The Voice of Spalding and South Holland
A developer faces prosecution for building a number of homes in the wrong place, but it has been allowed to keep them there.
Seven dwellings have been built different to the plans Ashwood Homes had passed for its Parish Mews site in Crowland.
One bungalow, South Holland District Council planning officers claim, was built “very close” to a protected ash tree which was damaged by a contractor in October 2021.
“Rather than going through the formal process of applying to remove the protected tree, the developer instead felled it on January 25,” planning officer Christopher English’s report to the district council’s Planning Committee states.
The report continues that the council is prosecuting the developer for the tree felling.
The application came before the committee as Ashwood had to apply for a Section 73 application which involves permission for not complying with the conditions of a previous application.
Coun Bryan Alcock claimed there had been a “catalogue of difficulties”.
“I’m surprised the method of locating housing on a planning development finished up with there being errors,” he said.
“It amazes me how that could happen.
“One has to say the parish council did point out on several occasions that the properties were not in the correct place and that turned out to be the case.”
Coun Jim Astill outlined the local anger he’d seen including public comments made as part of the planning application that were not referenced in the officer’s report: “With GPS and technology, how do we end up with houses in the wrong place?” he said. “They only noticed when some of the houses were occupied.”
The plans were passed unanimously with planning officers stating the new position does not “materially impact” the landscape and application.
The report states: “The recommendation to grant this retrospective application is not to be taken as condoning in any way the actions of the developer in removing the protected tree and might not otherwise have granted planning permission for the alter location of the dwelling had it resulted in the loss of the protected tree.”
The report states Ashwood Homes has agreed to plant two replacement trees.
The company declined to comment when approached by The Voice.
Planning chairman Coun James Avery said: “I think there will be an example made and that’s in relation to the tree which is a separate matter. If we were sitting here, winding the clock back and this was the original application would there be any harm and impact? I think the answer is probably no.
“It is a buggeration, but it is what it is.”
