Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed all present to the meeting.

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

There was no public participation at this point of the meeting.

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

Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 28 June 2017.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee held on 28 June 2017 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 Cotton declared that he had made comments as the district ward Councillor in relation to the Burton Waters application expressing some concerns. However he would keep an open mind when listening to what was put to the committee during the meeting in relation to this application and would make his decision based on that.

Councillor McNeill declared that he worked for Lace Housing approximately 10 years ago and knew the director who was also present at this meeting.

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 Planning Services Manager introduced himself and the two planning officers also present.

The Planning Services Manager advised that there hadn’t been a huge amount of changes post-election. The Neighbourhood Planning Act had come into force and a briefing note had been put together by the Officers and was due to be sent out to all Councillors the following day giving further details and the opportunity to ask any questions in relation to this.

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

Planning application for residential development for 9no. dwellings,surface parking and associated landscaping

Planning application for residentail development for 9no. dwellings, surface parking and associated landscaping.

The responsible planning officer confirmed that there was no update on this application.

Note: As per the recently agreed rule, all Objectors, Supporters/Applicants, Town and Parish Councils and also Ward Councillors must register if they wish to speak at the Committee by 5pm on the Monday of the week of the meeting. As Councillor Brockway did not register to speak by the deadline, the Chair’s permission was sought which was given on this occasion and she was invited to speak.

Councillor Brockway advised that she was asked to speak against the application. She agreed with the officers that this application was very finely balanced. Councillor Brockway stated that Burton Waters was an excellent and unusual concept offering safe and secure living in a very pleasant surroundings.

The application sought to convert a potential business premises into housing. This was however not supported by the Parish council, other local members and Councillor Brockway herself. The biggest concern was that the proposed development was not a sustainable development due to lack of facilities with no schools, church, childcare facilities, village hall or doctors being available and only a few specialist/business shops which did not supply the daily living essentials being available. The location of the premises within the Burton Waters development was pointed out, highlighting that there was need for more successful businesses in the area and not for more houses. It was therefore felt that there was no need for this development. Councillor Brockway quoted the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP) policy LP1 (not a sustainable development) and LP4 (houses not needed/housing supply is already present) as the grounds for asking the committee to reject the application.

Officers clarified that there were currently no buildings on the site and the applicant’s own chartered surveyors recommended that due to lack of demand it would not be viable to bring these units forward. In terms of sustainability, the CLLP (policy LP2) designated Burton Waters as a tier 5 medium village within the settlement hierarchy and it was considered to be a sustainable location for limited residential development contrary to some of the representations received as per the report.

Councillor McNeill asked for clarification regarding the sequential test, which relates to residential development in areas at high risk of flooding, the relevance of the previous local plan and whether this development was additional to the identified allocation within the CLLP five year plan and therefore the committee was being asked to consider it as an exceptions request. Further issue raised related to employment land being sacrificed for housing.

Officers confirmed that the previous local plan was no longer a material planning consideration. The site has a permission for B1 offices. The applicant had shown that despite continued long term marketing, no significant interest had been received. The applicant’s chartered surveyor’s recommendation, which was quoted directly in the report, was against the development of these units due to the lack  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24a

Planning application for residential development comprising: a new access road and road junction to Deepdale; 50 dwellings with estate roads, public open space and associated development; a scheme of 22 apartments and 14 bungalows for the over 55s with communal areas, shared open space and off street car parking.    

Planning application for residential development comprising: a new access road and road junction to Deepdale; 50 dwellings with estate roads, public open space and associated development; a scheme of 22 apartments and 14 bungalows for the over 55s with communal areas, shared open space and off street parking.

In addition to the recommended decision within the report, delegation was sought to make the following minor amendments to conditions 4, 24 and 25 (as highlighted in bold below).

With regards to condition 4 second sentence should read:

4) . The affordable housing shall be drawn from the bungalows and apartments as part of the over 55’s housing located within the red line on drawing number A00-NET-SITE-01 Rev C.

With regards to condition 24 the text should read:

24) Prior to the first occupation of the development within the red line shown on drawing number A00-NET-SITE-01 Rev C hereby permitted elevations, a floor plan and schedule of finishing materials for the bin store associated with the over 55 year olds dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details approved shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the development within the red line shown on drawing number A00-NET-SITE-01 Rev C hereby permitted and shall be retained for such use in perpetuity.

With regards to condition 25, instead of 56 years, it should read 55 years as below.

25) The bungalows and apartments within the area outlined in red on drawing number A00-NET-SITE-01 Rev C shall be occupied by people aged 55 years and over.

There were four speakers registered to speak on this application who all had up to five minutes to speak.

Councillor John Evans spoke on behalf of Nettleham parish council in support of the application which had been part of the Neighbourhood plan. The site was identified as an important site for development because of its location being on a major road out of the village and also within walking distance to the village centre. It was felt that it would be a good site for accommodation for the over 55’s. It was mentioned that 40% of the residents of the village were over 60 years of age and the percentage was likely to grow making supported/sheltered living provision desirable to allow people to continue living in the village by providing extra care facility. As the plans included generous proportion of supported living accommodation, it was felt that the scheme met the needs of the community and should be supported.

The next speaker was Mr Michael Braithwaite, planning consultant for the Robert Doughty Consultancy, acting for the joint applicants - Allison Homes and LACE housing. Allison Homes and LACE housing were both Lincolnshire based organisations. The site was allocated in the MADE Nettleham Neighbourhood plan and in the adopted CLLP. A number of changes were made to the plan to meet the neighbourhood plan proposal including accommodating the need for the over 55’s accommodation as part of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24b

Hybrid application for approval of reserved matters for up to 130no. dwellings, a new building to provide up to 25no. apartments for retirement living and a full application for a public house/restaurant-as approved at appeal under hybrid application 133284

Hybrid application for approval of reserved matters for up to 130no. dwellings, a new building to provide up to 25no. apartments for retirement living and a full application for a public house/restaurant – as approved at appeal under hybrid application 133284.

In terms of updates, it was stated that a late objection was received which raised no new issues and also that there were additions to conditions suggested which had been sent to Members of this planning committee.

Note: The updated conditions are shown in bold/italics in the quoted text inserted below.

‘ITEM 6(c) Additions to existing conditions for reserved matters and full planning permission set out below in bold/italics.

Reserved Matters Permission

Conditions – addition of text in ‘bold/italics’

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

002 REV H ; 0101 REV E; 0102 REV D; 0103 REV C; 0104 REV C; 0105 REV C; 0106 REV E; 0301 REV F; 0302 REV G; 0303 REV E; 0304 REV D; 0305 REV D; 0306 REV E;1001 REV C; 1002 REV A, 1003 REV A; 1004 A; 1005 REV B 1006 REV B; 1007 REV B ;1008 REV B ;1009 REV B 1010 REV B ;1011 REV B ;1012 REV B ;1013 REV A; 1014 REV A; 1015 REV A; 1016 REV A; 1017 REV A; 1018 REV A; 1019 REV A; 1020 REV B; 1021 REV B; 1022 REV B; 1023 REV A; 1024 REV B; 1025 REV A; 1026 REV A; 1027 REV A; 1028 REV A; 1029 REV A; 1030 REV B; 1031 REV A; 1032 REV A: 1033 REV A; 1034 REV A; 1035 REV B; 1036 REV B; 1037 REV A; 1038 REV B; 1039 REV A; 1040 REV A; 1041 REV B; 1042 REV A; 1043 REV B; 1044 REV A; 1045 REV B; 1046 REV A;

1047 REV A; 1048 REV B; 1049 REV A; 1050 REV A; 1051 REV A; 1052 REV A; 1053 REV A; 1054 REV A; 1055 REV A; 1056 REV B; 1057 REVA ; 1058 REV A; 1059 REV A; 1060 REV A; 1061 REV A; 1062 REV A: 1063 REV A; 1064 REV A; 1065 REV A; 1066 REV A; 1067 REV A; 1068 REV A; 1069 REV A; 1070 REV B ;1071 REV B; 1072 REV B; 1073 REV A; 1074 REV A; 1075 REV A; 1076 REV A; 1077 REV A; 1078 REV B 1079 REV A; 1080 REV A; 1081 REV A; 1082 REV A: 1083 REV A; 1084 REV B; 1085 REV A; 1086 REV B; 1087 REV A; 1088 REV B; 1089 REV A; 1090 REV B; 1091 REV A; 1092 REV B: 1093 REV A; 1094 REV A; 1095 REV A; 1096 REV A; 1097 REV A; 1098 REV A; 1201 REV B; 1215 REV *; 1216 REV *: 1250 REV  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24c

Councillor McNeill commented that it was very positive that all four decisions were upheld.

RESOLVED that the determination of appeals be noted.