Venue: Council Chamber - The Guildhall. View directions
Contact: Ele Durrant/James Welbourn Democratic and Civic Officers
Public Participation Period
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 14 November 2018, previously circulated.
Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 14 November 2018.
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 14 November 2018 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.
Declarations of Interests
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 Jessie Milne declared an interest in application 138145, Holywell Grange Snitterby, as a member of the public had contacted her in her capacity as Secretary to Sir Edward Leigh MP.
This did not preclude her from speaking or voting on this item.
Update on Government/Local Changes in Planning Policy
Note – the status of Neighbourhood Plans in the District may be found via this link
There was no update on Government/Local changes in Planning policy.
The Principal Development Management Officer introduced application number 138618, an application for a single storey rear extension at 11 Dawnhill Lane, Hemswell, Gainsborough DN21 5UH.
It was confirmed that the Highways department had stated no objection to the proposals.
The application was proposed, seconded and voted upon and approved unanimously.
It was therefore AGREED that the application be GRANTED, subject to conditions.
The next item was application number 138441, an application for change of use of existing building and adjoining land to commercial use at Land East of A1133 Newton on Trent, Lincoln, Lincolnshire LN1 2GJ.
There were no updates from Planning Officers at this point.
The first speaker on the item was Mr Nick Grace, agent for the applicant. He raised the following points:
· RSM undertook agricultural and highways verge maintenance, contract work, and had diversified over time;
· There was a need to permanently operate on site;
· There had been no objections from third parties to this application;
· The site was ideally suited for its rural activity;
· The growth team at West Lindsey District Council (WLDC) supported continued activity at the site. It was considered a sustainable location for the company’s operation, and growth;
· Paragraphs 83 and 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) applied to this application, regarding supporting a ‘prosperous rural economy’;
· Regarding the applicant potentially having time to relocate to another site, this was considered to ‘fly in the face’ of the NPPF as decisions should enable the growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas through the conversion of existing buildings;
· A temporary permission was seeking to force an existing business out of an established site and into a site being developed by WLDC; that site would not be fit for purpose due to size;
· Many local people rely on RSM for work; relocation would have significant implications for the business, and there would be the loss of local jobs;
· Respectfully ask for full planning permission to ensure the long term viability of this flagship local rural business.
Following this, Councillor Stuart Kinch spoke as the Ward Member for the application. He highlighted the following points:
· The business had been broken into several times;
· It would be very difficult to relocate the business for cost reasons. The number of people employed were 12 full-time staff, and 5 part-time staff; rural businesses are few and far between;
· The growth team at WLDC fully supported this application;
· Cllr Kinch urged committee to debate the item thoroughly with a view to passing the application.
Note: Following his speech, Councillor Kinch left the Chamber.
Members then debated the application; following consultation with officers, the following points were raised:
· The application was supported by the community and had no objections;
· The business had been operating in its current location for a long period of time;
· No alternative access to the site had been proposed;
· There was an opportunity with a temporary permission to find an alternative location that was compliant with the Local Plan (i.e. an allocated site); planners were not seeking to direct the applicant to a specific site;
· Temporary planning permissions can be granted for longer than a year, but these lengths of time would be subject to a reasonableness test;
· Paragraphs 83 and 84 of the NPPF could be appropriately applied to the application as it was contributing substantially to the local community in terms ... view the full minutes text for item 62.
The Senior Development Management Officer introduced application number 137789, an outline planning application for up to 9no. dwellings with all matters reserved at Land East of Laughton Road, adjacent to Irwin Road, Blyton.
There was no planning officer update on this item.
The first speaker on this item was Councillor Mark Harrison of Blyton Parish Council, who raised the following points:
· The development would be using existing drainage on Irwin Road, which would overload a system which was not suitable in the first place;
· The area of the application was a flow risk; more and more planning applications were being put forward and approved, but the dykes remain of the same size and condition and were very rarely maintained;
· In 2007 the dykes hadn’t been maintained for 40 years;
· The drains in the village remain broken and disconnected;
· There was a total disconnect between Planning, and other areas such as Highways. When people have a problem in the village, there was no money to fix an antiquated system;
· When it rained hard the dykes were overflowing into the beer garden of one of the village pubs;
· The sewers were not coping with the foul water and sewerage on Irwin Road;
· There needed to be consistency with how costs were distributed on the access road; some houses did not currently contribute to the cost of the upkeep of the road.
The next speaker was Mr Philip Marris, the applicant. He raised the following points in respect of the application;
· All issues with the proposal had been addressed to a satisfactory level in accordance with local and national planning policies. The Planning Officer’s report demonstrates this, and gives good clear reasoning. The number and location of the dwellings was acceptable in principle;
· The impact on potential mineral resources was acceptable;
· The impact on highway safety and convenience was acceptable;
· There were no open space requirements from the proposal;
· There was no harm to amenities or ecology arising out of the proposal;
· A foul and water drainage solution exists; there were no technical problems with the application;
· There was no Neighbourhood Plan for Blyton;
· Objections had been listened to and relevant documents produced. History showed that the applicant had listened to WLDC’s guidance; evidenced by the number of time extensions agreed with WLDC;
· All of the objections raised were from Irwin Road residents, and not the wider community;
· It was requested that the committee approve the application.
The third speaker was Marcus Walker, an objector to the application. He raised the following points;
· This application had been received before, and was the same arable field tagged onto the edge of the village on a steep hill, which abutted the residents of Irwin Road;
· There had been two studies; one on the sequential test, and the other being on a potential future solution to the drainage problems. A potential future solution to the drainage was insufficient, as the lives of Irwin Road residents were affected directly by this;
· Opposition to this development was staggering ... view the full minutes text for item 63.
Note: The meeting reconvened at 1933, and all Members present at the start of the meeting were present, with the exception of Councillor Matt Boles.
The Principal Development Management Officer introduced application number 138145, an application for change of use of land for the siting of 84no. chalet lodge units, with 3no. additional lodges for use as site manager’s accommodation, multi-functional space and a reception manager’s office Holywell Grange, Moor Road, Snitterby Gainsborough DN21 4UH.
There were a number of updates for this item, as follows:
· The final comments from the Highways department had been received , recommending imposition of conditions relating to:
-the provision of a proposed 1.5 m footway;
-prohibition of site occupation until implementation of Travel Plan;
-Implementation of an approved surface water drainage scheme;
-Prohibition of development until submission and subsequent approval of a Construction Management Plan and Method Statement. This to be strictly adhered to throughout construction;
· 3 additional objections to the proposal since the report had been prepared on the perceived lack of capacity for the drainage that had been put forward, and concerns it would drain onto other people’s land. It was noted by the PDMO that no objections were raised by the Lead Local Flood Authority to the proposal;
· There had been a response from the applicant and agent on proposed changes to the scheme since the report had been prepared, relating to the reduction in the number of lodges (either 82, or 75).
They had also submitted a “rebuttal” to the comments of WLDC’s Landscape Officer. This had been assessed together with proposed revised layouts by the Landscape Officer who confirmed that it did not alter her conclusions and objections to the scheme;
· There had been a detailed response from the applicant’s heritage adviser in relation to the comments of the conversation officer on the impact on Holywell Grange, a Grade II listed building. There is a difference of opinion between the two and reference was made to a detailed response from the conservation officer. On the whole the impact was considered “less than substantial” and weighed against approval detracting from the benefits to the tourism economy.
The first of the speakers was Kate Hiseman, the agent for the applicants. She raised the following points:
· The proposal contributes to visitor shortfall in the WLDC area. It was recognised that the provision of quality accommodation was important for sustainable development in the District;
· Families and couples would buy lodges and use them as a retreat;
· It could be used by those who have long-term health issues;
· A diverse tourism offer would contribute to sustainability in the area;
· Visit England reported that 400,000 residents with an impairment did not take a holiday in the previous year;
· There was support from a national chiropractor and wellness clinic searching for sites in the UK; the nearest equivalent was in Thirsk;
· All objections were based on the assumption that the scheme submitted would fail; no-on had challenged the Business Plan. The lodges would only be ... view the full minutes text for item 64.
The costs for the appeal at Burton were highlighted.
All the appeals were noted.