N/114/01809/22: View the Plans and documents online, please click on the Application Number.  (Please note: If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not available).

Applicant:                          Gleeson Homes

Location:                           Land East of Sheraton, Main Street, Mareham Le Fen

Recommendation:              Refusal

Officer:                              Michelle Walker

Application Type:         Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                     Planning Permission - Erection of 27 no. dwellings and construction of a vehicular access.

Location:                      LAND EAST OF SHERATON, MAIN STREET, MAREHAM LE FEN

Applicant:                    Gleeson Homes

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission - Erection of 27 no. dwellings and construction of a vehicular access at land East of Sheraton, Main Street, Mareham Le Fen.

The proposal attracted opposition locally and was called in to Committee by local Ward Members Councillor Martin Foster and Councillor Richard Avison. The call-in request was following objections received from local residents and included the following reasons:- site not allocated for housing development in the adopted Local Plan; lack of local services and adverse impacts on those local services and facilities in the village by an enlarged local population; additional pressures on the A155 which carried heavy traffic particularly in the summer months and issues with speeding; and the proposed development was not in keeping with other houses in the village.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

• Principle
• Housing Mix, Design and Residential Amenities
• Highways

• Contamination, Drainage and Flood Risk
• Ecology
• Heritage Assets
• Section106 Contributions

Andrew Booth, Development Management Lead Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, pages 61 to 62 of the report refer.

N.B The Meeting adjourned to fix an IT issue at 11:41am and reconvened at 11:47am.

Ms Fiona Beddoes (Applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Mr Keith Hodgson spoke in objection to the application.

At this point in the Meeting, the Development Management Lead Officer read out a written submission sent in by Ward Member, Councillor Martin Foster. 

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

-      Further to Mr Hodgson confirming that the land did not belong to him, a Member queried his thoughts on what was going to happen to the land concerned if it was not developed.

Mr Hodgson responded that part of the agreement was that it would go back to being agricultural land.

Following which, the application was opened for debate. 

-      A Member queried why the current application for 27 houses was being refused when the land to the east was currently being developed for 62 dwellings by the applicant.   The decision for refusal was further queried when the village would also receive further S106 funding towards the NHS, education and for the benefit of the village in general.

The Development Management Lead Officer advised Members that the principal of the development wasn’t being questioned, the concerns were with the quality of the development and its proximity to the closest property, ‘Sheraton’.

-      A Member commented that the site plans looked compact and cramped and queried what the distance was between the houses.

The Development Management Lead Officer estimated that the distance was approximately 18-20m, however explained that the impact related to the front elevation of the property which was compromised by the grouping and arrangement of the new houses.

-      A Member concurred with comments relating to the distance between the houses, and whilst acknowledging that there was often a compromise with space for affordable housing, highlighted that the development was on the edge of the village.

Following which, the application was proposed and seconded for refusal in line with officer recommendation.

Upon being put to the vote for refusal, the vote was carried.

Vote:          11 In favour             0 Against            0 Abstentions 

RESOLVED:

That Full Planning Permission be refused.

$$