Nine Bourne bungalows have won planning permission on land behind Drummond Road in Bourne, Lincolnshire, after an Inspector found that drainage conditions could address flood risk concerns. Andrew Fulford allowed the appeal on 13th October 2026, overturning South Kesteven District Council’s refusal of the scheme.
The Bourne bungalows proposal involves demolishing an existing house to create access to the land behind it, giving a net increase of eight homes. The site lies within an established residential area, with a watercourse along its western boundary. Detailed drainage approval and other conditions remain necessary before development can proceed.
I would not read the appeal as dismissing neighbours’ flooding experiences. The decision records a history of flooding in nearby gardens and standing water on the land. The issue was whether the submitted evidence and enforceable conditions could prevent the development increasing that risk, rather than whether local concerns existed.
Why the Bourne bungalows flood objection failed
The appeal site was in Flood Zone 1, but that designation did not end the assessment. Evidence indicated that water backed up from a watercourse where a culvert at the south-western end had insufficient capacity during winter months.
The proposal kept an undeveloped strip beside the watercourse and placed most homes in the eastern half of the site. A new access road would pass through the land, connecting the scheme to Drummond Road.
Lincolnshire County Council’s flood advisers raised points about future maintenance and shallow groundwater. The Inspector accepted that detailed drainage drawings, levels and maintenance arrangements could address those matters through a condition. The advisers did not object to the application.
Anglian Water indicated that wastewater treatment and sewerage capacity were available for the flows from the site. It also accepted the proposed maximum surface water discharge rate. These responses formed part of the evidence supporting the Bourne bungalows, rather than a promise that any drainage design would be acceptable.
The council’s officers had been satisfied that conditions could deal with flooding and drainage. Planning committee members disagreed and refused the application. The Inspector recorded that the council had not provided an appeal statement, leaving him unclear why it considered conditions insufficient.
In the full official decision, he concluded that a detailed strategy could be developed that “would not increase the risk of flooding” on or next to the site. That was the central basis for allowing the appeal.
A drainage solution still has to be approved
The application’s drainage strategy did not assume that water could simply be discharged into the existing watercourse. Its capacity, route and downstream connections required investigation. Shallow groundwater and near-surface soils meant that infiltration into the ground was not a viable disposal method.
The appellant also identified an alternative connection to the public surface water sewer in South Road, to which Anglian Water did not object. Preliminary calculations considered storage to hold back rainfall, while potential overland flows could be directed towards Drummond Road through the access rather than towards neighbouring properties.
The Bourne bungalows permission nevertheless requires a detailed surface water drainage scheme to be approved before development. The operative condition covers groundwater evidence, seasonal variations, storage, controlled discharge, extreme-storm routing and arrangements for long-term maintenance.
A separate pre-development condition requires an approved foul water strategy identifying a sustainable connection to the public network. Those works must be completed in accordance with the approved scheme before occupation. The practical next step is therefore detailed approval and implementation, not an assumption that the appeal has supplied a finished drainage design.
Neighbours’ living conditions and access
The Inspector found that nine single-storey homes could fit comfortably within the site and reflect the bungalows already present in Drummond Road. Their height and separation from boundaries limited potential overlooking, with boundary treatment controlled by condition.
Vehicles would pass close to neighbouring houses beside the access. The submitted noise evidence supported suitable fencing, and the permission requires boundary details addressing that noise protection before occupation. A construction method statement must also be agreed before development, including demolition, begins.
Parking was another concern. Each new property had at least two spaces, with visitor parking also provided. The Inspector found that the development would not increase on-street parking. Parking and turning areas must be provided before occupation and retained.
For the Bourne bungalows, access works and a tactile pedestrian crossing point on Drummond Road are also tied to occupation conditions. The decision assesses the submitted access; it does not require the alternative access from Austerby suggested by some objectors.
Ecology, ground conditions and remaining controls
The Inspector accepted the biodiversity calculations and recorded that the scheme must achieve at least 10% biodiversity net gain. A gain plan, habitat management and monitoring arrangements, landscaping and ecological management controls remain relevant to delivery.
The conditions require measures for birds, including swifts, and bats, alongside other habitat protection and enhancement. They also address the future management of a mature oak tree. Further controls cover contamination, archaeology, external materials and the risks associated with any piling near the underlying aquifer.
The Bourne bungalows permission requires development to begin within three years of the decision. Its conditions set different deadlines for approving details, carrying out works and occupying the homes. I would check those individual triggers carefully, especially where a requirement applies before demolition or any development takes place.
The official record identifies appeal 6013421, application S25/0514 and appellant Glyn Pepper. The outcome is specific to this scheme and evidence. Our planning applications guidance gives broader background to the process, while the decision itself remains the source for what has actually been permitted here.
0 Comments