Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from     Councillor David Cotton

                                                            Councillor Hugo Marfleet

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

There was no public participation.

i)          Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 27 July 2016, previously circulated

Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 27 July 2016.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 27 July 2016, be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

All Members declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 2 (134622 – Gainsborough) as the applicant was West Lindsey District Council.

There were no updates to report.

RESOLVED that the applications detailed in report PL.05 16/17 be dealt with as follows:-

Outline planning application for erection of 69 no. dwellings-access tobe considered and not reserved for subsequent applications on land at Brigg Road, Caistor.

Outline planning application for the erection of 69 dwellings - access tobe considered and not reserved for subsequent applications on land at Brigg Road, Caistor.

The Principal Development Management Officer updated the Committee on further representations which had been received. Comments had been received from Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) Highways department, that there were drainage issues and insufficient information regarding flood risk, and that the application should be refused.

Caistor Town Council had objected on grounds of highways concerns, however had no problem with the location and design of the development.

A further representation had been received from the applicant’s agent acknowledging that as yet there was no solution to the drainage problems, but that they were committed to solving the matter and would include the SUDS system as required.  Revised proposals had been submitted to LCC Highways for consideration and it was requested that the decision be delegated to the Chief Operating Officer on resolution of the drainage issues.

Communication had since taken place with LCC Highways officers who were still unable to support the proposals, stating that the whole scheme needed to be reassessed.

Town Councillor Alan Caine then addressed the meeting and had circulated proposed additional reasons for refusal, and also a list of conditions to be applied should the Committee be minded to grant permission.  Councillor Caine then described the proposed access on a bend, which with two new tourist sites gave potential for accidents, as it was believed there were several unreported incidents at that location.  Reference was then made to the Area of High Landscape Value and Area of Natural Beauty.  The density of 69 dwellings on the site was felt to be too many and that guidance recommended only 50 in such open areas.  The name Waterhills signified the nature of the land with an underlying chalk watercourse, with biodiversity and rare wildlife habitats.  There was the potential for the pollution of the watercourse and subsequent impact on the wildlife.

Louise Longstaff then spoke on behalf of the applicant, describing how work had been ongoing with officers for a number of years to achieve an acceptable proposal.  The site would be complementary to Caistor in a sustainable location and was within 600m of the town centre as required by the Caistor Neighbourhood Plan.  Few of the objections raised had any policy basis and apart from the drainage issues all aspects were considered acceptable.  The land was in private ownership and had never been designated for public recreation.  A contribution towards educational provision had been offered.  The applicant was committed to addressing the drainage issues and requested that approval be delegated to the Chief Operating Officer on resolution of the problems which were a minor technicality for which a resolution was possible.

Dan Morgan and Paul Stubbs then addressed the Committee as residents in objection to the proposals, stating whilst it was acknowledged that Caistor had to expand there were other more appropriate sites, on brownfield land and closer to facilities.  Concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33a

Planning application for change ofuse ofwaste ground to car parking at Car Park, Hickman Street, Gainsborough.

Planning applicationfor change ofuse ofwaste ground to car parking at Hickman Street, Gainsborough.

Note All Members of the Committee declared a non-pecuniary interest as the land was owned by West Lindsey District Council.

It was acknowledged that the proposal extended an existing car park and provided an additional 26 spaces, and also tidied an eyesore which needed addressing.

It was moved, seconded and voted upon, and subsequently AGREED that consent be GRANTED.

Planning application to construct two storey side extension includingsingle storey porch enclosure at front at 30 Heapham Road, Gainsborough.

Planning application to construct two storey side extension includingsingle storey porch enclosure at front at 30 Heapham Road, Gainsborough.

It was verified that the applicant was an officer of the Council, hence the requirement for Committee determination.  The application did not contravene any policies or design guidance, it was therefore moved, seconded and voted upon.

It was then AGREED to GRANT Conditional Planning Permission.

Objection to Tree Preservation Order Ingham No1 2016

A tree application had been received to fell a large mature sycamore tree on land owned by the applicant at Ingham. The tree was situated close to the boundary with a residential property called Sycamore Lodge, and the reasons given for the tree removal were due to shading and virtually touching the house, and to avoid further complications.

On validating the application it was noted that the tree species on the application did not match the tree species in the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) document. It was realised that the original TPO document contained errors which could bring into question whether the tree was actually the one supposed to be protected by the TPO.  It was decided that a new TPO needed to be made to ensure the tree was adequately protected, and avoid the protection of the TPO being questioned which could result in the tree being allowed to be felling in the event of an appeal.

Committee Members agreed that the tree added amenity value to the street scene.

On being moved, seconded and voted upon it was:

RESOLVED: the confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order Ingham No1 2016 be approved.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to express their views on the current start time of meetings of 6pm, as opposed to the previous regular time of 6.30pm.

Whilst the reason for the earlier start had been due to some long agendas, and since that time there had not been a large amount of applications, it was not possible to vary the commencement time of meetings according to the length of the agenda, this was affirmed by the legal officers present.  A consistent start time had to be set to ensure that members of the public knew what time to expect the meeting to commence.

Members noted that it could be difficult for those that worked during the day, to get to the Guildhall for a 6pm start, plus free car parking in Marshall’s Yard did not commence until 6pm.  Sympathy was offered to those officers who had been at work for the whole day prior to the meeting, however it was generally felt that a 6.30pm start time was preferred.

It was moved, seconded and voted upon and RESOLVED that the normal commencement time of Planning Committee Meetings revert to the previous start time of 6.30pm.

The Ward Member for the Tealby application expressed his disappointment at the outcome of the appeal.

RESOLVED: that the determination of appeals be noted.