Pond reduction and garden works at Westlands, 33 Main Street, Horkstow

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission for a smaller pond, gabion wall, fencing, raised garden levels and associated landscaping.

“The site is within flood zone 1 and is not within a conservation area. • The grade II listed Horkstow House lies just over 15 metres to the north of the site boundary. ASSESSMENT Proposal The application seeks retrospective planning permission to reduce the size of the existing pond, erect a gabion retaining wall, raise the adjoining garden levels and carry out associated landscaping.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The conservation officer and flood authority raised no objection, while the ecologist preferred retaining the pond; all 23 public comments opposed the proposal.

“North Lincolnshire Core Strategy: CS2 Delivering more sustainable development CS3 Development limits CS5 Delivering quality design in North Lincolnshire CS6 Historic environment CS17 Biodiversity CS19 Flood risk Housing and Employment Land Allocations Development Plan Document: PS1 Presumption in favour of sustainable development CONSULTATIONS HER Conservation: The conservation officer notes that the pond historically formed part of the…”

“The remaining pond would retain significant attenuation capacity, and there are no recorded flooding issues in the area. The reduction is therefore unlikely to have a significant drainage or flood-risk impact. Ecology: The council’s ecologist advises that the fish-stocked pond has negligible potential to support great crested newts and does not meet the criteria for priority habitat.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector raised concerns about the pond, wildlife, previous protection and bats, while the applicant explained the safety and management reasons for the changes.

Members’ views

Two councillors considered the proposal acceptable or had no objections, noting that the works concerned a private residential property rather than a community asset.

“The applicant also addressed the committee and explained why the members were being asked to consider a retrospective planning application. The proposed changes to the pond were to ensure the garden was safe for the applicants’ children to enjoy and to make it a manageable feature. The pond was not a community and/or village asset but a feature of a private residential property.”

“Councillor C Ross acknowledged that the post was situated within the boundary of a residential property and was not a community asset. In her opinion the planning application was acceptable.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to grant permission in accordance with the officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded and carried.

“It was then moved by Councillor C Ross and seconded by Councillor C Patterson –”

“That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the Planning Officer’s report.”

Minutes