Transcript

Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, Committee. Yes, I just wanted to take a moment to introduce Nick Atkinson. He's our new Development Manager for Boston. So I just wanted to introduce him as he's a new face today. Thank you, Chair. So welcome to this meeting of Boston Borough Council's Planning Committee. My name is Councillor David Middleton and I am the Chairman of this Committee and on my right is Councillor David Schoult. As my Vice-Chairman. Before we move to the agenda, I would invite our officers supporting this meeting to introduce themselves. Leith Stavis, Senior Planning Lawyer and Legal Adviser to Committee. Abby Marwood, Group Manager for Development and Planning. Nick Atkinson, Development Manager at Boston. Lewis Humphreys, Principal Planning Officer. Moving on to our housekeeping rules. I would like to remind everyone in attendance this morning that this meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. Restroom facilities are available on this floor for the ladies and halfway down the main stairwell for gentlemen. In the event of a fire alarm, sounding officers will escort everyone to the nearest safety point in the rear car park. Please ensure when you are addressing this meeting that you do so through the microphone system at all times. Please also ensure that you speak into the microphone as closely and as clearly as possible. Members of the public are free to leave the meeting at any time and our Planning Support Officers will escort you downstairs. And finally, please be advised that abuse or intimidation of any kind will not be tolerated. Anyone who is deemed to breach this requirement will be warned and asked to refrain. And if the behaviour persists, they will be asked to leave the meeting. Today, the committee will be considering three applications. Following consideration of the second item on the agenda, the committee will adjourn until 1.45pm. The committee will reconvene at 1.45pm for consideration of Agenda Item 3, Gaysfield Road at Fishdough. These changes in timings were communicated to registered speakers last week and online and are designed to provide certainty about the timing of that item. At the adjournment, would all members of the committee please promptly leave the committee room and make their way to the Council Chamber? We will now move on to receive apologies for absence and notification of any substitutions. Thank you, Chairman. We have apologies from Councillor Rylett with Councillor Cantwell as substitute and Councillor Brown with Councillor Evans as substitute. Next is to sign the minutes of the last meeting held on the 25th of February 2025. Do I have committee's agreement to sign these please? The 6th of the 5th. Before we move to individual declarations of interest in respect of any item on this agenda, I will ask Lisa to give the standing declarations. Thank you, Chairman. For public information, I confirm that standard declarations of interest will be recorded within the minutes of this meeting for all members of this committee who are also members of Lincolnshire County Council, the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee and representatives of the Internal Drainage Boards. Does any member of the committee have any further declarations of interest to make in respect of any item on this agenda, please? So, next is to receive any written questions from members of the public? There are non-chairmen. So, that concludes the preliminary items and we will now move to part two of the agenda and address the planning applications for determination. Our first item of business today is planning application B240177 on page 17 of the agenda and will be presented by our Senior Planning Officer, Mr. Lewis Humphreys. Thank you, Chair. This is an application for 142 dwellings, lands north of Puritan Way in Boston. The proposals for all of those dwellings to be affordable and the recommendation is to approve subjective conditions and the signing of the Section 106 agreement. Before I begin the presentation, I'd just like to draw committee's attention to a couple of supplementary matters. You'll have had the agenda. In addition, you should have had a copy of the supplementary agenda, which has got a very brief assessment of a comment made by a third party in relation to barn owls. And you'll note the officer's conclusions that it doesn't change the recommendations within the report. But included within that is just a complete list of conditions and informatives recommended on this application as well. Since then, we've had an additional comment received from the Barn Owl Trust. This reiterates that they consider that a suitably worded condition is an appropriate resolution and that they think that a mitigation strategy can be achieved if it's well designed. It acknowledges that it's not ideal and the best practice would include a robust strategy up front. Part of this is down to the potential delay in works arising from identifying suitable alternative off-site routes. However, there is a condition recommended at condition 16 in the supplementary agenda that's been agreed with the trust and they can and will be consulted on any application to discharge that condition. Therefore, we consider the matter to be suitably addressed as set out in the agenda. Onto the presentation itself. Here's the location plan. You can see the existing development on Puritan Way to the south. You've got the river Witham along the eastern boundary, Fenside Road along the west. You've got these three dwellings that run up against the site, two more along the southern boundary as well as those off Puritan Way. Just for brief context, there's an extract from the local plan there. The site is allocated at Fen 006, as you can see there. That orange hatching is the safeguarding corridor for a potential future bypass, but has been considered as part of the as part of the allocation for this site. So there wasn't a particular consideration here. The two dark green areas are the two Boston Woods Trust sites that you can see on the Google Maps extract here. And then you've got Witham Way Countries Park to the east of the river Witham. Next is the proposed site plan. You'll know that we've just rotated this for ease here, but you can see the existing ring around, existing ring on Puritan Way will be completed. There's an existing children's play area in here in a pumping station. This will be this will be completed. You'll have some green space in the middle. Housing generally off to spur roads off here. Single access point through Puritan Way. There's no vehicular access onto Fenside Road and there's a condition recommended that would prevent the creation of vehicular accesses for these dwellings at a later stage. There are two pedestrian access points, one here and one here, that would facilitate pedestrian access to the to the Woods Trust sites. Generally speaking, you'll see a predominance of semi-detached dwellings here, although there is a variety of house types, as I'll come on to later. And these darker areas with the with the pink and green are the areas of proposed landscaping. You've got this buffer site here again around this corner and here and a small couple of small patches up against the the bank onto the river with them here. Here's the proposed drainage scheme. I do appreciate that there's a lot of detail on this plan that you won't be able to you won't be able to see. But the just to is here just to illustrate that we have a scheme that's submitted and that has been agreed in principle by by the IDB, the local local lead flood authority. The IDB, the EAA and Anglin Water, none of whom have raised objections to the to the proposals in brief, it proposes to collect water, which is then pipes under the roadways to attenuation, underground attenuation tanks. And it's then it will then be pumped approximately 300 metres to the west to an IDB drain. You'll also know in the in the main agenda at 7.24 that there's a more detailed assessment of of what this drainage scheme entails and its potential impacts. And you'll also note that there's an intercept to drain proposed along the western edge, which is there to catch residual runoff. Effectively, the drainage scheme should deal with or is expected to deal with any surface water that would fall on the site. We've got no subject to detailed design. We've got no reason to think that that wouldn't that that wouldn't be the case. This this intercept to drain is there to to catch any residual runoff and would would would infiltrate would infiltrate naturally. You'll also note at 7.31 in the agenda that a resident contracted a third party study of the proposed drainage scheme and the response from the local leaf flood authority is included there. And as I've said, we're satisfied that this matter can be adequately addressed through conditions to secure the detailed design of the drainage scheme. Just two very brief house types. These are relatively conventional in design, but there is a there is a broader mix of house types. Just just picked two. Just picked two as an example. There is a mix of mix of materials and some slight deviations in the in the house types to provide to provide some distinction. Just to run you through the site photos, you've got a large bank along the eastern boundary. This photo is taken from the top of that, looking looking southeast across across towards Puritan Way. And then similarly looking looking north, you can see the river with the with them there. And one of the neighbours is here behind this heavily landscaped boundary. And you have another another neighbour here. That neighbour is is here on the northern side. This is the northern side boundary so that that landscaping that you could see is here. And just looking back across back across the site, you can see Puritan Way in the distance and the banks and Puritan Way itself will be the main access point. There is some on street parking down there and highways haven't raised any concerns regarding regarding the use of this as an access point. There are some proposed off site off site improvement works. And I think those are a bit further away, I'd have to double check, but I'm I think they're at the mini roundabout. And yep, and just this is Fenside Road. Fenside Road, sorry, this is Puritan Way itself. These just show the house types that are on there in a bit more detail. You've got the the play area off to the play area off to your left here as well. We have no objections from any of the statutory consultees. We've had a holding objection from the Wildlife Trust, which was received prior to the submission of the biodiversity net gain information. They were reconsulted when we received that information and they haven't provided any additional response. We're satisfied that there are there are no objections from statutory consultees on this application. As I mentioned above, the site is allocated. Development is considered to be acceptable in principle. While there's a predominance of semi-detached properties, the overall design is considered to be high quality with an organic layout. There is a change in character, particularly along the rural Fenside Road. But this matter formed part of the allocation process. The site wouldn't have been allocated if there was considered to be a landscape harm that would prevent the site being developed for residential purposes. Again, while we acknowledge that there is there is change and there is harm there, that's considered to be acceptable. Turning to neighbour amenity, those older properties along Fenside Road will experience the greatest degree of change. However, change is not harm. And the conclusions of your officers in the agenda is that these proposals won't have an unacceptable impact on neighbour amenity. As I briefly mentioned, the scheme is subject to BNG conditions to secure the delivery of that 10% gain over 30 years, including its management and maintenance are recommended. And very lastly, there has been a viability appraisal on the scheme, which has been subsequently assessed by the council's independent assessor. Their total requests are just under £1.2 million, with contributions requested for education, health, highways improvements, bus services and bus passes. The independent assessment identified that on a fully affordable scheme, the scheme was capable of supporting just over £150,000 in contributions. The officer report includes an assessment of how we think that should be divided, recommending that money is first be given to secure the off-site improvement works. The NHS request is then fulfilled, with LCC education receiving the remainder. The bus route is considered to be less hierarchically significant than these. The bus pass request has not been adequately justified, and therefore not necessary in line with the tests in the MPPF, as is an unspecified request from Boston Woods Trust. That split in your report is a suggestion only. If committee have an alternative recommendation in the way in which they think that should be split, then that can be a matter for members to debate on. But overall, the scheme is considered to accord with the local plan, that the provision of 142 affordable dwellings weighs favourably against the shortfall in financial contributions that the scheme otherwise accords with the local plan. Thank you. Thank you, Lewis. We have two speakers for the application. Our first speaker is Mr. Richard Larrington, who is speaking in objection to the application. Mr. Larrington, please remain seated at the table when you have finished your representation. Thank you. Before I start, can I make sure the committee's already had this brochure? Yeah. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am here today not to oppose this development, but to advocate for a solution that enhances the area while addressing significant concerns over a development which could have added an extra 300 cars to the single road of Puritan Way. A key issue is flooding from increase in the ground by 700 mil. That shows the depth. 2,170 lorries will have to bring the soil to this site, creating severe congestion. Additionally, the Shield and Wilson report outlines a 20 to 1 slope, which is 12 metres from each house back to the present level, directing rainfall towards both the Mannings and Larrington's homes, which is surrounded on three sides, creating a funnel effect where the water will go into the gardens and onto Fenside Road. Is it right? Is it right that children running outside of their homes onto a wet, slippery grass bank could fall and injure themselves? Where's the health and safety in this design? And I'll take questions on that later to mitigate this, a French drain has been proposed. However, the Shield and Wilson report confirms that after 24 hours soak away tests, water levels did not change, meaning the infiltration rate is zero in the water in the winter, and therefore the drain will quickly fill up and overfill with water, rendering the proposed drain ineffective. Accordingly, the planning portal to the French drain is not connected to the development drains, only a soak away at this time. A proven solution is in Frampton, Alison Homes successfully levelled ground five metres from the properties and built a retaining wall protecting Middlegate Road nearby homes from flooding, while creating a safe, usable area for families. This approach should be considered. It's not acceptable to allow a new development to flood existing properties when a simple solution to level the ground is available. I also note that £97,000 is to be spent on Wash Dyke to Fenside Road Junction, which could be spent on the protective wall, as the BBC is not allowing entry from increasing traffic in the area. And legal protection. Barn owls classified under Schedule 1 nesting on private grounds legally require a distance-free zone of 175 metres. A no-disturbance region covers all wild birds on site, as pile-driving steel tubes for foundation support would be classified as disturbance from vibration, meaning construction can only proceed for three months between November and February, as the present wildlife often have three clutches of young birds. And I'll take questions on that later. Given these challenges, I propose a balanced compromise. To complete Puritan Way Circle, dedicate three to four acres of affordable housing, accommodating 40 to 50 residents outside the protected bird zone, sell the remaining land to the charity, such as Boston Woods, create a new wildlife park for the residential area, and landowners receive a million pounds, 750,000 from housing, 250,000 for conservation land, ensuring fair returns for all. This proposal delivers new homes, resolves the flood risks, compensates landowners while protecting local wildlife. I urge the committee to amend this application with additional conditions which reflect our concerns. Thank you Mr Larrington. Thank you. Does any member of this committee wish to seek clarification from Mr Larrington in respect to the representation he has just made? Does any member of this committee wish to seek clarification from Mr Larrington? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Just a couple of things. Mr Larrington, thank you. You were really fast there and there's lots to take in. I'm sorry. It's a limited time. I do appreciate that. That tube on your desk. Can we just describe what that is to me again, please? Okay, so this is the depth of soil that is proposed to cover the whole of that area, which is 4.6 hectares. That means at 700 mil deep, you need 36,000 cubic metres of soil have got to be transported onto this site only through the Puritan Way. That's 2,170 lorry loads of soil, 32 guns got to be travelling down this site whilst there are still residents on site because you're not permitting anybody to go from Fenside Road onto it. So that's what that is. The string and I'm quite happy to demonstrate this. This is 12 metres long and if I take it from here and take it down to that end, you'll be able to see the angle of fall. So what they're projecting is around the white space there is our property at the moment. So all the way around that, that angle goes down at a slope. So all of the water hitting all around there is now being shot down purely into our property and the mitigation is purely a 300 mil drain. So if you imagine that width, that's a 300 mil drain that is a, I don't even know if it's totally around our property because I can't get hold of the drawings to prove whether it is or not. That 300 mil drains got to cater for 12 metres of projected water being propelled at us. We are going to be flooded at some point without any questions. We've been on site for 20 years. The Mannings have been on site for 45 years and our neighbour the Meads have been on site for 90 years. Now we know what this area was like. This is a flood risk area and without any question in the winter, we've just had a big downpour. And the interesting thing is that during the end of January, when we had the big floods here as well, the dike that all this water is proposed to go down was over half full. Now that's only from the first phase of Puritan Way, that's where the water came from. So when we fill another 142 residents here, there is absolutely no way that dike can cope with it. So I'm proposing a second dike, which is to the top to the left, to go underneath the road to take more water away. And that's really important. You know, I'm not here to oppose this. This town needs more homes and I'm absolutely for that. But I do think that the considerations that I've got, Dennis, should be taken into consideration. And I'm an engineer. OK, thank you. Just one more question. I do. I'm not going to. We can't debate the stuff with, you know, Mr. Larrington, that you do raise a lot of valid points. It's about flooding. And just on that 30 mil, 30 centimetres really held up. When you say the drain is that size, do you mean the diameter of the drain? Yeah, the width of the drain is going to be approximately 300 mil by 600 mil deep. And they fill that section full of stone. OK. So the water goes through it. But if the ground level water is always going to be similar to the Rither Witham, as the Rither Witham comes up in the winter, so does the ground level water. Yeah. So when that comes up, all you're going to do is fill 600 mil of stone. And once that's happened, it's going to go over the top straight into our property. OK. And we know that's what will happen. Thank you, Mr. Larrington. Thank you, Chair. That's my question. Anybody else? No? Thank you, Mr. Larrington. Would you return to your seat, please? OK. Thank you very much committee. Our second speaker is Mr. Clyde Wicks, who is the agent for the applicant. Mr. Wicks, please remain seated once you have concluded your representation. It's showing green. I assume it's OK, is it now? Right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Chairman, members, for allowing me to speak today. This is a fully rental social housing project which will help young families onto Stuart Horton's waiting list. Due to the extensive waiting lists for affordable houses in the town and district, the local community in that area welcome 142 social houses supported by Homes England and managed by preferred housing registered provider. The houses will be built to Homes England's strategic standards and the latest building regulations using modern methods of construction. Young families will have lower bills and enjoy a higher quality of life. The site was brought forward by us in the local plan where it was fully supported by the Council, who subsequently approved the neighbouring 79 houses as phase one. The central circular play area and public open space is only half completed, with the remainder to be completed by this application. The play area is a very safe focal point overlooked by new contemporary houses on all sides. The grassed area forms an important wildlife route for the local owls, who feed on small voles found in the ditches to the west, grass verges and the Witham Bank area. Unlike the recent flooding near the 40 foot drain, no flooding took place either on this site or on the new 79 unit scheme next to it. It has been suggested that residents residents will put drives in to Fenside Road chairman. Not only would the residents need landlord and highways approval, but also planning permission from yourselves. The verge along Fenside Road chairman will be untouched. Our financial advisor funds, our financial viability report has been endorsed by your officers and we have provided an excellent flood risk report, which is accepted by the leading. Flood authority in the county, the county council homes England quite frankly are simply ready to start chairman. The proposal will create 19 million pounds worth of construction work, a massive boost to Boston's local economy. Your senior officers, Stuart and Ian, have been involved with us throughout the whole of the last year, chairman, and are both supportive of what is before you. This is a perfect location for more new affordable houses, especially given the success of the previous phase. It will be a welcomed addition to an already thriving community. I do hope therefore, chairman, that you, your members will support the proposal before you. Thank you for letting me speak. Thank you, Mr Wicks. Does any member of this committee wish to seek clarification from Mr Wicks? Councillor Pierpoint. Thank you, Chairman. Mr Wicks, in the documents supplied to us by Mr Larrington there, he talks about having a wall built around Puritan Way. I take it that your development has not got that in the application. And is there any reason why not, if it's that important, which this gentleman points out to us? I'm not an engineer. However, our engineers have, I think, used 25 or 28 trenches in the fields at the back there to see, to do percolation tests. And all the percolation tests have worked. I went out there, we must have been on different days, but I went out there one day because I've kept my eyes on this, because I'm interested in how the existing people living there are getting on. And every one of them is totally happy with this proposal. On that field, I went out to have a look at it. My brother has got a drone at home and he went and photographed that field. And that field was not flooded. And I can absolutely be certain that that was not flooded. On the opposite side of the road there, if anyone drove down there to have a look, that was flooded, but only flooded because somebody had been probably harvesting carrots or whatever, but they depressed all the land and got all the oxygen out of it. So the water couldn't go anywhere. But that's the other side of the road where we are. That water goes, it goes into a drain. I go a little bit engineering here, but not too much. But what you do, you have a pipe like that. So then you put around that pipe what they call pea gravel bed and surround. It's something you learn very early days when you're an architect. And so you've got this pipe that will take water away. But not only that, it has all of this pebble, almost another pipe around that. And you've actually got a double whammy there. I mean, our engineers are experts in the area and we asked them, could you double check the work on this? And I wanted them at this meeting so they could answer it. But apparently it wasn't possible. It had to be me. But the engineers are totally happy with what they've done. And so am I. So you don't think a wall is necessary around that development then, as per the document that Mr Larrington's given us? Well, what I am surprised at, I went to have a look at the north side of his garden. It's, I don't know quite where he's going to put a wall along that section. Because the shrubs are about four metres high. And they're all evergreen. And there is, according to our engineers, there is no reason whatsoever. And I'm quite happy to condition any planning application from here. So that that can be looked at by another authority if you wish. But Wilson Shields have gone through that. Gentlemen, can I just come in there? We're here to discuss the application, not what's not on it really. Feeling. Oh, right. But this, the drain, the drain is quite, where we had this. It's actually, I mean, I've done schemes. I've actually done schemes where that is, it's only 750 mil. And if that's between here and where the screen is, that's hardly noticeable. But what there is, what we're proposing is a French drain around it. That will take that any water that is there. It'll put it straight into that, the main system that's there. And any overflow ends up the other side of the road. I don't know whether the planners have got any more detail than I can. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Dorian. Thank you, Chair. Just on that last point, any overflow ends up on the other side of which road? Sorry, you lost me now. Sorry, I didn't care. You said any overflow ends up on the other side of the road. Oh, yes. Which road were you referring to? Fenside. Fenside Road. So it's on the west, the trench. There's some photographs that we've all seen where someone made a complaint about the ditches not being cleaned. But actually, it wasn't that it wasn't their time to clean it, but they decided that they would clean it. There was hardly any water in it at the beginning of January when there was a bit of a storm in south of Boston. And but they decided since they were there, they would clean it out, but there was hardly any water in it then. And that's the pipe that I mean, it comes off our site. It goes underneath Fenside Road and it goes into that ditch that's there. That goes down the back of the woodland area, which ironically the landowners of this gave to, well, I think paid about 5,000 pounds for the orchard, which was very good and good for Boston. But that goes straight out and then goes to another ditch right at the bottom of that field. And then it's on its way to going in with black sluice. I'm entirely happy that everything that's done is correct up to that point. And it then is in the main drainage system. OK. I hope I haven't bamboozled you anything. Thank you. Thank you. Everybody had to say yeah. Well, thank you, Mr. Wicks. Would you return to your seat, please? Thank you. So Lewis, have you any comments to make in respect of any of the representations? We just we're not having a to and fro. I'm sorry. No, I just no nothing. Thank you. Yeah, I do chair. Just bear with me. Two seconds. Let me. Free share. OK, so I just I just added a couple of a couple of additional quick points here. Just another photo of Fenside Road. So this is this is kind of the site boundary that we're that we're talking about. And an additional draw it so. There was a drainage strategy that was submitted. It was it was challenged. And the applicants have provided two. Additional documents that. Assessed the basically look to the review that we've had. And one of those included this this drawing of the site boundary drainage scheme as it would be. So what you've what you've got here is is the the residence property here and the existing neighbors property here. You've got a a buffer zone here. This is the the garden of the dwelling. So there is there is the slope that the Mr Larrington talked about the once 20 level. Then it would end with a concrete post with gravel boards and the infiltration drain is here. And these two blue lines at the bottom, you've got this solid blue line is the approximate groundwater level at the time that it was investigated, which was January 2024. And this dashed blue line is a plausible maximum ground level. So any water from any water from the properties from the from the from the roads goes into the pipes and gets pumped off site. Anything that's left on the anything that falls on the on the gardens of those properties that back onto here would primarily infiltrate down. Some will run off. There is the infiltration French drain here and as I say, you've got this you've got this proposed gravel board here and then there is the separate corridor. So this proposed drain is not at the the residence boundary. There is a there's a there's an additional gap there. In addition to that condition six is for a surface water drainage scheme to be submitted and agreed. It is a condition that realistically could include anything that the committee considered. They might any additional information that the committee considered that they might need. It requires basically the submission of a scheme going back to going back to principle level. So it would. In an ideal world would probably include a lot of the information that we've got, plus some more detailed drawings. However, if if there were concerns that we needed to look at, look at it again and revisit it, then I would consider that that condition would be would be suitable. And we could we would consider that a condition discharge stage that the agent is here as well. So he'd be aware of he'd be aware of your of your concerns. That could be something we could pick up at that stage. Well, I'll just query something there with you. So what you're saying is at the moment we don't have any any cause to come back and look at the drainage. No, so we're the the revised information has gone out to the locally flood authorities, the county council and the IDB. Both of them have raised no concerns with the scheme as it's submitted. Angling water in the EA have also been have also been consulted and haven't raised any concerns, although I appreciate that their remits are slightly slightly different. But we've got no we've got no statutory consultee basis to have any concerns with with the drainage scheme as it is proposed. Just a slight correction for the for the agent said this this French drain doesn't connect to the to the main pump system. It would infiltrate, but as as as as I've just shown it, it's only for that small part of the it's only drain in the gardens. Basically, the rest of it is the rest of it is upon system. Thank you. So now only took for the committee to. Have some discussion if they'd like. Councilor Adams. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Along the way here, I think Mr Larrington mentioned it, that the access is through Puritan Rock Way only. I can't see anything about construction access. Surely if there are 2000 lorries carrying rubble soil, whatever to raise the level, a temporary access from Fenside Road does make a little bit of sense, even if it's then closed off later. I don't fully understand why that couldn't be done. Condition three requires the submission of a construction management plan that does include traffic management for the routing of construction traffic. Just let me track down the condition that prevents access. Yes, then that separately from that, you've got condition 11 that talks about no vehicular access. I would probably consider that to include construction access, but if there's if committee wanted to amend the wording of that condition to allow it as an access point for construction. Again, there's no reason we couldn't we couldn't consider that. Councilor Woodleaf. Thank you Chairman, I come back to the drainage side of things, looking at the picture we have in front of us. So the water flows down with those arrows down to the drain at the bottom. the bottom is that right and then that drain is is that a soak away or is it um it's not connected to the main drainage system is that correct so the water flows down and then in theory is it uh connected to a soak away or soak away is that point is that the point it is yeah let me just go back to bear with me so so this is the main drainage layout again i appreciate there's a lot of detail here that you can't see um but anything from the majority of the development anything from the um anything from the properties anything from the drives anything from the hard standing area goes into these these pipes that are shown along the roadway which ultimately leads to these to these bits and then it's pumped off to the to the idb drain the the bits that we're the bits that we're talking about are primarily those those gardens around the edge um so in yes you are correct that these um that that's that that's infiltration um it is above the the plausible maximum groundwater level that you might get there so while infiltration might take might take time i i would think it would occur um and again this is this is realistically a a a fairly small part of fairly small part of the drainage scheme as as a whole um it's something that that officers have requested to be included as a let's make sure that those residents are protected um it's it's an it's an amendment that it's an amendment that the officer has that the officer has has asked for and has been provided um and ultimately we've got no as i say we've got no concerns and if there are concerns we consider that they could could be addressed by the conditions we're already recommended thank you chairman i mean the thing that concerns me is you have very hard very hot dry weather and that ground that ground i can see there will become hard then you have torrential rain which we do tend to get these days in which case that rain would be a torrent down towards that um barrier the drain itself would not be able to cope so what what would happen to water would go exposed it would go on for land behind there i mean we we experienced climate change aren't we these quite radical changes in our weather in the past you know it hasn't been quite like that but now we have these periods when we have very very heavy rainfall and and you've got a slope there we know what happens with water it goes straight down won't it so you'll end up with a lot of water a great deal of water possibly at that barrier i presume it goes straight through the barrier probably push it over i think and um into the land beyond that's what i i'll be concerned about because i presume that someone's property isn't on the other side that's uh on the other side of the garden the other side of the um on the left hand side over here is that correct um yeah i think this is this is a this is a typical section it is not a it is not an example of any any individual property um i am not a drainage engineer um um there there were reports submitted by drainage engineers it was challenged by one and then we had a sub we had the subsequent additional documentation come back it was put to county um the reference um i think it was 7.31 that i talked about in my presentation um is in in the agenda is the response from the local leaf flood authority on that query we don't have any statutory we don't have any statutory challenge on um on drainage grounds here i'll just say thank you chairman i think it's as far as i can go on that thank you very much chairman without me to speak council broughton thank you chair just following on from council woodliffe what is the buffer area from behind the um gravel board uh so just just to refer back to the proposed site plan in in in a typical example a lot of them have this um have this landscaped buffer that acts as a um acts as a little bit of a separation between the properties from from an amenity point of view but it's also part of meeting their biodiversity objectives council dorian thank you chair yeah i'm still on the theme uh that council woodliffe raised and my concern is that your sectional um your previous um diagram was just showed one side whereas that property is surrounded on three sides by those higher level properties that are all going to run off towards these property and i you know having um been actually present in you know a couple of feet of water in people's homes this january in councillor austin's ward um it was heartbreaking you know and and you know with the best world in the world all the experts didn't see that coming and that's what concerns me uh you know chair that the experts say oh it's never going to happen but in actual fact it can and just happen um so i i'm really really concerned especially as we've had quite a reasonable um argument presented by um mr larrington because he's not arguing that we don't build homes it's not nimbyism in its purest form it's far from it it's it's can we not just do less homes and protect the ones that are already there i also uh chairman if you'll indulge me i have a great deal of sympathy with councillor evans view and think that that was a really good idea to create um a separate construction route into the site um for all those um building materials that are going to be required if the application goes ahead but right now um i'm really really worried about the um about the flooding issue um and lastly could i ask louis you uh you mentioned that condition six could be worded in a certain way uh that would allow the planning authority to revisit uh the uh the flood management plan or whatever you've labeled it so i'd like to know if this does go ahead how how that would be worded but right now i'm i i'm certainly not convinced here that this is appropriate in the form that it's been presented thank you council bedford yeah thank you chairman well page 28 7.25 actually gives you the history of what has gone on with the trials and everything else and at the end of the day the water from this site will end up in the black sluice system the black sluice are the experts we're not if black sluice are happy with it i'm happy with it your earlier comments councillor dorian about the events earlier this year down with low road west road um black sluice did object to it and still object to it it's the ea that didn't and as far as i'm concerned this looks a very very good proposed site the work has gone into it and proves that it's gone into it and our officers have looked into that if black sluice are happy with it i am so i will actually move the recommendation of the men thank you council bedford wise words i think um i'd just perhaps like to sum all that up a little bit in that yeah we can have a condition uh whereby and i think the law the the legislation is that they must give a sustainable drainage system they have to supply a sustainable drainage system so if there is a hiccup with it somewhere along the line they have to put it right certainly drainage is quite a specialized engineering aspect i've come from an engineering background but don't think i know it's all about drainage um i can see that perhaps draining that off into a holding tank and then forcibly pumping it into something with a good fall off may well take away this um thinking about are we going to get overflowing of the french drain um but so i'd like there to be a condition of some sort that enables that to be looked at at a later date yeah when we've got the experts involved yeah or get get somebody to reanalyze that little part of it yeah uh and the other thing was the um road traffic uh in construction well we've got to put yeah put a construction plan together so that should all come out in that and they'll be the people to decide what the best route for these lorries is so again um i don't think there's much for us to do on that because that is yet that is work yet to be completed so council bedford you're proposing yes certainly chairman and in the amended conditions here condition six it covers everything that you're asking for it puts it in the officer's hand um but may i also say it was called in by councillor danny where is he i'm very disappointed that he's not here to present the case do we have a seconder so i think now we move to the vote excuse me chair did the officer not say something about agreeing the 106 monies do we have to do that as a committee as well um if there is a there is a split um the officers of recommendation recommended within the agenda if committee are satisfied with that then we'd we just proceed with agreeing the 106 on the basis that's in that's in there anything further councillor dorian no okay so we've got a proposal we've got a seconder uh all those in favor yes again and those against i'm sorry close okay let's carry it in any abstentions okay so uh thank you everybody that application is carried we're just going to take a couple of minutes while people shuffle seats and move themselves about i think it was five four and two abstentions just for reference get in touch with us and i look at this okay As soon as it comes let us know, I'll have a look on the website. I did want to speak a little garbage that was coming out. And this idiot was here. There needs to be an option. Thank you, everybody. We'll start and move on. Our second item of business today is planning application B240121 on page 47 of the agenda and will be presented by our senior planning officer, Mr Nick Atkinson. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, members. So agenda item two is as described by the chair. This is the construction of 102 dwellings, including access to the west of the site and associated infrastructure. And the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions and the completion of a section 106 agreement. The application is before members following a calling request having been made by local ward member. The reasons for which is set out within sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the report before you. But just in summary, it primarily relates to the number of proposed dwellings, accessibility of the properties and concerns regarding supporting infrastructure. Just by means of a quick update, just before we get into the main presentation, we do. There has been an update report published, which hopefully you've all got a copy of in front of you. This just sets out the additional information and amended information that's been supplied by the applicant following the publication of the main report. And this has come about in response to discussions that have taken place between the applicants and a number of consultees, which primarily relates to a vehicle tracking diagram. Amended house tenure layout, a refuse strategy and further details of the ecological mitigation. The report also confirms that this amended and additional information does not alter the officer's assessment of the proposal, and nor does it alter the recommendation in the report before you. I will just take you through a few slides, if I may, for those of you who are not familiar with the site, just to familiarise yourself. As always, we have the the application site highlighted in red. So it's this large field area here. We have White House Lane just to the left of the site of the western boundary, and you've got the existing properties that form the edge of the settlement. The green area of land to the side is open countryside. Just as a bit more context, obviously you've seen within the report that this is a site that's allocated for housing within the local plan. This extract here just shows the site allocation, which is FIS 003. This is the actual application site itself. There is another allocated site just further to the north, which I believe is being sort of built out and constructed at the moment. The green area of land again is open countryside. There's a little red dotted line that runs around, which is a cycleway. And again, you can see the context of the existing settlement around it. And again, the plan on the right, the photograph just gives you a bit of an aerial context of that. And this is the site in question. Proposed layout. Again, apologies members. That's just skewed to the side. So imagine the site spun round. It's a relatively sort of standard layout, which has been amended. It's got a mixture of houses throughout the site, which again covered in the report, which are one, two, three and four bed properties. There's also affordable properties, which we'll show you shortly. There is areas of green space through the middle of the site, public open space. And there's also a buffer zone, which forms part of the ecological mitigation as well around the boundary of the site. Proposed housing tenure layout plan. The reason for showing this is, again, the site does attract affordable housing provision. And if you can just about make it out, the blue dots that you can see in this area here. A few in the centre. A few here. These are the affordable houses, which again are not all clumped together and they are spread throughout the site, which is kind of how we'd like to see affordable housing provided. Ecological areas. Two main things really of note to kind of show you. There is the blue area which runs around the side. That's essentially a buffer zone. So similar to the last application. So there is a this is also an area of ecological mitigation and the orange areas to the centre of the site. That is the sort of central public open space that exists. The indicative drainage. Again, this might not be fully clear to see, but it shows how indicatively how the how drainage could be achieved for the site. But again, similar to the last item, there was a detailed condition. Although the applicant has given us very detailed information at this stage, there is a very detailed and thorough condition that will secure that in the similar manner as the last application. There is an existing dike and drain to the north of the site, which also runs down the eastern boundary as well. I would just put a few street scene photographs in just so you'll have a bit of an impression of how the site would be viewed. The next few slides just show the house type. There's a very detailed section within the report before you by the officer, which talks about the design of the properties. And I think some of you will be aware of the some of the objectives, views about the properties and the design of them. So we just wanted to show you a few slides, but predominantly probably of most interest is obviously the stepped areas at the front of the properties, which again is something that the case officer has very clearly detailed his views on the report, but also has been raised by objectors as well. So this this felt it was important that you you saw those for yourselves and then just a few just a few photographs. So this is looking towards the the northern boundary of the site. This is taken from the the road, the application site being the the field to the side. It's quite an open site from the roadside looking across the site to the east. Again, there's been a comment raised by an objective regards to pylons and run to the site. So we just thought we'd show that photograph so you can see those as well. Across the site again from the same point looking southeast. So again, this is the application site, this field in the foreground. Southern boundary. So again, the properties that we saw in the previous plans, existing settlements, that's those properties there. The road highway conditions along White House Lane. A few of the existing properties along White House Lane on the opposite side of the road. This is the eastern boundary. So the the plan that we showed before with the ecological mitigation area where we said there was a drainage dike that runs down it. This is looking along the the northern sort of boundary, sorry should I say, where the existing dike is. So again, just gives you a little bit of context. The application site being just to the to the side. So members, I won't run through obviously each, every sort of comment that's been made in the report, but I thought it'd be useful to sort of try and summarize some of the main points and considerations that are relevant and pertinent to this application. So first, in relation to the the principle of the development, it's important to note that, as we mentioned before, whilst the site is obviously as you've seen an agricultural field. The site is allocated within the local plan for housing development within policy 11, and that's got an allocation of 90 dwellings. The site has also been granted previously outline planning consent for up to 83 dwellings in the past, although that consent must say has has since lapsed. As such, it can be taken that the the principle of the residential development development of this site is acceptable and established through the site allocation. And therefore the question largely comes down to the housing numbers that are proposed, the design and then consideration of all of the sort of relevant material considerations. Just on housing numbers, obviously that's formed a one of the main concerns by and objected to the application, and I just think it's pertinent to mention that whilst they are proposing a higher level of houses, so high number of houses than the allocation. Any. Any site allocation sets an initial target of houses to be developed, and that really should be our starting point, but that's not a prescriptive number. And does not prevent an applicant coming forward, nor should it prevent an applicant coming forward with a scheme for more houses than is actually allocated in the plan. So long as the development and the scheme that they put forward complies with the local plan in all of the regards in terms of design, public open space, affordable housing. So therefore simply proposing a higher number of dwellings does not represent or reasonably warrant the refusal of an application. Officers have set out within the report why it considered that the density proposed, albeit of a slightly higher density than the surrounding area, is acceptable in terms of making the efficient use of land, which is something that the MPPF tells us as an authority is important to do. And why officers advise that a refusal based solely on the grounds of density would be difficult to defend were we to be challenged at appeal, given the lack of identified harm. That's been demonstrated as a result of that. In relation to the design, as hopefully you've seen from slides before the development proposes a mixture of houses, which is spread throughout the site again, the one, two, three and four bedroom properties that we showed. It also includes provision of bungalows, which obviously is a bonus for the size for the area, and then that regard the housing tenure is very much policy compliant. The applicant has confirmed that much of the design has been developed around flood risk mitigation and including the raising of floor levels, hence that's resulted in the design that you see before you. Now the report is. Balance and fair. The report does set out the office's concerns with the proposed design, which primarily relates to the vertical emphasis the dwelling dwellings would have. And also the presence of steps, which again has been raised by an objective. The design that is not the subject of the design that is the subject. Officers note that this matter is finally balanced. And obviously matters of design are entirely subjective. However, due to the lack of visual prominence of the site, landscape mitigation proposed to soften the visual impact of the development and the largely self contained nature of the site. Overall, it's considered that concerns raised regarding design does not justify the refusal of this application. In terms of accessibility, officers note the challenges that the proposed design could offer to future residents. And as you'll see from the report itself, the application has been assessed against the requirements of the local plan, the MPPF, and also the national design guide. And again, it's considered that on balance, the concerns that exist regarding accessibility, whilst they are duly noted, would not justify or warrant the refusal of this application. Concerns of neighbouring amenity have been raised, but again, officers are content that there is sufficient separation distances from the application site to those proposed dwellings that you've seen around to ensure there'd be no loss of light and the loss of privacy. There'd be no direct facing into habit or bedrooms. Obviously, there will be a change of outlook. The field would be lost from its current state. But again, as an allocated site, as an authority, we've already accepted that that change would take place. A matter such as right to review is not something that holds any sort of planning legalities in that regard. Flood risk, again, the site is acknowledged to be in a flood zone 3. The main risks being tidal stroke fluvial with a low risk of surface water flooding. There has been an extensive consultation exercise with all of the relevant statutory consultees, none of which raise any objections to the scheme. And again, there is that to the development. Again, the applicant has given us an awful lot of detailed information at this stage. Upon which the assessment has been based, but there is still that requirement for the condition to be imposed. Similarly to last time to ensure that we get a fully suitable drainage scheme prior to any construction works taking place at the site. Just on highway safety, the application has been supported by a series of plans and documents which demonstrates that the surrounding highway network is capable of absorbing the traffic that would be generated. And there will be no highway safety issues that would arise. And again, those plans and documents have been assessed by the highway authority, the county council, and there is no objections to the proposal. I think it's also important to notice that this site would also benefit from enhanced pedestrians and cycle links as well from the site to the surrounding settlement so that residents wouldn't just purely be solely reliant on the use of car. People could walk cycle to access shop services and go about their day to day living. So, obviously, there's been a slight matter with regards to the viability of the site. The scheme has been supported by a viability appraisal, which has been independently assessed by the council's assessor. And there's been an agreement that there will be a contribution of £131,000 towards affordable housing provision, which would be secured through the 106 with a clawback drawn into it, should there be any changes in market circumstances. And again, members, the applicant, through the submission of the additional information on ecology, has demonstrated that from a biodiversity perspective, net gain of 10% can be achieved. So overall, members taking all matters into account, officers advise you that the principle of the development of this site is acceptable. There are some concerns in relation to the overall design of the scheme, but on balance, officers do not consider the harm arising in this regard would be significant, nor would it warrant the refusal of this planning application. The scheme would deliver benefits through the provision of housing throughout the borough on an allocated housing site within the local plan. which, when considered in the balance, leads officers to make the recommendation of an approval subject to conditions and subject to the completion of the Section 106 agreement. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Nick. We have two speakers on this application and supporting documentation provided by the speakers is provided on each placement at this table. Our first speaker is Mr Ian Scott, who is speaking in objection to the application. Mr Scott, please remain seated at the table when you have finished your representation. If page one summarises the fundamental issues with the proposal, remove 12 dwellings for SLP, SE LLP compliance. Also, the total number of dwellings approved within this Fishtop District from April 2011 to the current time must be removed from the 90 total allowance. It is illegal to ignore primary legislation for disability access and human rights by having only stepped access into all these dwellings. Developers have had over 10 years grace period to adjust and comply. Remove 32 dwellings for residents' privacy that ignores government policy. Remove 8 to 31 dwellings for the electricity pylons AM radiation open space corridor. This application should be rejected and resubmitted to comply with primary legislation. Key points, page two, key points of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan are shown there. They are mandatory, not discretionary. Full compliance is required from planners and developers up until 2036. Pages three and four, every dwelling on site is restrictive stepped access. Legislation requires level access to domestic dwellings for all citizens. But planning to quote site B2196 as justification is irrelevant. Developers have had over 10 years grace period to adjust the constructions. The disability discrimination legislation is mandatory. The site discriminates against 25 to 48% of UK citizens. Page five, there are clear government requirements for minimum privacy distances between living space windows of two facing properties angled up to 45 degrees. 32 dwellings must be removed or repositioned on the site. Slum density housing without privacy is unjustified. Page six, the high voltage electricity transmission pylons routed across the site have no buffer space either the side. Planning Department references two recent sites for false justification. 1812 is irrelevant as it's expired and it's the same site. 17317 is in a shambolic status after seven years in action. Both are relevant as the Boston planning precedent already exists on the adjacent estate directly west of Weisthouse Lane. With an open space corridor 10 to 20 meters clear either side of the cables. This precedent rightly is for public safety from EM radiation. The national grid stance is biased to protect their product sales. That's it. Thank you. So, does any member of this committee wish to seek clarification from Mr Scott in respect of the representation he's just made? Councillor Dorian. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr Scott. On page five of your notes, I just, I didn't fully understand it. I just wondered if you could explain what you were saying here about this privacy issue. Um, and could you do that in sort of layman's terms, please? Okay. Um, beginning of the last century because of, um, lots of back to back housing. The government brought in minimum distances between facing windows of two houses. That was, that equates to 21 meters. The current government standard is for 25 meters. The arcs you see on this, the two shades, one is at 21 meters and one is at 25 meters. And all I, all I did was I went down various houses and found out where that arc overlaps in adjacent house. And then the houses that get basically overlapped are the ones that are said actually should be removed or repositioned on site. Because they're basically going to be. Under the government guidelines for privacy. Because of the high density of these housings and the, you know, the developer could actually adjust that by moving houses around in the site, because it's an angle like that. If the windows clash, but there's a problem. If they go outside that the distance actually reduces down to about 15 meters. Um, is that okay? Uh, share with you. So what, yeah, that, that was my question. So how far is the distance between these windows then that you calculated? Those, the arcs you see there are 25 meters long. Yeah. So 25 meters. So where the, where an arc overlaps a house, that means that house is within the 25 meter arc. And therefore it should be moved. Right. Okay. Thank you. Um, and a second question chair is about the, um, the electricity pylons. And, um, so you talked about a precedent there and could you just fill us in on that, please? What, what you meant by that? I raised the point about the pylons and having a, a corridor gap between the pylon cables and the first, and the houses. And, um, planning came back and said that there were, there were two other estates where they'd already brought the, the cables actually run almost to touch the houses. And the precedent that they're given the two sites. One of them, it's the same site. And the other one is a site that hasn't been developed. And it's going to be mainly an industrial area. So it's not living accommodation. But when you look at this site, if you go to the west of the road that this runs alongside, these same power lines actually have an open corridor either side of them across that whole estate that varies between 10 and 20 meters. And so on this chart here, you've got the orange and the yellow, which is the 10 and 20 meter distance from the cable. And that identified which houses on here would fall under that rule if you applied the precedent that was set by the other side of the road. And so it, is there a law or planning regularly? Okay. Um, really? There's no hard law on this. Personally, I wouldn't live near power lines. The radiation isn't cancerous. It isn't ionizing radiation, but some people just get affected by it. And you'll see different reports from different organizations that emphasize what it is. The national grid isn't going to admit there's a problem, even if there was one. quite simply because they've got to run the cable somewhere. Um, and I was just really basically raising the point. It should be a concern that should be dealt with the same as the other estate was. Um, that was it. Thank you Mr Scott. Would you return to your seat please? If you want to make a reply. If you want to come in there, Nick, do you want Mr. Stop to wait? No, no, it's okay. Thank you chair. It was just to clarify. Just to clarify a couple of points that have just been raised. Obviously the first one being the, the pylon. Um, I think the sort of pertinent point, the objective actually sort of said themselves about there being sort of no, no, no sort of planning law requirement. But just, just to be absolutely clear the. The case officer has specifically gone back to the electricity board on this point and consultation on the application. And just, they have 100% confirmed about the correspondence from them. The scheme. They have no concerns with it. No objections. And this scheme does comply with their requirements. So that is the case officer going directly to. the electricity board responsible for the sort of pylon. So I hope that just kind of gives you a little bit of. Satisfaction in that regard. It has been considered. And we don't consider that to be a planning reason or justification for refusal. Just in relation to the. The separation distances, just to be clear. There, there may be guidance in, in sort of nationally on separation distances, but there is no planning law that sort of sets that as absolute statute. It is down to each individual local planning authority who set their own guidance in regards to separation distances. We've assessed this application. The case officer has assessed it in terms of the separation distances that exist. And in our opinion, there was no concerns with regards to loss of light, loss of privacy. Certainly into when it comes to sort of separation distances. One of the main things you're looking for is direct facing into habitable rooms. So living rooms, bedrooms, and we have no concerns in that regard. And neither would there be any adverse effects from loss of light or overbearing, which is usually why those kind of separation distances exist. So the notion that they have to be 25 meters apart, I would disagree with. But this has been an assessment that's been undertaken by the case officer. Looking at the plans, doing the measurements. And obviously you've got the, the officer's comments in regards to. Their, their, our view on the impact of amenity in the report before you. But say it's just a clear for that 25 meters is not, not a law or a rule that has to be a deed to. Thank you chair. Thank you. So our second speaker is councillor Sarah Sharp, who has called this application to committee. Councillor Sharp, please remain seated once you have concluded your representation. Thank you chair. According to the South and East Lincolnshire local plan, this site is recommended to accommodate 90 dwellings. However, the current proposal seeks approval for 102 homes, which exceeds this recommendation. The proposed density is described in the agenda as significantly higher than the average in this area. The justification provided is at some larger houses from the western side of White House Lane. But I believe this contradicts policy to section 3.3.2 of the local plan, which states that new developments should reflect the area's distinctive development form. Of particular concern are plots 93 and 94, which are not set back from the road like the others within the same scheme. This inconsistent positioning will make them appear awkward and out of place within the streetscape. Additionally, a development of this density will result in reduced internal square footage per resident. Below standard privacy for many dwellings and an overall cramped feel. I also have concerns for the properties across the road, particularly number 65, which will be subject to headlights shining through their windows as they will be opposite the main road in and out of this development. Furthermore, the report by SEA consulting engineers attached to this application clearly states in section 5.3.1 The proposed development does not meet the minimum car parking provision outlined in policy 36 and appendix 6 of the local plan. This shortfall raises serious concerns. Where will these extra cars park? Where will visitors park, particularly those visiting plot 94 where the driveway exits directly onto a busy road? Additionally, the use of tandem parking is problematic and may discourage residents from fully utilising their driveways, increasing the likelihood of on street parking. This could pose risks for passing traffic, refuse collection and crucially emergency services. Some of the roads in this development will be unadopted, possibly bringing extra costs to the residents for road maintenance. Section 3.3.7 of the local plan states it is necessary to ensure that development does not have an adverse impact on physical or social infrastructure such as roads. Although tactile crossings are proposed, these will not alleviate the issues on White House Lane, which is already heavily trafficked and has only a single footpath located on the opposite side of the road from the proposed development. I've personally witnessed an accident and numerous near misses at the White House Lane Woodthorpe Avenue roundabout. Kingsway, the adjoining road has seen serious accidents in the past year. Residents frequently raised concerns about safety and visibility at this junction. One particularly alarming incident involved a child. It's important to note that many accidents go unreported and the traffic data referenced in the SEA report is now three years old, making it unfit for assessing the current traffic situation. Especially as several developments on nearby Toot Lane have been built since that time with more in the pipeline. Moreover, there has been an observable increase in HGV traffic using White House Lane due to access to the Havenside Business Park. Increased housing here will lead to a corresponding rise in foot traffic and vehicle movements. Children walking to the nearest primary school will need to cross White House Lane twice as well as Ryder Gardens to reach their school on Toot Lane, with poor pedestrian visibility at the roundabout making this a hazardous route. To highlight this issue, I've provided recent photos of the view of pedestrians when trying to cross these roads at the roundabout, and a map of the crossings needed to get to the nearest primary school due to the single footpath on this road. The Parish Councils responded with the installation of additional check your speed signage, but the effectiveness of these measures remains to be seen. Approving a development that exceeds the planned capacity only adds to the existing traffic and safety concerns. Regarding Policy 3 of the Local Plan, the proposed house designs raise concerns around accessibility. All the properties feature steps to the front entrance and into the rear garden, which could severely limit access for less able people, individuals with mobility issues, or those with young children, especially those using prams and pushchairs. This design choice runs counter to the principle of inclusive housing, and in my opinion goes against Policy 17 of the Local Plan, which states that dwellings should be suitable for an ageing population. As stated in the Agenda Packet 7.15, the National Planning Policy Framework states that planning decisions should create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible. And Section 7.16, referencing the National Design Guide, paragraph 120, states that well-designed homes and buildings are functionable, accessible and sustainable, and they meet the needs of a diverse range of users. How can this be achieved when these designs include steps into the house and garden? By comparison, a recent nearby development on the corner of Toot Lane, has successfully addressed flood risk issues by adjusting ground levels to provide step-free access, which this authority has asked the applicant to consider. While the applicant declined and noted that similar properties have been constructed by themselves in Butterwick, this cannot be used to justify repeating the same design shortcomings here. In conclusion, I firmly believe our residents deserve homes that are appropriately sized, afford sufficient privacy and are accessible to all, and this application fails to meet those standards. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Does any member of this committee wish to seek clarification from Councillor Sharpe in any respect of the representation she has just made? Yeah. Let me guess. Thank you, Chair. First of all, well done, Councillor Sharpe. I'm really disappointed that we've had to introduce a time limit for ward members, Chairman. I think that's a very sad day that we've had to do that, and that was never the case in this Council. However, you mentioned, you referenced plot numbers, and I can't see the plot numbers on the diagram I have. Are they on there? Am I looking at the wrong one? They look like you've got a different one to me. What page are you on? Oh, you can't see them either. So on, if you use Mr Scott's sheet, page three, there's a diagram of the whole site. Could you tell us that you talked about the first couple you mentioned, Sarah, that they weren't set, they were right on the road, not set back from the road or something? Thank you. Yeah, so along the top of that, it's the yellow ones, right at the top there. So that's the White House Lane running down there. You see the trees that are shielding the majority of the properties. No, hang on, go slow. Oh, sorry. I mean, honestly, can next time, can we have the orientation the same all the way through the presentation? Because that's really been difficult to follow for, well, for me, I'll speak for myself. But when the orientation keeps changing, it's a pain in the neck. So where is White House Lane on there? Along the very top of that. Okay, right. That's White House Lane there. Oh, right. So the main entrance to the development is where Lewis has got the arrow there. Thank you. So the issues I've got is that those yellow ones, which are apparently bungalows with steps, are set out for everything else. The rest have got trees, which is going to hopefully hide the huge impact that these will have on the street scene because they're so high off the ground with so many steps. But yeah, those bungalows there will be pretty much on the road. The one that's right next to the road, that's number 94. That driveway exits onto the road. Okay. My second question relates to, you said some properties didn't have drives, did you? They've all got drives, but some of them haven't got enough parking spaces for the house. So in the applicant has an SEA consulting application done. And within there, it states there that there's not enough parking spaces to map houses that are on this development. Okay. So an example of that would be what, like a four bed house for just one parking space or something? I think the four beds have got three parking spaces, but they're all tandem, one behind the other. Right. Okay. And lastly, no, so yeah, along White House Lane from the main entrance onto the site, coming down to this left-hand corner, is a pedestrian access onto the site there? There. Yeah. Thank you, Lewis. Yeah. There is. Yeah. Lovely. Thank you. Thank you. Well done. Councillor Broughton. Thank you Chair. Councillor Sharp, you've said about another plot. I presume that's the other side of the road with the lights shining into. How far along that road, just remind me, is the turning into Ryder Gardens as well? So just opposite that, oh, probably the plan back please. So opposite that main bit where those yellow bungalows are going to be, dead opposite that road, that's number 65 White House Lane. That's where the headlights are going to shine into that property's windows. And then next door, just on the right-hand side of that property, is the entrance to Ryder Gardens. So obviously the entrance and exit is going to be very close to another entrance and exit, right? Yes. Thank you. Councillor Doreen. Councillor Doreen. Thank you, Chair. You know, what's a tactile crossing? Is it one of those ones with bumps on the pavement or something? I didn't think there was a pavement. Well, it is. I didn't think there was a pavement on that side of White House Lane. I believe they're putting in the tactile crossings to allow people to, and they're just going to put a path in front of this development. But then all the houses that go head down to the White House Lane, there's no path on that side. So you'd have to cross over to the opposite side, cross Ryder Gardens, and then cross back at the roundabout to get to Toot Lane. Councillor Evans. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just going back to the steps on this, I'm not fully aware of the actual rules and regulations, but if every single house has got steps front and back, does that contravene rules and regulations for planning at the design stage? Yeah, we're we're talking about council shops. We'll come back at the end. I apologize. Yes, council sharp. The steps just want to confirm that every single dwelling has steps from. Yeah, we just said. Yeah, yes, they do. Yep. Thank you. Councillor Broughton. Just to elaborate again, the bungalows on the corner. Sorry. The yellow ones on the corner where the entrance is going to be. You said that one of those is going to have a drive automatically onto. Is there any parking restrictions on White House Lane? So theoretically, then somebody could be visiting that bungalow park on White House Lane blocking that entrance off and also blocking the thing to Ryder Gardens potentially. Yeah, there's no parking restrictions on White House Lane. No. Thank you. Mike. Can you clarify those points? Yeah, thank you chair. Just just to confirm, I think the the points that council speaking about was in relation to the original submission scheme that was made and the supporting documentation. The. I think we mentioned in the update report, the scheme has been amended by the applicant and the case officers confirmed that actually the scheme now does fully comply with the parking provision requirements from the county council. And again, obviously. There is no objection from the county council as the highway authority to this scheme, so we I appreciate the confusion in terms of that original submission based on the first scheme that was put forward, but it but it has been amended. Hence the the update report that you've got. So there should be no concerns about parking on on the public road. Each property has got now the the required parking provision that it that it requires. Thank you chair. I'm afraid councilor shall we ask to ask you to leave. So what would you like to sum up anything there, please? Yeah, no, just I mean, I suppose it just in terms of some of the comments we've received. Obviously, again, we've mentioned the the density and again that has been raised and I understand why. But again, it's just to reiterate members that in any local plan, and this is not just here, this isn't any local planning authority where there is an allocation in a plan. There is also a housing number, but that is not prescriptive. There is nothing in planning law that says that you cannot go above nothing, so you can't go below either. So if we are simply saying this is overly dense purely because the number proposed is higher, that in itself wouldn't be a justifiable reason. We would have to explain why the density, the numbers were poor design or the density was what harm was being created. So you can go above a an allocation that house number cramped standards. And I don't believe that any of the houses do actually fall below the national space standards. So I think we're quite content in that regard that there's they're not substandard in substandard in terms of their sizing. Obviously, there is a range of properties from one bed up to to sort of four beds. But there was no this is a scheme that's not falling foul of any of the national space standards guidance. So hopefully that offers a bit of a bit of comfort to yourselves. Obviously, we've talked about the the parking has been amended. And again, obviously, again, we know some of the concerns that have been raised about the public highway itself. But this application has been supported by assessments and information that has been assessed by the Highway Authority, who do not raise any objections from either a safety or a capacity perspective. So that's not to say that we can't take into account local knowledge, local concerns, but ultimately that that would have to be a justifiable and tangible evidence base for us to refuse this application on. In the absence of any objection from the Highway Authority, which is based upon an assessment of the applicant's plans. So we haven't had any of that information put before us. So any concerns on the highways, I'm afraid at this stage would would just be anecdotal sort of concerns rather than actual. evidence based. But now I think I say that I think they're the main points that have been sort of raised raised as well. Oh, I think there's a point. Sorry about the accessibility wasn't there yet. We don't have a policy basis in the local plan that requires accessibility standards. And I think the officers report actually kind of goes into that in quite a bit of bit of detail. Obviously it's usually sort of picked up at the building control regulation side of things. But again, if you any sort of concerns or any queries that you've got around that side of things, if you refer to 7.18 in the report before you, it sets out the. Planning policy basis versus the the building control basis for the accessibility. And the steps that are proposed to the properties. Thank you. I think at this point we can throw the floor open to committee members to discuss. Thank you Mr Chairman. I do have great concerns about the access, accessibility to the properties. My own sister is disabled and needs a wheelchair. I have two very young grandchildren that require a push double push chair. A third on the way. And I know how difficult it is getting it down one step, let alone these. And so I'm. In this day and age where other accessibility measures are available, such as ramps, I'm struggling with this earlier. And so Woodliffe. I think chairman. My concern is about the electricity pylons actually. You know, it high voltage, I presume it's 132 kV line. I presume it's 132,000. It's a high voltage line. You've got two fields. You've got the electromagnetic field and the magnetic field. So there are issues. There are concerns that there's a link between high voltage power lines and cancer. It's not proven, but it's a concern. I notice here you've got in the report 722. It says guidance on the matter set out and document development here over head power lines. Both panning land of meeting aspects of high voltage electricity transmission lines issued by the national grid, which of course is a public limited company. It's not a state-owned company. I'd like to have seen that really. I didn't spot that until I got to the meeting, unfortunately. I am concerned about the implication here for high voltage lines. And I do believe that you should live as far away as possible from them. We don't really know a great deal about this, but it has been allegations or assertions that there's a link between high voltage lines and cancer. Now, I have no evidence on that basis. I'm not a medical person and I'm not an electrical engineer, so I can't make a full comment on it, but it does concern me. The idea of being very close to a high voltage power line does worry me. You're an engineer, our chairman. Perhaps you can advise us. Thank you. I've spent a lot of my time next to 3.3 kV supplies and I only twitch occasionally. I just twitch occasionally. Well, as far as I'm aware, I have never known a colleague or anybody associated who's worked permanently in those areas of large voltage supplies be affected by it. That's all I can say. It's the living aspect. It's the living aspect and you can work with high voltage lines and so on. I appreciate that. But living them 24-7 is another matter and that's the concern. And we know that the electric field doesn't penetrate buildings, but you will know that the magnetic field does. So it's an area that concerns me. There's no hard evidence to connect high voltage with cancer, but there's an underlying assertion that it might be. And that's why I think separation from these lines is a good safety procedure. But I have no specific, you know, qualifications. I'm just a mere mathematician, so I can't really comment. That's right. Thank you, Chairman. Councillor Pierre Point. Thank you, Chairman. I have two issues here with this application. One is I think the development proposed is restrictive to the people who are going to use it. Clearly, the accessibility to me is a great issue. There's no way people can keep climbing up and down the stairs. I mean, I'm thinking about families with kids. I'm thinking about push chairs. I'm thinking about elderly. So that to me is a great negative on the application. The second thing is about the power lines. I lived in Somerset, not far from power lines, and it affected me tremendously with my health. I had to move out of that area so I can speak personally because I was under doctors and the consultants because of the power lines were affecting me in my life and my work. And luckily I moved from Somerset to Leicester instead. And basically from then I was a lot better, but I would not want to be anywhere near power lines. So I'm against this application full stop. That's where I come from. Thank you. Councillor Broughton. Thank you, Chair. I have three concerns. The main one being, obviously, as I've already spoke about, is the traffic. Nick, can you explain what the local accident record, where that's kept and everything? Because obviously I've lived in Toot Lane for many years and regularly there's accidents at the roundabout. I think there's been two or three even this year. If they're not reported, obviously that's down to that. But I'm really concerned with this entrance with the bungalows there. OK, we've probably got enough parking spaces, but there's nothing to stop somebody parking on that junction, on that corner, visiting a bungalow or something. And that's going to cause an accident. That's an accident waiting to happen, in my opinion. Also, the property opposite, if that's going to have, if it's a hundred properties, say two, three hundred cars, surely that is going to restrict that lady or gentleman in that property having light shining in their property all the time at night, especially in the winter. And thirdly, again, is the access. My mum's disabled with the steps. Obviously a ramp is a possibility, but I just think with the way the steps are, the ramps will be too steep. And it's not so much getting into the properties. I'm thinking if there's going to be fire or anything like that, trying to get people out quickly, that is a really big concern for me then three. But I do think that the transport issue and looking at the pictures as well, the state of the Whitehouse Lane Road is not a good state now. I know councillors have been trying to contact LCC about getting the roads upgraded. But if we're going to have like lots of heavy goods vehicles going down that road, it's just going to make it worse. So I will be against this proposal. Councillor Evans. James said he fixed that. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Going back onto the stairs. I mean, I don't think there's anything wrong with the location of the site, but the stairs on every single property, front and back. The disabled issue is obvious, but I think that bad weather, icy conditions, carrying shopping. There's too many accidents waiting to happen. And the one at the back, when mum, dad are busy and the kids are playing and they're going to go out, their kids are going to fall down those stairs at least once in their childhood. So I just think that the stairs for every house, front and back, makes this a no no. Thank you. How's it going? Well, I think it was more, I think there was a question asked before we sort of moved on by Councillor Broughton just around the traffic accident data. That was held by by the Highway Authority, obviously the County Council. We've had a response. I'll read this sort of the basic word for words. You can hear it from from the Highway Authority themselves, which says a review of the accident data shows that there is no road accident pattern on the highway network within the vicinity of the proposed development site, which would be exacerbated beyond an unacceptable limit. Causing significant harm to the safety of existing road users. And I think the significant bit is quite important because that's what the MPPF tells us is the threshold test that has to be applied. A reason, a refusal on the grounds of highway safety impacts has to be at that significant threshold. So if we were to, I understand the concerns, you know, we can see the road for ourselves, but if you were to. That was to form a reason for the refusal of the application to make that level of sort of assessment and statement that this was so harmful that it warranted refusal. I don't believe you've kind of got the evidence before you or the information to meet that significant threshold in terms of how that would be viewed by an inspector at appeal. I think you'd find it very, very difficult to defend that decision. I suspect strongly that an inspector would likely find the authority to have acted unreasonably in that regard. Based upon the information that you've kind of got, the responses you're getting back from the highway authority, although fully fully accept the points that you're making. But highway highway safety capacity doesn't really form a justifiable reasons for the refusal of this application. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just on that, I think that what Councillor Broughton is referring to is the amount of perhaps more minor accidents happen on that route. And certainly the two-lane roundabout is just a nightmare since the new development has gone up there recently. And I know that a lot of residents are really unhappy about it. So, Chairman, my two main grievances with this are, first of all, like Councillor Evans, it's about the stepped access. In this day and age, why on earth are developers bringing along a site with this many, nearly 100 houses, all of them needing steps to get in? And why are you building bungalows with steps to get in the front door? What is that all about? The whole point of a bungalow is so you can retire there in your twilight years and enjoy not having to go up and down the stairs. And when you get to the top of the stairs, you forget why you've gone up there anyway. So I just don't follow the rationale. And by the sound of it, the author of the report has looks like they've tried the best to reason with the applicant to ask them to reconsider. And if they'd even come in with a scheme where it was half and half, I could maybe get my head round it. But certainly, in addition to the steps, the design of the properties is very unattractive and I don't think it's in keeping with the character of the area. They're very, very steep steps. And as other people have mentioned, getting a baby, I mean, you know that, Lena, getting a baby out the front door is hard enough in the morning without having to, you know, feel like you're ran off fines at the same time on a mountain expedition. So that, but my principal reason, I'm going to, I'm going to move that we refuse this in a minute, Chair, but my principal reason is the density. And I think that this committee has refused an application before on density grounds. And I think that would be consistent. And I think that, yes, the report author makes reference to the fact that the other less dense houses are bigger and have nice gardens and dah, dah, dah, dah. And I think, well, so what? Affordable houses should have a nice amenity and a nice garden as well and not feel that they're all being cramped in. And I do think the height of these properties is going to be a contributing factor to that feeling of, you know, being overwhelmed and the site being too dense. So for that reason, Chair, I'm going to move that we refuse this application. Hello, Elbrug. No, it's okay. I think Councillor Dorian's answered it. Thank you. Councillor Cantwell. Thank you, Chair. I think a lot of the points raised have been valid. My only worry is, is there's not many of the points discussed that have been rooted in policy. I mean, the things about accessibility are completely fair. I think it's bonkers what they're doing, but the officers do mention in the report that there's nothing in the South East Linkershire local plan that would allow us to refuse it on that basis. Councillor Dorian has mentioned density, which is a valid argument, but my worry is, is that there's not enough policy grounds to refuse this application. However much it is bonkers. Thank you. Councillor Osborne. Councillor Osborne. Thank you. I thought I was invisible today. I've been trying to speak for ages, right? Thank you very much. There's so many things that have been referred to today that are situations we get over and over again. Now, a lot of what I'm going to say may not be frightfully helpful, but. This accident waiting to happen. Unless people report accidents. They are never going to be included in statistics. The second thing is that. Right. I do in my area have a few properties with steps, but they are very, very limited and I do not. To my knowledge, I don't think that they are affordable profiters. But. So people don't have to choose to live in them. Now, the one thing that we don't seem to have anymore. Is site visits. Wouldn't there be something to be said for us going back to having a site visit? When there are all these questionable items that are coming up. Right. I don't want to live very near a pylon. Thank you. And interestingly, when some development was being done a couple of years ago or maybe more in my area. One of the workers said, oh dear, you know, I've been working there all day. And the those pylons that have been making my hearing aids buzz the whole time. Now, should those be elderly people? Who? And it's affordable housing. They've been put in that pro those properties. Then there's a fair chance that some of them will be wearing hearing aids. And it's a bit late when you've moved in to discover what an issue is. So there is just. Who's the. If we don't have the. Details within our local plan. To guide us. Then we are the only ones ourselves who can go and say, right. Are there issues with this site? Let's go collectively. I mean, whenever did we have a last have a site visit? Come on, some of you who've been on this committee for a long time. It's ages and I think, you know, if I'd been able to go to this site and, you know, seen exactly. The situation I know. I know I could take myself there, but it's not the same thing as having an official site visit. So there are issues here. Are there enough to tip the balance? I don't know. This is why I'm listening to everyone else. But please, could we go back to that idea of a site visit? Thank you. Councillor Broadden. Yeah, I'd just like to carry on from Councillor Dorian and second her proposal to. Refuse this application. So. Councillor Bedford. Yeah, thank you, Chairman. It is working. I'm sorry, I will not be able to support refusal, purely on planning law. We are here as a committee. To work to planning law. There's a lot of talk about the steps and so on and so forth in Butterwick, but a new estate with 42 housing. Everyone's got steps. I thought Councillor Broadden might have walked up and down one of the two of them in this last week or two. To know exactly what they are and where they are, but they're selling slowly and it is slowly, but it's people's choice whether or not they buy what is there on that design. But as a planning committee, we have to work to plan in law and I'm sorry, I cannot support refusal because I think if this goes to appeal, we'll lose it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bedford. Thank you, Councillor Bedford. I'd just like to put my ten penneth in. The three main items seem to be transport power and steps. I have to say transport. Hard evidence says we've no real grounds for refusal. Power says there's no proof of harm to people's lives or health. Although we've had several examples where people think that's what's caused it. And the steps, I have to say, I don't like those steps at all. And why a developer wants to develop properties that are going to be unattractive to a lot of people, a lot of the population, I'm not quite sure. How much harder it is to grade a slope back up to those levels, I'm not sure. But there's some reason, whether it's a cost thing, that the steps are cheaper than doing the landscaping, I'm not sure. But overall, I don't see that we've got any legitimate reason to refuse this planning application, although I don't like it. So I'm afraid I won't be able to support the refusal. But everybody's here to make their own mind up. Councillor Austin, I'd really like to move to the vote now. Have you got something really? Yes, please, if I may speak, Sir Chairman. This is another example, probably, of an application we had a few years ago, which was for land very near where I live. So I wasn't allowed to take part. But that was the Seidenholmes Heron Park development. The land had to be built up because of flood risk. And it had to be built up and built up and built up. And the amount of soil that was brought in to satisfy was horrendous. So that is why now we're getting this idea of, well, let's have steps instead. But there's nothing in the local plan that says we can't do that. Okay. Just quickly, Chair, before we move to a vote for refusal, we just need to clarify the exact reasons for refusal before we get there. No, I can't see it. Sorry, Councillor Downey. Density, did you say? Is there any further? Sorry, I thought you were making notes when I was speaking, Abi. I could have sworn I saw you with your pen out. Yeah. On what grounds are we voting to refuse? The density was the primary issue for refusal in terms of planning law. And the fact that it was out of keeping with the other nearby residential developments in Fishtoft. Okay, so just to clarify, density and out of keeping with character. Is that planning law? In accordance with the southeast local plan, we can, it's in policy two, policy three, contain those elements. So satisfied. We'd be on safe ground. Well, I'm satisfied that they're in the policy. Yeah. So if they're the grounds that you're looking to carry the vote on, then. Yeah. And I wanted to make sure that was clear before you voted. And the author says it's finely balanced. And I do take your point, Councillor Bedford, I'm not blind to planning law. However, and I think it's a point that's been missed in this committee before, is that when an application is finely balanced and it goes to appeal, we don't necessarily incur costs. Because we've given this a good airing. We've given it a good debate and discussion. And the inspector can look at the video and see that we've done all that. So it's not a case of we must be frightened of going to appeal. We must make the best decision we can on the day as the lay people who live amongst the residents in this community. We are the community. Thank you, Chair. Okay, so I'd like to move to a vote then. So those in support of a refusal. And those against. One, two. Three. Is that it? Is that 13? 12. Yeah, 12. Oh, right. Yeah. Okay, so that application is refused. And now we can adjourn and re, uh, recommence again at 1.45 please. The meeting of today's planning committee will now resume. For the benefit of the members of the public who were not present for this morning session. My name is Councillor David Middleton, and I am the chairman of this committee. And Councillor David Scoot is my vice chairman. I will invite our officers supporting this meeting to reintroduce themselves. Lisa Davis, senior planning lawyer and legal advisor to the committee. Nick Atkinson, development manager for planning. Lewis Humphries, principal planning officer. Thank you. I am required to again set out some of the housekeeping rules. I would also like to remind everyone in attendance that this meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. Restroom facilities are available on this floor for the ladies and halfway down the main stairwell for gentlemen. In the events of the fight of the fire alarm sounding officers will escort everyone to the nearest safety point in the rear car park. Please ensure when you are addressing this meeting that you do so through the microphone system at all times. Please also ensure that you speak as near to the microphone as possible. Members of the public are free to leave the meeting at any time and our planning support officers will escort you downstairs. And finally, please be advised that abuse or intimidation of any kind will not be tolerated. Anyone who is deemed to breach this requirement will be warned and asked to refrain. And if the behaviour persists, they will be asked to leave. Our final application today is planning and application B230379, which is on page 75 of the agenda. And will be presented by our development manager, Mr Nick Atkinson. Thank you chair. Good afternoon members. So agenda item three is as described by the chair, and this is for the construction of 89 dwellings and associated infrastructure, which includes drainage and open space provision. This application is before your members following a calling request having been made by the local ward member that the reasons for the calling are set out within the report before you in sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the report. But just for clarity, they primarily relate to the number of dwellings and density proposed, concerns relating to access arrangements, design of the dwellings, impacts upon neighbouring immunity and flood risk stroke drainage impacts. Just before we get into the main presentation. There's been an update report also for this item which has been circulated, which hopefully we've all got a copy of before you. This sets out the and details amended plans that's been received from the applicant showing the location of the affordable dwellings proposed, which have been accepted by the council's housing team and also some comments that have been received by an objector, which have also been addressed by the officer in this supplementary report. Again, the report, the supplementary report does not alter the officers assessment of the proposal. And it does not alter the recommendation before you in the main report. Just run through a few slides for those of you who are not familiar with the site. So as always, members, we have the application site highlighted in red. You can see here to the east of the site is open countryside. You've got the existing properties that form the current limits of Fishsoft in this locality. Just in this part of the site here, you can see the proposed access points onto the public highway. So hopefully that gives a bit of clarity on either site. We just wanted to include this plan because obviously you've seen in the report and I'll refer to into the presentation that a large proportion of the site is already allocated within the local plan for housing. So this plan here, just the area hatched in red, this is the extent of the site allocation to date. It doesn't cover the whole site, but it covers a quite significant proportion of it. Proposed layout plan, apologies. Again, it's a slight unusual orientation. I have hopefully put a copy in front of you, a copy of the plan so you can reorientate yourselves around. It essentially just shows the sort of the layout of the site, which has been slightly amended by the applicant following the original submission. It shows obviously the housing which is achieved off the main internal spine road, a number of small cul-de-sacs. This also shows in blue the attenuation pond linking to the drainage. There's an area of public open space which kind of covers around that area. And then there are other areas of public open space through the site. Apologies if you couldn't hear me there members. A site of materials layout. Again, this shows the sort of same layout, but predominantly this plan hopefully shows in green quite boldly the areas of public open space that would exist around the site. This area here obviously is covered in green in this plan, but this would be the attenuation ponds, but hopefully you can see throughout the site areas of green space. The drainage next plan shows the drainage plan layout. Obviously, as you've seen in the report, infiltration is not a viable option in this instance. So the applicant is proposing a sud scheme using a series of roadside swales and network of underground drains to capture and channel surface water, which will then head to the attenuation pond, which is shown here. And then obviously there'll be a pipe taking it to the existing drainage board watercourse. And again, this shows a land drain plan, so there is the the blue line or the turquoise line, should I say, is the extent of the the land drains. Landscaping plan again, you can see some against with the green space and some of the the plantings that are proposed out the site. Some of the trees and vegetation is proposed. There is a proposal to sort of plant and enhance the the western boundary of the site where it runs adjacent to a number of properties. Just a few streets scene images for yourselves and then just a sample of the house types that would be constructed throughout the site if you were to approve the scheme today. So just a few photographs. So firstly, we have the the scout hut, which again has been referred to in the report and I think has been made reference to in a number of the sort of letters that you've seen on the for the application. So that's a scout hut looking along Gaysfield Road. On the left hand side is the application site and the proposed access would be located within roughly this area of the of the site. Looking north along Gaysfield Road, you can just make out I believe this building here is the primary school, which again is shown on the the maps before you. This is the existing area of scout lands, which is used by the the scouts for scouting activities. Looking north from the proposed access point through the sites again, the you can make out the the mature tree line where the scouting area is. So the tree line to the north of the site, this is the existing properties along Gaysfield Road itself. Looking southwest across the site. Obviously, it's an agricultural field at the the moment. A number of properties in the northwest corner. We have just pointed out, obviously, just be aware that some of these properties don't have a currently don't have a boundary treatment with the site. So hence why you can see into the sort of properties there themselves. Looking towards the northern boundary of the site. So looking back east. The photographs that we've got. So again, members, I won't run through each section of the port, but again, we'll just run through and summarize some of the main points and apologies that some of this is very similar to some of the previous applications you've already heard today. But in terms of the the principle of the development, as we've seen from one of the earliest slides, a large portion portion of the application site is located within the local plan for 45 dwellings, and that's predominantly the northern part of the site. There is a planning permission that has been previously granted that covers a large area of the southern part of the site. This wouldn't cover the entirety of the two plans. There is a slight extension to the site along the eastern boundary. But in our view, that's sort of largely incidental to the allocation and to the planning consent that's previously been granted and still exists for the site. As such, in the opinion of officers, it can be taken that the the principle of the residential development of the site of the majority of the site is acceptable and established through this allocation and also through the the extent planning permissions that exist. And again, members, the question therefore largely comes down to numbers, design and consideration of all other material matters. Obviously, housing numbers again have been sort of raised as a concern. Officers are set out in the report why it's considered that the density proposed is is acceptable. We do acknowledge that the density proposed or that will be delivered to this site may not mirror every element of the settlement itself, but it is, in our view, reflective of some of the more modern parts of the settlement that have been granted consent and taken place over the last number of years, perhaps even going back as far as the 80s. And therefore would not be entirely odds with the existing built environment or the existing settlement pattern or fish toft. Therefore, in terms of harm that will be generated, we don't believe this would be significant or adverse design in response to a number of initial concerns that were raised by the case officer regarding the layout and the design of the properties. The applicant has actually worked very proactively and positively with the council, making a number of amendments to the scheme, which is now before you do accept that whilst a number of these changes might be considered to be small individually, cumulatively. It's resulted in our opinion in a much better overall and more organic scheme, which is of a suitable quality design and in our view, the layout would not be visually harmful and responds well to the character of the locality. The development would also benefit from a scheme of landscape escaping, which will help further soften the visual impact and again, in our opinion, to a satisfactory manner. Neighboring amenity. Again, members, it is acknowledged that the development would result in a change of outlook for the properties that border the site. But again, similar to the last application, it's important to note that A, no property has a right to view in planning legislation. And also the residential, the principle of the development of this site has already been established on the loss of the field for development through the extent consent and also the local plan allocation. So in our opinion, this does not represent justified reason for the refusal of the application. In a similar manner, separation distances, sufficient separation distances would exist from any of the existing properties to those proposed. So as to result in no loss of direct facing, overlooking, loss of privacy and neither would the development result in any loss of light to any neighboring dwellings. As such, in terms of amenity, while some harm would arise to the loss of the field, the extent of this harm is not considered to be significantly adverse or unacceptable. And where any harm would arise, that harm is outweighed, in our opinion, by the benefits of the scheme, being the provision of housing, including affordable housing for the borough on an allocated site. In terms of flood risk and drainage, again, the site is acknowledged to be within a flood zone three, although more favorable than other sites within Fishcroft, hence its allocation within the local plan. Following a consultation exercise, there are no objections raised to the proposal from any statutory consultees subject to further mitigation measures, including a roadside swale, network of underground drains leading to the attenuation basins, which will be secured through condition. And again, that condition is in the recommendation before you. It's also proposed to install an interceptor drain along the boundary with a number of neighboring properties, which will help capture surface water in this area and ease an existing problem that presently exists for residents. Therefore, it's considered that the proposed development can be satisfactorily serviced by appropriate drainage infrastructure, which again will be secured through condition. And as such, the development would not result in an adverse increase in flood risk. In terms of highways, the application again has been supported by a series of plans and documents and assessments from the applicant, which demonstrates that the surrounding highway network is capable of absorbing the level of traffic that would be generated. In terms of this, there is no objection, both from a highway safety and capacity perspective, with no demonstrable harm being identified and there is no objection from the highway authority to this submission. Again, conditions are recommended to overcome any concerns that have been raised by the fire and rescue service, although it's noted that the access roads would be constructed to the standard required by the highway authorities design codes. And therefore, in the opinion of officers, highway safety does not warrant concerns that have been raised about highway safety does not warrant the refusal of this application. In terms of the application. In terms of the application. In terms of the application. In terms of the application. To provide affordable housing. The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal, which has been subject of an independent review. It has demonstrated that a lower provision of affordable housing and contributions is reasonable. In this regard, officers recommend that the provision of 20% on site on site affordable provision and a financial contribution of 400,000 towards education provision and health care is accepted. And as a proportionate plan is a proportionate planning gain in this instance. And again, remember with the plans that have been provided in the amended layout, the applicant has demonstrated that sufficient ecological enhancements can be achieved. So in terms of the 10% biodiversity net gain, which will be secured through condition. Overall members taking all matters into account, the principle of the residential development of the site is accepted and established. The development would deliver benefits through the provision of housing and much needed housing throughout the borough and the provision of affordable housing on a site that is in the main allocated for such in the local plan. Officers have the opinion that the amount of development proposed can be accommodated within the site without resulting in significant or demonstrable harm being caused to the locality. To neighbouring residents or to the environment subject to those conditions in the report. And therefore the application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions and also the completion of a section 106 agreement. Thank you chair. Thank you. Thank you. We have three speakers for this application and supporting documentation provided by the speakers. It's provided on each placement at the table. Our first speaker is Mr. Ian Scott, who is speaking in objection to the application. Mr. Scott, please remain seated at the table when you finish your representation. Thank you. Summary of the fundamental issues of the proposal are found on page one. Remove 44 dwellings for SALLP compliance of 45 maximum. Remove 1.14 hectares from the site for non-compliance with the local plan. Rainwater flood mitigation still excludes key waterfalls. Floods design is less than 25% of the capacity needed. Remove 18 dwellings for boundary privacy along the west that ignore government policy. There is no important. These are too important to be reserved matters for postponement. Reject this application and resubmit to comply with the local 10 year plan. Key points, no, pages 3, 4 and 5. The area of land of FIS 46 has clearly defined boundary. The area is 2.69 hectares, not 3.83, an excessive 42% over allocation. The maximum dwellings is 45, not 89, 98% more than the plan requires. There are two unacceptable email discussions from earlier. November 2023 from the Boston Forward Planning Officer to the Planning Department giving inaccurate and false opinions. On April 2024 requirements from the Planning Officer to the developer were completely ignored by the developer. You cannot take 45 dwelling plan, then increase to 66 and then increase again to 89. There is a major design fault with the proposed suds attenuation pond. The IDB drain ditch has a higher maximum water level in the pond. Flood water discharge will stop completely at times of persistent rain. But the pond design relies upon a continuous outflow discharge. After over two years, there is still no drainage plan from the developer. Local evidence from real photographs on pages 8 and 9 shows the IDB drains in this local area topping out when they get persistent rain. It happens roughly on a six or seven year cycle. Extra storage capacity must be built into the suds pond. A five days storage capacity may be okay. Critical drainage design flows are ignored by the developer. Only the hard surfaces are calculated in their plans. Rain falling onto the swales and ponds is excluded. Rain flowing from saturated gardens into swales is ignored. Surface water injured by boundary French drain is ignored and off-site outflow is undefined. The recent assertion by planning is incorrect. For the hard surface rain volumes alone, a 5D intercepted pond outflow requires a pond volume more than two and a half times the current plan. Existing proof of such things is Old Leak B160317. Flooded the village... The clear government policy for minimum privacy within a site of new dwellings 21 metres and 25 metres. Where new dwellings based existing neighbours, as in Gaysfield Road, greater privacy is expected. There must be a 15 minute bound gap to the boundary fence line. The two storey houses overlooking, the distance increases to 35 metres. This requires 18 dwellings along the western boundary are removed or relocated. There is also a question of the riparian drainage boundary along the north, where four houses require access to maintain that drain. Planning's assertion that riparian issues are not a planning responsibility is false. Furthermore, I draw attention to a recent Environment Agency Warning Directive. Is that 30 seconds? Very nearly there. I draw attention to the recent Environment Agency Warning Directive of recent weeks. Prosecutions will be pursued for ignoring primary legislation. Planning has the administrative duty to progress information received as identified. That's the riparian drainage that needs to be dealt with. Finished. Thank you. Does any member of this committee wish to seek clarification from Mr Scott in respect of the representation you've just made? It's a matter of fact. It's an agenda for you. It's an agenda for you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Austin. Thank you to the chairman. Mr Scott. You seem to be particularly interested in this area. Are you a resident nearby? Why is Rangel, why is your interest please in Fishtoft? I was asked by the councillor of White House Lane this morning to look at the plans, and I was asked by the resident of this village to look at the plans. There is no restriction on who can look at plans anywhere in the country. Any resident can look at any application and make any comment, and that's all I'm doing. I don't think Councillor Austin was saying that you weren't entitled to, she was asking you why, but anyway I think you've answered the question. Councillor Sharpe. Thank you. Could you explain about the riparian drain a little bit more please? There's a drain identified along the northern boundary, which is the right hand side of that map. There's also reference to a brick wall, a low brick wall within that ditch or near it, which I suspect may actually be a buried culvert to a drain that's further north. Now that drain probably takes away from the, takes water away from that north part and the residences down into the ditch which runs down Gasefield Road. That hasn't been maintained by the landowner. And on the plans that this developers put in, they put a boundary fence that goes inside that to ignore the problem. There are four dwellings on that site that need gates in the fence and sufficient space on top of the ditch to actually maintain their repairing responsibilities. Councillor Dorian. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you again, Mr. Scott. Just to keep on this topic, please. The riparian drain that needs to be repaired by those four households. Which, do you happen to know which authority would enforce that? Microphone. It could be raised by the parish council if they knew about it, to try and get the landlord to dig the ditch out. Then it would get escalated to the borough council, because they would have the contacts probably within Lincolnshire County Council or the drainage boards or the environment agency. But I think it's the environment agency that ultimately would enforce it as they announced a couple of weeks ago. Okay. And if I can carry on, Mr. Chairman, on page eight, nine of your document, thank you for submitting. I can see you've done an enormous amount of work on this. Could you just talk about this, what you're describing here, these top-ups, top-outs rather, and how you say it's a six to seven-year cycle. I'm not sure what drainage board is, if it's Black Sluice or With & Forth? With & Forth, thank you, Councillor Bedford. And do you know if they're aware, you know, could you just describe what the issue is here? Because I'm a lay person, and whether the drainage board know about it. Thank you. Yep. This is the attenuation pond there. This is the drain it's going into. They're roughly at the same level. There's a flap valve in here to stop backflow water into the attenuation pond. When this drain fills up full, it's going to completely stop the outflow from the pond. Now, these pictures here are all pictures of drainage ditches within a two or three mile radius of Wrangell, which is common for this whole area down the north of the Wash, that shows that when the pumps are going and we've got persistent rain, a lot of the drips, the ditches actually are topped out by the levels by the pumps. So they actually get full completely. Sometimes the overflow on page eight, the middle two show the ditches actually overflowing. Those ditches are actually one and a half meters deep. That gives you an idea of how much water is going there. Now, the reason I don't think on the plans when they're doing the development, all they do is they see how much water is going in, how big do we need to store it while it's going out based on environmental rainfall data, which over a three or four hour period is a peak time. What no one seems to be checking is what happens if the outflow stops. Now, in this case, it basically it stops. The site this morning was actually at different levels. It will not stop because of the way the actual site is structured relative to the drains. But there's two sites I've looked at in the last six months and they've both been the same. I never used to look at this stuff before. And I just don't think people are aware of it. There are people I talk to when you explain it to them and then they're fine. But you've got to get this through formal chains and whatever, which could take years. So you're never going to see anything on plans for suds at Lincolnshire County Council until someone goes up there and actually manages to get a formal meeting with them. And so my logical question then is, Mr Scott, so if this situation were to occur, what are you saying would happen to that site? Right. On the map there, you can see the size of the pond they've got. That is just for the hard surface areas, OK? If that stops, it will need to be on the, I think it was, the calculations I had on page 10 show a one-day stoppage, a three-day stoppage and a five-day stoppage and how much bigger the pond has to be. Now on a five-day stoppage, it will have to be 250% bigger than what it is there now. But they've got to remember the ponds can't go deeper because they've got to match up with the drain levels. So they have to go outwards. Now if you start to include all the water from the site, like the French drain along the Gasefield Road boundary, that basically, I have no idea how much rain that's going to put in. But the hard surfaces are going to take about 50% of the rainfall. So it would be a safe bet that probably 20-30% of the rainfall is also going to end up in that pond if it's ruined in there. In which case, the example I gave of old leek, about a third of the site is going to have to be a storage pond. Now once you get into that, you're basically cutting off massive amounts of houses and, well, the whole plan's changed. My question was, if you don't mind, Chairman, if that goes ahead with that pond at the same size as it is now, if the plans were passed, what would happen to that site? The water will overflow. First of all, the problem is around the pond there's a bank about 30 centimetres high. I don't know if it goes all the way around. But when that top, because that will overflow, a lot of it will go into the field. But then if you look at the ground levels of the existing field and Gasefield Road, Gasefield Road is lower. So the water is going to run around the bottom and then into the Gasefield Road and flood the houses at the bottom of the road. Can I just come in there? It sounded wonderful, Mr. Scott, but I have to just remind all committee members that the drainage boards are experts. Do it for a living. The EA look after the main water courses. That's why they don't get involved with the smaller ones. And while Mr. Scott's done a great job of giving a lot of detail, he is not an expert in the same field as the drainage boards are. Okay? Sorry, Mr. Scott. Very small. The reason I mentioned old leak is the very same reports that say this is okay, said old leak was going okay. And if you look at the plans and see what was actually done to it, when the centre of the village flooded out, it's exactly the same thing. Councillor Bedford. Yeah, thank you. Mr. Scott, you just did you say that these photographs on PJ9 are within two or three mile of the site? Right, so they're not adjacent to this site at all. Thank you. I presume that was a no. Councillor Evans. Just a very quick point regarding that. This site is very close to the Hopole drain, which is about to have a mammoth pumping station built. I feel that the water really will find its way to where it needs to be relatively straightforwardly, if that's a correct word. So the connections with Wrangell are not relevant. Well, not being an expert, I would look at the site and tell you that the drains, the IDB drain that this is going to feed into, just barely drops a little bit below the surface. And the pumps are lifting water out of the drains into the Hopole drain. So it's not the fact that there's a flow of water that's basically dictated by the pumps. It is basically ground water at the same level flowing to where the pumps are. And you've got a finite speed on the speed on the speed at which water can be taken out the ditches. Thank you, Chair. It's just to clarify again, just to clarify a couple of couple of points. And actually, Chair, to be fair, I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head of a big trunk of what I was going to say, which is it will be a very, very dangerous situation and precedent for us to get into if we start suggesting that people like the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Internal Drainage Board are not experts, that they are not aware of drainage matters and issues within their area. I think that's a very, very dangerous sort of comment for us to sort of follow suit as a planning committee. Ultimately, they are statutory consultees. As officers, we don't confess to be hydrologists in the same manner as self-professed. That is why we consult with these bodies because they are the experts. They are the people that you go to speak to. To disregard their views and comments based purely on anecdotal comments with no real, firm, hard evidence, again, is a decision that if you chose to do that, I would strongly recommend that you do not because that will put you in a very, very difficult position trying to defend that position at appeal. This is based on empirical evidence and assessment. The Lead Local Flood Authority and the IDB have been very heavily involved with the case officer scrutinising the plans that have been put together from the nth degree from pretty much day one on this application and they are absolutely satisfied with this scheme. And I rest assured, I'm sure you know sort of far better than myself, but if the Lead Local Flood Authority and the internal drainage board were in no way, shape or form happy with this scheme, there is no way that both of those consultees would be registering no objection to this submission. And then again, just finally again, I think we mentioned it before, but again, reference to the national separation distances, there is no such national standard that planning has to adhere to. It is very much a localised decision for each individual planning authority to make. Thank you chair. Thank you Mr Scott, you can return to your seat. Our second speaker is Parish Councillor Helen Crawford, the Chairperson of Fishtoff Parish Council and speaking on behalf of the Parish Council. Councillor Crawford, please remain seated once you have concluded your representation. Okay, thank you very much. In January 24, Fishtoff Parish Council raised many concerns about this development which we do not consider have as yet been adequately addressed, but I only have three minutes so I will focus on the travel assessment from Lincolnshire Highways that this development will generate only an additional 47 vehicle movements between 8 and 9 on a weekday morning. I trust you've all had the opportunity to review the documentation we provided on this. Fishtoff Village has less than 500 residential properties. It's got one pub, a church and playing fields with a community hall. If you want to leave Fishtoff by public transport, you must wait for the 842 bus to Boston, but be sure you're back on the 1640 unless you want to walk. And in fact if you do walk it's along field lined roads with speeds of up to 60 miles an hour and no pavement to keep you safe. Looking at the data used by highways to assess the additional vehicle movements caused by this development, HALT in Norfolk is the closest in size. It's got a population of just over three and a half thousand. From the development selected for this assessment you can get a bus at 5.30 in the morning that takes you through Halt Town Centre to Cromer and on to Norwich and you don't have to come home until eight in the evening. The next site in size is Ditton in Kent with a population of just hundred five thousand. It's also got a poor bus service but you can safely walk along pavements to the nearest convenience store half a mile away. All the other sites used in the assessment have populations of five thousands and upwards to thirty five thousand. They've got shop, train stations, frequent bus services and one has even got a tram. None can be considered on a scale with Fishtoff Village. The data for this assessment was taken from the trip rate computer system which Lincolnshire Highway supports. It's therefore surprising if no data referring developments in Lincolnshire was available. Boston has a higher percentage of population that drives in their own cars to work than anywhere else in England. So it's also surprising that no data referring to Boston developments was used. The sites selected for the vehicle movement assessment should be relevant to this development but they are not and the figure of 47 cannot be relied upon. Unless and until a proper assessment is provided I urge the committee not to approve this application. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Have we had any members wishing to ask for clarification? No? Please ask, ask. With that, thank you. Could you return to your seat? Thank you very much. Oh, sorry. We've got a late runner. Oh, good. Councillor Woodley. Yes, please do. That's fine. I just want to ask a question. I'm sorry, say again, sorry. Are there any shops and facilities inside Fishtoff or was Fishtoff? No, Fishtoff Village has got a pub, a church, a community hall and the playing field. It's got no shops, it's got no GP surgeries, it's got nothing. It's got nothing. Councillor Rothstein. Hello. Thank you. I didn't want you to feel you weren't wanted to. We'll ask you a few questions. Presumably, the houses are being built because the developer thinks he'll be sold. You think so, wouldn't you? Yes, indeed. I asked a similar question in some new housing where I present, which isn't Fishtoff, fair enough, but it's not close to the centre of Boston. And just politely saying, you know, why, why did you move here? Because when the people said that they, the lady I asked said, oh, I came from Nowamere, Bournemouth or somewhere. Why did you move here? I asked. And the answer was, well, for the price of the housing. And what about working? I said, well, I work from home. So it's not unlikely that the people who buy these houses won't particularly need to be driving all over the place because now there is so many people who do work from home regularly. Well, there have been, of course, but this has changed, hasn't it? If now Lincolnshire County Council is now reform council and they're saying, come back into the office. We're not going to get into that. Yes. Of what somebody might promise and might not promise. No, no. And if it's, I'm not discussing party politics at all. No, I'm just commenting that there could be an answer because you couldn't think why people weren't necessarily going to be driving everywhere. Well, because they don't need to if they work from home. Thank you. Okay. If I could make a comment on that, that's fair enough. But why isn't there any data from Lincolnshire Developments in this? Why haven't they gone and done a... We're here for planning. So those aren't... But I mean, this is why I'm saying it's not relevant. Excuse me. This isn't a to and pro. Throw it back and throw it out. No, no. I appreciate that. We're here to adhere to the planning legislation and to come out with a fair answer when everybody's had their say. Okay. That's what we're here for. Okay. It's not a to and pro. My apologies, but I was just responding to Councillor Austin. No, I think other than just to clarify again, chair and councillors, that again, this application has been supported by appropriate assessments undertaken by the applicant. And again, they have been thoroughly assessed and verified by the Highway Authority, who again, raised no objections. So again, it's based on empirical evidence. It's based on substantive information. If the Highway Authority felt that those assessments were devoid of correct detail or inappropriate in terms of their lack of content, as frequently happens, that would have been flagged up as a concern. But it's not. And I think it's also worth noting that, yes, councillor, you're asking about kind of what shops and services are in Fishtoft, obviously a little bit, but not a huge amount. But in a planning sense, it would be remiss to ignore the fact that Fishtoft is about, and I apologise, not being a local, but it's about a mile from Boston. Maybe a bit more, but we're within a couple of miles of sort of Boston, which to be fair, is a highly sustainable place. Now, whether or not you think people will walk it or not is almost to a degree. By the by, people can cycle. They can use other options. Whether you'd want to or not is a personal choice of matter. But again, at an appeal, an inspector would not ignore the fact that the largest settlement, the most sustainable settlement in the borough is within a couple of miles from this village. So it will be considered to be a more sustainable location in that regard. So there doesn't have to necessarily be everything on the doorstep within a very, very short distance. You have the settlement in which we're stood with all the work opportunities, employment opportunities. So I think we have to just be mindful of its proximity. If this was a very remote settlement, I think I would probably argue that you're quite right in terms of the sort of concerns you're raising, but we cannot ignore its proximity to Boston, the top of our settlement hierarchy. So thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Crawford. Would you return to your seat, please? Oh, right. Now we have a bit of, uh, not sure what is procedural governance. Uh, the three, we, uh, for people in the public audience there, uh, our meetings are limited to three hours. So we have to get permission from the council, the council members to extend it if we want to. So the three hour limit set out in the council's constitution is about to be reached. Please. Can I have permission from members to continue? Yes. Yeah. Yes. Okay. So our final, our final speaker is Helen, Councillor Helen Staples, who has called this application to committing. Councillor Staples, please remain seated once you have concluded your representation. Thank you, Chair. The application before you has received over 80 very valid objections. Fish Doft is not a community averse to development. Over the past years, we have had a high proportion of affordable and social housing built, with more being constructed as I speak. I still can't get my head round why in the South East Links local development plan, this site was listed for 40 properties and by, as if by magic, it can now be brought to 89, which will have an intolerable impact on the existing built development. I feel there is an inaccuracy in this report. Fish Doft Academy is full, contrary to what people believe. There are no places for any more children. I can't quite also get my head round why Wytham 4th IDB and the Fire and Refuse actually did object to this application and I see very little change that would alter their opinions. I also dispute Lincolnshire County Council's highways assessment, clearly a desktop exercise. I've lived in this area for almost 40, 50 years and I've seen the traffic increase dramatically, but Gaysfield Road is still a very small road and at school times has a high proportion of traffic. It's also used heavily by the agricultural fraternity with huge vehicles and equipment. And we have Anglian Waters processing site with tankers, up to 25 tankers daily, set to increase to seven days a week. As my colleague has said, Fish Doft has very poor public transport and you do need a car. The pub is set to close and a church sadly, which has a very small congregation, I don't get the sustainability bit. The roads are badly maintained and dangerous. It's certainly not safe to cycle or walk anywhere from Fish Doft Village. The only thing in the favour is that we have a football team and scouts, but the scouts are set to have their recreational ground disturbed, making, and should this development go ahead, they will have to cross a road if they're using the recreational ground to get back to the hut to go to the toilet. I don't find that acceptable. I find the paragraph on page 86 truly facial, stating that this development would be a natural evolution to the village. Screen from the highway. Well, I don't think it will be screened from the highway because it's going to be higher than the highway. It would be at least a metre higher than the built development. And I've gone out, I've done my homework. This will be dense, it will be overshadowing and it will be overbearing. As a councillor, I desire the best for the community I represent. And at the moment, I don't feel that 89 new homes will bring that. The development poses greater flood risk. The intercept of drainage, I don't also, I'm not convinced that this is going to work. Having read up about this and done some research, it doesn't work in heavy clay soil. And this is heavy clay soil. I'm a farmer, I know. The most damning piece of evidence for me is the photograph provided taken from the east to the west, which shows how high the land is in comparison to the existing development. Study this and the risk of these properties. The health and well-being of residents is just awful. I therefore ask you please to consider refusing this application on the grounds of density, overbearing, overshadowing and the risk of flooding. Thank you. Is any member of the committee, any clarification or requesting clarification from Councillor Staples? Seems you've done an excellent job, Councillor Staples. Councillor Staples Thank you, Chair. Just to cover one one point that was raised just in relation to the primary education is that we've had it... Sorry, Chair, it was just to clarify, I think a comment that was mentioned by the local ward member, just in terms of the education side of things, we have had it confirmed by the educational authority that there is capacity within the primary school. That's from the education authority. The contribution that is sought is towards secondary education provision and the sixth form. And I believe we've also had representations made by the school itself, which again doesn't raise any objections or concerns with the proposal. So the education authority themselves have provided some clarity in that, hence why we do consult with the county council in a myriad of different sort of hats that it that it's sort of worse per se. So to leave the meeting, Nick's done that. So I'll now open the floor for committee members to have their say. If you wish to. Thank you, Chair, just for clarification, is the Scout hut actually staying? And I've seen the plans, the roads going at the side of it. So what land's going to be left for the Scouts? Or is it just going to be the hut? So the Scouts hut will remain. And it's my understanding that the majority of the land, in fact, I think all the land that they presently have, I think it's within those, those conifer trees will not be built on. So that land would also be protected and undeveloped. There would be, obviously, as the local ward member said, there'd be the sort of crossing point across the access road, but that land wouldn't be, wouldn't be built on and wouldn't be developed. It will still be there for their use. Yeah. If nobody else. Oh, Councillor Dorian. I was waiting for others, Chair. Yeah, I'm really quite torn with this one, because there appears to be some similar issues with what's gone before. And I am really, really worried about the flooding. But I hear what my team colleague, Councillor Bedford says earlier, and Nick, about who the experts are. And in terms of planning law, who we have to listen to. I moved earlier the report based on density. However, much as I hate to disagree with my friend, Councillor Staples, I don't feel the density in this report is anywhere near as bad. In fact, I think there's a difference of about 10 houses per hectare. And I think it is in keeping with the the rest of the developments within Fishtoft. So I'm really struggling. It's emotive. It's not nice for the homeowners, some of whom are here, to worry about their premises being flooded. But I can't find in planning law a reason to refuse this application. And we can't just make things up just because it's, you know, it's going to make people feel better. That's how I feel. I have to say I was really disappointed to read the commentary from the Parish Council, Mr Chairman. And on page 81, I was quite horrified actually to read that the Parish Council described this as a probable future sink estate. And that they then comment that the new residents will probably not be particularly affluent. And, you know, a Parish Council is there to serve their whole community, Mr Chairman. So I don't think these types of comments are helpful at all. I don't know if they think they are governing in Monaco, or Monaco, however you want to say it. But it's, but you don't need to earn a certain income to come and live in this borough. We welcome everyone, regardless of their, their wealth or lack of. So I'm not going to, I think I'm not going to stand in the way of this going forward at this stage. Thank you, Councillor Dorian or Councillor Austin. Am I right, Jen, did you say that you are approving this application? Yeah, if someone moves it, yes. Right. Sorry, my brain's gone on holiday, I think. Um, yes, I, I'm happy to second that we, um, um, Councillor Austin, we just need to go back. I'm just about to announce that we're moving towards a vote. And that I'd like somebody to make a, to propose this. The recommendation is, hang a minute, can I, let's get through this. The recommendation is to approve the application in line with office recommendation subject to the conditions and reasons therein. Now we need to vote. So we need a proposer and we need a seconder. If you've already proposed, please confirm that. I'll propose. Yeah, right. Councillor Austin's proposed. Sorry, Councillor. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, well, I mean, I, I think that the, the, the, the, uh, Mr. Scott raises very, very serious questions about the, um, viability of the site. I think flooding is a major issue across the, across the entire area. And, um, I am concerned about whether or not this pond will actually be able to keep this, um, this area dry. However, I mean, I accept the fact that there's not, there's not enough evidence to reject this application, but I still think it's a very serious issue. I, I hope that, um, if there is serious flood flooding, that the experts who are much better appointed than I am, will actually take the rat when it goes wrong. You see, it's easy to make comments about, well, if it looks safe and so on, and I, I approve this. But if this does turn out to be, the quagmire, I sincerely hope the people who have advised us accordingly standing up and get excellent, sorry, canned up and get the rat. What they deserve. Yes, you put it brilliantly. So we have a proposer. Do we have a seconder? Nobody willing to second it? Thank you, Councillor Evans. So now we move to a vote. Uh, those for the, uh, to approve the application. Those against? Four, five, six. One. One. And that means that fails. Is that correct? It's not approved. Is that it? Right. We need reasons for a refusal. Somebody needs to propose and. Yeah. Can you please tell us why you're refusing? It was five, four, six against and one abstention. Thank you chair. I think looking at the density. The dramatic increase in properties from the South and East Linkshire local plan to what they have proposed is not justified in my view. Um, there's no justification for that massive increase in properties. Do you want to answer that? If I may, I. I would strongly advise that you don't just consider this in terms of the allocation. You cannot ignore the extent planning permission that sits alongside us. This is a very, very minor increase from the two of those combined. Um, and if you would, if you were to refuse it on that premise, I would strongly suggest you would find that a very difficult position to defend an appeal. I accept the allocation. This is more than that, but, but there is more to the planning history than just the allocation for this site, and that is an alive and extant permission that could in theory be implemented. So I would strongly urge you to, if you still consider the two combined and you think the density is too much, but we would have to demonstrate the harm. Otherwise you will find that a very, very challenging position to defend. that. Thank you, Chair. So have you considered your position? I still believe density is an argument, but if other councillors feel that there are other parts of the self. What do you think fuel? You're suggesting it. You're the one exposing us to costs or whatever. I'm using my right as a councillor on this committee. Well, what is it? What are you saying then? I would welcome opinions from other councillors who also voted for refusal as well, but my suggestion would be density. That's the end of it, is it for you? Yeah, that's your reasoning. That's the reason I voted against Chair. Well, have we got any other reasons then? Just trying to help councillor Cantwell. Because I've used that argument myself councillor Cantwell, the reason I didn't feel I could use it here is because the report author says the density is the same, very similar to that in other areas of fish-toff that I think it's just about 20 houses per hectare, whereas the previous application was 30 houses. I get what Nick's saying. I think what perhaps the committee overlooked is that there are two extant planning applications on that site for over 60 properties, which is why your density arguments kind of conflated a little bit, I think, with that. I get what you said in the local plan that was 40, but this committee at some point along the line allowed that to increase to, I think, is it 67 or something? I can't remember the exact number. And so this stretch again, what he's saying isn't significant enough. I'm just trying to help you understand what he's saying. I would refer to the evidence supplied by Mr. Scott, isn't it? About on page 10. The developers' rainwater volume calculations are only for the hard surfaces. It points out the northwest French terrain is excluded. Rain falling on Saturday gardens and swell is excluded. Rain falling on a tenduation pond is also excluded, yeah? And other evidence here that, in fact, actually, the Environment Agency rainfall guidelines alone are inadequate for the ground topology of this local area. Yeah. So I think there's a serious issue of flood risk here. I personally wouldn't want to buy a property here on that basis if I knew this evidence in front of me about them. Well, that isn't evidence, is it? It's just... Well, you want an opinion. You want an opinion. You know, you could have had my opinion. But anyway, there's a gentleman here who's much more qualified than I am. I know. I'll explain the ins and outs. I know. I would just caveat so that you're basing that referral on the documentation provided by one of the speakers. Yeah. Who, I think we had a confirmation that doesn't know the area, is not from the area, and half the information was based on photographs to ourselves. Now you're doing that, you're putting stronger weight in that than the assessments that the applicant has undertaken themselves and two statutory authorities and two statutory hydrology bodies have themselves considered and themselves said is okay. You're entitled to do that. It's your determination. But I would strongly, strongly urge you to think very, very carefully about the ramifications at the appeal of making that decision. Fine. Okay, I'll accept your advice. I'm somebody who themselves said was not a hydrologist versus two statutory bodies where that is the primary function that they exist on. I'll accept your professional guidance. Thank you. So do we ask for a re-vote or? Yes. I'll be able to propose a re-vote. Yeah. And I'll do that on the basis that we're obviously in a very difficult situation. Yeah. So I'll propose that we have a re-vote and I'll look for a seconder. Well, no, well, to have another, to put the recommendation. Yes. We've got a seconder. Okay. Right. So I ask again then. We now move towards a vote. And the recommendation is to approve the application in line with the office. Recommend the officer's recommendation subject to the conditions and reasons therein. All those in favour. All those in favour. Against. One. One. No. Somebody's not voted. Did you vote? I haven't done it, did you? Shall we rerun it then? All those in favour. Three, four, five, six. All those against. All those against. One, two, three. Abstentions. So that is now. Four, four, re-vote. But we just re-vote. Have we proposed? He proposed. Then I said, then I read out the approval against. I'll be there. I'd ask you to, I've asked you. I'll ask you to be very quiet please. And act properly. In a proper manner. And this isn't your, this isn't your committee meeting. I'd ask you to act properly and with respect. No, we've voted to have another vote, haven't we? Yeah. We've voted to have another vote. Yeah. So we haven't decided anything yet, have we? You've voted to have another vote. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I wonder whether we had a vote to have a vote. Don't get it too complicated, please. and that's a kind of a good question. This meeting is now closed.