Agenda item

Major – Full Planning Permission

Change of use from haulage and storage depot to housing development of 23 no. residential dwellings, estate roads and services in accordance with amended plans and supporting documents received by the Local Planning authority on 31st July 2024

G H Kimes Haulage Depot, Main Road, Wrangle, Boston, PE22 9AW

Mr Colin Pape, H H Adkins (Contractors) Ltd

Change of use from haulage and storage depot to housing development of 23 no. residential dwellings, estate roads and services in accordance with amended plans and supporting  documents received by the Local Planning authority on 31st July 2024          .

G H Kimes Haulage Depot, Main Road, Wrangle, Boston, PE22 9AW.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report confirming that the Ward Member Councillor Callum Butler had called-in the application on the grounds of concern is respect of drainage and flood risk, neighbours’ residential amenity and the scale and dominance and density of the proposed buildings.

The proposal was for change of use from the historic use as a haulage yard to residential, for the erection of twenty-three dwellings with associated roadways and infrastructure.

The application site was a former haulage yard of approximately 0.5 hectares in area. The main buildings were on the eastern side of the site but following fire damage previously and all buildings had been removed, and the site was currently bare and with (95%) surfaced in concrete. There was an inspection pit in the south east corner - otherwise the site was featureless.

The location was to the north of the A52 Main Road, Wrangle, in the eastern part of the settlement. A wide concrete entrance joined the highway, and there were residential neighbours on the southern boundary and opposite on the south side of the A52.

To the east was an open arable field, and further dwellings were located to the west and north of the site. The site was flat, as was the local topography, and the location was in Flood Risk Zone 3 (FRZ3). Wrangle was classified as a Minor Service Centre under Policy 11 of the Local Plan.

The planning history on the site had included an initial application for 27 dwellings in which had been granted. That had been followed by a new planning permission to replace an exant permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation which was agreed. A further application was granted for the implementation of an extant permission and the most recent application had been granted for outline permission for between 21 and 27 buildings.

As a result of publicity 36 representations have been received at the time of writing from 12 private addresses.

All third-party representations could be viewed in full on the Council’s website. Summaries incorporated multiple responses from an individual address. The objections and comments were summarised as follows:

§       Inadequate village infrastructure (drains, school, GP

    surgery, roads) cannot cope with further new housing.

§  The local sewage system struggles to cope with existing volumes and problems will be made worse by new housing.

§  Surface water drainage is extremely poor locally; groundwater levels are high making percolation drainage and SUDS unsuitable; some riparian drains shown on historic maps are not included in the plans; surface water run-off from the site is a threat to neighbouring properties especially when levels for new housing are raised.

§       Local fresh water supply is inadequate.

§  1 Ypres Cottages will lose the vehicular access via the haulage yard which it has historically enjoyed.

§       The central location of the public open space/play area is unsafe.

§  Existing neighbours (to the north but also at Ypres Cottages) will suffer from overlooking and a loss of privacy.

§  Existing neighbours to the north (Elizabeth Avenue) will suffer from overshadowing and loss of light which would be particularly severe in the winter months.

§  Technical objections to the overshadowing projections supplied by the applicant - for full details see website. Some key matters raised include a) originally shadow projections underestimated the impact and used unreliable software; b) second round of modelling also underestimates the impact and the hours of sunshine suggested by the applicant are questioned; c) any shadowing of solar PV panels on neighbouring houses would reduce electricity production - has compensation been considered?; d) an alternative layout suggested moving the dwelling further south from the northern site boundary and creating a buffer with a repositioned public open space/play area.

§  All consultee comments can be viewed in full on the Council’s website. Summaries may incorporate multiple responses from an individual or organisation.

§  Environment Agency - initially objected on grounds relating to flood risk and in particular the levels of the site and surrounding land. Following negotiations and amendments the objection was withdrawn subject to minimum finished floor levels being set at 2.7m and a range of flood mitigation and resilience measures being implemented.

§  Environmental Health - no objections but requests conditions to investigate and if necessary, remedy any contamination on the site due to its historic use.

§  Anglian water - no objection - comments: a) notes presence of Anglian Water assets in the area of the development and requests informative note on decision notice; b) states that ‘The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Old Leake-Skipmarsh Lane Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows’; c) sets out details of the local vacuum sewer and requirements and timescales for connecting to that system.

§  LCC Highways/SUDS - no objection - comments include: a) design of highway entrance, internal roadway and access for Delamere are satisfactory; b) a new vehicular entrance to A52  for 1 Ypres Cottages ‘would not be unacceptable to the highway authority, subject to suitable design and construction’; c) recommends incorporation of swales in central POS; d) the use of unbound material in driveways is not satisfactory; e) requests comprehensive construction management plan secured by condition; f) requested additional information regarding ground levels [provided]; g) requests that an interceptor drain is provided along the site boundary to prevent surface water run-off onto neighbouring premises or land.

§  Wrangle parish Council - no objection - comments include: a) 24 dwellings too many for the plot and contrary to local character - proposal compares unfavourably with Mel marshal Way development; b) boundaries should be hedges in the interests of wildlife and to reflect local pattern; c) local problems exist with surface water drainage - raising new properties could adversely affect neighbours; d) existing issues with sewage and water pressure; e) access for neighbouring property [1 Ypres Cottages] should be retained; f) parking restrictions should be in place to ensure access for emergency vehicles.

§  Boston Borough Council Housing Strategy - no objection - comments include: a) proposal provides affordable housing in line with policy requirements; b) housing mix of 1 x 2 bed unit as a First Home and 2 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed units as affordable rent is satisfactory; c) bedrooms meet minimum 6.5 sq. m standards - development should meet 85% of nationally Described Space Standards; d) developer should work with a registered provider of social housing - Housing Strategy team is available to assist.

§  Lincolnshire Police - no objection

§  Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust - ‘holding objection’ - grounds are failure to incorporate Biodiversity Net Gain in line with the provisions facilitated by the Environment Act 2021. The Trust acknowledges that those provisions did not become mandatory until January 2024 (in fact the start date for major applications was submission on or after 12^th February 2024) but states ‘it is expected’ that schemes will comply.

§  NHS Lincolnshire Integrated Care Board - requests a contribution of £15, 180 toward primary health care.

§  LCC Strategic Development - no comments and no request for a contribution towards education because ‘there is sufficient capacity in the locality for the children generated by this scheme’.

Mr I Scott speaking in objection to the application tabled representation which included:

A submission of data and photographic evidence had been provided in advance for members reference during the representation.

Members were advised that there was a persistent use of inaccurate data being used by the applicant with flood protection for existing properties being ignored. Liability insurance was a prerequisite against structural vibration which could cause damage to the older properties surrounding the site. The Flood and Water Management Act stated that property gardens on the area had flooded regularly north of the A52 for 13 years over the last 24 years. Any future activity could increase soil saturation and increase surface water depth and flow onto existing properties before any concrete slab removal. A new full perimeter drain must be created, either an open ditch or

a French drain. The existing drain was missed from the site plan along the eastern boundary. It was registered on the official Ordnance Surveyor maps, a new wild hedge proposed along that boundary would destroy that drainage. The hedge needed to be moved two metres west into the site. The original plan had the child's play area in the north west corner, safely separated from the highway but noise and anti-social behaviour had been an issue. The new child's play area was now sited in the new roundabout, which would be fed by three feeder roads and would be dangerous to child welfare and road users. The new homes would mean overshadowing of neighbouring properties and modelling had only taken place at 1200 noon on the 21st of December when the sun was at its highest and the shadows at their shortest. Overshadowing would also impact on the electricity generation savings solar panels increasing central heating costs. The housing density was excessive on the site was inconsistent with that of others in the village location and above that for integration with surrounding properties, and the site should reduce down to 10 dwellings from the requested 23 to be consistent with other developments.  

In response to questions table Mr Scott responded with reference to his written submission on placements, which included:

Clarification was provided on the layout of the plan, identifying the properties on Elizabeth Road which would be affected by over shadowing. The current site had not flooded due to the twelve gully drains in place in the concrete, however once that was removed it was a possibility as there appeared an assumption that the water would percolate through the soil. Other houses south of the site and along the A52 experienced flooding in their rear gardens most year.

A point of clarification was provided by the Senior Planning Officer who confirmed that contrary to what Mr Scott had said, Lincolnshire County Council as the lead authority had indeed visited and inspected the site.

The site was already subject to vibration due to the heavy traffic (HGV’s and large agricultural plant) traveling along the A52 every day, when the concrete floor was lifted then surrounding properties would be even more subject to vibration from the instruments that would be used as all properties had shallow foundations.

Representation was received from the Ward Member Councillor Callum Butler which included:

Member were advised that although conversations had taken place between Mr. Carrington and the applicant to try and create a workable scheme, Councillor Butler felt there were still outstanding issues aligned to the reason of the Call-In of this application.

Concern was notes at the design and visual impact and overshadowing which has been proven to affect neighbours, in the density of the site causing privacy, daylight, sunlight overshadowing causes mental health issues, physical infrastructure, flooding and drains.

The site at 0.5 hectares was far too small for the number of proposed properties with 46 per hectare, which was double that of neighbouring sites and well in excess of other housing sites within the village and locality. The lack of space given to these properties would be the equivalent of building modern slums, resulting in an inferior quality of life for potential residents.

Referencing the most recent correspondence in which the applicant had stated that reducing the numbers on the site was not viable and in the event that the committee refused the application, the site would revert to a HGV premises where residents were used to a haulage operation on the site and it would further return employment opportunities to the village. .
Members were further referred to issues in respect of parking spaces on the site, whereby a number had been designed small and were unfit for purpose, and also to the design of the proposed builds which were not in keeping with those in the vicinity. Furthermore, the play area within the roundabout appeared to be a dangerous location with children having to cross one of the three roads to access it. Low water pressure was also on an ongoing problem in the area, impacting on flushing of lavatories and slow water provision. The majority of properties surrounding the site were bungalows some of which sat on lower ground and the increase of the size of the development would impact on this issue further.

In summary the site was not suitable for the number of proposed properties and should the scheme get approved, would have a large negative effect on residents in the near vicinity with overshadowing, and on the wider village with issues in respect of heightened flood risk and water.
issues. A smaller development with a design more in keeping with the village would be a preferred option.

The Ward Member, where able, responded as follows to question tabled by the committee:

In respect of residents not complaining about housing on the site, Councillor Butler felt they may be more inclined to agree a development, if it were to be re-modelled and down sized, and having seen previous applications then it was likely that it would be developed. But it had to fit in with the existing scene and also to the qualify of life within the area.

Referencing the overshadowing modelling undertaken by the speaker, a point of information confirmed that all submissions of the modelling provided to the council had been put on the website. Clearly the objector had undertaken significant readings, but the council did not know what input data had been used, not what methodology so it was difficult to know what weight the Council could give it. The applicants had used a recognised compete programme so the Council could give that a certain amount of weight.

Members comments followed which included:

Several concerns were raised including the density of the site with the proposed dwellings running close the boundaries, particularly when you cannot use bungalows as an option on the site. Car parking spaces were also cited as a concern, along with location of the play area and the issues of over shadowing and also flooding on the site once the concrete was removed. Members agreed that the decision was finally balanced with the need for housing being so high, but equally the quality of life for existing residents along with those who might reside in the new development, if it were to be built had to be seriously considered.

Further comments noted that the site had been subject to various applications over the years and the one before committee had been reduced in number from the previous application. Bearing that in mind and with the Government urging use of brownfield sites, a member voiced concern that should the application be refused, the Council could be susceptible to an appeal. The applicant had addressed outstanding issues in respect of overlooking, and Wrangle had just opened that largest new pumping station in Lincolnshire which resolve any flooding issues.

An initial motion to refuse the application was table and officers assisted with reasons for the refusal and sought an agreed delegation to the officer to finalise the reasons after the meeting proper.

Grounds noted for inclusion within the final refusal notice were density, out of keeping with the character of the locality and not responding sympathetically to that distinctive local character that would be contrary to policies two and three of the local plan and relevant paragraphs of the framework. In respect of overshadowing the reason to incorporate unacceptable levels of harm to residential amenities. All being contrary to policies 2 and 3 of the Local Plan.

A second motion was moved to approve the application in line with officer recommendation which was seconded and taken the to vote ahead of the motion to refuse, subsequently seconded.

The Motion to approve the application in line with officer recommendation fell.

The motion to refuse subject to the reason noted and to an agreed delegation to the officers to finalise the wording of the refusal was carried. .

RESOLVED

That the committee refuse the application based on reasons noted within the meeting, but subject to final wording by the officer with an agreed delegation to the officer to conclude the reasons for refusal.

    .