Agenda and minutes

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

There was no public participation.

The meeting of the Planning Committee held on 4 April 2018.

Councillor David Cotton outlined to committee that the draft minute for item 76c from the meeting on 4 April referred to a ‘stream’, when in fact it should have been a ‘spring’.

Subject to this amendment, the draft minutes from the meeting held on 4 April were approved.

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 G. McNeill declared that he knew an objector to application number 137326 (Main Street, Burton).

Councillor Roger Patterson had spoken to residents about application 137374 (Sussex Gardens, Scampton), and would step down from the Planning Committee during item and speak as the Ward Member.

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/

There was no update for this Committee.

The Senior Development Management Officer introduced planning application number 137326 – Land East of Hillside Cottages Main Street Burton Lincoln LN1 2RD.  This was a planning application to erect a single cottage, together with part conversion and extension of an existing garage block to form ancillary annexe with access and landscaping (a resubmission of application number 136100).

The Senior Development Management Officer reminded Committee that policy LP22 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP) for green wedges applied; the green wedge ran from Lincoln to the South Carlton area.  However, the site was within the development footprint, was not in a wide open area, and did not join two settlements together.

The first speaker on this item was Councillor Sue North of Burton by Lincoln Parish Council.  The parish council’s views are highlighted below:

·         The site had construction materials from Essex House, and trees and shrubbery from one of the nearby Hillside Cottages dumped onto the land;

·         Formerly, the land had been used as allotments, with the garages on the site being used to allow the occupants of the cottages to park their cars away from the carriageway;

·         There was a water channel at the back of 1 Hillside Cottage, which took the water from one of the many natural springs that ran through the site;

·         People who used to work the land on the allotments notified the parish council that there were many Victorian pipes that ran underneath the site that had to be worked around whilst planting;

·         There was concern from the parish council that major construction may divert ancient water courses and could have detrimental consequences on the Hillside Cottages;

·         The sewerage pipes for the three stone cottages on Middle Street also run through the proposed site, connecting to the sewer in Essex House;

·         The artist’s impression of the wall surrounding the site was misleading, and makes the stone walls appear higher than they actually are;

·         The style of the building was not in keeping with neighbouring properties;

·         The annexe was close to the boundary wall of Main Street, and will have a significant impact on the scenery in that part of the conservation area;

·         The scheme would have a detrimental effect to the streetscene in the area; the Hillside Cottages are referred to in the Burton Conservation Plan as being of significant importance;

·         The proposed development was in the key part of the conservation area; in the parish council’s view, the views of Hillside Cottage would be detrimentally affected, contrary to LP25 of the CLLP.  In addition, the prominent location of the site in relation to the neighbouring properties would breach LP26 of the CLLP;

·         Previous comments on this application still stand, and for the reasons stated above the parish council would not support this application.

The second speaker was James Lambert from JH Walter, the agent for the applicant.  The views of the speaker are summarised below:

·         The proposed site was a brownfield, infill site;

·         Burton had been allocated growth, and the site sat at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

The Planning and Development Manager introduced planning application number 137374 – 36 Sussex Gardens, Scampton LN1 2UL.  This was a planning application for the erection of 2no. dwellings and car parking,  He also read out a note on Scampton Village and Scampton Former RAF settlement growth levels, which had been included in the agenda pack.

It was confirmed that the position statement read out by the Planning and Development Manager would be taken to a future meeting of Prosperous Communities Committee for further discussion.  The Planning and Development Manager and the Council’s solicitor both confirmed that the existing policies set out in the adopted Local Plan provided a clear direction and sound policy basis for making a decision on this planning application, and advised that the Council was therefore required to determine the planning application expediently.

The only speaker on this application was Councillor Roger Patterson, Ward Member for Scampton, who stood down from his role on the Planning Committee for the duration of this application.  The following points were made by Councillor Patterson:

·         The RAF base at Scampton is current and still active.  The roads and infrastrucutre around the site were jointly owned by the Ministry of Defence and two local residents’ associations;

·         Inset 1 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan showed Scampton, and RAF Scampton as one whole settlement.  A historic footpath linked the two conurbations;

·         There was a joint parish council for Scampton;

·         The builders started digging out footings on the site without planning permission;

·         Another application, not inkeeping with the area that had been passed without coming to Planning Committee had undergone building work without having previous planning permission;

·         There had been no direct consultation with residents; the only notice displayed in the area was around 100 metres away, and behind a tree;

·         There was contamination on the land; however it was not clear what the type of contamination was, and what action had been taken;

·         Scampton and RAF Scampton should be counted as one settlement until such time that the situation was reviewed, and adopted by Council;

·         Under LP4, the application should be refused as Scampton had already met its full quota of development.

The Planning and Development Manager, the Planning Officer and the Chairman then replied to some of these points:

·         The application for a home office would not normally come to Planning Committee unless there was a specific request for it do so, which had not been forthcoming.  There was an enfrocement case underway;

·         Officers follow policies set for them; the professional opinion of the officers was as set out in the report.  It was unfortunate that this settlement was omitted from the local plan;

·         The Chairman commented that the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan was adopted in 2017 and all parish councils were included at every stage of consultation prior to adoption.  It had subsequently been adopted by the Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee and was now the development plan in place for this area and was supported by all four partner  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

The Planning Officer introduced planning application number 135868 – Land off Carr Road, North Kelsey, Market Rasen LN7 6LG.  This was an outline planning application for residential development of up to 9 dwellings – all matters reserved.

There were no further updates from the Planning Officer.

Councillor Lewis Strange, Ward Member for Kelsey Wold, spoke to the application and made the following points:

·         It was pleasing that the proposal had been restricted to 9 houses;

·         The water run-off on the proposed site was a concern; it would be advantageous for the water authorities  to commit to taking care of the run-off;

·         This needed to be a development that West Lindsey was proud of.

In response to these comments, the Planning Officer informed Members of the following issues:

·         The proposed development was policy compliant within a medium sized village;

·         There was a condition suggested by Highways Lincolnshire to provide a linked footway from Carr Lane into the village of North Kelsey.

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

The Committee also requested that the application come back at the reserved matters stage.

Note:  Councillor Ian Fleetwood declared an interest prior to the start of this item as it was within his ward as a County Councillor.  He had not been actively involved with the Planning Committee on Cherry Willingham parish council, even though he was a Member.  He had also not been lobbied.

The Senior Development Management Officer introduced planning application number 137057 – Bleak Farm, High Street, Cherry Willingham LN3 4AH – for the residential development of 5no. detached dwellings.

There had been a previous application (132418) – outline planning application for up to 13 dwellings with all matters reserved, and the conversion of a barn to a dwelling.  This was granted with a legal agreement in August 2016.  This application had been for the entire site; the application before Members here (137057) was just on part of the site.

Committee had had strong views on the previous application, and on the accompanying site visit. This was why the current application had been referred to Planning Committee.

As a further update to Committee, there was a slight mistake in the report.  The Tree and Landscape Officer was listed as having an ‘objection’; this had been changed to ‘no objections subject to mitigation conditions’.  This was due to moving plot 5 further away from a protected tree on site.

The parish council had submitted further comments on 1 May.  These were:

·         The heritage document did not address that the Neighbourhood Plan had Bleak Farm as a non-designated site;

·         The style of the development was not appropriate for a central historical village location;

·         The site demands a quality development appropriate to the location and heritage of the site.

The Neighbourhood Plan remained in draft form, and could only be afforded limited weight.  Within the Plan, Bleak Farm was listed as a non-designated heritage asset, but the site as a whole was not.

The first speaker on this application was Cherry Willingham parish Councillor Paul Moore.  The following points were highlighted:

·         The parish council do not have an objection in principle with the development for residential purposes;

·         The application failed to make appropriate use of the important site, and was a missed opportunity;

·         The site’s present condition was not as it should be.  However, the present condition of the site was not a reason for this development to be granted;

·         Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advised that “where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.”  The heritage assessment was inadequate and a more robust assessment should take place as advocated by WLDC’s Conservation Officer;

·         The development of the site would impact on nearby heritage buildings, in addition to Bleak Farmhouse and its former associated farm buildings.  With appropriate development, these buildings could be enhanced and improved;

·         The generic design and lack of appreciation of the historic context of the development was contrary to Policy LP25 of the CLLP;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

RESOLVED that the determination of appeals be noted.