Agenda item

Proposal: Erection of a single dwelling with associated access, landscaping and engineering works

Location: Fulbeck Heights, Pottergate Road, Fulbeck

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

 

Proposal: Erection of a single dwelling with associated access, landscaping and engineering works

Location: Fulbeck Heights, Pottergate Road, Fulbeck

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillor                          Councillor Penny Milnes

Against                                                    Alix Fane

                                                                Julian Fane

Applicant/Client Agent                             Kevin Kelly and David Sayer

                       

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and South Kesteven Local Plan Review 2021 – 2041 (Regulation 18 Draft).

·       Comments received from Fulbeck Parish Council

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire

·       Comments received from Historic England

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways & SuDS).

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Minerals).

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

·       No comments received from Ministry of Defence (Defence Infrastructure Organisation).

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer.

·       No comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection Officer.

·       Comments received from SKDC Principal Urban Design Officer.

·       No comments received from The Gardens Trust.

·       No comments received from The Ramblers Association.

 

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

 

·       A query was raised on what type of protected species within the area were.

 

The Public Speaker had provided video and photo evidence of 6 types of protected species, however, this could not be shown in the public domain due to possible unwanted attention being drawn to them.

 

·       Whether any mitigations could be put into place to protect the species, if the application was approved.

 

The location of the proposal was at the centre of the woodlands where the protected species pass through.

 

·       Clarification was sought that the location of the proposal would block movement.

 

It was noted the proposal may block the nature highway and cause upset to the species.

 

·       Whether the site had any designation of special interest.

 

It was clarified that the roadside verges had a designation for wildflowers, however the proposed site did not have any designation of special interest.

 

·       It was highlighted that Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust had not objected to the application.

·       That the land was previously used for farming. It was queried whether the land could still be utilised for farming.

 

The Public Speaker felt that the land could become agricultural land.

 

·       It was confirmed that species utilising the land were vertebrates and invertebrates.

·       Whether the proposal meant the property would be built directly on top of a spring. It was queried whether a previous owner of the land could foresee any potential risks of flooding.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth clarified that the land could be used as agricultural if the application was not approved, which would not require planning permission.

 

·       Clarification was sought around the biodiversity net gain.

 

The Applicant confirmed the biodiversity net gain was 23.79% for habitats and the hedgerows had a 132% gain. There were no credit or offsetting in the proposed scheme.

 

·       One Member commented on the design of the property.

 

The Applicant had previously won awards for outstanding designs. This design took into characteristics of existing woodland and worked with stone masonry and intricate details.

 

·       Whether the proposed dwelling was a single, residential home.

 

It was confirmed the proposal was for a single dwelling, residential home. The use class would need to be submitted via a full planning permission if the Applicant’s wished to split the property into several dwellings.

 

·       Whether the pond had any link to the spring.

 

It was clarified there was 2 slopes to the side of the building which reflected ground build ups. At the bottom of 1 slope, water emerged into an existing pond, the house sat back from the spring in the valley and water would run downhill. The closest newt recording was 1.53km away. There was another small pond nearby which worked as a sustainable drainage system.

 

·       Whether the height of trees could be conditioned when planting, as the appearance of the proposal looked like mature vegetation.

 

The Applicant’s confirmed that planting would be planting as per the design on site. The intention of the landscape design was for the existing trees to remain and be reinstated in part, with the addition to the property.

 

·       Concerns were raised on lighting from the property.

 

The Applicant clarified that there were existing clusters of light from existing residential buildings which had been documented.

 

·       Whether a list had been collated of potential wildlife and if the differing landscape areas had biodiversity opportunities.

·       It was queried whether a sufficient mitigation plan would be put into place in order to assist habitats during the construction period.

 

Condition 3 included a construction environmental management plan. The final criteria of the plan was for an ecological management plan dealing with construction impacts, requiring the appointment of an ecological clerk of works. 

 

·       The arrangement for sewerage and greywater disposal was queried.

 

The sewerage and greywater disposal would be at a domestic level and was not required for this planning permission. It would be extended into the existing system for offices and nearby properties. Alternatively, an underground sewerage tank could be used which would not be visible.

 

During question to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

 

·       Members requested view of the protected species in question.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth confirmed the protected species had been assessed by Officers and were also raised in the ecological report, which was within the public domain. The Wildlife Trust had also submitted their objection after seeing photos of the protected species.

 

·       Concern was raised on the prominent position of the property and the visibility of it from the rights of way. It was felt the proposal detracted from the landscape.

·       That the application was not within the Council’s Local Plan, being contrary to SP5 and the NPPF paragraph 84.

·       The Committee were informed they were to make a planning balance and give weight to the harm and benefits of the application.

·       That the proposed location was not a protected site in regard to the use of the land and created habitats for future use.

 

(It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to go into private session for the Committee to view photographs of the protected species). 

 

(It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to extend the meeting until 17:30)

 

·       That the design had been through a full process and modified to reach the current stage.

 

It was clarified that one type of protected species identified in the photos had been included within the Applicant’s report. However, sightings could not be found.  The protected species were protected under a different legislation, regardless of the decision made on this planning application. Photos received of the protected species could also not be verified.

 

It was proposed and seconded to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

 

This proposal fell.

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

 

The application proposes the erection of a residential dwelling outside of the main built-up area of Fulbeck and does not have a demonstrable need to be located within the Open Countryside. As such, the application is contrary to the Policy SP5 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, and the overall principles of the spatial strategy for the District. Consequently, the application is contrary to the adopted Development Plan when taken as a whole. In respect of material planning considerations, it is the Local Planning Authority’s assessment that the scale and materiality of the proposed dwelling, coupled with its prominent location on the escarpment, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy DE1 and EN1 of the Local Plan, such that it does not fall be defined as exceptional quality under the provisions of Paragraph 84(e) of the Framework. Therefore, the material considerations in this case do not justify granting planning permission contrary to the development plan.  

 

(It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to extend the meeting until the end of the application)