03494/25/FUL: 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 Colin Adams

Location:                           Land off Hollengs Lane, Donington on Bain, Lincs

Recommendation:             Approve with Conditions.

Officer:                             Kathryn White

N.B. There was a short break at 11:20am to rectify an IT issue. The Meeting

reconvened at 11:37am.

Application Type:     Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                Planning Permission - Erection of 5no. dwellings, excavation of land to form an attenuation basin and construction of vehicular and pedestrian accesses.

Location:                 Land off Hollengs Lane, Donington on Bain

Applicant:                 Mr Colin Adams

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission - Erection of 5no. dwellings, excavation of land to form an attenuation basin and construction of vehicular and pedestrian accesses at land off Hollengs Lane, Donington on Bain.

Due to the significant local objections and interest, the application was considered as appropriate to be determined by the Planning Committee.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

• Principle of development
• Impact on the character of the area
• Impact on amenity
• Other matters

Members were referred to the additional information contained on page 6 of the Supplementary Agenda.

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, pages 55 to 56 of the report refer.

Daniel Sharp (Lincs Design Consultancy) spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Sam Kemp (as a local resident) spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor Daniel Simpson spoke as Ward Member.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

-        A Member requested clarification from Mr Sharp regarding his earlier statement that the Parish Council supported the application, explaining that the documentation provided to the Committee did not express its support or opposition, but only provided factual information.  Mr Sharp responded that the Parish Council had not objected to the proposal and had not formally consulted on it.  He added that he and colleagues had met with the Parish Council to present the scheme.  He apologised for any misunderstanding.

-        A Member challenged Councillor Kemp’s assertion that the site lay within open countryside and commented that the site was very close to the village and in their view, nearly constituted infill.  Councillor Kemp referred to the officer’s wording in the decision statement, which described unspoilt views to the west from two nearby bungalows.  He stated that when standing on the site, it was clear that the area to the south contained no housing and that the nearby structure was an agricultural building, reinforcing his view that the land should be regarded as open countryside. He also described the hedgerow along the lane as a low, deciduous hawthorn hedge through which views were easily achievable, noting that the hedge was not in the applicant’s ownership and therefore could not provide mitigation.

-        A Member queried where such housing should be located if not on sites such as the application site.   Councillor Kemp responded that he considered development in certain valley?floor villages to be more appropriate, noting that those settlements had already expanded significantly over recent generations.  He maintained that the proposal site was situated on the crest of a hill, forming part of a landscape type specifically recognised for its character within the Wolds.

-        A Member asked Councillor Kemp to elaborate on other similar applications he had referenced.   Councillor Kemp responded that other councils had refused comparable applications, concluding that housing?supply pressures did not outweigh the great weight afforded to conserving and enhancing the nationally protected landscape. He also cited a recent case in a nearby town where an application for a single dwelling, despite being closer to the ring road and less rural in character, had been refused by both officers and the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of harm to the Wolds.

-        A Member referred to policy relating to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, observing that development was expected to be of exceptional quality. They expressed the view that the proposed dwellings did not meet that threshold. Mr Sharp clarified that the policy regarding “exceptional quality” related to isolated dwellings in open countryside, and that in his view the proposal did not fall within that definition.

-        A Member posed a summarising question to Councillor Kemp, asking whether he believed that the development would deter tourism, and whether he accepted that the village required additional housing to maintain viability even if the proposed location was in his view, unsuitable.  Councillor Kemp reiterated his belief that the proposal site was inappropriate and highlighted that although the village population had grown significantly, local services had reduced over time, many being sustained largely by visitors.  He suggested that the key issue was the impact on a valued east?west vista enjoyed by large numbers of walkers and visitors.  He argued that the proposal would be visually prominent, explaining that the submitted photographs were taken from a lower elevation and partly screened by woodland, whereas the buildings themselves would sit considerably higher on the slope.

-        A Member queried whether the Wolds had already experienced more development than appropriate for a nationally protected area.  Councillor Simpson responded that although the Wolds were indeed of great value, the area must remain a living landscape rather than a museum.  He stated that there was a clear need for modest, affordable housing that would allow local families to remain in the area and contribute to village life.  He noted historical challenges when agricultural workers on ceasing employment, had been required to vacate tied accommodation with little alternative provision available.  He acknowledged that any development would be visible from outside the village but noted that the site was nonetheless close to the village core and its associated facilities.

-        In response to a query on whether the site benefitted from mains drainage, Councillor Simpson confirmed that the village was one of only a few locally that did have mains drainage.  He stated that he had queried capacity with the water authority who had confirmed that the network would accommodate the development, albeit with occasional reliance on tankers during prolonged periods of wet weather, which was an issue common across the district.

N.B. Councillor Sam Kemp left the Meeting at 12:13pm.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

-        Following a query on the 5-year housing supply and whether new housing developments on the coast would form part of it, the Development Management Lead Officer confirmed that any new coastal housing would indeed contribute to the supply figure.  However, the officer emphasised that coastal locations were subject to significant constraints, most notably a high degree of flood risk, which demonstrably weighed against inappropriate levels of development.

The Development Management Lead Officer went on to explain that, in general inland areas, particularly within service settlements, the Council’s absence of a five?year housing land supply meant that certain housing?related policies were considered out of date.  While those policies did not cease to exist, their weight in decision?making had been reduced.  Members were reminded that the National Planning Policy Framework set out the decision?making approach in such circumstances, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.

The Development Management Lead Officer further clarified that the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) remained a highly sensitive designation requiring careful and balanced assessment. While development was not automatically precluded, the Council had a statutory duty to consider potential impacts and ensure these were appropriately weighed against the need to support housing growth.

-        A Member stated that they lived several miles from the application site and noted that in their view, the proposal would not adversely affect the AONB. They described existing surrounding development, including a farmyard and bungalows and suggested that the scheme would support local facilities such as shops, the school, the post office, the church, and the public house. Citing local population figures, they highlighted that only a small proportion of residents had objected.

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

-        A Member expressed concern about development within open countryside.  They referred to previous applications where proposals outside settlement boundaries had been refused due to lack of exceptional or distinctive design, referencing national policy requirements for isolated dwellings in the countryside. The Development Management Lead Officer clarified that the previous example referenced by the Member related to an isolated rural dwelling, which was subject to a different set of national policy tests than the application currently under consideration.

Following which, the application was Proposed for refusal against officer recommendation.

-        A further Member raised concerns regarding potential impacts on views from public rights of way and the experience of visitors to the AONB. The Member considered the proposed location unsuitable and announced support for a proposal for refusal. 

Following which, the application was Seconded for refusal against officer recommendation.

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

Vote:         6 In favour            4 Against              1 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions: