Brant Broughton and Stragglethorpe Parish Council Minutes

8th January 2015

15/1 Membership: Cllrs C Thornton, K Helliwell, P Dunning, I Neil, R Hollingworth, G Jacques, J Sheppard

15/2 Present: 17 members of the public, Janet Guest Parish Clerk

15/3 Public time: the public were given the opportunity to discuss the 2 planning applications on the agenda which incorporated the majority of the comments agreed in min no. 15/6

15/4 Apologies: NKDC District Cllrs Woodman MBE and Howe

15/5 Declaration of interest: Cllr Neil who did not take part in the debate around the planning applications.

15/6 Planning matters

a)  14/1599/OUT Outline planning application for erection of 10 no dwellings with 8 no detached ancillary garages and formation of access(all matters reserved) Land adjacent to 106a Long Barn House, High Street, Brant Broughton LN5 0SA

b)  14/1600/FUL Demolition of bungalow and garden wall, 108 High Street, Brant Broughton Lincoln LN5 0SA

The comments to be returned to NKDC on the above applications are

Whilst the Parish welcomes new build properties overall it feels that this development cannot be supported by the Parish Council for the following reasons

1)  Non-compliance with the saved North Kesteven Local Plan concerns around

a)  Building outside the curtilage

b)  Adversely affecting the character and appearance of the area

c)  It will increase the pressure for similar development that would collectively cause adverse effects

d)  Is not in keeping with the provisions of the locational strategy

e)  Loss of privacy to houses surrounding it and across the road from it

f)  Noise pollution from traffic

g)  Light pollution from street and residential lighting

h)  Visual impact of the development upon the open countryside views (all)

i)  Blocked Eastern sunlight for an hour every morning.

2)  Noncompliance with the Preliminary Draft Local Plan October 2014

a)  In this village it states building will be of a very limited nature and this is not

b)  Proposals for 3 dwellings/0.1ha are anticipated to be the maximum acceptable for these settlements, often it will be limited to single dwelling infill sites situated within an otherwise built-up frontage.

c)  Proposals on the edges of these settlements are unlikely to be approved

d)  It will not protect or enhance the character of the countryside

e)  It will attract a large number of car journeys as the opportunity to travel by bus is very limited (2 a day) and you are not able to walk to shops and cycling will be a challenge.

f)  Housing density is 2.3 times greater than the surrounding developments

3)  Unacceptable overdevelopment of the site in relation to the surrounding area

4)  Poor surface water drainage from this area and the risk of future flooding, this area is known for its high water table and standing water

5)  It is not in character with the village nor does it support the linear design of the village which has been acknowledged by NKDC to be a particular feature of this village.

6)  The adjoining paddock called “The Paddock” is a registered agricultural holding with grazing animals and free range chickens. No mention of this is included in the statement as there will be a need for strong pet-proof fencing on the boundary.

7)  Access to paddock will be via a small roadway. There is no mention of if it will be a private drive or if the plan is to construct it to highways adoptable standard 5.5 – 4.8m wide. If not built to that standard our understanding is the limit on the any access is 5 dwelling and there are 4 served already by the existing access. Also a small access may not allow emergency vehicles to access the site.

8)  4.1 of the statement refers to contribution of housing stock in Brant Broughton but that does not seem to be an issue in reality if house sales in the Parish are an indication.

9)  In the new Strategic Planning document it outlines increasing houses in a 3rd tier village and in the case of Brant Broughton that is 21 houses up to 2030. This development is 50% of that allowance which is unacceptable.

10) With the affordable housing project as well this could bring 88+ addition people in to the village in a very short space of time putting additional pressure on all services.

11) There are any amount of factual inaccuracies in addition to the above as outlined below

a)  Newark is not 6 miles away it is 9 miles

b)  There is a water course running at the back of the paddock which is always full in the winter.

c)  It states there are no close neighbours but the entrance is within 9 feet of The White Grange back door plus other properties on East Road and High Street

d)  They seem to have left out a flat which is located in the Barn just inside the wall that is due to be demolished. This increases the total number of dwellings the existing and proposed development serves by 1.

12) Mentioned affordable housing but with lack of details as to what the rent will be etc. The Parish Council is already working with NKDC on providing affordable housing in the Parish and the owner has not contacted the Parish Council with this additional proposal. It may conflict with existing plans.

13) The demolition of the bungalow 108 will mean the loss of an economical rented property to the village. (It was shown as being occupied in the latest 2014-2015 Register of Electors)

14) There is a serious issue with the curtilage line in the Local Plan 2007 around the northern paddock. Prior to this the curtilage followed the line of the garden boundary of the bungalow as per the map of the old and new curtilage lines on page 16 of the Local Plan.

The Report on the Objections to the Local Plan is “13.10 Objections to Inset Map 12 – Brant Broughton” on pages 11 -12 of the Local Plan. The inspector found that “I consider the boundary drawn around White Grange Bungalow to be correct.” This is the dotted pre-2007 curtilage line around the bungalow.

The new curtilage line around the Northern paddock has clearly been adopted but there is no documentation to support this change or explain how the change came about which goes against the inspectors findings.

Therefore the Parish Councils conclusion is that the Local Plan 2007 map is incorrect and we would appreciate NKDC’s comments on this issue.

Details regarding some of the above issues

1 Non Compliance with North Kesteven Local plan.

Policy C1 Development within Curtlidges

The DAS claims that the site area is 0.988 hectares but the new development is only 0.9 hectares as the existing already developed driveway to house number 108 (the bungalow) is 0.88 hectares. The locational plan shows the area inside the curtlidge to be 0.45 hectares and that in open countryside to be 0.45 hectares i.e. 50% of this development.

1.  Will not adversely affect the character or appearance of the area.

This is a housing development to be built within the grounds of a large country house with the proposed entrance to be gained through the former farmyard adjacent to 19th century farm buildings. The farmyard has a public footpath running through it which opens out into open countryside once clear of the house. It is here that houses are to be built. This is a valuable open space enjoyed by residents walking the public footpath through the land. No matter how sensitively designed this development is it cannot do anything other than adversely affect the character of open countryside to the detriment of all those who enjoy this public right of way. It is harmful to the open, rural and undeveloped character of the area.

2.  Will not increase the pressure for similar development that would collectively cause adverse effects

Brant Broughton is a small village surrounded by open countryside. The village perimeter has potential for development but this is particularly true on the East side of the village where there are at least ten other similar “paddocks” with the potential for access from the High Street through farmyards or existing driveways. This development would open the floodgates for similar developments once the precedent has been set.

3.  Are in keeping with the provisions of the locational strategy.

The Locational Strategy in the adopted Local Plan establishes a hierarchy of settlements designed to direct development to the most sustainable locations. Third Tier villages such as Brant Broughton are the third choice location for development in light of their limited employment, shops and facilities. They are not considered suitable locations for housing development. Only small scale infill development of up to 3 houses will be allowed on plots in otherwise built-up frontages and on previously developed land of which this proposal is neither.

The proposal is fundamentally in conflict with the Locational Strategy in that it is in a backland location and does not constitute an infill frontage site. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy C1 of the adopted North Kesteven Local Plan 2007.

Policy C2 Development in the Countryside

“Will maintain or enhance the environmental, economic and social value of the countryside”

Walkers taking the public footpath that currently bisects the proposed development site enjoy the transition from built environment to open countryside as they enter the “paddock” area. It is impossible to differentiate between land within the curtlidge and that defined as open countryside. There is another public footpath along the eastern boundary of this development site from which walkers also enjoy the views across this open countryside. It is ridiculous to assert that this development will maintain or enhance the environmental, economic and social value of the countryside that for anyone taking these public footpaths just as it is ridiculous to assert that it will do the same for the local residents

“Will protect and, where possible, enhance the character of the countryside”

The screening effect of a 1.8 metre hedge around this development will do little to hide nine metre high houses from view. They will be seen from a distance and will have significant impact upon the countryside setting.

“Will not attract or generate a large number of journeys, and is located to provide opportunities for access by public transport, walking or cycling.”

Brant Broughton has few shops, employment or leisure facilities and no secondary education. Most village residents travel to the local towns and cities for these (except secondary education at Welbourne). Grantham is fourteen miles from the proposed development, Sleaford and Lincoln twelve miles and Newark nine miles (not six as stated on the DAS). Lincoln is the main economic centre of the area and so could expected to be the main destination for many services.

Brant Broughton has a scheduled bus service to Lincoln that has one inbound service in the morning and one outbound in the early evening both of which take in excess of an hour to cover twelve miles. The bus services to the other towns are also poor. The bus service to Newark is equally as poor as the one to Lincoln and there are no bus services to either Grantham or Sleaford.

It is extremely unlikely that future occupants will walk or cycle these distances and so will be almost entirely car dependent. The development will therefore generate a large number of car journeys of at least 18 miles, the distance of the round trip to Newark.

Policy C5 - Effects upon amenities

“Planning permission will be granted for proposals, provided that they will not adversely affect the amenities enjoyed by other land users to an unacceptable degree.”

The proposed development will considerably affect the amenities enjoyed by the residents of Numbers 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 116a, 118, 120 and 122 High Street all of which will suffer some degree of degradation in residential amenity by this proposed development through

·  Overlooking (106, 112, 114, 116, 116a, 118, 120, 122 and all the houses in East Avenue)

·  Loss of privacy (106, 112, 114, 116, 116a, 118, 120, 122 and all the houses in East Avenue)

·  Noise pollution from traffic (all)

·  Light pollution from street and residential lighting (all)

·  Visual impact of the development upon the open countryside views (all)

·  Blocked Eastern sunlight for an hour every morning.

Policy C18, Design and H2,

The DAS states “The indicative layout of the proposed scheme accords with the predominantly informal linear pattern of development that characterises High Street and, indeed, the wider settlement”

“The proposed development is considered to create a clear spatial structure that successfully complements the existing surrounding informal linear pattern of development.”

I disagree. The development plan looks like a typical modern cul-de-sac and is totally out of place in this historic conservation village.

2 Non compliance with Preliminary Draft Local Plan October 2014 - Growing Central Lincolnshire

3.1 Introduction: A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Small Villages (Brant Broughton is listed)