning Officer to the developer which had been completely ignored by the developer. He stated that 45 dwellings should not be removed from a plan and then increased to 66 and then increased again to 89.

 

Mr Scott confirmed that there was a major design fault with the proposed SUDS attenuation pond. The Internal Drainage Board (IDB) drain had a higher maximum water level than the pond. Floodwater discharge would stop completely at times of persistent rain, but the pond design relied upon a continuous outflow discharge.

 

After more than two years, there was still no drainage plan from the developer. Mr Scott referred to local evidence from photographs on pages 8 and 9 of his supporting document which showed the IDB drains in the area, topping out when they had persistent rain, which he indicated happened on a six or seven-year cycle. He indicated that extra storage capacity must be built into the SUDS pond, although a five day storage capacity may be acceptable. He indicated that critical drain design flaws were ignored by the developer, with only the hard surfaces calculated in their plans. Rain falling onto the swales and ponds was excluded. Rain flowing from saturated gardens into swales was ignored. Surface water by the boundary French drain was ignored and the off-site outflow was undefined. He indicated that the recent assertion by planning officers was incorrect. For the hard surface alone, rain volumes alone on a five day interceptor pond outflow, would require a pond volume more than 2.5 times the current plan.

 

Mr Scott provided supporting information about existing issues in Old Leake (case reference B 16 0317) where a planning application had resulted in flooding. He advised that there was clear government policy for minimum privacy between properties of 21 and 25 metres within sight of new dwellings. Where new dwellings would be adjacent to existing neighbours, as in Gaysfield Road, he suggested that greater privacy was expected and there must be a 15-metre gap to the boundary fence line. Where there were two storey houses overlooking, the distance increased to 35 metres. The suggestion would require 18 dwellings along the western boundary to be removed or relocated.

 

Mr Scott referred to the riparian drainage boundary along the north where four houses required access to maintain that drain. He indicated that the planning department's assertion that riparian issues were not a planning responsibility was false. He drew attention to the recent Environment Agency warning directive where prosecutions would be pursued for ignoring primary legislation. Planning had the administrative duty to progress information received, as identified, and the riparian drain issue needed to be dealt with.

 

Members of the Committee requested clarification in relation to the following issues:

 

Information was requested about whether Mr Scott was a Fishtoft resident. He confirmed that he lived in Wrangle and had been asked to look at the plans by a councillor and residents of Fishtoft. He indicated that there were no restrictions on who could look at or comment on applications.

 

Mr Scott was asked about the situation with the riparian drain. He indicated that a drain had been identified along the northern boundary of the site and reference to a low brick wall in or near the ditch. The drain took water from that part of the site. It had not been maintained by the landowner. The applicant had proposed a boundary fence, which ignored the problem and would create issues with the maintenance of riparian responsibilities for four householders. He was asked which authority would enforce those responsibilities. He indicated that it could be raised by the Parish Council if the landowner was known and then escalated to the Borough Council and would ultimately be the Environment Agency which would provide enforcement.

 

Mr Scott was asked to provide clarification in relation to which Drainage Board would be responsible for flooding topping out issues – Councillor Bedford confirmed that it would be Witham Fourth IDB. Mr Scott referred to the location of the attenuation pond and drain which were at the same level. He referred to measures to stop backflow into the attention pond which he indicated would stop the outflow from the pond when the drain filled up. He indicated that the drainage ditch photographs in his supporting document were taken within a three-mile radius of Wrangle. They showed that when the pumps were working in persistent rain, the ditches were topped out by the level of the pumps and sometimes they overflowed. The ditches in the photographs were 1.5 metres deep. The SUDS assessment for the development would be inadequate as it did not account for what would happen if the outflow stopped.

 

Mr Scott was asked for his view on what would happen if his concerns about the drainage materialised. He indicated that the ponds were just for the hard surface areas and if it ceased to work, his calculation at page 10 of his supporting document showed a one day, three day and five day stoppage and how much bigger the pond would have to be to cope. His assessment was that it would require a capacity of 250% more than as at present if there was a five day stoppage. He also referred to separate issues relating to the capacity of the drain. He confirmed that in the event of failure, it was likely that existing properties on Gaysfield Road would flood.

 

The Chairman reminded the Committee that they had received expert information from consultees in relation to drainage and that although Mr Scott had provided detailed information, he was not an expert in the same way as the Drainage Boards. Mr Scott commented that he had mentioned Old Leake as the reports prepared for that planning application were similar and yet flooding had occurred.

 

Clarification was sought in relation to the role of Internal Drainage Boards in dealing with flooding issues. The Development Manager clarified that it would be a dangerous precedent if the Committee were to consider that statutory consultees were not the experts in their field of drainage. The planning officers sought their expert views on relevant matters and to disregard their advice based on anecdotal information would create a difficult position for the Committee in trying to defend an appeal. He indicated that there had been extensive liaison between the IDB, the lead flood authority and the planning department in order to scrutinise the drainage plans.

 

In relation to separation between properties, the Development  Manager confirmed that there was no national policy and this was a matter to be decided by each planning authority at local level.

 

The Committee was addressed by Councillor Helen Crawford, as the Chair of Fishtoft Parish Council, speaking in objection to the application.

 

Councillor Crawford confirmed that in January 2024, Fishtoft Parish Council had raised many concerns about the proposed development, which she did not consider had been adequately addressed.

 

In relation to the travel assessment from Lincolnshire County council Highways, she disputed their assessment for the development which was that it would generate only an additional 47 vehicle movements between 08:00 and 09:00 on a weekday morning.

 

Fishtoft had less than 500 residential properties. Councillor Crawford confirmed that it had one pub, a church and playing fields with a community hall. In terms of public transport, if a resident wanted to leave using public transport, it would be necessary to take the 08:42 bus to Boston. The last bus back was at 16:40. If it were necessary to walk, it would be along field-lined roads with speeds of up to 60 miles per hour and no pavement. Looking at the data used by Highways to assess the additional vehicle movements caused by this development, they had referred to Holt in Norfolk as the closest in size. However, it had a population of just over 3,500. From the development selected for the assessment, in terms of public transport, it had a first bus at 05:30 travelling through Holt to Cromer and on to Norwich. The last bus back was at 20:00.

 

The next comparison site in size used was Ditton in Kent, with a population of just under 5,000. It also had a poor bus service, but it was possible to safely walk along the pavements to the nearest convenience store half a mile away.

 

All the other sites used in the assessment had populations of 5,000 upwards to 35,000 – they had shops, train stations, frequent bus services, and one  even had a tram. Councillor Crawford advised that none could be considered on a scale with Fishtoft village.

 

The data for the assessment was taken from the trip rate computer system, which Lincolnshire Highways supported. Councillor Crawford indicated that it was surprising that no data referring to developments in Lincolnshire was available. She indicated that Boston had a higher percentage of population that drove in their own cars to work than anywhere else in England, but despite that no data referring to Boston developments had been used.

 

Councillor Crawford concluded by indicating that the site selected for the vehicle movement assessment should be relevant to the development, but they were not and the figure of 47 vehicle movements could not be relied upon unless a proper assessment was provided.

 

Members of the Committee requested clarification in relation to the following issues:

 

Clarification was requested in relation to facilities in Fishtoft and Councillor Crawford reiterated the above information.

 

The Development Manager confirmed that there had been thorough assessments with empirical information by the Highways authority which had not raised concerns. In terms of facilities in Fishtoft, its proximity to Boston meant that it was regarded as a sustainable settlement within a couple of miles of the population centre.

 

At this point, the Chairman sought and received permission from the committee members for the meeting to continue, as the meeting duration was approaching the three hour period referred to in the Council’s constitution.

 

The Committee was addressed by Councillor Helen Staples, the ward councillor who had called in this application and was speaking in objection to the application.

 

Councillor Staples confirmed that the application had received over 80 very valid objections. She indicated that Fishtoft was not a community averse to development and over the past years, it had received a high proportion of affordable and social housing, with more presently being constructed.

 

In relation to the Local Plan, the site had originally listed for 40 properties and there were now 89 properties being proposed, which would have an intolerable impact on the existing built development. She indicated that there was an inaccuracy in the officer’s report in relation to Fishtoft Academy which she confirmed was full, contrary to what people believed. There were no places for any more children.

 

Members noted that Witham Fourth IDB and the Fire and Rescue Service had initially objected to the application and Councillor Staples indicated that she had seen very little change that would alter their opinions.

 

Councillor Staples disputed Lincolnshire County Council's Highways assessment, which she regarded as a desktop exercise. She referenced that she had lived in the area for almost 50 years and had seen the traffic increase dramatically, but despite that Gaysfield Road was still a very small road and at school times had a high proportion of traffic. It was also used heavily by the agricultural fraternity with huge vehicles and equipment. She also referred to Anglian Water’s processing site with up to 25 tankers daily in the area, which was set to increase to seven days a week.

 

Councillor Staples confirmed that Fishtoft had a very poor public transport, the pub was set to close and the church had a small congregation. In relation to sustainability, she indicated that the roads were badly maintained and dangerous. It was not safe to cycle or walk anywhere from Fishtoft. The village had a football team and scouts, but the scouts were set to have their recreational ground disturbed should the development go ahead and they would have to cross the road if they were using the recreational ground to get back to the Scout Hut

 

Councillor Staples disputed page 86 of the agenda and the suggestion that the development would be a natural evolution to the village screened from the highway. It would not be screened from the highway because it was going to be higher than the highway. It would be at least a metre higher than the built development and would be dense, overshadowing and overbearing.

 

Councillor Staples indicated that she wanted the best for the community she represented and did not feel that 89 new homes as appropriate. She cited the concerns about flooding risk and about whether the interceptor drain would work as it was not regarded as suitable in heavy clay soil.

 

Councillor Staples concluded that the most damning piece of evidence was the photograph provided to the Committee, taken from the east to the west, which showed how high the land was in comparison to the existing development. It provided a risk to the properties and the health and well-being of residents. She invited the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds of density, overbearing, overshadowing and the risk of flooding.

 

Councillor Staples left the meeting in accordance with the Committee’s protocol.

 

The Development Manager advised that in relation to capacity at the primary school, the education authority had clarified that there was capacity at the school.

 

Committee deliberation occurred in relation to the following issues:

 

Clarification was provided that the Scout Hut would remain in place and that the land used by the scouts would not be affected by the development, although there would be a crossing point from the hut to the land.

 

Concern was reiterated in relation to flooding and housing density at the site.

 

Approval of the recommendation was moved. The vote was not carried.

 

The Legal Officer clarified that reasons for refusal should be provided. Density of the properties was cited as a reason to reject approval and debate occurred in relation to density of housing at the site.

 

The Development Manager indicated that the extant planning permission could not be ignored. He indicated that whilst accepting that the allocation of housing to the site was greater, it would be necessary to demonstrate the harm, given that there were two extant permissions at the site.

 

Flooding risk raised by Mr Scott was also suggested as a reason to reject approval.

 

The Development Manager invited caution in relying on the documentation supplied by Mr Scott who was not from the area, did not know the area and was relying on information that was not from the area. He indicated that proceeding in this way would place stronger weight on the information provided than on the assessment provided by the applicant and two statutory hydrology bodies that had raised no objections. He confirmed that the Committee was entitled to do this but had to consider the ramifications.

 

There followed a vote on whether to approve the recommendation in line with the officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions and reasons therein. The vote was carried.

 

Resolved: 

 

To approve the recommendation in line with officer recommendation subject to the conditions and reasons therein:

 

Conditions:

 

1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

 

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

2. The development hereby permitted shall only be undertaken in accordance with the following approved plans:

• 1846G/22/010 Alternative Planning Layout

• 1846G/22/010m Affordable Housing Plan

• 1846G/22/06a Site Sections Key Sheet

• 1846G/22/07b Street Scenes

• 21-150 & 1-U-0001 Rev C06 150 & 151 House Type Urban

• 21-250-U-0001 Rev C03 250 House Type Urban

• 21-251-U-0001 Rev C04 251 House Type Urban

• 21-253-U-0001 Rev C04 253 House Type Urban

• 21-254-U-0001 Rev C03 254 House Type Render

• 21-350-R-0001 Rev C06 350 House Type Rural

• 21-350-U-0001 Rev C05 350 House Type Urban

• 21-352-R-0001 Rev C04 352 House Type Rural

• 21-353-U-0001 Rev C04 353 House Type Urban

• 21-354-R-0001 Rev C04 354 House Type Rural

• 21-355-R-0001 Rev C06 355 House Type Rural

• 21-355-U-0001 Rev C07 355 House Type Urban

• 21-356-U-0001 Rev C06 356 House Type Urban

• 21-358-M-0001 Rev C04 358/9 Render

• 21-358/9-R-0001 Rev C04 358/9 House Type Rural

• 21-358/9-U-0001 Rev C03 358/9 House Type Urban

• 21-360-R-0001 Rev C05 360 House Type Rural

• 21-360-U-0001 Rev C04 360 House Type Urban

• 21-450-M-0001 Rev C04 450 House Type Render

• 21-450-R-0001 Rev C04 450 House Type Rural

• 21-450-U-0001 Rev C03 450 House Type Urban

• 21-451-M-0001 Rev C03 451 House Type Render

• 21-451-R-0001 Rev C03 451 House Type Rural

• 21-451-U-0001 Rev C02 451 House Type Urban

• 21-452-U-0001 Rev C05 452 House Type Urban

• 21-454-R-0001 Rev C07 454 House Type Rural

• 21-454-U-0001 Rev C07 454 House Type Urban

• 21-455-M-0001 Rev C05 455 House Type Render

• 21-352-001 Rev C03 352 House Type Urban

• 21-356-001 Rev C05 356 House Type Rural

• D001 Rev 2 Engineering Layout

• D300 Rev 1 Longsections Sheet 1 of 3

• D301 Rev 1 Longsections Sheet 2 of 3

• D302 Rev 1 Longsections Sheet 3 of 3

• 3158-A01-01 Rev A Site & Materials Layout

• 22206 D202 Rev 3 SuDS Identification Plan

• 22206 D702 Rev 1 Attenuation Basin and Headwall Details

• 22206 D205 Rev 2 Flood Routing Plan

• 22206 D208 Rev 1 Land Drain Plan

• 22206 D801 Rev 2 Section 38 Plan

• 22206 D600 Rev 1 Direct Cut and Fill

• 22206 D701 Rev 1 Adoptable Drainage Details

• EY-01-07 Rev D Gable Front Sales Garage

• WL-01C Landscape Plan

• Site Location Plan

• 1846G/22/02a Proposed Site Location Plan

• 22206 D700 Rev 1 Road Construction Details

• SD-100 Rev F 1800mm High Close Boarded Timber Fence

• SD103 Rev C 600mm High Post and Wire Fence

• SD1700 Rev B 3m x 6m internal dimension Detached Single Garage

Details

• SD1701 Rev B 3m x 6m internal dimension Detached Double Garage

Details

 

Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with

the approved details, in the interests of residential amenity and to comply

with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

3. No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme should include the following:

 

1. An assessment of significance and proposed mitigation strategy (i.e. preservation by record, preservation in situ or a mix of these elements).

2. A methodology and timetable of site investigation and recording including provision for trial trenching based on the results of the geophysical survey and appraisal forming part of the approved outline application

3. Provision for site analysis

4. Provision for publication and dissemination of analysis and records

5. Provision for archive deposition

6. Nomination of a competent person/organisation to undertake the work

The scheme of archaeological investigation must only be undertaken in accordance with the approved details, and completed in accordance with the timetable within. No other works shall take place until the site investigation has been completed, unless agreed as part of the timetable.

 

Reason: To ensure the preparation and implementation of an appropriate scheme of archaeological mitigation in accordance with Policy 29 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include (although not restricted to) the following details:

 

a) a traffic management plan incorporating the routing of construction traffic and details of heavy vehicle movement patterns (including the earliest and latest times, and the suspension of trips during peak traffic times)

b) hours of work for site preparation, delivery of materials and construction including provision to ensure that delivery periods avoid drop-off and pick-up times at the school on Gaysfield Road

c) measures to minimise and control noise, vibration, dust, dirt and fumes during the

development period

d) details of on-site parking facilities for both visiting construction vehicles and deliveries and workers on the site

e) the loading and unloading arrangements for heavy plant and machinery and materials

f) the location of storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development

g) measures to avoid disturbance to nesting birds and other wildlife

h) measures to prevent mud being deposited on the surrounding highway

i) details of any protective fencing to maintain public access and public safety for the public footpaths that cross/are adjacent to the site – including provisions relating to traffic and pedestrians within the vicinity at such facilities as the School and Scout Hut

j) measures to ensure that the site is properly drained during the construction period

k) a programme for the implementation of all of the above items.

 

Development shall then be carried out in strict accordance with the approved CEMP.

 

Reason: To satisfy Policies 2 and 30 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2011-2036) and to ensure that appropriate measures are put in place before any development commences to limit noise, nuisance and disturbance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties during the construction of the development and to prevent any obstruction of or disturbance to the operation of the Highway.

 

5. The permitted development shall be undertaken in accordance with a surface water drainage scheme which shall first have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

The scheme shall:

 

          be based on the results of evidenced groundwater levels and seasonal variations (e.g. via relevant groundwater records or on-site monitoring in wells, over a 12-month period);

          be based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development and the principles set out in the

  submitted Flood Risk Assessment Parts 1 – 4 received by the LPA on 25-Jan-2025 and forming part of the approved application;

          provide flood exceedance routing for storm event greater than 1 in 100 years;

          provide details of how run-off will be safely conveyed and attenuated during storms up to and including the 1 in 100-year critical storm event, with an allowance for climate change, from all hard surfaced areas within the development into the existing local drainage infrastructure and watercourse system without exceeding the run-off rate for the undeveloped site;

          provide attenuation details and discharge rates which shall be restricted with a flow  control device to no more than 2.5 litres per second;

          provide detailed drawings and associated calculations of all drainage assets forming part of the scheme;

          provide a routing from the interceptor drain on the northern and western site boundaries which will direct flows into the site attenuation are and thence to the IDB maintained drainage system;

          provide details of the timetable for and any phasing of implementation for the drainage scheme; and

          provide details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed over the lifetime of the development including the maintenance of the interceptor drain and any arrangements for adoption by any public body or Statutory Undertaker and any other arrangements required to secure the operation of the drainage system throughout its lifetime.

 

No dwelling/ no part of the development shall be occupied until the approved scheme has been completed or provided on the site in accordance with the approved phasing.  The approved scheme shall be retained and maintained in full, in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  To ensure that the permitted development is adequately drained without creating or increasing flood risk to land or property adjacent to, or downstream of, or upstream of, the permitted development and to accord with Policy 4 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

6. The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment forming part of the approved application and mitigation measures including a demonstration that:

 

          the dwellings will be built using flood resilient construction techniques;

          finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 300mm above existing ground levels with the exception of plot 14 where the finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 500mm above existing ground level;

          all dwellings will sign up to the Environment Agency flood warning service within one month of first occupation.

 

Reason: To ensure residents of the permitted development, neighbouring land and neighbouring properties are not adversely affected, by reason of flooding, by the construction of the permitted development in accordance with Policies 2 and 4 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

7. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied before the works to improve the public highway (by means of widening the existing footway on the west side of Gaysfield Road from the site entrance to the school to 3m and footway connection/tactile crossing at the access over Gaysfield Road) have been certified complete by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the provision of safe and adequate means of access to the permitted development.

 

Reason: To ensure the continuity of safe and suitable pedestrian access, in the interests of pedestrian and public safety, in accordance with Policies 2, 32 and 33 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

8. Before each dwelling is occupied the roads and/or footways providing access to that dwelling, for the whole of its frontage, from an existing public highway shall be constructed, less the carriageway and footway surface courses.

 

The carriageway and footway surface courses shall be completed within three months from the date upon which the erection is commenced of the penultimate dwelling (or other development as specified).

 

Those roads shown on the approved plans as being planned for adoption shall be constructed to a specification to enable them to be adopted as Highways Maintainable at the Public Expense and meet specifications for emergency vehicles including fire service pumps and of refuse freighters.

 

Reason: To ensure safe access to the site and each dwelling/building in the interests of residential amenity, convenience and safety and to accord with Policy 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

9. The permitted development shall be undertaken in accordance with an Estate Road Phasing and Completion Plan, which shall first be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall set out how the construction of the development will be phased and standards to which the estate roads on each phase will be completed during the construction period of the development.

 

Reason: To ensure that a safe and suitable standard of vehicular and pedestrian access is provided for residents throughout the construction period of the development safety and to accord with Policy 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

10. The internal link footway connecting road 2 and road 3 should be 3m wide for shared use footway/cycleway.

 

Reason: To encourage safer and more comfortable experience for residents in the interest of safety of the users of the site and to accord with Policy 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

11. None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until details of the public open space and how it is managed and maintained as part of the

development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority. The scheme shall cover the full lifetime of the open

space and drainage system and, as a minimum, shall include:

(i) details of the public open space and how the POS will be landscaped (hard and soft) along with provision of play equipment or other facilities;

(ii) arrangements for adoption by an appropriate public body or statutory

undertaker, or management and maintenance by a Management Company.

(iii) arrangements concerning funding mechanisms for the ongoing

maintenance of all elements of the POS (including mechanical components)

to include details such as:

1. on-going inspections relating to performance and asset condition

assessments;

2. operation costs for regular maintenance, remedial works and irregular

maintenance of limited life assets; and

3. any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water

drainage scheme throughout its lifetime including

(i) means of access and easements for maintenance purposes;

(ii) A timetable for implementation.

The POS shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the details and

timetable contained within the duly approved scheme, and shall be managed and maintained as such thereafter.

 

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory measures are put in place for the

management and maintenance of the public open space area throughout the lifetime of the development and to accord with Policies 2, 3, 6 and 31 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

12. Prior to any works above slab level the locations of three (3no) fire hydrants to be provided at the developer’s expense and of refuse collection arrangements on the private drives shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall proceed in accordance with the details so agreed.

 

Reason: In the interests of the safety and amenity of future occupants of the development and to accord with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

13. The water consumption of each dwelling hereby permitted should not exceed the requirement of 110 litres per person per day as set out as the optional requirement in Part G of the Building Regulations (2010) and the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019. The person carrying out the work must inform the Building Control Body that this duty applies. A notice confirming the requirement for the water consumption has been met shall be submitted to the Building Control Body and Local Planning Authority, no later than five days after the completion of each individual dwelling.

 

Reason: To protect the quality and quantity of water resources available to the district. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policy 31 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

14. The scheme of landscaping and tree planting shown on dwg. no. WL-01C Landscape Plan shall be carried out and completed in its entirety during the first planting season following completion of the development. All trees, shrubs and bushes shall be maintained for the period of five years beginning with the date of completion of the scheme and during that period all losses shall be made good as and when necessary.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately landscaped, in the interests of its visual amenity and character in accordance with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

15. The development shall proceed in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Ecological Impact Assessment prepared by SLR Consulting Ltd and forming part of the approved application. All measures shall be implemented in full and those which extend beyond the construction phase shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

 

Reason: In the interest of enhancing the ecology of the area in compliance with Policies 2 and 28 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

16. If, during development, contamination not previously considered is identified, then the Local Planning Authority shall be notified immediately and no further work shall be carried out until a method statement detailing a scheme for dealing with the suspect contamination has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure all contamination within the site is dealt with and to accord with Policies 2 and 30 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

 

INFORMATIVE NOTES FOR DECISION NOTICE

 

1. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the letter dated 25-Jan-2025 from the Witham Fourth District Internal Drainage Board commenting on the application.

 

2. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the letter date 09-Jan-2025 from Anglian Water commenting on the application and in particular to the remarks relating to existing Anglian Water assets (Section 1) and informative notes (Section 3), the latter including the following:

 

1. INFORMATIVE - Notification of intention to connect to the public sewer under S106 of the Water Industry Act Approval and consent will be required by Anglian Water, under the Water Industry Act 1991. Contact Development Services Team 0345 606 6087 Option

 

2. INFORMATIVE - Protection of existing assets - A public sewer is shown on record plans within the land identified for the proposed development. It appears that development proposals will affect existing public sewers. It is recommended that the applicant contacts Anglian Water Development Services Team for further advice on this matter. Building over existing public sewers will not be permitted (without agreement) from Anglian Water.

 

3. INFORMATIVE - Building near to a public sewer - No building will be permitted within the statutory easement width of 3 metres from the pipeline without agreement from Anglian Water. Please contact Development Services Team on 0345 606 6087 Option 2.

 

4. INFORMATIVE: The developer should note that the site drainage details submitted have not been approved for the purposes of adoption. If the developer wishes to have the sewers included in a sewer adoption agreement with Anglian Water (under Sections 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991), they should contact our Development Services Team on 0345 606 6087 Option 2 at the earliest opportunity. Sewers intended for adoption should be designed and constructed in accordance with Sewers for Adoption guide for developers, as supplemented by Anglian Water’s requirements.

 

3. All roads within the development hereby permitted must be constructed to an acceptable engineering standard. Those roads that are to be put forward for adoption as public highways must be constructed in accordance with the Lincolnshire County Council Development Road Specification that is current at the time of construction and the developer will be required to enter into a legal agreement with the Highway Authority under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. Those roads that are not to be voluntarily put forward for adoption as public highways, may be subject to action by the Highway Authority under Section 219 (the Advance Payments code) of the Highways Act 1980. For guidance, please refer to https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk 

 

4. Please contact the Lincolnshire County Council Streetworks and Permitting Team on 01522 782070 to discuss any proposed statutory utility connections, Section 50 licences and any other works which will be required within the public highway in association with the development permitted under this Consent. This will enable Lincolnshire County Council to assist in the coordination and timings of these works. For further guidance please visit the Highway Authority’s website via the following link: Traffic Management –

https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/traffic-management   

 

5. The existing ground level of the site must not be raised above the ground level of any surrounding land without further consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority and Local Planning Authority, to consider suitable mitigation measures to ensure that surface water flood risk is not created or increased to land adjacent to the permitted development.

 

6. The highway improvement works referred to in the above condition are required to be carried out by means of a legal agreement between the landowner and the County Council, as the Local Highway Authority. For further guidance please visit our website;

https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/highways-planning/works-existing-highway

 

BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN

 

Paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the “biodiversity gain condition” which means development granted by this notice must not begin unless:

 

(a)      a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to the planning authority, and

(b)      the planning authority has approved the plan.

 

Biodiversity net gain does not apply to retrospective planning permissions made under section 73(A).

 

Biodiversity net gain does not apply to applications submitted before the commencement date of 12th February 2024.

 

Based on the information submitted in the planning application documents, the Planning Authority considers that this permission is exempt from biodiversity net gain, and as such does not require approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun.