Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - The Guildhall. View directions

Contact: Ele Snow  Democratic and Civic Officer


No. Item


Chairman's Welcome

Additional documents:


The Chairman opened the meeting by welcoming all present into the first face-to-face meeting in the Council Chamber since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020. He noted that the Planning Committee had been the first Committee to experience the world of virtual meetings and were now the first to return to the Chamber. He highlighted the safety measures that were in place, such as the desk layout adhering to social distancing as well as the cleaning, which would take place in between speakers. The Chairman also noted that the meeting continued to be webcast live and extended his welcome to those watching at home.


Public Participation Period

Up to 15 minutes are allowed for public participation.  Participants are restricted to 3 minutes each.

Additional documents:


The Chairman stated there was one public speaker registered, Councillor Darby of the Bardney Group Parish Council. Councillor Darby was welcomed to the meeting and he made the following statement:


“Good Evening.


During the Planning Committee meeting held on 9 December 2020, Bardney Group Parish Council were accused of lobbying the Committee, which was illegal. The emails that were sent to the Committee Members were in fact corrections to the Officer’s report. A video and other communications that were cited were not sent by the Parish Council. These were sent by the applicant. The accusation was minuted, although not correctly, but recorded in full by the webcast.


If we step forward to the February Planning Committee meeting, Councillor Cotton apologised to the Committee for misleading them, and that lobbying was not illegal, but there was no mention of Bardney Group Parish Council. Currently, there is still an allegation against that Parish Council in written minutes, and a video cast.


To clarify on lobbying, is detailed in the Local Code of Conduct for Councillors and Officers with Planning Matters, dated May 2017. The allegation was therefore unwarranted and groundless. Any Member of the Committee, including the Chairman and those Councillors who also reside on the Standards Sub-Committee could have corrected the Councillor during the meeting.


Bardney Group Parish Council have not received either a verbal or written apology. An apology should be made public so that it can be minuted, and the good name of the Parish Council restored. Any assertion that the already made apology was sufficient, is incorrect, as the allegation has been used as truth in a matter which I'm not currently at liberty to discuss.


Thank you Mr Chairman”


The Chairman explained the statement would be shared with the relevant Officers and a response would be offered in due course.


Note:              The meeting adjourned at 6.40pm and recommenced at 6.45pm



To Approve the Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 432 KB

i)       Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 31 March 2021

Additional documents:


RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 31 March 2021 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record.


Declarations of Interest

Members may make any declarations of interest at this point but may also make them at any time during the course of the meeting.


Additional documents:


Councillor A. White declared that she had received a lobbying email in relation to application number 142666, Eastgate Scotton, but she had not read the email. Councillor I. Fleetwood noted this declaration was for all Members of the Committee.


Councillors M. Devine, J. Rainsforth and M. Boles declared that, whilst they had submitted comments in objection to application number 142208, Foxby Lane, the application had since been amended and they were addressing the application in front of the Committee with an open mind and no prejudice.


Councillor C. Hill declared that she was Ward Member for application number 142117, Old Airfield Reepham Road, however she would consider the application a Member of the Planning Committee.




Update on Government/Local Changes in Planning Policy


Note – the status of Neighbourhood Plans in the District may be found via this link


Additional documents:


The Committee heard the following update from the Interim Planning Manager (Development Management) regarding planned changes to planning policy.


The Queen’s Speech on 11 May 2021 announced the Planning & Environment Bills, expected in Autumn 2021.


  • The government intended to change local plans to “provide more certainty” over permissible development - "changing local plans" so they "provide more certainty over the type, scale and design of development permitted on different categories of land". It went on to say that the changes would involve "clear land allocations in local plans" which would provide "more certainty for communities and developers …
  • The planning bill would involve "digitising" the planning system to make it "more visual" and would aim to improve public engagement in planning. 
  • A new levy was promised to replace existing methods of securing developer contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing "replacing the existing systems for funding affordable housing and infrastructure from development with a new more predictable and more transparent levy". Last year’s planning white paper said the Government wanted to replace the community infrastructure levy (CIL) with a "nationally set, value-based, flat-rate charge", equal to a fixed proportion of the development's value, above a yet-to-be-determined threshold.
  • Various aspects of planning decision-making would be accelerated - The Planning Bill would aim to create "simpler, faster procedures for producing local development plans" as well as for "approving major schemes" and "assessing environmental impacts”


Changes to permitted development rights for electronic communications infrastructure: technical consultation


Members were advised of the technical consultation, available via the following link:


The technical consultation for increasing PD rights for telecommunications masts was open until 14 June 2021. Officers would be preparing a response to seek that sensitive areas such as the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB and Conservation Areas would not be unduly affected. 


The following update regarding Neighbourhood Plans was detailed to the Committee.


Neighbourhood Plan/s


Planning Decision


Made Neighbourhood Plans

Brattleby, Caistor*, Cherry Willingham, Dunholme, Great Limber, Lea, Nettleham*, Osgodby, Riseholme, Scotter, Scothern, Saxilby, Welton, Willoughton, Glentworth, Spridlington, and Sudbrooke.

Full weight

Scotton NP

Referendum held on 6 May successful. To be made/adopted by Full Council on 28 June 2021.

Full weight

Bishop Norton NP

Referendum held on 6 May successful. To be made/adopted by Full Council on 28 June 2021.

Full weight

Gainsborough NP

Referendum held on 6 May successful. To be made/adopted by Full Council on 28 June 2021.

Full weight

Morton NP

Referendum held on 6 May successful. To be made/adopted by Full Council on 28 June 2021.

Full weight

Corringham NP

Submission NP consultation (Regulation 16) closes 21 May 2021.

Increasing weight

Sturton and Stow NP

Parish councils have approved joint NP for submission (Regulation 16) consultation.

Some weight

Hemswell and Harpswell NP

Consultation on submission version of NP (Regulation 16) underway soon.

Some weight

Hemswell Cliff NP

Consultation on the draft version of NP (Regulation 14) begins 7 June 2021.

Some weight

Northorpe NP  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.


142117 - Old Airfield, Reepham Road pdf icon PDF 82 KB

Additional documents:


The Chairman introduced the first application of the evening, number 142117 for construction and operation of a solar photovoltaic farm, including fencing, internal service tracks, inverters, transformer stations, cabling, CCTV, landscaping, substations and ancillary cabins at The Old Airfield Reepham Road Fiskerton Lincoln.


Note:              The Chairman declared that he had been present at a meeting of the Parish Council when the developer had made a presentation. He confirmed he had had no input and remained impartial.


The Committee heard from the Principal Development Management Officer with updates to the report. He read aloud the following response from Public Protection:


“The contaminated land preliminary appraisal report supplied and associated to 142117 advises in section 6 (Conclusions and Recommendations) that there is potential for localised contaminants to be present across the site which may pose a risk (albeit low) to construction/maintenance workers. In section 7 (Further Works) recommendations are made to investigate this potential risk further during works to identify suitable foundation solutions with sampling and testing of any made ground found in locations likely to be disturbed by groundworks etc.


In view of the above no works, other than the recommended further investigation works, ought to be permitted until the recommendations within the preliminary appraisal report are undertaken and a suitable report to determine if any further action or mitigation is required has been submitted and approved by LPA.”


Additionally, the Principal Development Management Officersuggested an additional condition to be numbered as 5 with subsequent conditions renumbered accordingly, as well as additional words to be added to condition 3. These amendments were read aloud for Members’ understanding.


The Chairman explained there were two registered speakers for the item, he welcomed the first speaker, Mr Cook, Agent for the Applicant, to the meeting and invited him to makae his statement.


Mr Cook made the following statement to the Committee.


“It seems that every day, there is a news report, or scientific evidence, and ultimately a warning in the media about the potentially devastating consequences our planet will face through climate change. In May, 2019, UK Parliament declared a climate emergency, and since then there has been a clear steer and policy direction to reduce or halt, climate change. Central to this is the target to be net zero by 2050, meaning that there is an equal balance between carbon emissions, capture and offsetting. This will affect people's lives. For example, in the way we make commodities in factories, how we travel, and how the energy we all use is generated. The requirement to achieve Net Zero is also central to decision making at a local level. In March this year, the Central Lincolnshire area made a commitment to start the review process of the local plan, and I'm quoting from the Central Lincolnshire website, that “the review process has begun to do more to reduce carbon emissions and to demonstrably assist Central Lincolnshire and becoming a carbon Net Zero sub region, as soon as it is practically possible”. Whilst Lincoln  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.


142208 - Foxby Lane pdf icon PDF 172 KB

Additional documents:


The Chairman introduced planning application number 142208 for variation of condition 16 of planning permission 138921 granted 29 August 2019 re: completion of roundabout, on land at Foxby Lane Gainsborough Lincolnshire. Members heard from the presenting Officer that in the time since publication of the report, the Agent had been in contact wishing to assure Members that the intention was not to deliver both roundabouts prior to the occupation of the 455th dwelling and this had been a mistake within the submission. She explained it was only ever the intention to amend the trigger for the Foxby Hill / Lea Road roundabout. The trigger for the Foxby Hill / Lea Road roundabout to be completed was proposed to be: prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling, or two years from the date of the permission, whichever was the earliest date.


The Chairman thanked the Officer and noted there was one registered speaker, Emma Lancaster, Agent for the Applicant. He welcomed her to the meeting and she made the following statement to Members.


“Thank you Chairman and good evening, Members. I'm not proposing to speak for five minutes this evening, because the proposal that's before you is relatively simple. As Rachel's just explained, the proposal is for the amendment of condition 16 of the consent, which was granted some time ago for a mixed use urban extensions of South of the town. Condition 16 requires two roundabouts, one at the junction of Middlefield Lane and Foxby Lane, and another at the junction of Foxby Hill and Lea Road are delivered before any dwellings at the sites are occupied. Through this application, the developers of the first phase of residential development are requesting that the trigger point, the delivery of the roundabout at the junction of Foxby Hill and Lea Road is amended so that some homes can be occupied prior to completion.


There are several reasons for this request, namely the scale of the roundabout works and the length of time it would take to deliver them, all the while, it not being possible to occupy any of the much needed new homes at the site. Secondly, a significant upfront cost of the infrastructure works to the developers, and how this can be balanced by the revenue from sales. The application was accompanied by transport evidence which demonstrates that the roundabout in question is not required, until around 455 dwellings are occupied. However, working with your Officers, and in recognition of Ward Members’ and local residents’ concerns about both existing and anticipated traffic from the development, Keepmoat are proposing to amend the condition so that it requires completion of the roundabouts prior to 100 dwellings being occupied or within two years of any permission you may grant today, whichever is the sooner. This means the occupation of 100 dwellings prior to both roundabouts being complete is an absolute worst case scenario. Members will note that the proposed variation is being considered by the council's highways team who  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.


142916 - Depot pdf icon PDF 715 KB

Additional documents:


The Chairman introduced planning application number 142916 to erect a new operational services depot to facilitate waste services in the region, including an operations office and staff welfare building, external yard for storage and maintenance of the vehicle fleet, bulky storage facility, staff and visitor parking, and site landscaping being variation of condition 9 of planning permission 140485 granted 8 July 2020 re: approved plans, on land East of A15/North of A631 Caenby Corner Market Rasen Lincolnshire. The Chairman made a declaration on behalf of all Members that this was regarding a Council application however all would remain impartial.


Members heard from the Development Management Team Leader that since the report had been published. a representation had been received from Glentham Parish Council who had no objections or comments to the application.


With no registered speakers, the Chairman invited comments from Members of the Committee and noted that had it not been a Council application, it would not have been presented to the Committee.


Having been moved and seconded it was unanimously agreed that permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:


Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:




Conditionswhich apply or require matters to be agreed before the development commenced:


1. Foul water drainage shall proceed in accordance with the details approved in compliance with condition application 141372 and the scheme shall be in place prior to the first use of the site.


Reason: To ensure appropriate foul water treatment facilities are in place to serve the development and prevent pollution and flooding of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy LP14 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.


2. The scheme for the prevention and interception of any pollutants from the development to the water environment shall proceed in accordance with the details approved in compliance with condition application 141372 and the scheme shall be in place prior to the first use of the site.


Reason: To prevent pollutants from the development contaminating the water environment in accordance with Policy LP14 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.


3. The scheme of ecological enhancements for the site shall proceed in accordance with the details approved in compliance with condition application 141372.


Reason: To secure ecological enhancements in accordance with the requirements of Policy LP21 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.


Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the development:

4. Development shall proceed in accordance with the precautionary mitigation measures as recommended for amphibians at paragraph 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13; birds at 5.18; and reptiles at 5.23 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal as submitted with application 140485.


Reason: To prevent harm to protected species in accordance with Policy LP21 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.


5. External finishing materials shall proceed in accordance with the details approved in compliance with condition application 142188.


Reason: To secure good design in accordance with Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.


6. Landscaping shall proceed in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.


142666 - Plot 1 Eastgate, Scotton pdf icon PDF 132 KB

Additional documents:


Members gave consideration to planning application number 142666 for approval of reserved matters for Plot 1, considering appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following outline planning permission 139520 granted 16 January 2020 to erect 9no. dwellings with access considered on Plot 1, land south of Eastgate Scotton Lincolnshire. Members heard that one further objection had been received however it did not alter the Officer recommendation.


The Chairman stated there was one registered speaker. He invited My Bayley, Agent for the Applicant, to address the Committee. Mr Bayley made the following statement.


“Good evening my name is John Bayley of Keystone Architecture, I am the agent on behalf of the applicants.


The reserved matters application for Plot 1 Eastgate was submitted following the outline approval, as you know, for the nine dwellings on the site. I believe this was the last reserved matters application for consideration. The outline approval restricted plot one to a single storey property to ensure the scale was appropriate in relationship to the neighbouring property at number 32 Eastgate. The house as presented is a bungalow, with a low pitch roof, to keep the scale of the property down. As mentioned, the height of the roof at the highest point is 6.2 metres in height. This is actually exactly the same height as the ridge on the neighbouring property of plot two, which is also 6.2 metres in height. As also mentioned the land is lower, by around just over a metre, to number 32 Eastgate so this property will sit lower than the two storey building to the right hand side of it, if you're looking at it from the road.


As for some of the comments made by the local residents, some of the objectors, were not viewed as material considerations and some related to the wider development of the site, which has obviously already been dealt with. Taking the more specific comments in relation to the proposal, we take these, and those raised by the Parish Council, as predominantly to do with the appearance of the property. Most of the other smaller queries and comments I believe have been dealt with by the Officer in his report. The obvious comments that we seem to view, are the old ‘not in keeping’ or ‘out of character’, this sort of wording. Yes, this design is not standard developer style housing. The property respects the design code in the Scotton Neighbourhood Plan (SNP), which identifies the materials proposed should take inspiration from the local vernacular. Those materials, as you could see on some of the evidential photographs on the slides, included red brick and render, and slate grey slate tiles as found locally in this part of Scotton and the wider area. The SNP does not include specific design restrictions governing appearance, the design of a property is and always will be subjective. The SNP does, however, include a photograph of another Keystone Architecture property on Middle Street. It was another modern property of render and cedar  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.


142495 - 43 Pingle Close pdf icon PDF 306 KB

Additional documents:


The Committee gave consideration to the last application of the evening, application number 142495 for ground floor extension to form garage, together with first floor extension above at 43 Pingle Close Gainsborough Lincolnshire. There were no updates from the Officer and the Chairman invited the Democratic and Civic Officer to read aloud the statement provided by the applicant. She read aloud as follows:


“I have written this note in support of our planning application 142495- 43 Pingle Close, Gainsborough.


We are proceeding with this application because it has received the full support of our neighbour and we would have amended the plans or withdrawn our application if this was not the case, as we would not want to do anything that they were not happy with.


Our neighbour’s garden is north facing and as shown within the light Survey modelled by our agent, it shows that our current property already casts a shadow over our neighbours garden in its current form and the shadowing effect of the proposed extension on the neighbour’s garden is minimal, and the proposal does not cast a shadow on their property at all.


In respect to LP26, there is no "Overlooking" impact from our proposed extension and as already mentioned there is no “Loss of Light” impact on the building and minimal impact on the bottom of the garden towards the end of the day. We have endeavoured to limit any impact from “overshadowing” by not proposing an extension that is built right up to the boundary and have instead moved the wall some c.1450mm away from the fence line.


LP26 provides guidance on the areas that should be considered, but it does not provide any objective criteria by which these areas should be measured and therefore there is a degree of subjectivity to the concerns raised by the planning officer, which are not shared by Myself, My agent and most importantly by the homeowner of the only property impacted by our proposed extension, being No 41, who have recorded their support for our application on two separate occasions. Based on these points I hope that you will be able to approve our application.


Mr Michael Redwood - Homeowner and Applicant”


The Chairman enquired whether the application would have been presented to Committee had the application not been an Officer or relation to the Council. The Interim Planning Manager (Development Management) explained that it was an unusual situation in that there was definite support from the neighbouring property, however on balance it would have been determined under delegated powers.


Members of the Committee expressed uncertainty as to whether the application should be refused or granted, given the level of support from the neighbouring property. It was felt that the impact of the proposed extension on the neighbour’s land was a risk for the current homeowners to consider. It was accepted that there would be a loss of amenity however with no objections to the proposal, there was a lack of consensus as to whether the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.


Determination of Appeals pdf icon PDF 214 KB

Additional documents:


The determination of appeals was NOTED.