S/169/00025/24: 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 and Mrs Cash

Location:                       Land adjacent to William Lovell Church of England Academy, Stickney

Recommendation:           Approval with Conditions

Officer:                          Lindsey Stuart

Application Type:            Outline Planning Permission

Proposal:                         Outline Planning Permission -Outline erection of 46no. dwellings (with means of access and site layout to be considered).

Location:                          LAND ADJACENT TO WILLIAM LOVELL CHURCH OF ENGLAND ACADEMY/STICKNEY MEADOWS, STICKNEY

Applicant:                        Mr and Mrs Cash

Members received an application for Outline Planning Permission – Outline

erection of 46no. dwellings (with means of access and site layout to be

considered) at land adjacent to William Lovell Church of England

Academy/Stickney Meadows, Stickney.

The application was called in by Councillor Tom Ashton, Ward Member due to the significant public interest the proposal had generated and concern about encroachment into the open countryside.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       Principle of the Development in Terms of Sustainability.

·       Impact of the Development on the Character of Area.

·       Impact of the development on the amenity of the                       Neighbours.

·       Highway Safety and Capacity.

·       Flood Risk and Drainage.

·       Impact of the Development on Local Services.

·       Other Issues (Contamination, archaeology, BNG).

Members were referred to the additional information contained on pages 1 to 2 of the Supplementary Agenda.

Lindsey Stuart, Principal 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.

Ms Liz Hopkins spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor Tom Ashton spoke as Ward Member.  N.B.  By agreement of the Chairman, Councillor Ashton was permitted to speak remotely due to being away attending to other Council business.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

-     Following a query from a Member with regards to the original planning application, Councillor Ashton clarified that it had been for 100 houses, and it was refused.  The subsequent application for 50 houses was then approved for planning permission as the reduction in the number of houses was deemed acceptable.

-     A Member queried which amenities had been lost from the village.   Councillor Ashton responded that the village had lost the public house.

Following which, the application was opened for debate. 

-     A concern was raised with regards to the width of the road going through Stickney Meadows and queried why the roads on new-build estates were so narrow.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the road width was determined by the guidance from Lincolnshire County Council (LCC)  which helped to slow down traffic in a residential area. 

-     Referring to Paragraph 7.7, page 22 of the report refers, relating to minor changes to the original layout of the roads recommended by LCC, a Member queried whether there was any further information on the internal arrangements.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that those changes referred were in relation to ensuring there was sufficient space for refuse lorries to turn, and the more technical details including defining the edge lane, tactile crossings and footways. 

-     A Member raised a concern with regards to the children’s playground and whether the planned location next to an attenuation pond was an appropriate location for it.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the application was for outline planning permission, therefore did not include the full details, however clarified that the playground was intended for the use of smaller children and would be fenced off.

-     A Member queried whether a condition could be put in place with regards to the boundary of the development in order to prevent it from spreading further and testing the limits visually.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the application was for outline planning permission but layout was being considered.

-     A Member referred the Committee to Paragraph 7.8 of the report, page 23 refers.  It was highlighted that there were two conflicting statements, and particular reference was made to the comment from Anglian Water stating that the development may be at risk of flooding. The Principal Planning Officer advised that if the development was approved, Anglian Water would have to make changes to the drainage system and plan.

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

The Development Management Lead Officer gave advice to Members with regards to the reasons they had put forward for refusing the application.

-     A Member further commented that the development was in the open countryside.

The application was then proposed for approval in line with officer recommendation, with conditions to be added relating to the times of traffic movement and a foul water strategy with Anglian Water.

-     A further Member commented on the settlement’s character and appearance and asked for that point to be added for refusal of the application.

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for refusal against officer recommendation was carried.

Vote:         6 In favour            2 Against              2 Abstention 

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused.

N.B. Councillor Paul Rickett left the Meeting 11:09am and returned at 11:10am.