Download 2 January 2014

Planning Committee - 2/1/2014.
Present : Cllrs Cucksey, Lundgren, Price, Ross and Mrs Stead.
Item 1
a) Apologies for absence.
Cllr Wood had sent his apologies.
b) Declarations of interest.
There were no declarations.
Item 2
To consider the appeal re Springfield House (ref 13/0871)
There was no additional evidence to put forward. The clerk was asked to confirm that the Council’s opinion
had not changed and draw attention to the earlier comments put forward by local residents.
Item 3
Single storey extension & alterations
East View, Chapel Lane - Ref 13/1401
East View is a dominant feature in the street scene in a sensitive part of the village. My Council considers
that the latest proposals are out of keeping with the original cottage and the earlier extension. They have
particular concerns about the use of roof lights and would like to see an alternative proposal.
Item 4
Demolition of commercial greenhouse and replacement steel framed barn.
Claremont, The Moors
Ref 13/1425
My Council has no objections to the proposal but requests that a condition is placed to only allow its use in
conjunction with the house and not to develop a business.
Item 5
Development of 198 homes
The Strawberry Fields - Ref 13/1388
Concerns about the planning application for 198 dwelling on the Strawberry Fields.
1. The density proposed is low and has the potential to take double that amount to be in line with other
developments. Keeping the proposed number below 200 is considered tactical.
2. The potential 20% increase in the population of Branston will have an effect on the whole
community.
3. The current infrastructure will not cope – the doctors are already over-subscribed and the schools
could not take a large increase without investment.
4. 198 new dwellings would generate approx 1000 vehicle movements per day onto a red route which
already has in excess of 12,000 vehicles per day.
5. At a rate of 50 dwellings per year the effects will quickly be felt.
6. The site is shared with a ‘principal’ aquifer. The trial boreholes did not find water but were only
drilled to 2.5m. When boreholes were drilled in the cemetery it was to a depth of 10-11m before
reaching water.
7. Although surface water may not be considered to be a pollutant it was suggested that 200 properties
could have the same potential as agricultural land. The aquifer was previously contaminated by
nitrogen and farmers were paid not to use nitrogen-based products. Enquiries are being made to
confirm whether 200 houses could create a nitrogen risk.
8. The application promotes soakaways. There is concern that the porous limestone will readily absorb
any pollutants.
9. The plan to use SUDs is an important consideration. It has been sited at the lowest point of the site
but the position is not guaranteed. If it was overwhelmed the excess water would have nowhere to
go apart from Oaklands and could duplicate the problems experienced in Shardloes.
10. The Screening Opinion produced by NKDC in July suggests that the land does not have agricultural
use. Only a small area is currently used as hardstanding. The document also dismisses the need for
an Environmental Impact Assessment – Considering the location of a major aquifer that is essential
and the comments made by the planning officer are flawed.
11. The proposal suggests that only 10 properties will be accessed from Mere Road but there are no
guarantees. A through route would create a rat run to avoid the traffic lights.
12. The scale of the proposals and the inclusion of 2.5 storey properties would be out of keeping with
the village scene. Combined with the Oakland and Villa Close developments, the cumulative effects
would create urbanisation within the village. This is against the aspirations of the Parish Plan.
Evidence of the effect of urban design on a village can be seen at North Hykeham.
13. The site reserved for a community facility needs clarification. No discussion has been held with the
Parish about how it could be used, what is needed, any restrictions and who would own the plot.
Other business:
Cllr Lundgren suggested that a formal complaint be made to the Head of Planning at NKDC about the lack
of availability of the online planning portal to the public. Comment was also made on the late posting of the
site notices around 20th December – four weeks after validation.
The meeting closed at 12.30pm.