Notes of an Informal Meeting between Members of Holton-le-Clay Parish Council, Members of
Holton-le Clay Neighbourhood Development Plan Steering Group and Simon Williams of Masons
Chartered Surveyors.
An informal meeting took place at the Parish Council Offices on 13th July 2015 as part of Members of
Holton-le-Clay Parish Councils’ fact finding in regard to planning application N/085/00883/15.
This was not a Meeting of Full Council or any Committee thereof, it was held purely to enable fact
finding prior to consideration of the application at Full Council. However in the Interest of
transparency Members of the Council requested that official notes be taken of the meeting and
made available to the Public.
Councillor P. Rowntree as Chairman of the Parish Council thanked Simon Williams for attending and
informed all present that Holton-le-Clay Parish Council reserved the right to object to the planning
application.
It was highlighted that although ground work for this application had been ongoing for several years
there had been a change of council and along with new Members some existing Members required
clarification on certain matters relevant to the application as did members of the NDP group.
Simon Williams outlined the process of public consultation in regard to the application so far. He
informed those present that he had attended a meeting of the Parish Council along with Ian Turvey
the Highways consultant in Jan 2015- which Members had found to be useful, prior to this he had
held a public open evening. He went on to detail that pre 2005 he had held early talks with the
Parish Council and that the Parish Council produced village plan (2009) had been referenced in the
decade of work that had resulted in the present planning application.
A list of questions had been forwarded to Simon Williams prior to the meeting, Simon had informed
Members that some would require specific technical answers that he was unable to provide
however he would assist as much as he was able.
The questions were put to Simon Williams by Councillor P. Rowntree, and the following information
gained:

Please Explain the Hybrid Planning application.
The application was hybrid as it involved the outline planning application for erection of up to 300
houses, no specific planning detail relating to this aspect of the application were being decided at
this stage, however full planning permission was being sought for change of land use. It was also
noted that the means of access were being considered at this time.

Please explain the density calculation and how 40% low cost housing has been
accommodated in the design.
The current application included a provision of 20% low cost housing. The density of housing was
not set in stone and would be decided within future discussions with East Lindsey District Council.

Please explain how the detailed planning application overlaps with the outline planning
application on:
Entry and Egress- The means of access was being considered in this application.
Drainage- All drainage must comply with National Standards, if it did not the application would
not be given planning permission.
Roads- No detailed application was submitted at this time in relation to road structure only
access. Lincolnshire County Council had no objection to the proposed placement of site access.
There was no indication as to probable speed limits at this time. The section 106 payments
required from Landowners/developers would include finance towards the
improvement/upgrade of one of the roundabouts between Holton-le-Clay and Grimsby.

Please explain how SUDS drainage will mitigate surface water flooding of the proposed
development site.
Older developments designed without Sustainable Urban Drainage, or SUDS, impacted on surface
flooding. Legislation now required that new developments included SUDS which replicate the
natural pace of dissipation of water and ensure that there are no adverse impact on other areas
either up or down stream. The drainage incorporated in the design were engineered to withstand a
1 in 100 year event plus an additional 30%. Balancing ponds would be used and these would not dry
up in warmer weather. It would remain the responsibility of relevant landowners to maintain
drainage further downstream.

Please explain the impact assessment on SUDS run off to a downstream source and the
mitigation measures to avoid surface water flooding.
The design was in principal only at this time and these details were not available.

Please explain the surface water recycle protocol for the proposed development.
The design was in principal only at this time and these details were not available.

Please explain how grey water will be managed from this site.
The design was in principal only at this time and these details were not available.

Please explain the foul water /sewage management for the proposed site – understanding
the existing issues within the village.
If any upgrade to the present sewage/ foul water system was required to support the new
development Anglian Water would insist that the cost of this was met by the developer.

Please explain the entry and exit strategy to and from the proposed development – including
the coaches and LGV s going to and from the Cricket Club.
Lincolnshire County Council Highways department as the relevant consultee would ensure that all
necessary criteria were met. The internal lay out of the Cricket Club parking would be decided in
later applications but would need to meet certain criteria. The lease put in place for the Cricket Club
would be a means of controlling parking to ensure it did not materially affect local residents.

Please explain how the road safety issues on the Clay Lane corner have been mitigated.
Lincolnshire County Council highways department would ensure that all necessary criteria was met.
The number of houses in the area around the Cricket Club was intentionally low to decrease impact
on the Clay Lane junction.

Please explain how cyclist safety will be managed exiting the proposed site from the cycle
path onto a 3 way blind bend on a major road.
The application only relates to the development area, matters outside of that area were not
included. It would be for Lincolnshire County Council highways department to assess areas outside
of the development. It was however noted that should development of another nearby site take
place arrangements could be made to provide additional cycle track to join up with the proposed
cycle track.

Please explain why the use of shared space is proposed for this development.
The use of shared surface as opposed to separate pavement and roads was used in new
developments as it was a porous surface that assisted the SUD system.

Please explain the reasons for proposing to re-route a much used village green wildlife
corridor and changing it into an urban footpath.
Simon was keen to point out that the public footpath was the only public area, and was a meter
wide corridor through the field not the entire field, and the owners of the field wished to develop
the area. The area is not currently well maintained and the overall development would result in
more green open space than currently available to the public, which would be maintained.

Please explain the rational/ strategy for car parking on the proposed development. Including
the parking at the Cricket Club and how the parking space has been calculated to avoid
overflow parking in the residential areas.
Details of car parking were not covered in the current application. It would be necessary to ensure
that the lease of the Cricket Club prohibited parking impacting on local residents.

Please explain the Travel Plan provided in the application for the development.
Legislation required that a travel plan be provided any questions in relation to this should be
directed to Lincolnshire County Council Highways dept.

Please explain the philosophy behind the additional burial ground land and parking space.
This had been previously requested by the Parish Council as a contribution, however if it was not
required the land would be given over to housing development. The additional parking area was
intended to provide alternative vehicle access to the cemetery.

Please explain how the proposed plan ensures the footpath from Church walk to the parking
space east of the parish gardens is not going to be used as a “Rat Run” from the proposed
development.
This was not intended as a link road, however this observation should be made to Lincolnshire
County Council Highways dept.
It was also established that the future Developers would be responsible for provision of play
equipment and the MUGA.
Simon Williams also mentioned that a unilateral contribution to the Village Hall would be made
should the application be successful, however the amount of that contribution could not be
confirmed at this time.
Simon Williams drew attention to the Statement of Community Involvement that had been provided
to the Parish Council.
Councillor P. Rowntree Thanked Simon Williams for attending.
THE MEETING CLOSED 9.10