One dwelling at Land At The Chantry, Jubilee Road, North Somercotes

What was proposed

The application sought permission for one two-storey dwelling in a backland garden position, using the existing access from Jubilee Road.

“The proposal includes the erection of a dwelling positioned in a backland location, within the centre of the existing garden space for The Chantry. The existing access off Jubilee Road would be utilised with an internal driveway included which would have a gravelled surface.”

“The details show the proposed dwelling would be two storey and of a modern design incorporating a pitched roof with vaulted ceilings, large glazing panels, a recessed balcony on the first floor rear elevation and a recessed entrance on the front, eastern elevation. The roof slope projects beyond the external wall at the gable ends creating an overhang at the eaves.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a landscaped garden on the western edge of the village, within Flood Zone 3, the Coastal Zone and several coastal hazard zones.

“The application site is located on the western edge of North Somercotes and lies within Flood Zone 3 (High Risk). It also falls within the Coastal Zone and is affected by several coastal hazard zones, including 'Danger for Some', 'Danger for Most', and 'Danger for All'. The proposed dwelling would be situated within the 'Danger for Most' designation.”

“The site is well landscaped. A dense belt of trees and hedging defines the western boundary, providing strong screening. To the east, the site fronts Jubilee Road, beyond which are detached bungalows. The access is flanked by hedgerows and a number of mature trees on both sides.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal failed coastal housing and flood-risk requirements, and its benefits did not outweigh the risks.

“It is acknowledged that East Lindsey District Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The proposal would contribute one additional market dwelling to the District's housing stock and, accordingly, this benefit attracts weight in favour of the development. The Council's housing land supply shortfall is a significant material consideration in the planning balance.”

“The failure to satisfy the Exception Test weighs heavily in the planning balance, as it has not been adequately demonstrated that the development would be safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council supported the proposal and highways raised no objection, but the Environment Agency objected because the flood assessment did not adequately assess breach risks.

“ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - The site lies behind Unit N of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP). Whilst the funding for the improvement of the sea defence's effects Project O directly, the coastal floodplain works as one large flood cell meaning that water entering the floodplain in one location has the ability to travel significant distances, therefore whilst a development may sit behind a different SMP policy unit it can still be impacted from floodwater that enters the…”

“It is therefore appropriate to consider that the development is likely to be reliant on the defences in Unit O so the Flood Risk Assessment should assess the impact of the risk. Whilst there is land drainage infrastructure and fluvial defences on the floodplain the FRA needs to assess how significant volumes of floodwater could overwhelm these features. The submitted FRA does not adequately assess the risk and therefore we object to the development.”

Officer report

Support from neighbours

Twenty representations supported the dwelling, citing local connections, design, housing need, employment, access and flood-risk measures.

“Applicants have been involved with village organisations including playing fields and meals on wheels Design takes into account flood risk with the ramped access Development would provide a degree of employment to local tradesmen Dwelling is set back from the road with access remaining as existing which is satisfactory More housing is necessary in East Lindsey and therefore sustainable infill developments of this nature should be supported Need for more bespoke properties…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and agent spoke in support, and Councillor Daniel McNally spoke as ward member.

Members considered the issues

Members discussed the corrected coastal project mapping, the continuing Environment Agency objection, the applicant’s circumstances, planning policy and flood risk.

“- A further question was raised regarding whether the corrected classification would now allow the development to satisfy planning policy requirements. The Interim Development Manager – Planning advised that despite the correction, the Environment Agency's overall objection remained unchanged.”

“- Several Members considered that as the application had only been deferred for clarification of the Environment Agency's mapping position, the Committee should focus on that point rather than treat the matter as a wholly new planning assessment. The Interim Development Manager – Planning responded that while the mapping error had been corrected, the Environment Agency's substantive conclusion and objection had not changed.”

Minutes

The vote

The proposal to refuse the application in line with the officer recommendation was carried by four votes to two, with three abstentions.

“Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for refusal in line with officer recommendation was carried.”

Minutes