S/215/01507/23: 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:                          Mr & Mrs Boddy

 

Location:                           Abbey Lodge, Tattershall Road, Kirkstead

 

Recommendation:              Refusal

 

Officer:                              Andy Booth

 

 

Application Type:         Full Planning Permission

 

Proposal:                     Planning Permission - Erection of a bungalow and carport and erection of a new boundary wall.

 

Location:                      ABBEY LODGE, TATTERSHALL ROAD, KIRKSTEAD

 

Applicant:                    Mr & Mrs Boddy

 

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Erection of a bungalow and carport and erection of a new boundary wall at Abbey Lodge, Tattershall Road, Kirkstead.

 

The application was called into Planning Committee by Councillor Leyland as Ward Member. The reason for this request was to enable Members to consider fully the material considerations presented in the application, which included in summary;

 

•        The proposed bungalow was in the location of the former village hall;

•        The design and materials of the bungalow had sought to reflect the former village hall structure;

•        The building did not harm the setting of the listed Abbey Lodge and was designed as a subservient structure;

•        Existing and future growth of housing development along Tattershall Road took built development closer to the site and therefore within the realms of being acceptable under Policy SP3 (i.e. it was only a minor departure);

•        Woodhall Spa Parish Council was supportive of the application;

•        Heritage Lincolnshire was supportive. They recognised that it had always been two distinct curtilages;

•        Lincolnshire County Council highways had no objection;

•        The site was connected by a footpath to the village;

•        The proposal supported a rural business. Given the challenges rural pubs faced, ELDC should consider such a proposal positively as it secured the future of a successful business that had been run by the same family for nearly 40 years. The application enhanced the sustainability of a rural business.

 

The main planning issues were considered to be:

 

• Principle of development
• Design and Landscape
• Heritage
• Biodiversity
• Impact on Highway Safety
• Drainage
• Contaminated Land
• Planning Balance

 

The 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 79 to 81 of the report refer.

 

Mrs Boddy (Applicant) spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor Craig Leyland spoke as Ward Member.

 

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

 

-      A Member requested more information relating to linking a property to a business.

 

Councillor Leyland advised that a property’s usage could be tied to a business and he confirmed that the applicants would be happy to accept that.

                 

Following which, the application was opened for debate. 

 

-      A Member queried whether the site would be classed as brownfield land, and whether policy SP4 covered that particular area.

 

The Development Management Lead Officer advised that the proposed site was part of the curtilage of the pub so could be classed as a brownfield site that sat in an open countryside location away from the village.

 

-      A Member commented that they did not understand why the officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

 

The Development Management Lead Officer explained the process for determining a planning application and informed Members that currently the application did not comply with local policy.

 

-      A Member queried whether the recommendation would change if a condition was added that tied the property to the business.   The Development Management Lead Officer informed Members that there would have to be an essential need and in this case, it was not considered that there was an essential need.

 

The Legal Advisor explained to Members that an essential need was commonly used in respect to agricultural dwellings and Committee would need to demonstrate why it was essential to have a dwelling in that location.  In this case it would be considered helpful to the existing business, but not essential.

 

-      A Member commented that the site was that of a former village hall and if it had remained as such, would most likely have received permission to have been converted into a house.   Further comments were made with regards to there being a footpath to the village, the support from the Parish Council and the fact that it would not affect the listed status of Abbey Lodge.  It was highlighted that employment within the area should be encouraged.

 

-      Following a brief discussion, Members further considered that people should not be penalised by policies for wanting to develop their own land and run a family business which would bring economy into the local area. 

 

At the Chairman’s request, the Development Management Lead Officer advised Members on their position with opting to approve the application.  He explained that it was contrary to policy and that they would need something more substantive to back-up their decision.

 

-      A Member queried whether ‘achieving well designed places’ from the NPPF could support it.   The Development Management Lead Officer responded that this reason was not sufficient.

 

-      A Member commented that the interpretation of the word ‘essential’ could be different if looking at it from a Councillor’s point of view.

 

The Legal Representative advised Members that in planning policy, development in the countryside was restricted to only that which was essential.

 

-      A Member suggested the following reason, to back-up their decision to approve the application:

 

‘The dwelling to be constructed was to replicate the original appearance of the former village hall with a very similar style and detailing’.

 

As previously mentioned, if the application was for a conversion, then it would likely to be approved, but unfortunately the building was no longer there. It was considered that the proposal reinstated a ‘like for like’ heritage asset that provided visual enhancements to the entrance of the village.  Furthermore, it was capable of providing a dwelling without compromising amenity, flood risk or highway safety and therefore on balance it was considered that the application could be supported.

 

Following which, the application was proposed and seconded for approval against officer recommendation.

 

Upon being put to the vote for approval, against officer recommendations, the vote was carried.

 

Vote:           11 In favour           0 Against              0 Abstentions 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Full Planning Permission be approved with the following conditions:

 

$$