9 bungalows at 3 Drummond Road, Bourne

What was proposed

The application proposed nine two- and three-bedroom bungalows, access from Drummond Road, landscaping and parking, requiring demolition of the existing property.

“The scheme is for the construction of nine residential properties. Access to the site would be from Drummond Road requiring the demolition of 3, Drummond Road. The dwellings would be a mix of two and three bedroom bungalows of differing designs utilising red brick, slate coloured roof tiles, white window frames and black doors.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a 0.62-hectare open grassed area in a residential part of Bourne, surrounded by homes and with a drainage ditch along its western boundary.

“The site is located to the south of Bourne town centre and is currently an open grassed area, surrounded by residential properties on all sides.”

“There is an existing drainage ditch that runs along the western boundary of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier outline application for five homes was refused in 2004 because of noise, disturbance, land-use and access-visibility concerns.

“March 2004. (Access was facilitated by the demolition of 24, Austerby). The reasons for refusal related to noise and disturbance to the occupiers 22b and 26 Austerby due to the proximity of the access. Additionally, the proposal was considered to not represent the best use of urban land. A further reason for refusal related to the substandard visibility from the proposed access.”

Officer report

Officers advised approval

Officers considered the development acceptable and recommended permission subject to conditions, finding no unacceptable harm from its principle, design, amenity, highways or drainage arrangements.

“As of March 2025, South Kesteven Council are presently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and as a result, the policies most important for determining the application are deemed to be out-of-date by virtue of footnote 8 and Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“The proposed development is considered acceptable having regard to the NPPF and the Local Plan, in particular Local Plan Policies SD1, SP1, SP2, SP3, SB1, EN4, EN5, EN6, DE1, ID2 and NPPF Sections 2, 4, 5, 12, 14 and 15 and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise, as such the proposal is therefore recommended to be approved, subject to conditions.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Environmental Protection Services raised no objection subject to conditions, highways found no highway objection, while the flood authority expressed very strong concerns about flood risk.

“LCC highways and SuDs 5.4 Final Comments – No objection on Highway grounds: The Highway Authority are requesting that a crossing point be installed at the junction of South Road and Drummond Road in order to allow safe passage for pedestrians to access local facilities.”

“Some of the key concerns, but not limited to, are listed below, for the Local Planning Authority to take into account when reviewing this application; Lincolnshire County Councils Flood Risk Team have been involved with standing water / flooding to neighbouring gardens of the site, which has been very close to the properties, it is also noted that the site often has standing water. S19 flooding investigations have taken place.”

Officer report

What residents said

Residents raised concerns about flooding, drainage capacity, traffic, access safety, construction disturbance, noise, boundaries, biodiversity, parking and loss of green space.

“The junction is in close proximity to a cemetery, bus stop and two schools it is an accident waiting to happen • Upkeep of the dyke/stream to the rear of the properties is difficult • Will affect house prices (not a material planning consideration) • There is a spring on the site which adds to flooding problems • Noise and disturbance from construction will impact enjoyment of our garden • Drummond Road is used as a cut through to avoid the town centre • Impact on wildlife…”

“Loss of habitat • Incorrect site boundaries impacts the various calculation for flood risk and biodiversity • Noise report calculated for average paving, not block paving • BNG assessment is incorrect – trees that are marked as present have already been removed • Headlights would shine into neighbouring properties • Overlooking and loss of privacy from the dwellings • Loss of light and overshadowing from the development • Proposed planting would damage existing pipes •…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Public speakers spoke against the proposal, while the agent described drainage measures, ditch maintenance arrangements and safeguards against increasing flood risk.

Members debated flooding

Members remained concerned about flood risk, drainage conditions, permeable road ownership, noise and whether all proposed conditions could be fulfilled.

“That the local flood authority had very strong concerns on flood risk as a result of the development. • Members had serious concerns around the flood issues and felt they should be addressed prior to any development being approved.”

“The Committee were concerned around all the conditions being met and fulfilled. • Concern was raised around SuDS comments and the permeable road ownership. • Further concern was raised on noise and vibrations.”

Minutes

The committee refused permission

The committee agreed to refuse permission because the development could increase flooding risk to neighbouring land and properties, and conditions could not satisfactorily address that risk.

“It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to REFUSE planning permission, for the following reason:”

“The proposed development is at an unacceptable risk of increasing the risk of flooding for neighbouring land and properties, which cannot be satisfactorily addressed through imposition of planning conditions requiring the submission of a detailed drainage strategy, contrary to Policy EN5 of the adopted Local Plan and Section 14 of the Framework.”

Minutes