N/092/02375/23: 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:                      KCS Development Ltd

Location:                       Land South of, Chestnut Drive, Louth

Recommendation:           Approval with Conditions

Officer:                          Lindsey Stuart

Application Type:         Outline Planning Permission

Proposal:                     Outline erection of up to 50no. dwellings and associated infrastructure (with means of access, landscaping and layout to be considered).

Location:                      LAND SOUTH OF, CHESTNUT DRIVE, LOUTH

Applicant:                    KCS Development Ltd

Members received an application for Outline Planning Permission – Erection of up to

50no. dwellings and associated infrastructure (with means of access, landscaping and

layout to be considered) at land South of Chestnut Drive, Louth.

The application was the subject of local concern and a call-in

request by Ward Member Councillor Edward Mossop. The request

was on the grounds that 'the site is not allocated in the ELDC Local

Plan for Louth/Keddington and as such is a windfall site. The site

has been described as 'infill' by the applicants.  However, looking at

the allocated sites in the Settlement proposals, it sits between the

two sites LO311 and LO326 (or5) creating a pleasant block of open

space on the edge of the settlement adding to the more rural, edge

of town feel to Park Row.

The windfall site is for 50 houses which is considerably large and

would merit it being considered as an allocated site in the future

given proper consultation through the process given to a revised

Local Plan. Objections from neighbouring new-build properties

describe the problems that have occurred since their completion

such as waterlogged gardens and poor mains foul water drainage.

Objection from Louth Town Council.  There is no Keddington Parish

meeting. Until boundary changes take place, the properties will

benefit from Louth Town Council services without any contributions

from the residents through their Council Tax. This renders the

application premature'.

Members noted that the application was deferred from Planning Committee on 4th April 2024, Minute No. 6 refers. At that meeting concern was raised over the ownership of the stretch of Park Row from where the applicant's ownership ended to the Eastfield Road junction.

Members were referred to the additional information contained on page 1 of the Supplementary Agenda.

Lindsey Stuart, Senior Planning Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, page 14 of the report refers.

Mr Nick Pleasant (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

-        A Member queried whether the concern raised that Anglian Water was not able to deal with the sewage had been resolved.  Mr Pleasant responded that Anglian Water considered that there was sufficient capacity at the treatment works and highlighted that it was the Environment Agency that had raised the initial concerns.  Mr Pleasant advised Members that the Environment Agency no longer objected and it was working with Anglian Water to address any potential issues.

-        A Member considered that the proposed development was a windfall site that was not allocated in the Local Plan, therefore had not been through the proper consultation process that would have been required as it would be for an allocated site in the current plan.

-        A Member queried whether Chestnut Drive would be the nearest public highway for East Lindsey Waste Services to access for collections.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that Acorn Avenue was close to being adopted, following which the waste vehicle would then be able to enter the estate.  It was further confirmed that the Nipper Service Bus would be able to access the estate.

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

-        A Member was in support of approving the application as the proposal was an infill in the middle of an existing housing estate.

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

A Member highlighted that the main reasons for refusal was connectivity through Chestnut Drive, along with sewage and drainage issues.

The Development Management Lead Officer advised Members that the policy had been considered very carefully by officers with input from the Environment Agency and Anglian Water and confirmed that waste capacity would be satisfactorily managed by a condition and improvements would be put in place before the development commenced.

Upon summing up and considering the points made, the Legal Representative advised caution to Members looking to use waste capacity issues as a reason for refusal.

Upon being put to the vote for refusal, against officer recommendation, Members voted as follows:

Vote:           2 In favour            7 Against              0 Abstention

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for approval in line with officer recommendation, subject to conditions, was agreed.

Vote:           7 In favour            2 Against              0 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions: