Agenda item

Kieron Manning, Assistant Director of Planning, presented a visual power point display in which he:

 

a)    outlined the detail of the planning site location and proposal as follows:

 

·         A hybrid planning application (2019/0294/RG3) was granted full planning permission and outline consent in January 2022 for the development of the Western Growth Corridor (WGC) Sustainable Urban Extension.

·         The full element granted permission for the means of access to the development from Skellingthorpe Road and Tritton Road. Works to construct the Skellingthorpe Road access and the first section of the spine road was currently underway.

·         The outline element granted consent for the development of up to 3,200 dwellings, a local centre, primary school, commercial uses, leisure uses, highway infrastructure and open space.

·         This current application related to Phase 1A, which had outline consent to be developed with housing. The application proposed 52 two and three storey dwellings. These included detached, semi-detached and terraced properties of 2, 2½ and 3 storeys.

·         The application sought to approve all of the reserved matters including the layout of the development, the scale of the dwellings, their appearance, means of access and landscaping. The application also included additional information to satisfy a number of conditions of the outline consent, as detailed in full within the officer’s report.

·         Phase 1A was located directly to the north east of Skellingthorpe Road, opposite the junction with Birchwood Avenue. This phase comprised parcels A1 and A1a, which sat to the north west and south east of the spine road respectively. Beyond the site to the north east was the Catchwater Drain and open land. To the south east were residential properties off Burghley Road and Haddon Close. To the north west were residential properties on Grosvenor Avenue, Roxborough Close and Belgravia Close. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints abutted the site to the west.

·         This represented the first phase of residential development proposed on the WGC site, in accordance with the approved, indicative Masterplan (included within the officer’s report), and phasing plan. The phasing plans also indicatively identified that parcels A1 and A1a would deliver 52 units, again, the proposal for 52 dwellings would be in accordance with this.

·         The applicant and owner of the land was the City of Lincoln Council. For this reason the application was brought before Full Council acting as Planning Committee this evening.

·         The usual statutory and public consultations had been undertaken by the Planning Department, including the consultation of over 500 properties in the vicinity, the display of site notices and the publication of a press advert. In addition to this the applicant and applicant’s agent held a public consultation event in October 2023 at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, providing the opportunity for local residents to view the plans.

·         Revised plans had been received during the course of the application to address comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) as Local Highway and Lead Local Flood Authority, as detailed in full within the officer’s report.

 

b)    advised that the principle of the development had been established with the approval of the outline planning application and could not be reconsidered as part of the reserved matters application

 

c)    referred to the site history of the planning application as detailed within the officer’s report

 

d)    also referred to the new Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP) adopted in April 2023 which:

 

·         Introduced a range of policies relating to energy efficiency (S6 and S7), water usage (S12), electric vehicle (EV) charging (NS18) and the 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (contained within S61).

·         However, as the outline permission was granted pre-adoption of the new plan such matters were not considered, incorporated or conditioned at that stage.

·         Therefore, as this application was now for the approval of reserved matters relating to the approved outline, they could not reasonably be re-visited. These would be referenced where necessary under each respective heading within the officer’s report.

·         The scheme, nonetheless, proposed a 32% improvement relating to energy efficiency and biodiversity net gain above that required by current building regulations

 

e)    provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

 

·         Policy S1: The Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

·         Policy S2: Growth Levels and Distribution

·         Policy S21: Flood Risk and Water Resources

·         Policy S47: Accessibility and Transport

·         Policy S53: Design and Amenity

·         Policy S56: Development on Land Affected by Contamination

·         Policy S57: The Historic Environment

·         Policy S60: Protecting Biodiversity and Geodiversity

·         Policy S61: Biodiversity Opportunity and Delivering Measurable Net Gains

·         Policy S66: Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows

·         Policy S68: Sustainable Urban Extensions

·         Policy S69: Lincoln Sustainable Urban Extensions

·         Policy S76: Residential Development on Sustainable Urban Extensions

·         National Planning Policy Framework

 

f)     provided details of the issues pertaining to the application, as follows:

 

·         Principle of development

·         Developer contributions

·         Visual amenity

·         Residential amenity

·         Access, parking and highways

·         Drainage and flood risk

·         Trees and landscaping

·         Ecology and biodiversity

·         Energy efficiency and sustainable transport

·         Design and crime

·         Contaminated land

·         Archaeology

·         Other matters

 

g)    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

h)    concluded that:

 

·         The principle of the use of the site for residential purposes was established by the existing consent.

·         The development accorded with the Design Code, it had its own identity and respected the local amenity.

·         The well considered tree planting and landscaping would be of benefit to the scheme.

·         The proposals would not result in harm to neighbour’s amenity and the development would provide an acceptable level of amenity for future occupants.

·         The removal of trees had been sufficiently justified and new tree planting would help off-set this loss.

·         The tree planting, landscaping and the addition of bat and bird boxes would enable ecology and biodiversity to be enhanced.

·         Other matters relating to parking and highways, drainage, flood risk, energy efficiency, contamination, archaeology, design and crime had been appropriately considered by officers and the relevant statutory consultees. These would be managed both by conditions of the original consent and those proposed to be attached to this permission.

·         The proposals would therefore be in accordance with the requirements of CLLP Policies S1, S2, S21, S47, S53, S56, S57, S60, S61, S66, S68, S69 and S76 as well as guidance within the SPD and NPPF.

 

Richard Hall, local resident, addressed Planning Committee raising objections to aspects of the proposed planning application. He covered the following main points:

 

·         He lived on a quiet cul-de-sac on Forest Park.

·         He did not live in the area designated during the public consultation for the Western Growth Corridor (WGC).

·         We were promised that all development would be from the new junction on Skellingthorpe Road.

·         We and other residents were shocked to hear at the latest consultation event that three houses would have vehicular and pedestrian access from Grosvenor Avenue with at least one having a Grosvenor Avenue address.

·         This was not appropriate as additional parking, traffic and footfall would result in increased hazards for residents, children, those with mobility and sensory difficulties, as well as increased pollution and negative impact on the local environment.

·         At no time was it suggested that the new development would encroach or merge with Forest Park.

·         In the past, the Planning Committee had turned down a request for infill building on Grosvenor Avenue the uniform design and its character would be undermined.

·         He understood public money was used to acquire marginal land, anticipated for use as a buffer zone and potential wildlife corridor, instead of creating additional profit for the developer.

·         The previous boundary fence and hawthorn shrubs at the bottom of Grosvenor Avenue had already been destroyed which meant we were sitting in a building site with no screening of any sort. (The photographs didn’t show this).We asked it be replaced as soon as possible to support remaining wildlife and provide residents with much needed screening to the open views of the construction site. Additional planting to a place that had been lost was very important and necessary.

·         The three houses proposed would mean the loss of at least three trees and another twenty should the buffer zone not be created.

·         We did not want pedestrian or vehicular access to the development from the bottom of Grosvenor Avenue.

·         We would request that the boundary fence and hedge screening be reinstated.

·         This last point was very important. This was the only part of the development at the moment with no fence or screening of any sort. We were looking out on to a construction site which was obviously noisy and the reinstatement of the fence and hedge screening would be very helpful.

·         He concluded by saying that his comments were not against the development itself, just those details highlighted.

·         Thank you.

 

Mark Foster, representing Lindum Homes, addressed Planning Committee in support of the proposed planning application, covering the following main points:

 

·         He introduced himself, a director with Lindum Homes and thanked everyone for allowing him the opportunity to address Committee today.

·         It was now two years since he previously addressed Committee as part of the application team for the wider site.

·         Since that time members would be aware of the great strides made to bring forward a very complex development.

·         The new junction and access into the site from Skellingthorpe Road was moving towards completion later this year.

·         Funding was also being secured to deliver the second access, the Tritton Road bridge.

·         A further application to facilitate the construction of this bridge was to be considered within your agenda later this evening.

·         This continuing upfront investment had been made predominantly to facilitate the building of much needed housing for the City.

·         We were really pleased to be sat here this evening with a positive recommendation from your officers for the first phase of residential development of the site.

·         As one of the gateways into the wider site, and the first residential development to be brought forward, we wanted to set the standard by which future proposals would be judged, whilst also responding positively to the constraints and opportunities of the site.

·         As part of the design evolution of the scheme, we had held two separate public consultations, and worked with key stakeholders to arrive at the proposal before Committee this evening, including your officers, whose feedback and guidance had been critical in moving the scheme forward.

·         The existing constraints did have a very specific impact on the lay out, and in particular there were existing features which needed to be positively responded to by the development. These being the Catchwater and the public rights of way to the north of the site, Skellingthorpe Road and Birchwood Avenue to the south, and finally the main development spine road which ran through the middle of the site, and where individual vehicular access was specifically restricted.

·         These factors combined led us to the perimeter block layout we were proposing, creating active and predominantly car free frontages to the spine road, the Catchwater and Skellingthorpe Road, whilst also prioritising the views into and out of the wider site.

·         The street scenes were defined by variations in scale, massing and detailing as displayed earlier this evening on the screen. These broke up the blocks, particularly along the main spine road, and created visual interest whilst preventing too much repetition, which was the key thing for the applicant.

·         The overall design approach was modern, with some traditional features such as bays and dormers to help the development assimilate with its character in this part of the City in which we were building.

·         It also had sustainability at its heart, significantly surpassing current building regulations, and even the anticipated 2025 future home standard, in terms of building performance and carbon reduction.

·         We also wanted to create a landscape quality to the site, retaining key landscape features but also creating new public open space as well as new routes into an out of the site.

·         These routes and connections were specifically important elements raised during our consultation events and had been incorporated into the design.

·         We did recognise the concerns of neighbours, and had worked with residents over some time to try to address these where we could, accepting of course that most developments had some sort of impact.

·         This had specifically seen the houses moved further away from existing residents on Burghley Road and Haddon Close, with boundary vegetation retained to improve the relationship here.

·         We also appreciated the comments made by the residents at Grosvenor Avenue and Mr Hall’s speech tonight. These issues were addressed in the officer’s report, however, he would add that the turning head at the end of Grosvenor Avenue was unusual in that it already projected somewhat into the site and as such the development had to consider it. We felt that the proposals did respond positively to what was a constraint fronting this road, ensuring the development did not turn its back on Grosvenor Avenue which we felt would be harmful visually.

·         Also the pedestrian connection to Grosvenor Avenue was an acclaimed public right of way, meaning a connection did have to be maintained here, although we did hope in time that Grosvenor Avenue residents did benefit from improved access into the wider site and towards the city centre beyond.

·         In conclusion, hopefully members would see that as an applicant team we had provided a comprehensive proposal which would complement the existing character of the area and was befitting of the sites gateway location.

·         The aim if the development was approved tonight was for it to be built by Lindum Homes. We were a local housebuilder with our own local workforce and contract supply chain, meaning these houses would be built by local people for local people in what we all hoped would be a truly aspirational place to live.

·         Thank you.

 

The Committee discussed the content of the report in further detail.

 

The following questions and comments were received from members and responded to by officers:

 

:

·         He had been a Councillor for many years and took over a great deal of paperwork from former Councillor Pete Archer.This included a booklet called Swanpool against growth.

·         There had always been a mooted awareness that there could be growth in that area. It had taken many years to achieve this growth and the additional housing was essential.

·         We could finally vote tonight on the first stage of this much needed development. Officers worked hard with developers to bring forward schemes they considered suitable for planning permission to be received. As Planning Committee, we did not always agree with their advice but legitimate planning reasons for refusal must be established at all times.

·         He believed the application in front of members tonight as the first stage of the development, with an impressive entrance to the site would be a gateway to attract people into further phases of the scheme. There was a great deal of green space within the proposals and attractive houses.

·         : The update sheet included a response from a Mr Whiting regarding Pig Lane Haul Road between 1a Skellingthorpe Road and Phase 1b Tritton Road bridge. He noted that No 1 Skellingthorpe Road was near the Skellingthorpe Road/Boultham Road traffic island junction, which highlighted concerns as to how we numbered these houses, to avoid confusion with conflicting numbers at the further end of Skellingthorpe Road. Also, he requested that letter boxes not be positioned at the bottom of the doors.

·         He referred to the point made by Mr Porter regarding RAF remains, which had been responded to at Page 24 of the report by officer’s and had answered his question. A local photographic historian Andy Blow had produced material around RAF Skellingthorpe area which may be usefully looked at in a supportive way.

·         : He referred to Page 54 of the agenda pack Figure 11, which showed various routes and connections in different coloured dotted lines, however there was no key for the diagram?

·         He referred to a comment from a resident regarding a three storey building located right at the front of the development, without any high buildings near it either side. The resident had stated that this would spoil the protected view of the Cathedral. A single three storey building alone in that area would stand out ‘like a sore thumb’ and was not appropriate at the highest point of the development.

·         He accepted that the development had approval and would be going ahead. He objected to the parking courts, which were his main concern. The police provided a response at page 96 of the agenda bundle about these, as they had also done at the time the development received approval two years previously. On page 24 of the report bundle, the applicant and agent stated that they felt positive responses had been made to the issues raised by the police. Having read the pack, and the police’s comments he didn’t believe this to be the case.

·         : The parking courts were outside the boundaries of each property and not owned by the residents of the houses. They were screened from the housing by high fences and allocated to residents of the properties. He believed there were two parking spaces per property, although it wasn’t very clear; what guarantee existed for use only by the allocated residents of the property?

·         : Had any parking provision been made for visitors? There didn’t appear to be spare capacity for this.

·         : Leaf matter from local trees would likely build up over time. Who would be responsible for cleaning and maintenance of the parking courts?

·         : For safety and security concerns, would the areas be well lit? Information on this was not provided.

·         : Would delivery drivers be expected to drive round to the parking area and deliver to properties via the back door? Would residents be happy to receive callers at the back door? Most likely the delivery drivers would park on the spine road, deliver their parcel to the front door and move on to the next customer.

·         He referred to a comment made within the agenda pack that people did not park cars in garages anymore. If garages were built to take modern cars, then people were likely to park in them.

·         It was stated that an advantage of a parking barn as opposed to garages was that it held two spaces, one under and one in front. Garages fulfilled the same purpose, one inside and one outside.

·         There was an aspiration that there would not be many cars in these places or no more than those that were parking. There was a standard set of an average of 1.5 car parking spaces per property throughout the whole development. This did not apply to the first phase which meant that if a further phase was built some homes would only have one car parking space.

·         He referred to comments made by the County Council that there were only a small number of residents in the immediate area that didn’t own two cars. This was a meaningless statistic as those people weren’t likely to be buying these properties.

·         The relatively newer areas not far from this junction at Fulmar Road and Birchwood Avenue could be seen cluttered with vehicles parked on driveways/pavements during the evening. Many families had children still at home with cars. This mode of transport was not going away.

·         Car insurers always enquired where your vehicle was parked overnight. The best answer was in a locked garage or on the driveway of your property. A public parking area out of view of the premises was the worst answer to give.

·         We had already heard that the first 52 houses would set the high standard for future phases. Prospective buyers would expect a garage to be included.

·         There were many security concerns listed by the police that related to having open parking areas around the back of properties providing opportunities for crime and other activities.

·         This development would result in a disincentive for people to buy these properties without a garage.

 

The Assistant Director for Planning offered the following points of clarification to members:

 

·         He deferred the question from Councillor Hewson regarding the haul road to the next planning application on the agenda this evening, the haul road itself.

·         The request regarding siting of letter boxes was not a material planning consideration, however, the applicants were here this evening listening to the debate and he was sure they would take the matter of the design and layout of the doors implemented on the scheme into consideration.

·         In relation to RAF remains, officers were on board with requirements in relation to archaeology. The City Archaeologist had been consulted and was satisfied with how things had progressed.

·         He referred to Page 54 of the agenda pack Figure 11, and gave clarification to the various routes and connections displayed in different coloured lines on the diagram provided.

·         The matter of the height of the corner building on the site and to whether or not it was considered to be inappropriate was a matter to be determined by members this evening. The officer view was that typically with a corner development, from an urban design perspective it could accommodate taller buildings to create a punctuated corner, particularly when there was a significant set back from that corner to dwellings/other development on the opposite corner. There was a considerable amount of space at this junction point, the land was lower and dipped down from Skellingthorpe Road into the site, and therefore it could accommodate some additional height. Officers did not consider the height of the corner building to be inappropriate for this reason.

·         In relation to comments made that the corner dwelling would affect protected views of the Cathedral, a protected view of the Cathedral did not exist in policy terms, certainly not at this par. The planning authority was not able to protect a view, as members would be aware from regular member training sessions they had received.

·         Parking courts/ police comments/safety concerns – Clearly this was something we had to balance in the overall scheme of the development, the benefits of delivering the scheme, the limitations we had and the type of layout. A balance had to be struck in terms of urban design and safe frontages to the scheme to set the tone for the rest of the development. Officers were comfortable that the risk of safety was not of a sufficient level to warrant refusal of planning permission. The police were not objecting to the scheme in that regard.

·         Garages – We all had our individual views as to whether people tended to use garages or would use garages to park their cars in new developments, it was not material in terms of consideration of this application. The provision of car barns enabled two spaces to be provided for each property which was considered to be reasonable, and beyond which the Highway Authority had requested for the scheme. Officers felt this was a suitable way to deal with the development.

·         Inevitably with perimeter type developments, which were necessary to some extent in urban design terms, the workings to the development needed to be retained behind, with parking provided to the rear of properties.

·         The car barns would be adjacent to each individual property, and would be within the curtilage and ownership of that individual property. The spaces between them off the main highway i.e. the shared access road, would be picked up as part of a management company agreement, yet to be resolved in terms of maintenance and care and repair of shared services.

·         Delivery drivers – the main road through the development would not have parking provision, however there were inward routes behind the development which led to the parking courts, likely to be used by delivery drivers. As a Planning Authority we could not legislate as to whether people observed the Highway Code in terms of how they drove, including delivery drivers, however, safe provision existed and the Highways Authority had not raised issue with that. The main concern for us and the Highway Authority in terms of highway safety was the ability for a vehicle to get off the highway and back onto it in forward gear. Delivery drivers could do this by accessing and egressing the site via the routes behind the development which in phase 1 would act as a cul-de-sac.

·         In terms of why car barns were the preferred option as opposed to garages, this was for ease of parking for residents and also from a design point of view. Whilst it could be argued it was not the most attractive thing to have a shared parking area, they were functional. Officer’s would rather see this type of car barn being more aesthetically pleasing than garage courts.

 

Questions and comments from Members continued.

 

·         In relation to Pig Lane access, currently being used for all works traffic, the preferred option when the main road was open was for all works traffic to use the Bell mouth main entrance. Could this be conditioned or a strong assurance be given that once the main road was opened, Pig Lane would not be used for any access for works traffic?

·         The people of Burghley Road had been very reasonable in tolerating works traffic till now, it would be helpful for the main road to be used for all works traffic going forward once opened.

·         Page 80 of the report contained a response from the Highway Authority stating that this phase of the development went above the desired number of parking bays per property at 2 per dwelling for this scheme. The Highway Authority’s view was that as a Council we should be limiting parking provision to encourage sustainable forms of transport and connectivity. Whilst this was noble, and we should have a desire to ensure the availability of cycle links within the entirety of this development together with other sustainable forms of connectivity. He was concerned by the Highway Authority’s line of a maximum of 1.5 vehicles per property throughout the entirety of the scheme. The applicant should challenge this moving forward. He did think new build developments should have adequate offroad parking facilities to stop vehicles parking anywhere and everywhere.

·         Central Lincolnshire Local Plan – the updated plan was published after the outline planning application was passed. Given the significance of this application, its size and the reputation of the applicant, he was disappointed that the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan was not being adhered to at its fullest, although he accepted that steps had been taken that would not have been required when the original planning application was granted.

·         Following Mr Hall’s comments on the three houses which would have vehicular and pedestrian access from Grosvenor Avenue, he accepted the officer’s response within the report and the reasoning behind that. However, it was a ‘tad’ cheeky given that we had been assured throughout the process there would only be two accesses to the site. He appreciated however that only three properties were involved. On balance, he was minded to support this application.

·         He appreciated Councillor Hewson’s comments regarding the siting of letter boxes, and more particularly the officer’s and developer’s view going forward. It was a relatively trivial issue but important to some people’s health and wellbeing and he hoped it would be followed through by the developer.

·         He appreciated the time taken by officer’s to answer his queries regarding cycle routes, although he realised they were not material to this planning application, he hoped the developer would follow through what had been mentioned.

·         He was pleased with this application on the basis of its commitment to energy efficiency. This was mentioned extensively in the outline planning permission. He was pleased the homes to be built would be ahead of the future Homes Standard and he hoped this would be carried through to the rest of the development.

·         The use of attenuation ponds for drainage would start to address concerns of local residents and others regarding drainage on the site.

·         : Could officers elaborate on the issues of screening for residents on the development as notified by one of the objectors and the developer during his speech?

·         We should be setting good precedents for this development moving forward. It largely encompassed a big chunk of his ward and other streets such as Hartsholme Drive, which he didn’t think in the outline planning permission were to have additional houses attached to them, so he had some sympathy for comments made about additional houses being attached to Grosvenor Avenue.

·         : Could he have reassurance that additional houses were not going to be attached to other areas of the development or other roads abutting the site.

·         He supported in principle Councillor Bean’s suggestion that a condition should be imposed on Pig Lane once the main road was opened for it not be used for any access for works traffic unless there was a very good reason why not.

 

The Assistant Director for Planning offered the following points of clarification to members:

 

·         In relation to Pig Lane, the Construction Management Plan stated that the new road would be the principle access for the site, which was conditioned on the outline planning permission consent. He would invite the Planning Team Leader to comment further within his presentation for the next planning application on tonight’s agenda on the haul road, as it was interrelated.

·         There was a reason why 2 car parking spaces per household had been agreed for this first stage of the development, although it was intended to be 1.5 car parking spaces throughout the entirety of the scheme.

·         This was because 1.5 spaces was a notable reduction in what was typically found on new schemes. Whilst moving towards modal shift was our ambition and where we needed to go, this needed to be supported by all the relevant infrastructure and changes that would happen across the City in general, which were not fully in place at this point in time. In this very first phase we needed to work as we were now, therefore, the two spaces per dwelling were considered to be appropriate and reasonable.

·         This matter could be revisited on the original condition of outline planning permission, stage by stage for each reserved matters application, which could potentially vary as each application came forward dependent on the nature of the development and number of properties, typology etc. Some developments would require more parking and some less.

·         In terms of the screening, there was a plan within the documentation as part of the proposal, which listed all the boundary treatments including additional screening from new planting, new trees, boundary walls and fence lines. As part of this proposal, at the end of Grosvenor Avenue a close boarded fence would be erected between the existing property at the end of the Grosvenor Avenue and the first of the new properties on Grosvenor Avenue. Officers were satisfied that adequate screening would be provided.

·         From a planning point of view, there had never been any stipulation one way or another that any development should or should not be accessed directly from Grosvenor Avenue. Clearly because of the nature of the site, it would be somewhat odd if we didn’t have a section of the site which didn’t address Grosvenor Avenue, given its location. The change wasn’t considered to be harmful although it was something the residents would notice. Only one of those properties had direct vehicular access from Grosvenor Avenue which should limit movements, with the remainder being served from the parking courts as described earlier.

 

Questions and comments from Members continued

 

·         : Could an assurance be given that trees would be replaced within our policy of 2 to 1? She accepted that the trees to be removed were of relatively low standard, but they were trees nonetheless and they were important.

·         In terms of wildlife it was pleasing to welcome bat boxes, bird boxes etc. We talked about climate change, cars, solar panels, and heat source pumps but wildlife was an important part of how we maintained our planet too. The development land was a green area which added to the carbon capture, and it was important it was given mention as well.

·         : The design - She couldn’t say she was overwhelmed by the design of some of the houses, which was a subjective view. For the initial stage of such a big project it would have been good to incorporate some real aspirational design types of houses. Was that due to function over form? Were we limited in how we designed some of these homes by climate credentials or could we make improvements moving forward later in the scheme?

·         She disagreed with Councillor Clarkson. She thought the idea of taking cars away from the front of houses was quite important in terms of streetscape, creation of a sense of place, and responsibility to some extent. The area where she lived was very similar to the proposed development being very green, but cars were everywhere. There wasn’t adequate parking provision. When it was built in the 1950’s, people had less cars. Cars caused problems in terms of how an area looked and felt, grass became churned up and it was sometimes difficult to navigate paths, a pleasing streetscape added to the feel of the place and a community sense of belonging.

·         She felt it was ironic to complain about parking spaces being at the rear of the houses, then equally complain about cluttered cars at the front of the homes. We couldn’t opt for both choices and by taking the car parking spaces away from the main routes it offered more greenery, a better view and hopefully less cars.

·         One of the images of the proposed street scene showed a grass verge straight on to the road, whilst others had paths, then the grass verge and then the road, or road, grass verge then path.

·         : Had we considered mitigation measures to prevent cars parking on the grass verges; although it was great to see verges along roads, their openness/greenery had to be managed. Parking of cars there would detract from the area.

·         The green credentials of the scheme were good, we must be entirely inspirational with what we did with this project. She agreed with Councillor Dyer’s point. The applicant was a reputable builder and we needed to set a high standard. This development represented the first 52 houses only. She was aware of the restrictions placed on the first phase of development by the infrastructure required to be in place, and considered that the scheme was unique in its own way as a small start. However, if we were going to reach our climate targets and change the world in the way it was needed fairly urgently, we must be setting the standard in terms of our expectations from our houses and areas. In saying that, the scheme represented the greenest development she had ever seen on Planning Committee, and it was a good start as long as we never lost track of climate change ambitions and held this in high regard when moving forward with the rest of the project.

·         : He wished it to be recorded that he was not against parking to the rear of properties, or advocating parking in front of properties, his main objection to the development was the use of parking courts collectively, and the fact that it went against some strong recommendations made by the police. He didn’t want vehicles parked on the spine road, or vehicles parked in front of properties; what he did want to see was parking on properties rather than in open parking courts.

·         She supported Councillor Tweddle’s comments regarding biodiversity in ecology.

·         She also agreed that compared to a lot of schemes she had seen in her lifetime, this was very impressive in terms of its environmental credentials and aims in terms of sustainability.

·         Looking through the agenda papers, she highlighted some key points.

·         One of these points related to biodiversity at page 22 of the bundle, where it stated that ‘to further strengthen biodiversity, the agent had advised there was no objection to the provision of bat boxes on suitable mature trees, bat bricks within a selection of buildings, bird boxes in the fabric of buildings and on suitable trees’. Officers had suggested that his be conditioned on any grant of consent. Although overall she was very impressed with this application she did have small concerns. This statement did seem quite weak in terms of, for example, compensation for some of the losses, a ‘selection of buildings’ could be regarded as a subjective comment. For example, it could mean ‘two’.

·         She requested reassurance be provided that proper thought would be given to a substantial amount of compensation for the loss of the other trees in terms of these bat boxes. Also, the bird boxes in the fabric of the buildings.

·         She was not an expert on these matters, however, there had to be some sustainability to prevent these measures being put into houses, followed by alterations to the properties in 20-30 years’ time which resulted in there being hardly any bird boxes left. These bat and bird boxes needed to be a key part of the design of these buildings rather than just given ‘lip service’.

·         She was also going to echo Councillor Tweddle’s concerns regarding the design of these buildings, some of which were better than others. Some attracted interest in terms of their arched windows, as shown at page 53 of the agenda bundle, however, it would be lovely to see some interesting brickwork around them.

·         In terms of the white rendering on some of the properties, a block of flats in her ward with similar finish had tended to look tired a few years down the line and hadn’t aged well, which raised concerns.

·         The property portrayed at the top of page 55 of the agenda bundle did not have very interesting lintels to the windows. There may be environmental design reasons for this, however, they looked somewhat similar to a ‘childlike’ drawing, with only a small piece of brickwork between some of thewindows.

·         Overall, these were lovely properties, with some needing a little more thought. She just wanted her comments to be recorded on paper.

 

The Assistant Director for Planning offered the following points of clarification to members:

 

·         In terms of the trees, as members had seen as part of the documentation, a lot of the trees on site at the moment were in groups, and had been assessed by our tree officer as not worthy of retention and of low amenity value. However, there were a number of new extra heavy standard trees proposed as part of the landscaping scheme for the development. Officers considered this would qualify to offset the loss of those less valuable trees. The wider site also gave significant opportunities for considerable uplift and increase in tree planting biodiversity net gain, because of the nature of the site and the developable areas that would be available. We were satisfied as officers that the issue had been well and truly covered as part of the proposal.

·         In respect of the verge issue, the specific details were covered in the full application approved at the same time as the outline planning application for the access into the site, and as such was determined in the consent already given. However, in order to allay concerns regarding some vehicles parking, he added that there were swales along the edge of the road to cause a significant dip which in itself would police all but the ‘avid off-roader’ in a car from parking there. Therefore, hopefully, this would not be a significant problem.

·         From a design point of view, clearly the application in front of Committee this evening was for members to determine whether or not they considered it was acceptable. As officers we were comfortable with the proposal in design terms. In relation to materials, render was suggested on some of these dwellings. All of the materials would be the subject of a planning condition; therefore officers had the opportunity to make sure the best quality possible materials were used. There were better products on the market these days in terms of coloured render which weathered better, was more robust and required less maintenance. Officers felt they could adequately cover this as part of the condition process as well.

·         In terms of biodiversity elements and some of the measures proposed in relation to bat boxes, bird boxes, bat bricks, bird bricks etc, together with the reference to a ‘selection’ of the proposed properties, as required by a condition of the scheme to be delivered, we would consult with Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust to be advised on where the bird/bat boxes etc were most suitable to be located. He had limited knowledge in terms of elevation, where to place bird boxes, not liking to be faced south etc because it was too warm. It would not necessarily be appropriate on every building however, officers would deliver as much as we could through this consultation with the Wildlife Trust.

 

Councillor Tweddle asked whether the condition regarding rendering should be made more solidified to ensure the surface did not deteriorate in ten years’ time?

 

The Assistant Director for Planning advised that from his perspective, he felt the existing condition covered it, and it was the remit of officers ourselves to make sure we paid due regard to this specifically, which we would do.

 

No further questions or comments were forthcoming from members.

 

The Chair moved to the vote.

 

(Councillor N Chapman did not vote as she left the room before the vote was taken and had not been party to the full debate.)

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

• Time limit of the permission
• Development in accordance with approved plans
• Samples of materials including hard surfacing
• Windows and doors to be set in reveal
• Location and sound level specifications for ASHPs
• Surface levels for the estate roads and footways
• Implementation of tree protection measures
• Implementation of tree planting and landscaping
• Scheme for the provision of bat boxes, bat bricks and bird boxes
• Programme of archaeological work completed in accordance with WSI