Agenda item

Proposal: Outline planning application for residential development of up to 73 no. dwellings together with open space, landscaping, drainage, and associated works (all matters reserved except means of access)

Location: Land north of Wilsford Lane, Ancaster  

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement

 

Proposal: Outline planning application for residential development of up to 73 no. dwellings together with open space, landscaping, drainage, and associated works (all matters reserved except means of access)

Location: Land north of Wilsford Lane, Ancaster  

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillor                                      Cllr Ian Stokes

Planning Agent                                                   James Stone and Bill Lilley

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036 and National Planning Policy Framework.

·       Comments received from Ancaster Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection Services (SKDC)

·       Comments received from LCC Highways & SuDS Support

·       Comments received from Environment Agency

·       Comments received from Anglian Water

·       Comments received from Fire Authority

·       Comments received from LCC Minerals and Waste

·       Comments received from LCC Education

·       No comments received from North Kesteven District Council

·       Comments received from NHS England

·       Comments received from Witham Internal Drainage Board

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire

·       Comments received from SKDC Principal Urban Design Officer

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer

·       Comments received from Historic England

·       Comments received from Natural England

·       Comments received from Affordable Housing Officer

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust

 

Ward Councillor raised a concern regarding the density of the application and road safety relating to a narrowing of the road on the approach to the development site. Concern was also raised regarding access to health care facilities in the village and comment made regarding the poor bus service.

 

During questions to public speakers, Members commented on the following:

 

·       Clarification was sought around the overall density of the proposed site.

 

The Planning agents confirmed the overall scheme proposed was 11.7 dwellings per hectare. The developable area alone was 30 dwellings per hectare. 

 

·       Whether the Applicant could guarantee to meet all 26 conditions proposed.

 

The Planning Agents had reviewed all conditions proposed and were satisfied all conditions could be met.

 

·       Whether the Appllciant’s could mitigate concerns raised by Anglian Water on the overflow of potential sewerage.

 

It was clarified Anglian Water had raised concern on dry weather flow, which was an administrative element of the consent. The effluent quality complying with the quality elements of the consent were not in question.

 

·       It was noted that Anglian Water had previously objected to an application for a site opposite when a previous submission was made half the size of the proposed application site.

 

Back in 2020, Anglian Water objected to a nearby development (Bellway) on the basis of lack of capacity, however, the Bellway development had gone ahead. The quality coming out of works would indicate that significant additional spare capacity in terms of effluent capacity.

 

·       How the Applicant’s would manage the site and open space was queried.

 

A site management company in perpetuity would manage the site and open indefinitely.

 

·       Clarification was sought on the plan. It was queried whether there was a decorative pond or an attenuation pond on site and the proposed depth of it.

 

The indicative plan showed the pond which was proposed to contain water in times of high rainfall but at other times of the year, it would remain dry. The pond would allow infiltration at a sustainable rate including 40% allowance for climate change. Final plan details including maximum depth would come through at reserve matters stage alongside landscaping measures for safety.

 

·       Further concern was raised on the flow of water in relation to the permit and possibly posing an unacceptable risk to the receiving water course.

 

Anglian Water’s concern was that they may have to submit an application to increase the dry weather flow permit within the consent. All flows going into the works were treated and discharged and treated as effluent.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth confirmed that water authorities were governed by different regulations. Whilst not statutory consultees, at planning application stage, the Council were encouraged to consult with them. 

 

Committee members were advised that condition 4 in the report required a scheme for dealing with foul drainage prior to commencement. Condition 27 on the supplement required the foul drainage scheme to be implemented before any occupation on site.

 

·       The proximity from the site to the nearby quarry was queried. It was noted that noise from the quarry had been mitigated by a barrier.

·       It was queried whether an airborne articulate and dust survey had taken place in terms of the impact of the quarry on potential residents on the proposed site.

 

As part of the application, the Applicant’s had liaised with the Council’s Environmental Health team on noise. The Applicant’s were required to demonstrate that the proposed application would not affect the current operation of the quarry, this had been demonstrated by an acoustic barrier. The Environmental Health Officer had no objection to scheme in regard to noise or dust.

 

The location of the site had been located within the Local Plan as a developable land suitable for houses.

 

·       Further information was requested on the distance from the quarry to the nearest proposed house.

·       One Member requested further details on the acoustic fence and whether it would be landscaped.

 

The acoustic fence design specifications would be dealt with by the discharge of condition applications. In terms of landscaping, the acoustic fence could go behind vegetation at reserve matters application.

 

It was confirmed there was approximately 80 meters from the quarry to the closest house to the site.

 

(The Committee adjourned for 5 minutes to consider the additional information report).

 

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

 

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that condition 12 required a submission of the landscape and ecology management plan which would deal with management responsibilities. The plan would also be part of any S106 agreements in the form of securing the open space (informal and formal) an ensure ongoing management.

 

The affordable housing provision for the site was proposed at 30%.

 

·       Concern was raised that a condition related to approved details, as these had not been submitted by Anglian Water.

 

A condition within the report required the submission of foul drainage details, with a further condition to ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with those details.

 

·       Members raised their disappointment with Anglian Water. It was questioned that if the application be approved, could the Council compel Anglian Water to fulfil their duty to provide their services in a timely manner.

 

It was confirmed that the Council could not compel Anglian Water to undertake works on the upgrade to the water recycling centre as they were not regulated by the Council. Conditions required the works to be in place before first occupation and safeguards the Council on their duty in ensuring adequate foul water drainage.

 

·       Whether conditions related to surface water management prior to occupation of the site.

 

Conditions related to prior any commencement on the site which included surface water. Other conditions related to prior any occupation of the site.

 

·       Further concern was raised on dust.

·       A query was raised on when the plan was included within the Council’s Local Plan.

 

The Council’s Environmental Health team had reviewed the application in its entirety alongside the relationship to the operational quarry. There had been concerns of noise, which was conditioned to be mitigated, however, there had been no concerns on dust.

 

·       Concern was raised on the bund. It was queried whether the bund could be disguised due to sensitive views either side of it.

 

There was extensive existing trees and hedgerows running along the main road. Plans indicated the majority of this would be retained apart from the site access. There was limited views into the site due to the existing boundary treatments and conditioned noise attenuation.  Landscaping and boundary treatments would be discussed at reserve matters. The requirement to landscape either side of the bund could be considered then.

 

Final Decision:

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement

 

(Councillor Vanessa Smith voted against the proposal).