Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - The Guildhall. View directions

Contact: Ele Snow  Democratic and Civic Officer


No. Item


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 registered speaker under the Public Participation scheme, Councillor Robin Darby of the Bardney Group Parish Council. He explained that, given current uncertainties regarding the spread of the new strain of covid-19, Councillor Darby had submitted a statement to be read aloud on his behalf. The following statement was duly read aloud by the Democratic Services Officer:


“At the Planning Committee in December 2020, comments were made with regards to the actions of Bardney Group Parish Council and in particular an allegation in relation to lobbying. At no time during the proceedings did anyone from this Committee correct the speaker. These allegations were made in front of our residents and has done reputational damage to my council. In January, Bardney Group Parish Council, wrote to West Lindsey District Council, highlighting the error by this committee and asking for a formal apology.


At the February 2021 Planning Committee meeting Cllr Cotton apologised to this committee for his misleading comments, however this did not extend to Bardney Group Parish Council. 


In May 2021, I sat before this committee and outlined the fact that Bardney Group Parish Council had still not received an apology, to which the response from the Chairman was to say, that due to the fact that he had not received prior notice of my question, a response could not be offered.


I did make a request to speak again on this issue at the September Planning Committee meeting, however due to an administration error this did not happen.


Therefore, one year on from the event, Bardney Group Parish Council would like to receive a formal public, and fully minuted, apology from this council for misleading members of the public and causing reputational damage through comments and allegations that were made by the West Lindsey District Council Planning Committee at the December 2020 meeting.”


The Chairman acknowledged the statement and explained that the matter would be raised with the Monitoring Officer for response. Councillor D. Cotton raised a Point of Information regarding previous correspondence on this matter, the Chairman reiterated for the statement to be referred to the Monitoring Officer.



To Approve the Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 400 KB

i)       Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 3 November 2021.

Additional documents:


RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 3 November 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 C. Hill declared that she was the Ward Member for Cherry Willingham ward, in relation to application number 143301 (agenda item 6d) however she had had no prior communication and would deal with it as a member of the Planning Committee.


Councillor I. Fleetwood, for transparency, declared he was County Councillor for Bardney and Cherry Willingham (in relation to application number 143301, agenda item 6d) however would remain in the Chair for that item.



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:


Members heard that there were no policy updates to note however the following summary of Neighbourhood Plans was provided.


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, Sudbrooke, Scotton, Bishop Norton and Atterby, Gainsborough, and Morton.

Full weight

Corringham NP

Examination successful. A decision statement has been issued confirming that NP should be given significant weight in planning decisions and that the referendum is to be held this week on Thursday 2 December.

Significant weight

Sturton by Stow and Stow joint NP

Consultation on the submission version of NP (Reg16) has closed . Responses to consultation posted on WLDC website. Examination process has begun with the appointment of an examiner.

Increasing weight

Hemswell Cliff NP

Submission version to be issued (Reg16) soon.

Some weight

Hemswell and Harpswell joint NP

Submission version received. Consultation (Reg16) to commence shortly.

Some weight

Keelby NP

Expect to receive pre–submission version in near future for our comments (Reg 14).

Little weight

Grasby NP

Preparation now underway. Leaflet drop to residents to take place also to seek volunteers to help with the NP.

Little weight

Caistor NP Review*

Consultation starts early in New Year with workshops and other community engagement events.

Little weight

Neighbourhood Plans

- made (21)

- in preparation (20)

- in pipeline (42)

- being reviewed (2)*

To view all of WLDC’s neighbourhood plans go to:

NP stage-weighting

-Made–full weight

-Referendum successful–full weight

-Examination successful/Decision Statement issued–significant weight

-Submission Reg16–increasing weight

-Draft Reg14 - some weight

-Designated – little weight




142221 Little London Farm North Kelsey pdf icon PDF 287 KB

Additional documents:


The Chairman introduced the first application of the evening, planning application number 142221, outline planning permission for three dwellings including demolition of existing commercial buildings - all matters reserved, on land adjacent to Little London Farm, Little London, North Kelsey, Market Rasen.


With no updates from the Planning Officer, the Chairman invited the registered speaker, Leanne Pogson, Agent for the Applicant, to address the Committee. The Agent made the following statement:


“Thank you and good evening. My name is Leanne Pogson and I'm the agent representing the applicants who are the executors of the estate of Mrs. Audrey Balderson. This application seeks outline permission for three dwellings including demolition of existing commercial buildings and has been recommended for approval by the case officer.

The site is located in a built footprint of North Kelsey and comprises of two frame buildings which are in a poor state of repair, an area of hardstanding is around that building also. There are traditional brick buildings to the west which are the subject of an application for conversion to a dwelling which will be considered by this committee after this application.

Access to the site will be by the existing vehicle access which also serves two residential dwellings to the south of application site. This access leads onto Cemetery Lane. As stated in the officer's report North Kelsey has a growth level of up to 10% and will still support 13 new dwellings before this growth limit is met. The site is within the built footprint of the settlement, is a brownfield site and is therefore within the first category of land to be developed on the land availability sequential test in policy LP4. There are no technical objections to the application, with highways, drainage, ecology and environmental health comments all being considered to be acceptable, subject to appropriate conditions. Any concerns regarding design and amenity can be designed out at reserved matter stage.

Various objections have been received in relation to the application which relates to job losses and employment. I can confirm that following the death of the owner of the site, the sole tenant of the site was given notice to leave. Notice was served on the 19th of August 2020, which confirmed the tenancy would end on the 22nd of February 2021. The notice was served before the planning applications were submitted with the hope that the planning applications would be determined soon after the site became vacant. The tenancy was extended until June 2021, due to the tenant having an operation. The site was vacated at the end of June and still remains vacant. As notice to vacate the site was given an advance of the application being submitted, and the site being vacant, there are no jobs to be lost by the proposal. The officer’s report goes into more details regarding planning history and the businesses which have been advertised on the site.


As outlined in the officer's report, the site would have potential to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.


142247 Little London Farm North Kelsey pdf icon PDF 260 KB

Additional documents:


The Chairman introduced the next application, number 142247, application for conversion of barns to 1no. dwelling at Little London Farm, Little London, North Kelsey, Market Rasen. There were no updates and the Officer presented details of the application to the Committee.


The Chairman confirmed there was one registered speaker and invited Leanne Pogson, Agent, to return to the Chamber ot address the Committee. The following statement was made.


“As has been said this application is associated with a previous application and seeks for planning permission for the conversion of barns to a single dwelling. Again the site is located in built footprint of North Kelsey and comprise additional one and two storey pantile barns and of the more recent additions in the form of steel port and fibre sheet roof buildings, which will be removed as part of the proposal. The barns will be converted to a single dwelling with a single storey barn converted to a bedroom, the two storey barns are a full height living area. A garden courtyard will be created to the south with a rear garden area to the north. The buildings are considered to be non designated heritage assets and worthy of retention and renovation. The proposed conversions are sympathetic to historic buildings and appropriate materials will be used in the renovations.


Conversion of the barns to residential, will ensure the retention and enhancement of these traditional buildings to preserve and enhance the character of the area. Discussions were held with a Conservation Officer by the case officer to ensure that the most appropriate design was achieved to preserve this building. Leaving the building vacant would likely result in falling into disrepair and it would be not be economically viable to renovate the building for commercial purposes, meaning conversion would be the most appropriate use.


Careful consideration has been given to the conversions by removing out of character additions and renovating the barns to replicate the original buildings as far as possible. The barn is far enough away from existing dwellings, over 20 metres at the closest point, as not to cause any loss of privacy, overlooking or the loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. As per the previous application, the access to the site will be via the existing vehicle access off Cemetery Lane. Matters related to sustainability, employment and alternative uses are all the same for the previous application. And again, there are no technical objections which cannot be overcome by conditions. Thank you.”


The Chairman thanked the speaker and opened for comments from the Committee.


A Member of the Committee raised concerns regarding how it was intended to deal with sewage and drainage water. The Officer explained condition 10 addressed these concerns.


With no comments from Members, and having been proposed and seconded, on voting it was agreed that permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions.


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


1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.


143410 Land North of Normanby Rise Claxby pdf icon PDF 909 KB

Additional documents:


The next application was introduced, application number 143410 for 4no. semi-detached dwellings on land north of Normanby Rise, Claxby, Market Rasen. The Committee heard there had been three further representations received and these were summarised as follows.


“LCC Highways: My preference would be for them to look at providing 2 spaces per dwelling. Thanks


Local Resident: Wold Haven Normanby Rise Claxby:  Despite a few cosmetic changes and moving forward of these houses, the fundamental problems of building density, parking and suitability for an AONB have not been addressed.


Reducing the development to two (perhaps detached) properties would be a far better solution.


Lincolnshire Wolds Countryside Service Manager: I have reviewed the revised plans for the four properties. I note that this is largely a return to the original submission for the site, so our concerns remain in terms of the localised impact upon the character of the nationally protected Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

We continue to support the views of Claxby Parish Council, that the plot is too small to accommodate the proposed four residential properties and that these do not link to the existing character of adjacent properties in Normanby Road.

The difficulties in the density of the dwellings proposed for the site is further evidenced by the County Council Highway’s response and its recommendation of the need for two car parking spaces per property - so a minimum of eight bays in total would be required, before allowing for any additional capacity for visitor parking.


As indicated by other respondents, I’m assuming that the previous planning application for four properties (planning ref: 98/P/0066) as detailed in the applicant’s submission, was for a much larger plot and is effectively now null and void and predates the current planning policies and guidance as covered within the Local Plan and National Planning Policy Framework.”


The Chairman stated there were three registered speakers and invited the first, the representative of Claxby Parish Council, to address the Committee. Mr David Beer made the following statement.


“Thank you Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am representing Claxby Parish Council. The parish council has already objected to the proposal for four houses on this small site, on the grounds that it's an overdevelopment of the site in a rural village in an area of outstanding natural beauty.


Following the objection, the plans were then altered to remove one half of the proposed development, leaving the other half of the site open for future development. After objections to the second proposal, this further alteration to the application reverts to what is essentially the same design of four semi detached houses, albeit slightly smaller, and the parish council objects again on the same basis. It's an overdevelopment of a small site in a small village in an AONB. It will put a strain on the infrastructure, The sewage treatment plant is already at capacity. With a potential of at least two cars per household it would also have a huge  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.


143301 Land to the West of Reepham Village Hall pdf icon PDF 164 KB

Additional documents:


The next application was introduced as planning application number 143301, for change of use of agricultural land to dog exercising park, on land to the West of Reepham Village Hall, Hawthorn Road, Reepham, Lincoln. The Chairman requested any updates from the Planning Officer and it was explained that a further comment had been received from the Environmental Protection Officer, accepting the waste management plan, providing a contact number was added. That number was added to the plan by the applicant so there was a point of contact for residents or anyone using the site. The start time of 7am had also been accepted. The Officer then detailed the application for the Committee.


The Chairman explained there were three registered speakers, all of whom had submitted statements to be read aloud, and he asked the Democratic Services Officer to begin.


The first statement from the applicant, Joe Good, was read as follows:


“Mr Chairman and members of the planning committee, I am the applicant and local farmer and would like to introduce my proposed project.


This farm diversification proposal came forwards following a huge increase in dog owners over lockdown, and in turn a huge increase in dog walkers. Unfortunately many people are unable to keep to public footpaths which results in trespass causing crop loss, and disturbance to wildlife which we are very keen to preserve. This is when the idea came to light.


The proposal consists of 2.5 acres of purpose sown dog grass with 2m high secure dog fencing and small car parking area for customers using this facility. People will be able to privately hire the exercise field for 1 hour slots from our website and receive a unique code to enter the dog park at the time of the booking.


The dog park is likely to attract:

• People training their young dogs

• Training dogs for a better recall

• Exercise for reactive dogs

• General off lead exercise


We will supply bio-degradable dog waste bags held within a dispenser. Supplied dog waste bin will be collected regularly by Biffa as stated in our waste/ odour management plan along with further details. Signage will be on site reminding customers of the rules and etiquette, mainly to promote picking up behind your pets. We will spot pick the field on a regular basis and monitor.


The proposal is located on a relatively unproductive field corner with existing access to Hawthorn road, screened by mature hedging. We feel a safe dog facility of this nature is missing, with only 1 other in Lincoln over 12 miles away.


Having spoken with local residents, the feedback we received was positive. Having liaised with a planning officer through a pre-application process, the feedback was positive.


A farm diversification project like this would bring positivity to the local farming business, whilst delivering a bespoke facility in Reepham.


Many Thanks,

Joe Good”


The second statement, from Ellis Purvis, was read as follows:


“The proposed times of 7 am  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.


143510 Land off Middle Street Ingham pdf icon PDF 110 KB

Additional documents:


The Chairman introduced the next application for consideration, number 143510 for erection of poultry farm for chicken production, including 6no. poultry houses, 1no. agricultural workers dwelling and associated infrastructure, at Johnnies Farm, land East of Plum Products Ltd, The Cliff, Ingham. The Officer updated the Committee that a signed completed copy of the unilateral undertaking had been received that day and there had been a comment received from the Department of Levelling Up Housing Communities stating they had no comment to make in relation to the environmental statement submitted with the application.


The Chairman stated there was one registered speaker, Mr Ian Pick, Agent for the Applicant. Mr Pick made the following statement.


“Thank you Chairman, Members. These planning applications involve a very complex process. Significant site selection criteria is required before we put forward these planning applications into the planning system. The issues that we need to address with these types of planning applications relate to residential amenity. The sites need to be remote from neighbours in order to comply with the Environment Agency's rules for environmental permitting for the protection of amenity so, in terms of putting these applications forward, we have to model noise, we have to model odour, to make sure it complies with the Environment Agency criteria for the granting environmental permit. That was all done prior to submitting this planning application and the development site was compliant with those rules.


We also have to look at ammonia impact to offsite sites of ecological importance, which is following Environment Agency and Natural England criteria. We're looking at whether the development will have an adverse impact on ancient woodlands, local wildlife sites, special scientific interest or special areas of conservation. Our ammonia impact assessment for this development showed it was compliant with the Natural England and Environment Agency thresholds for the development. We've also got to look at highways. These developments require HGV access for food deliveries and the collection of the birds to take them to the factory and the removal of the manure, so we need good access to the main road network.


In terms of this site, we have the two tier consenting process. We need planning permission to build it and we need an environmental permit to operate it. We've already been granted the environmental permit to operate by the Environment Agency, and that covers matters of disposal of waste, residential amenity, noise, odour, ammonia, drainage. In terms of the highways’ impacts of the development, we have been in negotiation with the Highway Authority, who came back to us wanting some improvement to the highway access. We have agreed to, and provided plans for, widening of the entrance and widening of the access road into the site so that two HGVs can pass. In terms of the ammonia issue, we are fully compliant with environmental permitting and Natural England regulations.


In terms of the consultation on this application, we've presented an application for a poultry unit. This type of development generally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.


143367 Land between Elizabeth Close and Hawthorn Close Glentworth pdf icon PDF 144 KB

Additional documents:


Note:              Councillor D. Cotton left the room at 8.24pm and returned at 8.26pm


The next application was introduced by the Chairman. Planning application number 143367, seeking permission for erection of 1no. dwelling being variation of condition 3 of planning permission 141174 granted 17 September 2020 - amendment to plans, on land between Elizabeth Close and Hawthorn Close, Glentworth, Gainsborough. The Planning Officer explained that there had been further representations received from number 16 Hawthorn Close. These were received beyond the consultation date and summarised as follows.


“The submitted plans may or may not be to scale. The applicant has significantly underestimated the size of the plot for the sole purpose of this work proposed. The watercourse has been moved entirely beyond the red boundary. Not all information has been provided in the Officer’s report. From a site meeting that took place, a conversation hasn't been reported between Witham Internal Drainage Board and Lincolnshire County Council flood team regarding some information it said if it had come forward, we would have asked for the boxes to be set further back. The LCC flood team and Witham Internal Drainage Board have not provided any evidence to prove the alterations to the watercourse will not cause surface water flooding.”


Note:              Councillor I. Fleetwood declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was a member of the Witham Third Drainage Board but had held no conversation regarding the application.


The Chairman stated there were three speakers, the first of whom had submitted a statement to be read aloud and he asked the Democratic Services Officer to do so.


The statement from Glentworth Parish Council was read as follows.




This statement is being made to request that the Planning Committee either refuse the application or defer a decision on the basis that the proposed development, even with the suggested alterations, is of an inappropriate scale for the site; the plans in front of the Committee are inaccurate and not to scale; there is an unknown risk in respect of surface water flooding as a result of work already done; and that the proposed solution to stabilising the bank of the watercourse is inappropriate.  It is worth noting here that at the site meeting referenced in the report, the representative of the IDB stated that had an application for the works undertaken and proposed been made originally, or the original application referred to them, it would ‘likely have been refused’.  The site meeting is mentioned on p130 of the report but there is no reference to this comment, although it was made in front of several witnesses.


All of these are material consideration that the Planning Committee should take into account and whilst the report addresses some aspects, it is the view of the Parish Council and the residents that the assurances of the developer and his agent are insufficient.




Members of the Committee will be aware from the report and the comments on the Planning Portal of the strength of feeling this development and application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.


143287 Regangroom East Ferry Road Laughton pdf icon PDF 140 KB

Additional documents:


Planning application number 143287 was introduced, seeking permission for access track, car park and footpaths, lodge building to create 1no. residential dwelling, kennels and office space, 3no. animal pens, conversion of caravan to onsite office space, 2no. poly tunnels, enlargement of lake and other timber structures. Retention of former kennels to use as pig shed, caravan to be used as an office, wooden structure with shed and containers for shelter/gardening activities and storage, at Regangroom, East Ferry Road, Laughton.


The Chairman advised there were no speakers registered, and, with no updates from the Officer, opened for comments from the Committee.


Members were supportive of the arrangements at the location and, whilst a Member of the Committee raised concerns regarding vehicle movements on the farm land, it was confirmed that it was a shared access and there was right of access for a number of residents.


Having been moved and seconded, the Chairman took the vote and it was agreed that permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions.


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


1. The development is permitted for a temporary period expiring on 2nd December 2024 when the moveable dwelling and any ancillary structures shall be removed from the site unless prior to that date the planning permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority for its retention.


Reason: Permission has been granted in this case to enable the Local Planning

Authority to assess whether the business being established requires permanent residential accommodation for a worker to live at or near his/her place of work in accordance with policy LP55 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.


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




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


2. The occupation of the lodge shall be restricted to a person or persons solely or mainly employed, or last employed prior to retirement, or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependants of the business detailed in this application.


Reason: The site is in a rural area where permission for new development is granted only where it is essential to meet an agricultural or other special need, in accordance with policy LP55 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.


3. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment (ref: 21401) and the following mitigation measures it details:

- Finished floor levels of the lodge building shall be set no lower than 7.6 metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD)


Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.


4. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the works hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings:

21401-02 E

21401-04 C

21401-05 A

21401-06 B


The works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.


140235 Former Lindsey Shopping Centre Gainsborough pdf icon PDF 158 KB

Additional documents:


The Chairman introduced the final planning application of the evening, number 140235 for demolition of the former Lindsey Shopping Centre and proposal to develop multiplex cinema, car parking and commercial units in the following use classes, Class A1 (shops), Class A2 (financial and professional services), Class A3 (restaurants and cafes), Class A4 (drinking establishments), Class A5 (hot food takeaways) and Class D2 (assembly and leisure), together with associated works, at the former Lindsey Shopping Centre, Market Place, Gainsborough.


It was explained that, as part of the sale agreement, the former Lindsey Shopping Centre would be demolished. However, the existing condition would require the scheme of archaeological work prior to demolition. Therefore, to allow the seller to demolish and the developer/buyer to commission the archaeological work, it was proposed to amend the condition to the following:


4. No development (other than demolition) shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This should consist of set piece archaeological excavation and shall also include the following

1. An assessment of significance and proposed mitigation strategy (i.e. preservation by record, preservation in situ or a mix of these elements).

2. A methodology and timetable of site investigation and recording.

3. Provision for site analysis.

4. Provision for publication and dissemination of analysis and records.

5. Provision for archive deposition.

6. Nomination of a competent person/organisation to undertake the work.

7. The scheme to be in accordance with the Lincolnshire Archaeological Handbook.


Reason: To ensure the preparation and implementation of an appropriate scheme of archaeological mitigation and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.


This would allow only works of demolition to take place and would still require the appropriate archaeological scheme of investigation prior to any further works.


The Committee were advised that the following response had been received from Archaeology:


“Yes in principal that would be fine, provided that demolition is clearly defined as only removing existing buildings down to current ground level. If they want to grub out existing foundations or do any other disturbance below the current ground surface that needs to trigger the archaeological requirements.


It is really difficult to know what remains might survive here as so little work has happened in the middle of Gainsborough. It’s possible everything was destroyed when the current buildings went up, but it is also possible that very significant remains from the Saxon and medieval town may still survive here which would need to be recorded very carefully.


Therefore it is suggested to put other than demolition to ground level only.”


Having been proposed and seconded,it was unanimously agreed that permission be GRANTED.



Determination of Appeals pdf icon PDF 123 KB

Additional documents:


The Determination of Appeals was DULY NOTED.