The original plans, submitted by Gleeson Regeneration Ltd, were refused by ELDC’s planning committee in December, 2019.
Horncastle Town Council, along with many residents, had objections to the initial plans to build a new 97-home estate on land off Winceby Gardens and Banovallum Gardens.
The developer made an appeal for the decision to be reversed but the appeal was dismissed.
Revised plans were submitted during the appeal process.
Gleeson have submitted new plans to build 89 homes.
The new homes will include 24 two-bedroom, 58 three-bedroom and seven four-bedroom houses.
In documents submitted to ELDC, the applicant states: “In addressing the reasons for refusal pursuant to the previous application, this proposal incorporates the following amendments; reduced density, increased amount of landscaping, public open space including a play area and the provision of open space adjacent to the north boundary to provide a buffer zone between the development and existing properties on Banovallum Gardens.”
HTC and WGAG have objected to the new plans for several reasons which are listed below:
Pre existing condition
HTC said: “The two-storey dwellings proposed would make a marked and detrimental contrast to the existing dwellings on entering the site.
WGAG said: “Existing properties are all bungalows and the location of houses is out of scale for the development at this location.”
HTC said: “We are surprised at the speed of response from the applicant in submitting a new planning application.
“It would appear that the new application has taken very little notice of the inspectors appeal dismissal report.”
HTC said: “As this site has a garage/ convenience store as its nearest shop and residents would have to cross a 40mph major coastal highway (A158) to access the store we request that a speed reduction application to 30mph be made and a pedestrian crossing be made available at the applicants expense.
WGAG said: “The A158 has heavy traffic at nearly all times and especially during the spring and summer months.
“The provision of a pedestrian crossing should be a nonnegotiable condition.
HTC said: “The suggested local area of play does not meet the standard expected of an application of this size, we believe the site is large enough to support either a locally equipped area of play or a multi-use games area.
“Failing to provide play spaces that are both well located within the development or meet the provisions of the Local Plan are in direct conflict with Policy SP26 of the said plan which requires developments to support the provision of such facilities.
HTC said: “The suggested location of the play area is also inappropriate, it should be sited nearer to the centre of the site and not adjacent to the existing bungalows on Winceby Gardens, as shown on the plan, most of these bungalows being occupied by elderly residents.
WGAG said: “The design decision to locate the play area as submitted is wholly unacceptable.
“Its new location still on the boundary and in the buffer zone is not good design, it is unsafe and should be in the centre of the site accessed off pedestrian routes.
“The site density should be reduced to accommodate its location.
HTC said: “Despite the applicant reducing the number of dwellings on the site we believe the density of the development is still too high and should be reduced, particularly as we have noted that there will be three access roadways that will lead to probable new development sites adjacent to the existing site.”
WGAG said: “This is a rural setting and the design layout does not reflect this. This is a typical example of “urban” sprawl. The density should be reduced to reflect a rural setting with greater landscaping within the site and on the boundaries.”
Public open spaces
HTC said: “It is noted that there is limited POS and to ensure that sufficient has been made available it is intended to use the proposed attenuation basins.
“We believe this would be dangerous during heavy rain particularly as the site appears to be aimed at first time and affordable home purchasers with probably young children.
WGAG said: “The WGAG consider this to be most relevant and a clear reason for refusal.”