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 at this section of the meeting.
Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 6 February 2019, previously circulated.
The minutes of the meeting held on 6 February 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Declarations of Interests
Members may make any declarations of interests at this point but may also make them at any time during the course of the meeting.
Councillor Thomas Smith declared an interest in application number 138096 – Sewage Treatment Works, Rasen Road Tealby as it was within his Ward. He had not spoken to anybody regarding this application.
Councillor Owen Bierley declared that he had received an email from the applicant in relation to application number 138836 – Hillcrest Caistor Top, Caistor. It was a routine email on the subject of the application; Councillor Bierley had not responded to it, and had in no way been lobbied.
Update on Government/Local Changes in Planning Policy
Note – the status of Neighbourhood Plans in the District may be found via this link
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was updated on 19th February, following a consultation. This related to clarification on:
• housing land supply
The revised NPPF made clear that Authorities assessing their local housing need for the purpose of plan-making were allowed to use an alternative approach to the government standard method in "exceptional circumstances".
The definition of "deliverable" sites in the NPPF had been amended to make clearer that non-major sites with outline consent should be considered deliverable unless there was evidence to the contrary.
• appropriate assessment for habitats’ sites
The NPPF now takes into account a landmark European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling last year on rules around habitat regulation assessments. It now made clear that the NPPF's presumption in favour of sustainable development was dis-applied only where an appropriate assessment had concluded that there was no suitable mitigation strategy in place.
National planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) had also been revised to make clear that planners use 2014-based household projections rather than the more 2016-based figures on a short-term basis.
The Government had published the Housing Delivery Test results for 2018. Central Lincolnshire delivered at 112% of the housing required over the last 3 years (2015-18).
The Cherry Willingham Neighbourhood Plan had been adopted at Full Council on 4 March.
The Senior Development Management Officer introduced planning application number 138096 – application for the installation of 25m communications tower, antennas, ground-based apparatus and ancillary development.
The officer confirmed that the latest revisions to the NPPF did not change the recommendation of approval within the report.
The first speaker on this application was Norman Gillan, agent for the applicant, as well as being a planning consultant and member of the Town Planning Institute. He raised the following points in support of the application:
· The Wireless Infrastructure Group (WIG) was a neutral infrastructure provider, and had over 2000 communications sites across the UK. When communications providers identify sites of interest, this was managed by WIG;
· A search had been undertaken for a suitable site in the area to provide 4G by Cornerstone, the infrastructure arm of Vodafone and O2. Sewage treatment works were often ideal locations for such structures as they were often close, but not too close to settlements, and usually had extensive tree planting around them;
· The main concerns around this application were the impact on the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), residential amenity, and the impact on heritage assets and listed buildings;
· The infrastructure included a 25m lattice shareable tower with additional apparatus, which would be for O2 in the first instance, with the option of Vodafone being allowed to share. The height required for the mast provided a minimum level of coverage;
· The Tealby Sewage Treatment Works were located within the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) noted that there would be a ‘minor adverse’ to ‘negligible’ effect at distances of over 200 metres. As trees around the site grew, this could reduce to a ‘residual’ to ‘negligible’ effect;
· The overall impacts on the AONB were considered acceptable. A future ground based mast should not be required;
· The response from the Conservation Officer within the report was that there was not enough information to make a judgment;
· The LVIA as previously stated noted the lack of impact at distances of over 200 metres; the boundary of the conservation area was 230 metres from the site;
· The visual impact on certain nearby properties could be mitigated by tree coverage, and the screening effect they provide;
· All apparatus used was designed to international standards;
· As the site was within the AONB any future height extension would require future planning permissions;
· Microwave transmission links were used, but were ‘point to point’ only; communicating between this mast and others within the same network;
· It was considered that the application was in compliance with the development plan. There would be some impacts, but they were considered acceptable. Installations such as this would bring 4G and 5G to settlements such as Tealby.
Note: Councillor David Cotton declared two personal interests as the church at Tealby was mentioned in objections to the proposal, and he worked for the Diocese.
Councillor Cotton also confirmed he was a customer of O2, and could stand to benefit from a mast ... view the full minutes text for item 87.
The Senior Development Management Officer introduced planning application number 138660 – land to the rear of Marquis of Granby, High Street Waddingham. It was an outline planning application for the erection of 7no. dwellings with all matters reserved.
The revision to the NPPF did not change the officer recommendation. A unilateral undertaking to the application had been received, and was currently being reviewed.
The first public speaker to this item was Councillor Colin Metcalfe, from Waddingham Parish Council. He raised the following points:
· This item had been discussed at a Waddingham Parish Council meeting in December 2018;
· Application 138660 was essentially a resubmission of previous applications; they had been refused;
· This application puts forward some mitigation to previous applications, but the Parish Council was not convinced they would be successful;
· The mitigation for noise appeared to be a wooden acoustic screen around the beer garden of the public house. This would affect the economic sustainability of the public house;
· The physics of sound seem to have been ignored as the screen was close to the noise source; the sound would travel over the top of the screen. In addition, most of the dwellings on the site would have a view over the beer garden;
· The public house hosts events, thus maintaining a community link. By developing the land, the pub would no longer have the land available to host events such as boot sales, and also would not be able to provide caravan facilities;
· There was a suggestion in the report that the village green could be used for community events; the village green was properly registered with legislative restrictions and did not have the same facilities as the pub. It was also adjacent to the main highway through the village; a recent traffic survey showed that 1400 vehicles pass through on that route every day;
· The current owners of the shop and post office in the village were looking to retire; the site of the pub could potentially be a new location for these facilities;
· The current owners had only had the site for two years, and had not maintained it sufficiently despite requests from the parish council. The public house building had deteriorated quite significantly.
· Waddingham Parish Council urged the Planning Committee to refuse the application.
The second speaker was Paul Brailsford, agent for the applicant, and a partner at Freeths Solicitors. He raised the following points:
· Lengthy discussions had taken place with officers at West Lindsey District Council to try and address the issues in the applications that had previously been refused;
· Mitigations included:
Ø The majority of the orchard be maintained;
Ø An acoustic solution for the pub around the beer garden;
Ø Window glazing to a high specification for the new homes;
Ø A legally binding undertaking not to use the beer garden at the pub beyond 11pm, with no amplified music;
· It was not unusual to have homes being adjacent to a pub. There had been similar developments in the district at Normanby by ... view the full minutes text for item 88.
The Planning Officer introduced application number 138836, Hillcrest Caistor Top, Caistor, an application to vary condition 24 of planning permission 135031, granted on 14 December 2016 to allow local business to use the site (D2 Use).
The recently revised NPPF did not change the officer recommendation.
There were two speakers present speaking in favour of the application. The first was Councillor Tom Regis, Ward Member for Wold View. He raised the following points:
· The site had previously been backed by West Lindsey District Council (WLDC), and contained 17 small starter units;
· It had the benefit of a WLDC commercial loan; in addition, because the employment rating had scored highly, the units had received money from the Leader Grant Fund;
· Planning policy needed to be challenged and exceptions made;
Lauren Harpham, a business owner at the site also spoke in favour of the application, raising further points:
· Services provided at ‘Soul Healthy’ included one to one personal training, nutritional advice and planning, sports massage, Swedish massage and corporate wellness. The services had many benefits to clients;
· Customers were attracted because Soul Healthy was not a large gym establishment; it was currently being run from a garage;
· There were no other venues to run the business in the local area;
· It had been made clear by WLDC that they didn’t want this business operating in a residential area;
· The developer had had an assessment done on the noise and parking, and the business would be right out of the way.
Note: Councillor Robert Waller left the Chamber and did not return.
The Planning Officer responded to the supporters by outlining that the previous planning permission was being built out for a number of uses, but this did not include gym use (D2).
As part of the application, a noise assessment had been submitted. The agent was asked for opening times, and the number of customers for the business, but this had not been forthcoming.
The business at the site did not just do one to one classes, there were also other classes such as spin.
Following this update, Members provided their comments and questions on the application. These comments, and answers to the questions are provided below:
· Lincolnshire County Council Highways have objected to the application on the grounds that there was not sufficient parking;
· Officers confirmed that the application would have been refused by them if it had not been required to come to committee;
· Two buildings in the town centre would not in any way be suitable to house the gym; one in particular needed further investment;
· As a council enterprise should be supported. The application had been supported by Caistor Town Council, and they noted that the application brought regeneration;
· Policy 6 of Caistor’s Neighbourhood Plan referred to business and start up units; new business units would be supported if they were within existing employment areas, and should include the opportunity for flexible floorspace arrangements;
· This site had been conditioned under a previous application, which granted 17 rural enterprise ... view the full minutes text for item 89.
The Senior Development Management Officer introduced application number 138728 – a planning application for a change of use of part of a general haulage yard to caravan storage including boundary treatments.
One further letter of objection had been received from residents of 63a High Street, Blyton summarised as follows:
· The application was only submitted following a complaint.
· The applicant initially did not declare their relationship to an officer of the Council.
· Concerned the proposed landscaping will not effectively screen the site due to topography of the area, height of planting, the time it will take to mature and its deciduous nature. There would be harm to the countryside.
· The hardstanding design was not detailed.
· A hedgerow has been removed; drainage was not detailed; the proposal could add to flooding; a flood risk assessment hadn’t been submitted; contamination prevention was not detailed; lack of topographical and ecological survey.
· The objector queries why a recommendation was made if consultation is still underway. Consultation had closed.
· They consider the proposal contrary to LP2, LP5, LP17 and LP26.
The changes to the NPPF and additional objection did not change the officer recommendation.
Members checked whether this would have come to committee if the applicant had not been related to an officer of the Council – it was confirmed that it would not and that it would have been approved subject to conditions as per the report.
It was then moved, seconded, and following a unanimous vote the application ws GRANTED subject to conditions:
1) The soft landscaping shall take place in accordance with the details in
the amended design and access statement received 11/2/19 and
amended block plan DCL/18/02 Rev A received 11/2/19 in the next
available planting season.
Reason: To secure appropriate landscaping in accordance with
Policies LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.
2) This permission relates to the following drawings: DCL/18/02 Rev A
received 11/2/19 and site location plan DCL/18/01.
Reason: For the sake of clarity and in the interest of proper planning.
The Senior Development Management Officer introduced application number 138841 - planning application to erect a 2.1m fence to the eastern boundary at 9 Laughton Road Blyton Gainsborough.
It was confirmed that the revised NPPF did not change the officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions, as detailed within the report.
The recommendation in the report was moved and seconded, and following a unanimous vote, planning permission was GRANTED subject to conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the
expiration of 6 months from the date of this permission.
Reason: To conform with Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2. 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: DCF/18/02A
received 27/12/18 and site location plan DCF/18/01 received 27/12/18.
The works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on
the approved plans and in any other approved documents forming part
of the application.
Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the
approved plans and to accord with the National Planning Policy
Framework and policy LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local
3. Within 3 months of the fence being erected, details of the colour it is
to be painted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The fence shall be painted the agreed colour within
3 months of the date of approval of the details and be retained as such.
Reason: In the interests of securing appropriate design in accordance
with Policies LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.
Members considered a report looking at whether to continue to defend reason 2 of the planning refusal 138491 relating to the sterilisation of mineral resources with a minerals safeguarding area.
The paper was moved and seconded, and therefore the additional
information offered in relation to refusal reason no.2 of application 138491 relating to the potential sterilisation of minerals within a minerals safeguarding area was ACCEPTED. The Planning Committee would not seek to defend this reason for refusal, in the event an appeal was lodged to the Secretary of State against the refusal of planning permission (ref 138491).
This was all subject to no further information being submitted.
One Member noted that the inspector comments on appeals were useful if a Ward was close to reaching its quantum of development in its Neighbourhood Plan. These targets were fairly firm; Members could consider this when putting forward reasons why other schemes might not be in accordance with their Neighbourhood Plans.