N/132/01733/24: 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 & Mrs M D Horner

Location:                           Land off South Road, North Somercotes

Recommendation:              Refusal

Officer:                              Claire Girdley

N.B.  Councillor Paul Rickett left the Meeting at 10:51am and returned at

10:52am.

Application Type:            Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                         Planning Permission - Erection of a house.

Location:                          LAND OFF SOUTH ROAD, NORTH SOMERCOTES

 Applicant:                       Mr & Mrs M D Horner

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Erection of a

house at land off South Road, North Somercotes.

The application was considered appropriate for consideration by the Planning Committee following a request by Councillor Daniel McNally as Ward Member in recognition of the apparent local support for the application. It should be noted that the proposal, if granted planning permission, would constitute a departure from the development plan for the district.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       Principle of Development

·       Flood Risk

·       Impact of the proposal upon the character of the area

·       Other Matters

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, page 47 of the report refers.

Mr Andrew Clover (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Daniel McNally spoke as Ward Member.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

-       Following a query with regards to whether there was any mitigation in place for flooding, Mr Clover responded that the building had been raised up to meet the Environment Agency’s (EA) guidelines and further advised that the EA had no objection in terms of the flooding mitigation.

Following which, the application was opened for debate. 

-       A Member queried whether the mitigation that had been put in place for the flood risk was sufficient to approve the application.  The Development Management Lead Officer advised that the policy was clear on how housing in the coastal area of the district should be approached and that a sequential and exception assessment was required.  He further advised Members that the development did not pass these tests.

-       A Member referred to a housing development on industrial land in Wragby that had been approved following no interest in the industrial land.  It was queried why the proposed land in North Somercotes which had no interest in it for over 35 years was up for refusal. 

The Development Management Lead Officer explained that no two cases were exactly the same and the Wragby development was on a  larger site which had been actively marketed for a long time, with an evidence trail to back it up.  That was not the case with the land in North Somercotes, as in recent years there had been a proposal for an employment development on the opposite side of the road which indicated there was a market for employment at the site.

-       A Member queried whether a deferral of the application would be useful to allow for more information to be submitted. The Development Management Lead Officer advised that there was sufficient information to make a decision and that no evidence had been provided to suggest that the site was active.

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

-       A Member commented that a deferral would allow the applicant time to provide additional relevant information in support of the application.

Following which, the application was Proposed for deferral.

-       A Member commented that there was a lot of information included in the report and with the policy for guidance, this did not fit with the proposed application.

Following which, the application was Proposed and Seconded for approval against officer recommendation.

Following which, the application was Seconded for refusal in line with officer recommendation.

-       A Member queried what criteria could be considered in order for the application to be approved.  It was reiterated that the proposal  was for one property and not for a huge development and there hadn’t been any interest in it as an industrial site.   

Following which, the application was Seconded for deferral.

The Development Management Lead Officer referred Members to Paragraph 7.3 on pages 49 to 50 of the report.

-       A Member considered that a deferral would be the most appropriate action as it would be dangerous to approve an application that was not fully backed by the Committee.

-       A Member raised a concern that the site was in Flood Zone 3 and considered that the application should be refused.

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

Vote:         7 In favour            2 Against              1 Abstention 

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved.