N/178/02377/23: 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 A Fisher

Location:                       Land at Humberston Road, Tetney

Recommendation:           Approval with Conditions

Officer:                          Graeme Hyde

Application Type:         Outline Planning Permission

Proposal:                     Outline erection of up to 34no. dwellings.

Location:                      LAND AT, HUMBERSTON ROAD, TETNEY

Applicant:                    Mr A Fisher

Members received an application for Outline Planning Permission – Outline

erection of up to 34no. dwellings at land at Humberston Road, Tetney.

The site owner and applicant of the site was East Lindsey District Council and

therefore in the interest of transparency in the decision making process,

determination by Committee process was required. 

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       The Principle of Development.

·       Design and impact on character of the area.

·       The Impact of Neighbouring Residential Properties.

·       Access/Highway Matters.

·       Drainage.

·       Biodiversity.

·       Contributions.

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

Graeme Hyde, Senior Planning Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, pages 13 to 14 of the report refer.

Mr Ricky Newton (Architect) spoke in support of the application.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speaker.

-      A Member highlighted the neighbours’ letters detailed at Paragraph 4.18 of the report which outlined concerns relating to 14 dwellings in the flood risk zone and contradicted Paragraph 7.16 of the report whereby it stated that there would be no dwellings in that area.

Mr Newton advised that the site was split between Flood Zones 1 and 2 and included an attenuation pond.  There were also some dwellings located in Zone 2 but consideration was given to the entire site and as an Exceptions Test was not required, Zone 2 was considered the better location.

-      Further to a query whether there were 14 dwellings in the Flood Zone planned, Mr Newton responded that he could not confirm this.

-     When asked whether he agreed with the S106 Agreements for the NHS and school provision, Paragraphs 7.29 and 7.31 of the report refer, Mr Newton confirmed that both he and the applicant agreed with the detail set out in the agreements.

-      Following a query with regards to the maintenance of the pond area, Mr Newton advised Members that this would be offered to Anglian Water for adoption.   Historically this was something they would accept and they would take on the liability for this area.

-      A Member queried whether the new dwellings would include solar panels on the roofing.  Mr Newton responded that current building regulations would have to be complied with, however there was no current requirement for this.

-      Following a query on the ownership and access to the undeveloped area on the map, Mr Newton advised that he was unsure who owned it.  However, the application had been designed to include a leg which would open up the area and as required by Highways, any adopted roads would need to go up to the boundaries to prevent ransom strips.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

-     Following a request for further clarification relating to the Flood Risk Zones, the Senior Planning Officer advised Members that the Flood Risk Zones were only in the bottom part of the site and that it was an allocated site with mitigation measures recommended by the Environment Agency to address floor levels.  Members were further advised that the majority of the site was classed as Zone 1, with a small area of the site in Zone 2 and Zone 3.  The Senior Planning Officer assured Members that satisfactory sequential testing had been carried out.

-      A Member raised a concern with regards to there being no tree planting included at the bottom section of the site at Staves Court and requested that this be addressed.

The Development Management Lead Officer advised Members that advisory notes could be added on to the permission if granted to address the issues mentioned by Members when the reserved matters came forward. 

-      A Member commented that the Parish Council was not aware that the affordable housing allocation had not been included in the application and stressed the importance of the 10 houses being included.  The Development Management Lead Officer referred Members to Condition 15, page 28 of the report which clarified this.

Following which, the application was Proposed and Seconded for approval in line with officer recommendation.

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

Vote:           9 In favour            0 Against              1 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions: