Recent Planning Comments

Glentworth Parish Council wishes to OBJECT to the application for retrospective planning consent and request that the LPA defer a decision until further investigations are undertaken in relation to underground services, flood risk as well as an assessment of the damage already done contrary to the recommendations of the Ecological Report.

The Local Planning Authority (LPA) has received a number of detailed and comprehensive submissions from residents in the immediate area of the development, including extensive photographic evidence of the issues relating to the development site.  The Parish Council has seen those submissions and fully supports the case presented by the residents, who we would remind you, have been very adversely affected by the actions of the applicant and his contractor to date.  Furthermore, we commend the diligence that the residents have shown in preparing their submissions.

In support of those comments the Parish Council wishes to make several comments that we believe need to be considered in determining whether the retrospective application should be considered at this stage or be allowed.  Some of these draw on the submissions from the residents.  We have also appended a copy of the comments that were sent on behalf of the Parish Council to the Planning Enforcement Officer at the time of their investigation into breaches of the original consent, as these provide useful context.

Whilst the Parish Council recognises that this application is not a revisiting of the original planning consent, it is important we believe to remind the LPA of concerns that were made at the time regarding the scale of the proposed development to the size of the development site.  This is relevant because we believe that what has happened during this first phase of development, the damage done to the rising main, the disruption for residents and the subsequent retrospective application are all a direct result and confirmation of the original site being too small to accommodate the proposed dwelling.

It is important to stress at this point, as many of the residents have stated in their submissions, that the plans submitted with this application are not accurate and thus the LPA cannot base its decision on those plans.  None of the plans submitted show the watercourse itself, which we would regard as a serious shortcoming alone, but as photographs submitted in resident responses show, the building has been pegged out on land that was formerly part of the watercourse.  Other than that, the plans submitted with this application are exactly the same as those presented with the original application, as evidenced in Ms Pickering Patterson’s submission, and reproduced below:

All the developer has done is add the line of gabions, but the plan suggests that the watercourse is as it was originally, which is inaccurate.  The submitted plan with this application does not reflect the changes made by the developer and cannot, therefore, be used as a basis for a decision.

It is essential that the LPA recognise that the developer has altered the size and shape of his development site and to do so he has changed the line of a watercourse that is a part of the surface water drainage system in the village, potentially encroaching on land not in their ownership and damaging trees that were specifically identified in the Ecological Report as needing to be left untouched (this was a condition of the earlier consent). The consequences of changing the line of the watercourse cannot be known.  As residents have pointed out, this watercourse is often fast flowing following heavy rain, the alterations to both the width and line of this watercourse are bound to affect the flow of water and may cause additional problems with surface water flooding.  This will be compounded if the developer is permitted to partially fill the revised watercourse with gabions, itself a breach of the original consent as acknowledged by the LPAs own Planning Enforcement Officer.

The Parish Council is aware that Lincolnshire County Council have commented on the changes to the watercourse, in particular we note that they confirm that no consent was sought or given for the works already undertaken.

The only reason he has carried out the work to alter the watercourse and place the gabions in the revised line of the watercourse is to attempt to enlarge his development platform to allow the scale of dwelling he seeks to build.  The Parish Council also has serious concerns regarding the use of gabions, it being unclear what the purpose of these is.  If the intention is to either stabilise the ground and/or strengthen the bank of the (changed) watercourse then clearly that has to be a question whether this is an appropriate or safe method of construction.  We feel it is essential that the LPA seeks clarification from the developer of the purpose of these gabions and then the advice of the Building Control Team as to whether this constitutes a safe method of construction. 

We would also draw the LPAs attention specifically to the No 3 in the Parish Council’s objection submitted in relation to Application 141174, where we pointed out that the scale of the development was out of proportion to the available site.  Our original objection also referred to the need to protect mature trees; as with the alteration to the shape and size of the development platform, the developer has removed and/or damaged mature trees on the north bank of the original watercourse, contrary to the Ecological report and to the Glentworth Neighbourhood Plan.

The LPA will be aware that during the course of the first stage of development, the applicant’s contractor severed a rising main during piling work, causing a very significant disruption for a large part of the village, a requirement for Anglian Water to provide tankers to pump sewage for 13 days and the suspension of works.  At the time of the original application, comments were made about the presence of underground water and/or sewage services.  However, it was noted from comments made by AW employees who visited the site that they were not consulted nor was any requirement made on the developer to properly determine what services there may be underground.  The fact that the contractor undertook piling work, which was not explained in the original application, made a severing of any services almost inevitable.  Regardless of whether this application is approved, we believe the LPA should require the applicant to commission a full and extensive underground survey to determine what services exist and their precise location.  This should be further strengthened by formal consultation with AW and any other utility provider to check whether there are any other services on the site that may be affected.

Conclusions:

We would request that the LPA defer a decision on this new application pending further work, investigations and consultations as detailed below:

• A comprehensive and full survey of the site to determine the location and nature of all underground services that may exist so that they can be properly identified and protected.
• In addition to the survey, the LPA should consult with Anglian Water and other utility providers to determine their understanding of what services there may be, together with any observations they may wish to make about the proposed development.
• The developer should be instructed to restore the original line of the watercourse, so it matches the original shown on the original submitted plans and/or submit revised plans and an application, that also confirm that he has secured the agreement of the neighbouring landowner to the changes.
• Clarification of the purpose of the gabions in the development and advice on the appropriateness of these as part of this development.
• In the event that the developer seeks to confirm the altered line of the watercourse, the lead flood authority should be asked to assess the potential impacts of those changes, particularly in view of the placement of the gabions in said watercourse.
• A new ecological report should be commissioned to assess the extent to which the works so far have departed from the original report and what can be done to remediate that damage.

The Parish Council believes it is essential that these steps are taken before any further application is considered let alone approved.

Appendix – EMail to Planning Enforcement Officer (13/6/21)

Dear Mr Clarke

I understand from ****, Clerk to Glentworth PC, that you are handling the investigation into whether there have been any breaches of the planning decision notice in respect of this application, I further understand that you intend making a site visit this week as part of your investigation.  I am the Chair of the Parish Council and on behalf of the residents in Hawthorne Close and others adjacent to the development, I am summarising the concerns and issues that residents and the Parish Council itself have about this development and where we believe there may have been breaches of the conditions attached to the consent.

I am conscious that some the matters that residents and the Council are concerned about may not fall directly within the remit of a Planning Enforcement investigation, although they are pertinent to the overall problems with this development.  I have summarised these at the end of this email and also attach an email exchange between one of the neighbours to this development and Anglian Water, which captures many of the key issues, including the breaches of the consent.  I would also refer you to emails that Sarah Pickering-Paterson sent to the enforcement@west-lindsey.gov.uk email address on 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, & 20 May and 4 June; some of these emails include photographs of the site during the works to date, there are other residents who may also have contacted the enforcement team directly.  I understand that she also has several more photographs that may aid your investigation.

We believe there have been substantive breaches of Conditions 3, 5 and 8 of the consent.  

• Condition 3: we have reason to believe the development works done are not consistent with the submitted plans, the building is not sited as originally approved, that works have been done to the watercourse to the north of the site to alter the development platform, including works to  land that is outside the site boundary as defined in the submitted plans;
• Condition 5: work has been done at foundation level (insertion of piles) without there being a scheme for foul and surface water being approved by the planning authority.  Added to which, the works done to date have caused significant damage to existing foul and water drainage, necessitating emergency action by Anglian Water;
• Condition 8: the recommendations of the Ecological Report have simply been ignored.  The vegetation has been removed below the recommended height, other vegetation has been crudely ‘pruned’ in such a way as to damage its future viability and most importantly work has been done to the North bank of the watercourse which was supposed to be left untouched.

The decision notice makes reference to the need for the development to be compliant with the submitted drawings.  We would request that your carefully check whether the building is being located as per the submitted and approved drawings as the local residents are of the view that it is not.  Further, the decision notice referred to a number of steps that should be undertaken by the developer at stages before further work can commence, in particular the need for percolation tests, but these appear not to have been done.  The application form makes reference to drainage being managed through a SUDS yet there is no evidence that the plan for that SUDS has been submitted and it is clear from interactions with Anglian Water over the last few days that there had been no contact between the developer and AW regarding their assets, which we believe are a significant factor in the problems that the development has caused.

Key to our belief about the breaches is work that has been done to the north of the site.  It should be noted that the application form incorrectly states that the building is not within 20 m of a watercourse (whereas the original application ref 139161 correctly identified that there is a watercourse present).  This is key because we believe the developer’s contractor has carried out works to the watercourse, digging it out, changing the line and width of the watercourse whilst also placing gabions in the watercourse, all of which are contrary to the terms of the decision notice.  This watercourse is part of the system that carries surface water away, not just from this site but from surrounding properties/streets, that have in times of heavy rain in the past been subject to surface water flooding.  The works that have been done will have unknown impacts on the effectiveness of this watercourse in the future.  Critically, we believe that these works have been done solely to extend the development platform for the property, because the original site was not large enough for the scale of the building, as we stated in our original objection to the application.

It should also be noted that the watercourse appears to be outside the development plan boundary, looking at the submitted drawings, the topographical survey map and the map taken from the ecological report.  On the subject of the ecological report, condition 8 of the consent makes it clear that development should be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of said report (page 18, erroneously identified as pages 21-22 in the decision notice).  It is evident from the site that the vegetation has been reduced below the recommended height, that contrary to the recommendation material was stored on site (if removed now there is photographic evidence that it was originally left on site) and, crucially, that works have been carried out to the watercourse that will have affected the vegetation on the north bank, which recommendation 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 specifically state should be left untouched.

I referred earlier to other matters and concerns that you may regard as being not subject to the planning consent, but they are considerations in respect of how this development has progressed.  It is clear from the extensive investigations and works undertaken by Anglian Water (AW) over the last 5 days that the construction has done damage to underground water, sewage and drainage services.  We are concerned that part of this problem may have been caused by the footprint of the building not being as shown on the plans, that is certainly the view of the immediate neighbours, meaning that rather than being adjacent to it the building now partially sits above a rising main.  Added to that, the builder has used a piling method in their ground preparations; AW operatives on site over last weekend stated that this had caused damage to the underground services.  It may also be the case that the location of those services is not accurately recorded on the plans submitted by the applicant and we are unaware whether he or the Planning Authority, consulted with AW to confirm locations and the suitability of the proposed development.

You will possibly be aware that this application was controversial at the time, was opposed by many local residents and by the Parish Council.  I can assure you that the matters set out here and in the emails/letters/calls that I know the District Council have received are not simply an attempt to revisit the decision to grant permission but rather reflect the very serious and egregious breaches that we believe to have taken place.  It is critical that no further work be allowed on this site until such time as the issues pertaining to the Anglian Water (and other) underground assets have been resolved.  We would request that you consider a Temporary Stop Notice and/or a Breach of Condition Notice to allow for a full investigation into the works to date.

I look forward to receiving a report back of your findings and decision.