Agenda and draft minutes

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

There was no public participation.

Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 8 January 2025, previously circulated.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 8 January 2025, be confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

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

The Chairman welcomed the new Members of the Committee, Councillor Roger Pilgrim and Councillor Paul Swift.

Regarding application number 147744, Pallinc Ltd, Beehive Business Park, Church Lane, Rand, the Chairman made a statement on behalf of all Members of the Planning Committee; it was explained that Members had received an email from the Applicant's Agent and the Chairman stated that the email had been deleted without being read.

In reference to application number 147744, Cllr Fleetwood declared a non-pecuniary interest in his capacity as District Councillor for the area. It was stated that he had not been lobbied and therefore would participate fully in the discussion and vote.

With regard to application number 00446, Land North of Corn Close, Fiskerton, Cllr Fleetwood declared a non-pecuniary interest in his capacity as County Councillor for the area. It was stated that he had not been lobbied by the Parish Council, or individuals, and therefore would participate fully in the discussion and vote.

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

https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/my-services/planning-and-building/neighbourhood-planning/

The Committee heard from the Development Management Team Manager regarding updates to local and national planning policy. It was explained that a joint statement had been made by the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister regarding the acceleration of planning reform to promote growth. The Government had outlined its next steps on planning reform, including reform of the statutory consultee system for planning applications, with a moratorium on any new statutory consultees. The Manager stated that the Government would review existing arrangements to ensure alignment with growth ambitions.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Manager explained, was planned to be released in spring 2025, and would include measures to expedite the development of infrastructure and homes, and fast-track critical projects such as windfarms, power plants, and major road and rail projects. It was added that a streamlined set of national policies for decision-making was to be introduced to guide local authorities and promote housebuilding in key areas. It was also noted that in a significant growth initiative, the Government would ensure that applications for acceptable schemes in key areas such as high-potential locations near commuter transport hubs would default to approval. The Manager stated that according to the Government, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) would be replaced with simpler and clearer Environmental Outcome Reports, as introduced in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act.

The Manager outlined changes locally, explaining that following the planning changes in December, which included the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the national standard method for calculating housing need, a Five Year Supply Interim Update Statement (February 2025) had been produced. It was stated that a 5% buffer was now required to be added to the five-year Housing Land Supply (HLS), resulting in 7.45 years of deliverable supply, above the five-year requirement. It was anticipated that a 20% buffer may be applicable by 1 July 2026, which would be kept under review.

The Manager outlined updates to Neighbourhood Plans in the local area. It was explained that the Reepham Neighbourhood Plan examination had been completed, with the examiner’s decision statement published, and a referendum date pending. With regard to the Dunholme Review, it was stated that the examination was currently underway, with a clarification note issued to the Dunholme Parish Council for their consideration and response.

The Committee gave consideration to the first application on the agenda, application number 00446, seeking outline permission to erect up to 150 dwellings with access to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications, on land north of Corn Close, Fiskerton.

The Officer gave an update to the Committee by reading out an email from the Applicant. The email addressed the education contribution as considered in the report. It was stated that the Applicant had expressed willingness to agree that an education contribution based on the methodology set out in the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) would be followed. However, it was noted that, at this moment, it was not possible to determine the scheme mix with certainty, and therefore, settling on a set figure would be premature. It was requested that delegated authority be given to the Officer to agree on the educational contribution during the drafting of the Section 106 agreement.

The Officer noted that there was a difference of opinion in terms of the required education contributions; the Applicant had agreed to a lower figure, using figures published in the SPD. However, a figure higher by £300,000 had been requested, which had not been agreed by the Applicant.

A Member of the Committee proposed to defer the application until further clarity had been provided regarding education contributions, in order to make a relevant and full judgement. The proposal was seconded, and, on taking the vote it was

RESOLVED that the application be deferred until further clarity had been provided regarding education requirements and contributions.

Before the Officer introduced the report, the Committee first heard from the Development Management Team Manager, who highlighted a clarification regarding the application’s reported representations. The Manager explained he was aware that written comments made in support of the application, that were in fact attributable to a Mr Martin Snee of Willingham by Stow, had been incorrectly recorded as being a representation made by Councillor Jim Snee of the Planning Committee. The written comments had been erroneously published on the Council’s website under Councillor Snee’s name. However, it was explained, these comments were not made by Councillor Snee, and the planning team had not received any representations from Councillor Snee regarding the application. The Manager apologised to Councillor Snee, and emphasised that as soon as the error came to light, the website was updated to correctly reflect that the comments were made by a Mr Martin Snee. It was confirmed that the comments therefore did not amount to any pre-determination on the part of Councillor Snee.

Councillor Snee responded to the Manager’s comments. Appreciation was expressed for the clarification and the explanation provided, however, Councillor Snee stated he was disappointed that the issue had not been identified at an earlier date, as notification was only received the previous week. Due to the timelines involved, and to ensure that the application was not influenced by any decision, it was highlighted that he would abstain from taking part in the discussion or vote for application number 00662. It was noted that Councillor Snee would remain in the Chamber to carry out duties as Vice-Chairman, if the Chairman so wished.

Members of the Committee then gave consideration to application number 00662, seeking planning permission for the installation and operation of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with ancillary infrastructure, landscaping, and biodiversity enhancements, on land at Willingham by Stow Farm, Marton Road, Willingham by Stow.

The Officer explained that two objection addresses had been omitted from the printed report. These objections were from Sandy Bar Cottage, Marton Road, and 23 Saxilby Road, Sturton by Stow. It was added that an additional objection had been received from Green Farm, Willingham by Stow. The objections raised the same issues as the objections summarised in the report, bringing the total number of objections received to nine.

Since the publication of the report, the Officer continued, a consultation response had been received from Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Service. They confirmed that, following the Applicant’s initial consultation, they were comfortable with the proposed plans and safety measures. It was confirmed that their response was available on the Council’s website.

The Officer proceeded to highlight recommended amendments to the printed conditions. In relation to condition one, which pertained to the time to implement the permission condition, the Agent had requested that a five-year time commencement condition be added to the permission instead of the three-year period. It was stated that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) could grant permission for such a period under Section 91.1(b) of the Town and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 188.

The Committee gave consideration to the final application on the agenda, application number 147744, seeking the expansion of existing business premises to provide a new car park, and pallet production building, at Beehive Business Park, Church Lane, Rand. The Officer introduced the application and

provided an update regarding page 128 on the report pack, which referenced the door of workshop one. It was clarified that the door would serve a storage area only and would not be in operational use, thus there was no need for it to be conditioned as closed. No changes to the proposed conditions resulted from the update.

The Officer continued, showcasing the location and features of the proposed development using plans and photographs. The site plan was displayed, highlighting the existing workshop building to the west, the proposed extension to the south, and the proposed hard-standing lorry park area in the middle. It was noted that the proposed ground floor plan indicated a single-story development with a pallet sorting system. The Officer explained that a lighting scheme had been submitted with the application, and an indication of this was provided. Noise scenarios had also been submitted, the Officer stated, and outlined the expected noise differences between the existing site and the proposed site. The Officer concluded, stating that Lincolnshire County Council Highways had requested a specific section of Rand Lane to be widened as a planning condition.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her presentation and stated that there was one registered speaker; Mr Waring, Applicant, who was invited to address the Committee.

Mr Waring explained that he was one of the owners of Pallinc as well as other local businesses based at Rand Farm Park. It was noted that their enterprises in Rand provided 300 jobs and contributed positively to the district. The application, the Applicant explained, was part of the journey to develop Pallinc as a sustainable, conscientious, and sympathetic business, acknowledging the sensitivity of the rural setting and environmental impact. Pallinc was identified as the largest company in the UK refurbishing wooden pallets entirely from recycled materials, with monthly pallet volumes exceeding 200,000 units since starting in 2015. After reviewing the Officer’s report, Mr Waring highlighted a willingness to work with the Council to address third-party comments, taking steps to recognise and mitigate material impacts. It was stated that there were no objections from statutory consultees and multiple comments in support of the application. Mr Waring welcomed the findings of the report, and the recommendation of approval was supported.

The Applicant sought to reassure the Committee and objectors regarding the efforts taken to address concerns of noise egress and traffic on Rand Lane. Mr Waring stated that their operations would not have an unacceptable impact on noise levels, and mitigation measures had been implemented, included modifying workbenches to absorb sound, retrofitting white noise sounders on forklifts, and renting alternative space on site for vehicle storage away from neighbours. It was added that the Council’s Environmental Protection team investigated noise levels at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 189.

There are no Determination of Appeals to note.

There were no Determination of Appeals to note.