Councillors approve 109-home development in Welton despite 'wanting to refuse'

Plans for a 109-home development in a Lincolnshire village were reluctantly approved by councillors despite heavy objections. At West Lindsey District Council's planning committee meeting on Wednesday, April 24, councillors debated for over an hour on Turley Farms Ltd's 5.93-hectare development plans off Eastfield Lane in Welton.

The proposal was first rejected by councillors in May 2022 over concerns around access, which were addressed by the applicant as plans were resubmitted in June last year. Some 25 per cent of the development will be affordable housing with a tenure split of 60 per cent affordable rent, 25 per cent first homes and 15 per cent shared ownership.

There will also be a contribution of £69,942.50 on completion of 50 per cent of the dwellings for each phase of the development for the extension of existing health facilities, whether it be Welton Family Health Centre, The Ingham Practice and/or Lindum Medical Practice. However, the plans received 80 objections, including from the local parish council.

Get the latest Lincolnshire Live news with our email newsletters

Welton by Lincoln Parish Councillor Mike Powell spoke at the meeting on Wednesday to say the village is "bursting at the seams" with planning approvals and new developments, arguing it "does not have the infrastructure" for projects like this. Multiple concerns were raised over the safety of access roads along Eastfield Lane, and frustration could be heard within the committee’s arguments, as a highways officer was not present at the meeting to answer any questions around this.

Councillor Sabastian Hague, Liberał Democrat member for Dunholme and Welton, called the road "extremely dangerous" and said "valid concerns" around highways for this project could not be answered, which was "of concern" to the committee. The committee was warned on numerous occasions by fellow members to "be cautious" in this decision making, with arguments being made that the planning committee "could be seen as being unreasonable."

Committee chair, Councillor Matthew Boles, Liberal Democrat member for Gainsborough East, said in response to questions over the absence of a highways officer: "We might want highways here but we’re barking up the wrong tree. I’ve been here eight years and never seen a highways officer at these meetings."

The county council’s highways team lodged no objections to the plan, which ultimately swayed the final verdict. Many members of the planning committee referenced a desire to "find reasons" to reject the application, but feared it would only result in defeat and a worse outcome overall if an appeal was lodged to the Planning Inspectorate.

The plans fall on an allocated site as part of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, and this twinned with no objection being recorded by the county council’s highways team, meant the planning committee felt powerless to resist the proposal any longer. Councillor Tom Smith, Conservative member for Wold View, said the decision was a case of head versus heart.

He said: "My heart says yes, we should absolutely refuse this because that road is not what I would consider suitable, but my head says if we refuse it on highways grounds, we are going to lose any appeal in any case, particularly as it’s an allocated site. Because it’s an approved site in Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and highways haven’t objected, as much as I’d love a reason to reject this application, I can’t."

This was echoed by the committee’s chair, who said: "For me Councillor Smith, absolutely on the money. I would love to find reasons to refuse this, but the harsh reality is there are no reasons I can pin my hat on and think we’d win the appeal.

"As much as I’ve tried to find reasons to refuse it, I will second the proposal to approve."

Despite the efforts of Councillor Hague to push a rejection of this proposal, a seconder did not make themselves heard and ultimately the committee voted to grant outline approval for the development. Reserved matters relating to this decision must be brought back to the planning committee at a later date.