Extraordinary Meeting - January 2022

 

4054

SCOTHERN PARISH COUNCIL

 

An extraordinary meeting of Scothern Parish Council took place on Wednesday 26th January 2022 at 7.30pm in The Methodist Church, Main Street, Scothern.

Present:             Cllrs Mrs C Nicoll (Chair)(CJN), D Canton (DC), R Creaser (RC), J Fotheringham (JLF) and J Johnson (JJ)

Also present:   Mrs L Richardson (Clerk), 30 members of the public

 

17.22   Housekeeping – given by the Chair

Proposed Cllr Mrs Nicoll, seconded Cllr Fotheringham and agreed by all to suspend standing orders to allow all residents present, time to make their comments relating to agenda items.

 

18.22    Public Session – See separate notes

Meeting called to order:  20:07

19.22     Apologies for Absene

Proposed Cllr Mrs Nicoll, seconded Cllr J Johnson and agreed by all to accept apologies and reasons for absence from Cllr Patchett.

20.22    Declarations of Interest (Pecuniary or Non-Pecuniary)

None declared

Planning matters: -

144176 – 22 Sudbrooke Road – Planning application for removal of conservatory, rear extension, car port and creation of first floor with ridge lift – To discuss and submit comments to WLDC – Proposed Cllr Fotheringham, seconded Cllr Canton and agreed by all to support the application.  The Clerk will submit this to WLDC.

Action:               Clerk

144213 – Land to the rear of Weir Farm Paddock – Outline planning application to erect up to 36no. dwellings – access to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications – To discuss and submit comments to WLDC – Proposed Cllr Creaser, seconded Cllr Canton and agreed by all to object to this application and submit the following comments:

JLF reported the following:

  • Welton GP list is still open and if it gets full, application would have to be made to NHS to close patient list – not yet at this level but have a lot of extra development sites in progress at Dunholme and Welton already that will feed into the centre. 
  • ongoing development at Nettleham and Sudbrooke that will affect Nettleham practice.
  • William Farr Secondary Academy – this year, in year 7 there were 428 applications for 228 places.  Is oversubscribed every year.  No plans going forward to expand the school as it is landlocked.
  • Ellison Boulters – takes 60% local children and 40% from outside of the area.  Priority is given to residents of the village (Scothern, Sudbrooke, Langworth and Stainton) and children with siblings in the school.  New people to the village would be included in the priority 60%.  School cannot expand as there is not enough outside space for the size of the school and therefore, intake cannot be increased.

 

4053

  • Section 106 for education, health etc goes into a “pot” and not given directly to benefit the village.
  • Draft policy LP2 - special development - Scothern is classed as a medium village and should  “accommodate a limited amount of development of up to nine dwellings or exceptionally up to 29 dwellings”. 
  • 12% growth should be spread between smaller areas, Scothern is listed as 10% growth and the draft plan already shows an increase of 52% with “earmarked” land for development.
  • This area is not in the emerging CLLP and was rejected when the site was put forward.  It is stated that there are other preferred sites. 
  • There is no bus service, it is stated in the application that the village does have one.
  • Roads are dangerous to use at peak times for cycling and walking on.
  • This application had been submitted twice before, both times the council strongly opposed it. Both times the application went to appeal, and the Parish Council spoke at the Planning meetings, the later appeal was called in by the secretary of state.
  • The CLLP has given more houses than is needed at this time.
  • Recent Neighbourhood Plan Review consultation showed residents want smaller homes and bungalows, not larger family homes.
  • We need to protect the gaps between Scothern and neighbouring villages.
  • The amount of parking given in the application goes against the Scothern Neighbourhood Plan.
  • Key policies show the development makes use of sustainable transport – the village doesn’t have any!!
  • The application doesn’t enhance the natural environment (key policies say this application does)
  • The site is Grade 2 agricultural land
  • 4.3.3.3 environmental objectives should be included in the response
  • Ask to go before a planning committee and not dealt with through delegated powers.
  • Speed awareness sign data for Main Street – Over 17 days an average over 24 hours showed  712 incoming vehicles and 820 vehicles outgoing equating to 1532 a day.  A single day specifically showed midnight – 8am 42 vehicles, 8am-8pm 1456 vehicles both ways and 8pm-midnight 132 vehicles.

 

Action:              Chair and Clerk to formulate and submit response to WLDC

22.22   Next meeting – Wednesday 9th February 2022 at 7.30pm at The Methodist Church, Main Street, Scothern

Meeting closed: 20.52

 

Signed (Chairman) ………………………………………….. 9th February 2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4052

Public Session Comments

 

Traffic Issues

- The turning to the left of Weir Farm Paddock has major congestion on the corner due to the care home.

- There is an obstruction on the corner junction when trying to exit Weir Farm Paddock. 

- Turning into Weir Farm Paddock has issues due to people parking on Elm Dene. 

- Traffic through the village is horrendous –The village is used as a Langworth to A46 rat run, very busy.

- No bus service, yet it is mentioned in the application that there is a service.

- The plan shows paving either side of the development – this will make the road a single road as there will not be enough space for a 2-lane road.  This will increase traffic congestion on Weir Farm Paddock.

- To the east of the junction the road width decreases to 5.2 metres – the application states that cars can pass each other easily with plenty of space.  They won’t be able to at this width and there is a blind bend on this section of the road where it gets to its lowest width.

- The potholes are horrendous. 

- The traffic during school run times is already dangerous with illegal parking, agitated people, angry driving etc.

- Amenities are described as being cyclable – the practicalities to cycle to the doctors and shops are not there.  The distance may be, but the practicalities are not - The roads are not safe enough to cycle/walk along.

- Coming off Craypool Lane there is always a traffic obstruction. 

- There has been a large increase in traffic over the years. A large percentage of this is people using the village as a rat run between A46 and A158. 

- The growth of the village has been increased a lot over the last few years and the more the village has grown the more pressure is put on the narrow roads. 

- The footpaths in the village are already narrow and people are put at risk by the speed of road users, cutting corners on the road etc. 

- 2 cars per house would put 70 more cars in the village which would amplify and extend this problem further. 

- The road infrastructure is not there to support this. 

- Most village paths are single file.

Cllr Mrs Nicoll reported that the speed awareness signs are being used to give accurate details of the number of vehicles through the village and the speeds recorded.  Cllr Canton asked for more volunteers for the speed awareness scheme.

- Lives in the house on the corner and has noticed a large increase in traffic, especially in the mornings.  Will the added houses/cars mean there will be queues along Weir Farm Paddock to get out of the junction during rush hour? 

- The bottle neck will cause major traffic issues.

 

School/Doctor capacity

- The schools and doctors have no space for local people already.

 

Environment and Drainage

- Drainage at Weir Farm Paddock takes water from off the field and is already at capacity.

- Anglian water have confirmed that they cannot cope with the foul drains.

- Rainfall causes large flooding in the area – there is always considerable amounts of water on the road, Barling Lane pumping station was under water and a flood warning was issued for Scothern during the heavy rain fall.  How is building more housing going to help this?

- A house on the Close has to have their drains rodded at least once a year due to poor drainage in the system – how will the development worsen this matter?

- Site plan shows drainage is in the middle of the sites; this would change the field footpath to an Urban path which would not be good for the village. 

- Water runs down Weir Farm Paddock, overflows to Meadow Lane and along Craypool Lane – is there going to be a stipulation that the drainage would be upgraded to manage the extra capacity needed?

– The manhole near Craypool lane goes up and down during heavy rain and the waste can be seen when at its highest.

 

 

 

4051

CLLP/Neighbourhood Plan

- Is there any relevance to the CLLP?  This application clearly breaches the Scothern Neighbourhood Plan as we have already had 10% housing over that what was allocated.  There appears to be some weight that WLDC cannot meet their 5-year plan for land and so why is this going through again?  - -Are they hoping to get this through on a higher level to meet requirements?

Cllr Mrs Nicoll explained that SPC are already fighting the “earmarked” land in the village and are awaiting the outcome. The landowner had put forward this piece of land and it was rejected by the draft CLLP and at the minute is not included in the CLLP and therefore they believe they can put the application in.

- The developments have already changed character of the village, we have a village mentality, adding more houses to the village will change this.

- We are losing the character of the village, 2011 saw an increase in houses of 25%.  36 houses would increase this to 33%.  The character of the village is being out at risk.

 

General

- The inspector at WLDC is the same inspector that passed the original application.

- Requested clarification of a discrepancy in the site plan.  The global consulting document shows little branches of roads and a pond.  Another shows a site plan on a circular pond with a road going around it.  Cllr Mrs Nicoll explained that this is an outline planning application and therefore we can only comment on access and the number of houses.  Everything else is there for example and would be drawn up in a reserved matters application should this one be successful.

- Its not a case that we don’t want it in our back yard.  We have had 2 large developments in the village already, we have given so much. 

- The application states that there will be 2.3 people per 4/5 bedroom house – this does not appear to be correct.  They are more likely family homes so at least 3 or 4 people per house.

- The site would include at least one pond – is this safe for the residents and children? 

- There is an extra onus on the village to upkeep public spaces as the development spaces aren’t there due to the SUD scheme and so residents would be encouraged to use the recreation centre area.

- Concerns that a phase 2 on the other side of the field will be next.

- The aerial pictures do not show the true growth of the village and new development.  It is deceptive to people that don’t know the village.

JLF reported - In the draft plan - Site behind Dunholme Road – 53 houses, Site on Nettleham Road just past Cade Close – 41 houses.  This would take the village to 50% growth, if these were included it would take the growth to 130%.