A district councillor has pleaded with Caistor residents to make their views known about future development earmarked for the town.
West Lindsey District Councillor Owen Bierley has stressed that decisions will now be made by an independent examiner, not by local planning officials.
Cllr Bierley was speaking at the April monthly meeting of Caistor Town Council last night (Thursday, April 14, 2016). His comments came as a surprise. Previous conversations had suggested local councils would have a final chance to put their case, but few people seemed to realise the public would also be able to present views.
A six-week public consultation is opening today (Friday, April 15, 2016) on what has now been renamed as the “Emerging Local Plan for Central Lincolnshire”. The plan sets out a vision for development in the area over the next 20 years and is likely to reach the final stages in December 2016.
Cllr Owen Bierley, left, with town councillor Michael Galligan at a previous consultation
There is a website where the relevant information can be viewed, at http://central-lincs.objective.co.uk/portal/central_lincolnshire A submissions plan and policies map should also be available to view at Caistor’s Arts and Heritage Centre at 28 Plough Hill.
The preferred method for the public to submit views is online. People will need to register on the site in order to submit comments, which will be published. The public consultation is due to end at 11.59pm on Thursday, May 26, 2016.
Cllr Bierley was championing the case for a western relief road in Caistor to be included in the Central Lincolnshire Plan, and was asking people to comment.
However, Cllr Bierley said the issue was closely linked to the proposal to allow housing development off Brigg Road on land near to Waterhills.
A planning application for 72 homes off Brigg Road was submitted to West Lindsey District Council nearly two years ago. The matter was deferred pending reports but West Lindsey District Council is expected to make a decision within weeks. Planners are still inviting people to comment on the application at http://docs.west-lindsey.gov.uk/WAM/createComment.do;jsessionid=CC6F39CDDC6BE84D6496A7A9BCBD6DD9?action=CreateApplicationComment&applicationType=PLANNING&appNumber=131181
More details about the application for the 72 homes can be found at West Lindsey’s website at https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/my-services/planning-and-building/view-applications-decisions-and-appeals/search-our-planning-application-database/ and clicking on “View associated documents” which appears in green letters.
Town councillors last night expressed dismay at the lack of information about the 72-homes application. Cllr Michael Galligan said people felt “the wool was being pulled over their eyes.”
“There is no wool being pulled,” said Cllr Alan Caine, in response. “There is nothing happening.”
Town Clerk Helen Pitman added: “It has been taking umpteen emails and calls. We have had trouble getting hold of the planning officer.”
“We are in the lap of the Gods as far as West Lindsey is concerned, but why there has been nothing happening since July 2014, I don’t know,” said Cllr Caine, who is chairman of Caistor Town Council’s Planning Committee. “We have made inquiries at top level. They had the option to refuse it due to lack of information. While it sits we cannot do anything. It is frustrating, to put it mildly, and it is causing bad blood in the town.”
Ms Pitman was not alone in expressing frustration at difficulties in communication with other authorities, and nor was the plan for 72 homes the only issue affected. Throughout the meeting there were reports of updates being sought without success for various issues, including works to the Former Fire Station at Horsemarket, where an issue of safety had been raised, and clearing ‘contaminated’ rubble from the layby at Riby Road. Repeatedly, the message seemed to be that Caistor’s concerns were not being addressed, with budget cuts being blamed. The discussion prompted County Councillor Tony Turner to describe the current climate as “the worst” he had seen. “In all the years I have been on the council, I have never known it so difficult,” he said. He urged people to “keep trying.”
Pictured above: what the emerging Central Lincolnshire Local Plan says about housing provision in Caistor.
While referring to the relief road, and the plan to allow housing development on land between Brigg Road and Hundon Walk, Cllr Bierley said the two issues were closely linked. He urged everyone to find out more about the third consultation process on the emerging Central Lincolnshire Plan which would open this week. “These decision are not going to be made by officers locally,” he said. “Everything will be bundled up and sent to an independent inspector. That inspector has been appointed and will consider all the representations received and hold a hearing session which will be crucial,” said Cllr Bierley. He said physical improvements to attract visitor numbers was considered important and said the community must continue to make the strongest possible case.
Cllr Clive Rudd sought clarification on the route of the relief road. Cllr Caine said there were two phases of the project, with the first being from the A46 between Caistor and Nettleton to the Cherry Valley Bends, and the second phase being from between the Cherry Valley Bends to Brigg Road.
Note: Where a website address appears in this article in a different coloured text, Citizen readers should be able to go directly to the website described by clicking on the coloured type.
It would be sacrilege to build on Hundon Valley, best little beauty spot in Caistor, to house who? Gainsborough and Lincoln rejects? Whoever lived there would need to commute, IF they had a job. And before a brick (or lump of concrete) is laid the sewage, schools, roads Dec would need a massive upgrade. I predict there will be loads of money involved, the place will be stuffed with “houses” not an upgrade of anything in sight, my dearest wish is that I’m wrong, but?
Since when has Caistor been in Central Lincolnshire? And being really pedantic, it’s 2016 and not 2012, so 4 years have gone already. I will look and submit in due course, but it’s frightening the sheer lack of voice that Caistor appears to have in recent interactions with LCC and WLDC.
It is frustrating in the extreme that with all the hoohah over the Neighbourhood Plan and the Central Lincolnshire Plan and the understanding that decisions would be made locally that it now appears that this is NOT the case, What on earth is going on when those we elect have little or no say in what affects our town. Democracy? It nakes a mockery of the word!
Exactly what was the referendum all about?…..and how much did it cost?
What happened to Caistors referendum? What happened to my vote?
Not withstanding the statement that it is now not up to the local planning officials but to an independent examiner.
Let me just remind everyone that the majority of people voted for the Lincolnshire plan, NOT BECAUSE they wanted it but because if they didn’t then they would have no say on Waterhills whatsoever and the planning department could do whatever they wanted without any consultation with us.
This is the important bit:- Ive now been made aware of a letter/document from the planning department making out that we approved the neighbourhood plan and therefore all ‘AGREED’ to building on Waterhills.
They seem to me to be deliberately misrepresenting the views for their own reasons. Another name for misrepresenting is ‘lying’
I for one voted yes to the plans in the referendum only on the FACT that we were told that if we didn’t then we couldn’t have a say as stated above.
I don’t want the planning officials of West Lindsey pumping wrong information to this ‘independent examiner’ that Caistor voters are in favour of building on Waterhills just because they voted for the plan. THAT IS NOT THE CASE!
I URGE ANYONE INTERESTED TO WRITE, EMAIL OR MAKE THEIR VIEWS KNOWN WITHIN THIS CONSULTATION PERIOD AND PUT WEST LINDSEY PLANNING OFFICIALS FIRMLY BACK ON TRACK AND IN THEIR PLACE!
After all, these officials are already remote in not only where they’re based but also in their thinking. What upsets me is that they KNOW the views of Caistor residents but are deliberately misleading this independent examiner who definitely doesn’t know your views other what is being wrongly drip fed to them.
To simplify it: They say that because you voted for the plan you voted to accept building on Waterhills! Did You?
If you want a say either way, or to make your views known on Waterhills in general then scroll back up to the article and click on the link beginning with ‘doc’s.
It’s as simple as that and instantaneous. If you don’t make your views known either way then you can’t complain if the decision goes against you. This includes the Gent who is giving the impression of being a Troll, I hope the area is not to his liking! Maybe it’s the nice views overlooking Waterhills he likes.
It’s not Waterhills how many more times ?.
It’s a hill, it has water running through it…it’s Waterhills!
I was talking about a Planning letter/document referring to why we voted in the referendum. I’m also talking about any ‘future’ building plans that may affect Waterhills. I explained that I voted yes to the plans to enable us to have a say on any ‘future’ building within the 800 metres of the town centre which does take in Waterhills.
Can someone explain why they are in favour of a housing estate consisting of 72 houses in the proposed site? It’s hardly going to be a construction of beauty, is it?
Good so you realise that this application is NOT Waterhills – thank you for that admission.
Every one who has been in CAISTOR for 50 years or more knows this is part of Warerhills!
The Neighbourhood plan allows the Council to comment on the aesthetics of new build, but unfortunately the Independent Examiner removed any mention of that site being in a protected zone. Because the area is not designated as restricted, the fact that all new building should be within 800m of the Market Place, gives carte blanche to building on that site. Finally, as the application for the new homes had already been submitted, I understand it is not covered by any subsequent plan and is considered on its merits alone. I understand that most of the valid objections to the proposal centre around drainage and sewerage, but don’t hold your breath. Remember the new houses at the bottom of Navigation Lane were only meant to be built if the treatment plant was relocated and improved.
The sad fact is that central government is imposing new build targets on county councils, who in turn divide them up among any township as they see fit, but they don’t stipulate about new schools, roads, doctors etc etc.
if you are opposed to building on the waterhills,lower, upper, or whatever you may call it, please complete an objection form on the planning site. It is very easy to do.
Maybe you could add the link.
The link in the article above takes you straight to the form 🙂
If you are for building on this area just off
Brigg Road,please complete an approval form on the planning site. It is very easy to do.
Why do you, Ian Smith, wish to see a housing estate.on this piece of land?
Because I for one would buy a house on there . It is not near a sewerage works ,IN THE TOWN ( I have looked at other locations in the town ), I can easily walk my two young children to school .i work in Scunthorpe but have friends in Caistor, and I like the town , I can easily commute from Brigg Road to work .You asked for my reasons and my family are hoping for a favourable decision,
Why don’t I believe you, that all sounds far too perfect!….so you are not from CAISTOR and you wish to see the best piece of nearby countryside destroyed, just to please you!…How so pathetically sad!
Somebody with a different opinion is not pathetic or sad. Comments like this lower the value of a forum for debate. It is totally reasonable that other people may want to comment on proposals for new development, whether we agree with them or not. The person did not say the area should be changed just to please him, he said he was in support of the idea.
On the contrary, my comment adds to the debate, and that is how I, and many others feel…..If you really want to discuss something, how about the ‘misguided’ (for the want of a stronger word) advice given to the Caistor public on the towns referendum!
I am trying to understand why anyone would want to see a housing estate in this location….the only answer must be financial gain, if I’m wrong please inform this page!
I am talking about real people living around the Waterhills, real nature, real quality of life away from cities. How come I have the feeling there is some insincerity going on in the above comments?
Assuming you can get your children into the already overcrowded schools in Caistor. Seventy more homes would put us well over the tipping point.
The value of the Neighbourhood Plan has been grossly misrepresented and we are now in a position whereby an outsider has the final say on any development within our town. This is NOT what those who attended the extraordinary TC meeting held last October wanted or what the TC voted for unanimously. Some Incomers do not value the heritage of this beautiful part of Caistor, nor it seems anything as long as they can get what they want. Waterhills is what the area is known as, and has been in living memory, it is even marked as such on local OS maps. Can you see them granting planning permission on Hubbards Hill or Hyde park? This is our own beauty spot and should be preserved, there is plenty of more suitable land available in the town, including that on the other side of the A46 that is not so controversial.
This point can be made over and over and over again. Or you can read the Neighbourhood Plan and look at what it actually says, not what people said it would say, and not what people said it would be used for. Read the actual document that has been voted for and has now been adopted to be used to make decisions. That very very clearly shows the areas where development would be supported. Whether we like it or not that includes Waterhills. Now, the point is, it really doesn’t matter what was or wasn’t said at a council meeting, it is what is in the adopted plans that are used to make decisions that counts. The statements made by the Town Council do not override the adopted neighbourhood plan, that is just a fact. And that fact is why, unless the neighbourhood plan changes, development is supported in that area in planning terms. Again, like it or not, it is the planning concerns that matter here, not what was said once, at some point in time, on a cold December night in Caistor. Please, please, please, look at what the document that is used to make the decisions actually says.
Oh Perleeze Barnaby! I suggest that you read why the plan was voted for!