Fishing holiday lodge at Bull Rush Lakes, Tetney Road, Humberston

What was proposed

The application sought a fishing holiday lodge with drainage and associated works on an established commercial fishing pond site.

“PROPOSAL: Erection of a fishing holiday lodge on an established commercial fishing pond site with drainage and associated works…”

“The proposal is for the erection of a fishing holiday lodge on an established commercial fishing pond site with drainage and associated works.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site is an open countryside fishing pond in flood zone 3, with earlier permissions and a previous refusal for a fishing holiday lodge.

“DM/0077/25/FUL - Erection of a fishing holiday lodge on an established commercial fishing pond site - Refused.”

Officer report

Other views received

No neighbours objected; the ward councillor said earlier Environment Agency reservations had largely been addressed.

“Councillor Shreeves - Previous application was considered and determined by planning committee. Previous reservations from the Environment Agency have been largely addressed.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent, applicant and ward councillor spoke in support, describing the reduced lodge, flood mitigation, business expansion and community benefits.

Members discussed flood risk

Members debated whether the Sequential Test should be applied broadly, whether the site could be made safe, and whether local economic benefits justified approval.

“[name withheld] responded that what was proposed was a good scheme and the applicant had responded to the issues raised from previous decisions. She said that the difficulty with the Sequential Test was that it was a basic technical assessment that asked whether the development could be put in an area of lower risk. [name withheld] stated that the Sequential Test was not subjective, but was factual.”

“Councillor Kaczmarek said that the main conversation about the application was whether the Planning Committee followed policy 33 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework. He said that he didn’t think it was appropriate to say we should forget about the Sequential Test as it was important to consider the test and debate it.”

Minutes

Why members approved it

Members treated the proposal as site-specific, considered the lodge could be made safe, and identified wider rural economic benefits and mitigation.

“[name withheld] said that there would need to be a justified reason. She said that based on committee members comments she had heard from them that in terms of the Sequential Test, members thought that it should be…”

“NO RESTRICTIONS narrowed to the specific site as if the lodge was to be located elsewhere, the regeneration benefits wouldn’t be achieved and you also wouldn’t have a fishing lodge for the fishing lakes anywhere else so the sequential argument was passed. [name withheld] said that some comments had also been made that the Environment Agency had outlined that the site could be made safe with conditions such as an occupancy condition.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee approved the application with conditions by seven votes to three, with one abstention.

“RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.”

“(Note - the committee voted 7 for 3 against with 1 abstention for the application to be approved with conditions.)”

Minutes