Five low-energy homes at Ash Tree Farm, Nettleham, Lincoln

What was proposed

The proposal would demolish an agricultural building and replace it with five purpose-built, low-energy homes arranged around a shared courtyard.

“The current proposal sought to demolish the existing agricultural building and replace it with five purpose-built, low-energy homes. [name withheld] emphasised that the new scheme would deliver improved design, enhanced sustainability, and a more appropriate relationship with the rural surroundings. These improvements were considered to align with the core aims of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.”

“The proposed layout was reported as being carefully developed to reflect the traditional pattern of farmyard clusters, as illustrated in the submitted plans. The five dwellings would be arranged around a shared courtyard, which would help to reduce the scale and form of the development in comparison to the existing barn.”

Minutes

The site and fallback

The site contained a modern agricultural shed with prior approval for five dwellings, which could be implemented at any time.

“It was explained that the site at Ash Tree Farm currently contained a large, modern agricultural shed. This building already benefited from prior approval under Class Q legislation for conversion into five dwellings, and that approval could be implemented at any time. However, [name withheld] stated that such a conversion would result in residential units that were constrained in layout, visually harsh in appearance, and inefficient in terms of energy performance.”

Minutes

What officers recommended

Officers considered the fallback position and improved thermal efficiency to outweigh the harm from the policy conflict and recommended permission.

“147245) afforded by Schedule 2 Part 3 Class Q of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). Having regard for Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314, it is considered that there is a ‘real prospect’ of a fallback position afforded by Class Q which is equal to, if not marginally more harmful than the scheme that is being proposed as part of this application.”

“It is acknowledged that this is a finely balanced decision, but in the absence of other reasons for refusal, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable on its merits and it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Concerns about the proposal

Concerns included the narrow access road, traffic speeds and volumes, further development, maintenance, and the site being outside the identified village area.

“Concerns were raised regarding highway safety. The site was accessed via a narrow single- track road from Sudbrooke, subject to a 60mph speed limit. The Parish Council had highlighted issues relating to traffic speed and volume, particularly from vehicles avoiding congestion on the A158. The road passed the entrance to Larch Avenue, which now served as the exit point for two new estates comprising over 100 properties, before reaching the…”

“It was further noted that the provisions of Part 3 Class Q had been extended to allow up to ten properties since May 2025. It was suggested that the proposed development could act as a gateway to further development on the eastern side of the village.”

Minutes

Who spoke

A councillor raised local concerns, while the agent and architect spoke for the applicant in support of the proposal.

What members discussed

Members discussed carbon emissions, energy efficiency, traffic, highway assessments, maintenance, landscaping, the parish council’s views and the development’s wider precedent.

“A Committee Member stated that the application had been presented in a clear and concise manner and had not been difficult to understand. Reference was made to Policies S6 and S7, and it was noted that their application had been appropriately considered. They expressed the view that demolishing and rebuilding a structure would result in increased carbon emissions and therefore did not consider this to be a material planning consideration.”

“Two further points were raise by a Member of the Committee. Firstly, concern was expressed regarding the long-term maintenance of the area, particularly if it was not adopted by Highways. It was queried how the site would be maintained following any future sale, including the treatment and upkeep of landscaping. Secondly, it was noted that while the views of Highways were considered, the Parish Council also held statutory status.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee seconded and voted on accepting the officers’ recommendation, granting permission subject to conditions covering biodiversity, drainage, energy and other matters.

“The proposal to accept the Officers recommendations was duly seconded and voted upon. It was therefore agreed that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:”

“With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: • J20001-PL-00 P01 dated 23/7/25 • J20001-PL-01 P02 dated 23/07/25 • J2000a-PL-02 P04 dated 19/9/25 • J2000a-PL-03 P01 dated 23/7/25 • J2000a-PL-10 P01 dated 01/11/24 • J2000a-PL-11 P01 dated 01/11/24 • J2000a-PL-12 P02 Dated 19/9/25 • J2000a-PL-13 P01 dated 01/11/24 • J20001-PL-20 P02…”

Minutes