Agenda and minutes

The Chairman invited the Planning Services Team Manager to introduce the Officers attending the Committee.

A Member also requested that case officers’ names be included on reports, to enable technical questions to be asked of the appropriate officer, when necessary.

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

Mr Steve Taylor addressed the Committee in the Public Participation part of the agenda.  Mr Taylor emphasised the importance of village halls to local communities, and questioned why, when Scothern was facing a possible increase in housing of 34%, no planning obligation monies had been received for community facilities.  Mr Taylor believed that the Council had no clear policy on this and that officers were erroneous in the advice they gave, when other authorities did support such projects.  Communities were losing out on the ability to leverage additional grant funding.  Mr Taylor requested that Councillors stand up for their communities and prove that they care, by rejecting officer advice and adopting a supportive policy for village halls.

Mr Taylor was informed he would receive a written response in due course

i)       Meeting of the Planning Committee held on XXX, previously circulated.

Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 14 December 2016.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 14 December 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 Smith declared a personal interest as he was the Ward Member for item 6d (132946 – Middle Rasen) and had also submitted comments to the Planning Inspectorate regarding the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan in respect of Policy LP2.

Councillor Cotton declared a personal interest in item 6c (133907 – Marton) as the village lay within his ecclesiastical parish.

Councillor Devine declared a personal interest in item 6c (133907 – Marton) as he had family and friends who lived opposite the proposed development.

Councillor Milne declared a personal interest in in item 6c (133907 – Marton) and item 6e (135056 - Scotton) as she had facilitated meetings between interested parties and Sir Edward Leigh MP, but had not taken part herself.

Councillor McNeill declared a personal interest as he had liaised with the public regarding item 6b (135429 – Nettleham) but had not taken part in discussions.

All Members of the Planning Committee had a personal interest in item 6c as the developer was a fellow Member, Councillor Kinch.

The Planning Services Team Manager informed the Committee of a number of updates.  The Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP) had been through its examination which concluded on 14 December 2016, after five weeks.  A number of modifications had been identified, as was normal procedure, these were being agreed between the Planning Inspectorate and the Joint Planning Committee and would then be subject to further consultation.  The final report was expected to be available towards the end of March 2017 and hopefully adopted in early April.  Further updates would be given as work progressed.

Preparation was ongoing for the examination of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and an announcement of a date was imminent, possibly late February or early March.

A Housing White paper was also to be discussed by the Government, an announcement was imminent and its possible impact on CIL was to be reviewed.

RESOLVED that the Planning Applications as set out in Item 6 be determined as set out below.

Planning application to erect 6 detached, two-storey houses with attached garages and driveways with a new vehicle and pedestrian access from Gainsborough Road on land to West of Fossdyke House, Gainsborough Road. Saxilby

Planning application to erect six detached, two-storey houses with attached garages and driveways with a new vehicle and pedestrian access from Gainsborough Road on land to West of Fossdyke House, Gainsborough Road, Saxilby.

The Senior Development Management Officer updated the Committee regarding clarification on ownership of the footpath, as the question had been raised during the site visit that had taken place.  The western part was in the ownership of the applicant and the canal bank was owned by the waterways, who had no objection to the footpath.

Mel Holliday, MD of Chiselwood developers, spoke about the application, describing how this was a local firm which had won awards for design of kitchens and conversions.  Local partners were used and high standards maintained.  The site passed the sequential test, as the waterways were managed with lock gates and there had been no instances of flooding.  The whole development was proposed to be built above the predicted worst case flooding level.  The site was higher than that of the opposite bank so any high water would go elsewhere.  The Environment Agency had no objections and consideration had been given to the Saxilby Neighbourhood Plan.  Letters of support had been received.  The footpath would be important as there was a dangerous stretch of road.

Members discussed the application and although it was felt that there were some inconsistencies in the statutory consultee responses set out in the report, it was generally felt that the proposals were of a good design, and with good environmental credentials.  It was agreed that the site was sustainable in terms of its proximity to the settlement of Saxilby, and generally felt that there were no justifiable reasons to refuse the application.

Concerns were expressed regarding bedrooms being on the ground floor in terms of flood risk, however it was clarified that the ground floors are to be raised above the minimum level.

It was moved and seconded that the application be granted, as it was felt that the sequential test had been met and the development was sustainable, and therefore noted that conditions would need to be attached to the permission.  A number of suggestions were made, such as restricted Permitted Development Rights, an Archaeological Survey to be carried out, and the retention of as many trees as possible.  The Senior Area Development Officer read out the proposed conditions, as set out below.

Note Councillor Marfleet joined the meeting at 6.58pm.

The application was then voted upon and AGREED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

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

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:  To conform with Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

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

2.    No development shall take place until a details of a scheme for the disposal of foul/surface water (including  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67a

Planning application for the full demolition of the two storey elementof the existing outbuilding, extensive repair and renovation of the single storey sections together with the rebuilding of the 2 storey area, first floor extension and change of use to form a family annex at The Cottage, 10 Church Street, Nettleham.

Planning application for the full demolition of the two storey elementof the existing outbuilding, extensive repair and renovation of the single storey sections together with the rebuilding of the two storey area, first floor extension and change of use to form a family annex at The Cottage, 10 Church Street, Nettleham.

The Principal Development Management Officer updated the Committee on the status of the concurrent Listed Building application.  Conditions 2 and 4 were to be amended to end with the words “and be retained as such thereafter.”  A further plan was to be added to Condition 4 - RDS11066/01 revision B.

Mr and Mrs Harris, neighbours to the proposed development, addressed the meeting, pointing out that although an earlier consent had been granted to refurbish an existing barn, that building had now been demolished following it becoming unsafe.  Therefore the present application was for a completely new building, proposed to be 30% taller than the original.  It was asserted that there was no need for the new building to be on the same footprint which was 1.15 metres from the neighbouring windows.  The garden was 1760 square metres so there was plenty of room for the building to be moved further away and not have the detrimental impact of the current proposal, which would cause overbearing, overshadowing and loss of light.

The Principal Development Management Officer affirmed for Members that the original approved application could no longer be implemented following the demolition of the barn.  It was felt that the new proposals were not significantly different from those approved previously.  However some members sympathised with the neighbouring residents and felt that the new application was sufficiently different to cause a number of problems of loss of light and overshadowing, and questioned the need for the new building to be on the same footprint, and whether it ought to be of the same height as the original.

It was proposed and seconded, that a site visit take place in order to be able to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties.

On being voted upon a SITE VISIT was agreed to be arranged on a date to be determined.

Hybrid planning application to include outline planning applicationfor the erection of up to 39 dwellings with all matters reserved and change of use of agricultural land to school car park on land off Stow Park Road, Stow Park Road, Marton.

Hybrid planning application to include outline planning applicationfor the erection of up to 39 dwellings with all matters reserved and change of use of agricultural land to school car park on land off Stow Park Road, Stow Park Road, Marton.

The Principal Development Management Officer read out a number of updates.  Comments had been received from Lincolnshire County Council that a system of swales were acceptable for the drainage scheme.  There were no objections from the Archaeology department.  Condition 12 was to be clarified that the car park was only for use by Marton Primary School.

Mrs T Coulson, agent for the applicant, thanked officers for the work undertaken to date.  The original proposal had been for up to 58 dwellings, however had been reduced to 39 following discussions with Planners.  Work had also been undertaken with the community and attempts made to address longstanding highways problems.  The development would provide much needed housing for young families in the area and contribute towards the five year housing land supply.  The proposal was to provide a car park for the school and also a crossing to enable safe crossing of what was a dangerous road, which would not be feasible without the housing.  There were no detrimental environmental issues or flood risk and the development would provide benefits for all.

Clarification was sought as to whether the application would have been delegated for officer approval had it not been the application of a West Lindsey Councillor, however on this occasion it was felt that there were significant enough issues for it to require Committee determination.

Members noted that the five year housing land supply had now been met so this was not a relevant issue to influence determination.

Many Members of the Committee agreed that whilst the size of the development seemed acceptable there were still significant concerns regarding the speed of traffic on the road.  Speed traps were frequently in the vicinity of what was a known problem.  As the road led to the exit to the village traffic tended to speed up with an open road in sight, and it was questioned whether there were any ways of conditioning a traffic calming scheme.

Officers asserted that whilst there was an acknowledged problem it was felt that once there was residential development on both sides of the road it would alter the perception of the outskirts of the village and the open road.  The speed limit adjacent the site was 30mph, and LCC Highways officers had not raised any objections to the application, therefore any related conditions had to be justified. Traffic calming was not therefore a condition which could be justified in the absence of a request from the Highway Authority; it would not be a requirement to make the proposal acceptable.

Questions were raised regarding the ownership of the car park.  This was expected to be taken on by the school and a legal agreement would need to be drawn up.  It was suggested that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67c

Planning application to erect five dwellings, with garages, accessdrive and associated landscaping and boundary treatments on land off Gainsborough Road, Middle Rasen.

Planning application to erect five dwellings, with garages, accessdrive and associated landscaping and boundary treatments on land off Gainsborough Road, Middle Rasen.

There were no further updates to be given, and no speakers on the application.

Councillor Smith noted that he had submitted objections to the Planning Inspectorate through the CLLP process, on Policy LP2 so disagreed with the weight being given to that policy..

The Chairman asked the officers to confirm the Planning history of the site, which had previously been a caravan and camp site.  It was noted that the area needed tidying and it was hoped that the development would assist with this.

The recommendation in the report was moved, seconded and on being voted upon it was AGREED that permission be GRANTED with conditions as set out in the report.

Note Councillor Smith requested that it be recorded that he had voted against the application.

Outline planning application for proposed development for ninedwellings with access to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications on land south of Eastgate, Scotton.

Outline planning application for proposed development for ninedwellings with access to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications on land south of Eastgate, Scotton.

The Senior Development Management Officer informed the Committee that further representations had been received but which had raised no new issues not covered within the report.  Comments had been received from Historic England who had advised that the application be determined in accordance with local guidance and in house specialist conservation advice.

Ian Hutchinson, agent for the applicant, spoke on the application stating that the applicant had been a local resident for many years and the development had been designed to suit the village.  Policy LP2 of the CLLP advised ‘reasonable’ growth in villages.  As a medium village Scotton had a recommendation of 10% which equated to 20 dwellings and the current application was for nine.  A sequential test had been undertaken and few other suitable sites identified.  Concerns had been raised about the damage to the hedgerow, however the development would improve the hedgerow.  A mix of development was proposed on what was poor quality land, the road was to be widened, and a footpath provided.

Dave Burke, spoke on behalf of a number of residents, stating that in the currently adopted West Lindsey Local Plan 2006, the proposals failed under Policies STRAT12 and 9, and that full weight could only be given to new policies once adopted, as echoed by Sir Edward Leigh MP.  The development was not necessary for open countryside, and as greenfield land was in the lowest priority identified for housing.  It was requested that the applicant comply with CLLP policy LP4 and undertakes a sequential test.  Residents had identified alternative sites with potential for five infill dwellings.  A recent application for a single dwelling had been refused due to visual impact, overbearing nature and unsustainability.  The same officer was now advocating that there would be no detrimental impact from the current application.  There were issues of size and scale, and also discrepancies in the report regarding the size of the site which equated to being larger than the retail space of Marshall’s Yard.

The local Ward Member, Councillor Lesley Rollings, spoke on the application noting that there were two main issues.  The Council was supporting communities to develop Neighbourhood Plans, and Scotton had started the process to consider what was desirable for the village, with no facilities, and where a car was a necessity.  The roads were not appropriate for cyclists or pedestrians and residents wanted to keep the village small.  The proposed site was greenfield with crops planted, although worth more for housing.  There was a responsibility to protect land, and the applicant should be given the opportunity to identify alternative sites.

The Senior Development Management Officer reminded Members that the application was for Outline Permission with access to be considered at this stage and that Reserved Matters such as residential amenity and visual impact were to be determined at a later stage.  The CLLP was now  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67e