Agenda and minutes

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 19 October 2016, previously circulated.

Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 16 October 2016.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 16 October 2016, be confirmed and signed as a correct 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.

Councillor David Cotton made a non-declaration to the Committee in regard to agenda item 6 (b) (134411 Newton on Trent) to clarify that this was no longer one of his ecclesiastical parishes.

Councillor Mick Devine declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 (b) (134411 Newton on Trent) as he had known one of the family many years ago.

The Planning Services Team Manager reminded Members that public examination of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan had commenced as scheduled on 1 November and ran until 14 December.  Following that period any modifications which arose would be consulted upon before the Inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, issued his final report.  This was expected around February 2017. The Committee also received an update from the Neighbourhood Plans team. The Riseholme Neighbourhood Plan had been formally adopted by Full Council at its meeting earlier in the week, and now carried full weight in planning considerations.  This was the fourth made plan in West Lindsey.  Scothern and Dunholme Neighbourhood Plans, the Examiner had now issued his final reports, a number of modifications had been proposed and accepted and the Plans would go to Prosperous Communities Committee on 6 December before public referendum in January 2017.  The Saxilby Neighbourhood plan had been submitted to the Council, consultation would commence the following day, running through to the New Year and the Examiner’s report was expected in January 2017.

Members of the Planning Committee requested that they be provided with copies (not necessarily hard copies) of all “made” Neighbourhood Plans as it was important they had cognisance of their content and could readily access them.

Officers undertook to make the necessary arrangements to ensure this was possible as all “made” plans were hosted on the Authority’s website.

RESOLVED that the applications detailed in agenda item 6 (a) – (d) be dealt with as follows:-

Retrospective planning application for change of use of field towoodyard for log cutting and amendment to 3 sided cutting shed to incorporate amendments made on site, including bio mass unit at Orange Farm, Sykes Lane, Saxilby.

Retrospective planning application for change of use of field towoodyard for log cutting and amendment to three sided cutting shed to incorporate amendments made on site, including bio mass unit at Orange Farm, Sykes Lane, Saxilby.

This application had been deferred from the previous Committee meeting to allow for a site visit to take place to assess the impact on the residential amenity, location, noise and impact on the countryside. Also further information had been awaited from the Environment Agency.

The Case Officer updated the Committee, advising that the only update was to inform Committee, that following their previous request, an Environmental Officer was in attendance, should there be any questions, in respect of environmental issues.

Mr Andrew Argyle spoke in objection to the application and made reference to points contained in Mr Colley’s submission made to the previous Committee meeting.  He challenged the reasons stated by Mr Colley for not having previously applied for planning permission as he himself had now contacted the manufacturer of the bio-mass boiler and ascertained that they would not in fact give such advice. He also advised that the documentation relating to the employment of individuals had not been forthcoming. He challenged the necessity of the bio-mass boiler to the industrial process and suggested that Mr Colley had tried to mislead the Committee.  Furthermore Committee had previously been advised that the nearest neighbour had not complained, Mr Argyle made a number of suggestions as to why this might be the case.  Referring to noise monitoring forms, all neighbours had been asked to complete these yet it had been suggested that the only evidence which would be accepted was an eye-witness statement from an Officer, Mr Argyle considered this fundamentally wrong.   The forms had been completed on a daily basis but simply ignored.  Planning Officers had stated such at the meeting in October.  Mr Argyle also stated that video and photographic evidence had been submitted to the Authority, but not shared with the Committee and thus was being ignored.   

Mr Argyle stated that the nuisance previously reported had continued both day and night and that the boiler was struck up the day after the last Committee meeting, this was in breach of planning and despite a stop notice being issued.  He was of the view Mr Colley had a complete disregard for any law of the land, his neighbours and this Authority.  He cited a number of incidents where users of the riding school had made complaints regarding the noise and smells being emitted.  Autistic children, users of the riding school, were having to cover their ears due to the chain saw noise, which was meant to be operated within the “shed” but was regularly used outside in the open.  Planning conditions were being breached on a daily basis causing distress to residents, and simply applying more would not prevent Mr Colley continuing in his current vein.  Mr Argyle stated that he and his wife simply could not live like this any longer,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54a

Outline planning application for mixed use sustainable village extension comprising up to 325no. private and affordable dwelling units - Use Class C3, community meeting and community health rooms - Use Class D1, with ancillary pub-cafe-Use Class A4 and sales area - Use Class A1, new landscaping, public and private open space - all matters reserved.   Land to West of A1133, Newton on Trent.

Outline planning application for mixed use sustainable village extension comprising up to 325 private and affordable dwelling units - Use Class C3, community meeting and community health rooms - Use Class D1, with ancillary pub-café - Use Class A4 and sales area - Use Class A1, new landscaping, public and private open space - all matters reserved.   Land to West of A1133 Newton on Trent.

Prior to opening the debate the Chairman sought and received confirmation from Committee Members that they had received a letter from the applicant’s solicitor, Gosschalks.

The Case Officer updated the Committee, advising that he would comment on the letter referred to earlier but first sought an amendment to the reason for the refusal, as set out in the report.  It was proposed that this be split as follows  and be used in place of the single one on the committee report: -

1. The development is proposed within an area at risk of flooding contrary to the sequential approach to site selection, with the aim of steering development to those areas at lowest risk of flooding advocated by the National Planning Policy Framework. The Development does not comply with the saved policies of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review (2006), most particularly STRAT 1.

2. Development of the scale proposed would result in the growth of this subsidiary rural settlement at unsustainable levels demonstrated by its inability to meet the infrastructure requirements.  Future occupants of the development would be heavily dependent on private vehicles to access employment, retail and other basic facilities leading to a significant increase in car travel. The adverse impacts of development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of development and the development does not meet the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development.  Development does not comply with the saved policies of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review (2006), most particularly STRAT 1, STRAT 12, STRAT 19, SUS 1 and RES 6.

A further update was received, in that a late e-mail had been submitted from the Ward Councillor, this was summarised to the Committee and supported deferral of the application.

Making reference again to the letter received, the Planning Officer summarised its content to the Committee before asking the Legal Officer to comment.  It was noted that the Applicant had been afforded the opportunity to withdraw the Application at this stage but had declined to do so. The letter also included two legal opinions prepared on behalf of the Applicant, again these were summarised.  These opinions expressed a view that too much emphasis was being placed on policy STRAT 7. Members were asked to note that this was not a policy that was being used to support refusal in the Officer report. The letter further sought deferral to allow the applicant to negotiate with the Education authority.  The Officer had previously spoken with officers at LCC Education Services who in turn provided an amended response which was included as part of the committee report and their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54b

Planning application for a proposed Agri-Robotics Research Facility toform part of the new Lincoln Institute for Agri-Food Technology Centre - to accompany application reference 134780 at University Of Lincoln, Riseholme Park, Riseholme, Lincoln

Planning application for a proposed Agri-Robotics Research Facility to form part of the new Lincoln Institute for Agri-Food Technology Centre - to accompany application reference 134780 at University of Lincoln, Riseholme Park, Riseholme, Lincoln.

The Case Officer confirmed there were no updates to the report.

Ruth Andrews of Riseholme Parish Meeting then addressed the Committee.  Riseholme Parish had recently made its Neighbourhood Plan and therefore had a clear mandate.  They were not objecting in principle to the application and understand that agriculture needed to develop and grow, however they urged that any development should be sympathetic to the village.  They considered the application had a number of unknowns, for example how the industrial building would sit in a rural setting.  Furthermore it would be 1.2 metres higher than any other building on the site, the figure in the report was disputed and thus would be clearly visible.  The use of the building was questioned and how this use would affect its surroundings.   The application had not been completed in its entirety and would have provided such information.  Reference had been made to chemical use in other meetings but was not referred to in the application.  How would light and noise pollution affect the area?  The Parish questioned what screening would be used, how historical assets would be protected.  There were concerns regarding tree removal.  The applicant had stated there were no trees in the development site this was simply not true and misleading.  Flooding was regular in the area, there was reference to a mains sewer that did not exist.  Ownership of the land was in dispute and the list of anomalies identified was not exhaustive.   The Parish listed a raft of policies that they considered the application did not adhere to.  The recently approved Neighbourhood Plan supported development but only if the character of the village was maintained and key assets were not affected and materials were local and in keeping.  They urged committee to either defer the application pending further information and at the very least undertake a a site visit.

Mr Simon Pearson, agent for the application then addressed the Committee.  He outlined his current role and previous experience in agriculture and indicated he understood the issues.  Lincolnshire had a world class agricultural sector and the University aimed to provide first class support to the industry.  His organisation had been successful in securing over £10m funding into collaborative research into the agri-sector.  He outlined a number of pioneering projects being undertaken.  Brexit was likely to impact migrant labour and he considered there had never been a more important or urgent time to develop robotic farming systems.  This is what the centre would be used for.  One project had a high national priority and would be featuring on a BBC show in December, putting Lincolnshire on the map for agri-tech.   The University over recent years had made significant investment in this area and now had the largest establishment in the sector in Europe.  Their work was also spreading  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54c

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 43 residentialdwellings (Use Class C3) with access to be considered and other matters reserved for subsequent applications on land between Castle Hills and The Avenue Gainsborough

Prior to the debate Councillor Cotton sought clarification as to Members’ position, considering that a number of them had debated an exempt report, the previous week.  The details of which could not be shared in open session.  The Chief Operating Officer had advised Members that they should make the Committee aware of this fact but that it did not prejudice them from taking part.  A number of other Members were in the same position and sought further guidance.

A short adjournment was sought by the Legal Adviser and granted, in order that he could better understand the position.

The meeting re-convened at 8.00pm and the Chairman confirmed that on the advice of the Legal Adviser no declaration was required and no conflict had been identified.

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 43 residentialdwellings (Use Class C3) with access to be considered and other matters reserved for subsequent applications on land between Castle Hills and The Avenue, Gainsborough.

The Case Officer updated the Committee and advised that a number of slight amendments were required to the conditions contained within the report namely: -

4.    No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable urban drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been  submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The scheme shall:

a) Provide details of how run-off will be safely conveyed and attenuated during storms up to and including the 1 in 100 year critical storm event, with an allowance for climate change, from all hard surfaced areas within the development into the existing local drainage infrastructure and watercourse system without exceeding the run-off rate for the undeveloped site;

b) Provide attenuation details and discharge rates which shall be  restricted to the 8.1 litres per second green field run off rate (unless further modelling suggests 5 litres per second in which case this discharge rate should be adhered to);

c) Provide details of the timetable for and any phasing of implementation for the drainage scheme; and

d) Provide details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed over the lifetime of the development, including any arrangements for adoption by any public body or Statutory Undertaker and any other arrangements required to secure the operation of the drainage system throughout its lifetime.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drainage scheme and no dwelling shall be occupied until the approved scheme has been completed or provided on the site in accordance with the approved phasing. The approved scheme shall be retained and maintained in full in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to minimise the risk of flooding in accordance with the provisions of the National Planning policy Framework.

8) Second reason for condition deleted: Reason: To ensure safe access to and from the site, in accordance with saved policy STRAT1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan First Review and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54d

RESOLVED: that the determination of appeals be noted.