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.
The Chairman informed everyone present that planning application number 137950 – Lea Grove Bardney had been withdrawn as an item of business as the applicant had withdrawn the application.
i) Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 1 May 2019, previously circulated.
The minutes of the meeting held on 1 May were approved as a correct record.
Declarations of Interest
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 Cordelia McCartney declared an interest in application number 139256 – Kexby as she had previously worked with Gelders. This previous employment did not prejudice her approach to the application.
Councillor Jessie Milne declared an interest in the same item (139256), and would speak as Ward Member.
Councillor Cherie Hill declared an interest in the appeal under item 10 for Rudgard Avenue, as she was a Ward Member for the application.
Update on Government/Local Changes in Planning Policy
Note – the status of Neighbourhood Plans in the District may be found via this link
The Planning Manager informed committee of the latest changes in Government and local planning policy:
Ø New permitted development rights came into force on Saturday 25th May:
o make permanent the time limited permitted development right to build a larger rear extension to a dwellinghouse;
o allow for the erection of taller upstands for off street electric vehicle charging points (increased from 1.6 to 2.3 metres high);
o amend the existing right (from A1 shop) to additionally allow the change of use from takeaways (A5) to residential use (C3);
o allow the change of use from retail (A1), takeaways (A5), betting offices, payday loan shops, and launderettes to office use (B1) (subject to “prior approval”);
o amend the existing right to additionally allow the temporary change of use to specified community uses: exhibition hall, public library, museum, clinic or health centre, or art gallery (other than for sale or hire), and to extend the period of temporary use from two years to three;
o remove the existing permitted development right which allows the installation, alteration or replacement of a public call box by or on behalf of an electronic communications code operator subject to certain conditions.
Ø Under the Local Plan review timetable, public participation to consider options for the Plan should commence across June and July, with an announcement expected shortly;
Ø There was an update on the following Neighbourhood Plans (NPs):
o Willoughton NP – a referendum was to take place on 6 June;
o Spridlington NP – examination was underway;
o Sudbrooke NP – Consultation had ended. The process of appointing an examiner was underway;
o Waddingham NP – Consultation on the pre-submission version was to close on Friday 31 May.
The Principal Development Management Officer introduced application number 138812 – Back Lane Brattleby.
There was no update on this application; however, as a matter of clarity, it was pointed out that in the committee report that there was a glazing panel in the roof of the property. This panel was located in a hallway.
The first public speaker was Cllr Jerry Scott of Brattleby Parish Council. He made the following points:
· Brattleby was one of the first villages to form a Neighbourhood Plan (NP). Residents engaged with this process. The NP gave communities direct powers to shape their neighbourhoods, and also gave them the chance to get the right development for their community;
· The NP received a 97% ‘yes’ vote at the referendum;
· Residents have become increasingly proactive in planning matters;
· The application had become contentious – there had been 23 responses from 45 dwellings in the village. The Parish Council and residents believed that the development did not fit with the policies in the NP;
· Common objections were that the development was too big in terms of mass; was too high on an elevated site; was too industrially designed for the area; the feature metal cladding was out of keeping with the village; window sizes across the gardens affected privacy, and it was more suited to an urban setting;
· The Parish Council would ask Committee to refuse the application.
The final speaker was Lee Sleight; the applicant for, and resident at the property. He raised the following points:
· The residents had lots of friends and family in the local area, and this was the ideal plot for a forever home;
· The plot had an extant planning permission; however it was felt that something smaller and of better quality would be more suitable. West Lindsey District Council (WLDC) planning officers agreed with this approach;
· The first plans submitted met with concerns; these were listened to and led to a redesign. It was agreed that the redesign would be done under the same application. The first objections in the committee report refer to the original design;
· A Heritage Consultant was appointed by the applicant to deal with the Parish Council’s concerns;
· In compliance with the NP, the new design used high quality materials. The plot was large; all officers were happy with the scale and mass;
· The height was almost identical to the extant permission, and was identical to the neighbouring property;
· The home was 51 square metres smaller than the extant permission;
· The scheme included new planting of trees and hedgerows;
· The scheme was designed to PassiveHaus, which was a leading international standard;
· The subject of surface water was designed, approved and conditioned;
· The Heritage Consultant had confirmed the application complied with the NP;
· The application was locally inspired, distinctive and used the appropriate materials. Planning officers had confirmed that appropriate polices had been complied with;
· The Conservation Officer at WLDC supported the application; the committee report approved the design, scale, size, materials and the local distinctiveness of the application; ... view the full minutes text for item 5.
The Planning Manager introduced planning application 139256 – Kexby, and as an update informed the Committee that following publication of the committee report comments had been received from Kexby Parish Council:
· This application was fundamentally the same as a previously refused application;
· Several issues were raised in response to the 4 previously refused applications on this green wedge site – these issues were still relevant;
· Kexby has now undergone the process of developing a Neighbourhood Plan, and had established a working group meeting with Nev Brown of WLDC;
· According to maps produced over several years, the orchard was part of the green wedge;
· As a community Kexby were not against development, but the formation of a Neighbourhood Plan would give residents a say over the form and location of any housing in the village.
The first public speaker to the application was Councillor Ron Gore from Kexby Parish Council. He raised the following points:
· Reference was made to a statement made by Councillor Jessie Milne, with their being a vested interest in there being no building on the green wedge. The Parish Council had no knowledge of any of their members having a vested interest against this application. The opposition to building was a reflection of the views of the local community;
The second speaker was Sara Boland, Managing Director of Influence Environmental, who were agents for the applicant. The following points were raised:
· Work had been carried out by Influence Environmental on the plans at Market Rasen Leisure Centre, where it was agreed by WLDC that there could be development on the green wedge, in part because there was no adverse impact on the green wedge;
· A green wedge was not intended to be a blanket ban on development, and was less restrictive than a nationally designated green belt;
· Policy LP22 of the CLLP provided that development would be permitted in a green wedge provided that development was not contrary, or detrimental to the function and aims of the green wedge, or it was essential for the proposed development to be within the green wedge, and the benefits outweighed the harm;
· It was not a policy requirement for a proposal to meet both of these criteria; Influence Environmental were satisfied that the first part of LP22 had been satisfied;
· The position of the development lay against the existing built form in the green wedge within what was understood to be the settlement of Kexby, and the settlement of Upton. There appeared to be a large space between the two settlements;
· The open character remained intact; should the proposals be agreed, a walker would understand that they were leaving Upton and entering Kexby;
· In terms of landscape, there was no effect on distinct separation, and no key open spaces would be closed down. The proposals were in the built context of Kexby. No visual or physical link would be formed between the two villages, and this was in full accordance with LP22 of the CLLP;
· The proposals were in the ... view the full minutes text for item 6.
The final application for consideration was 139273 – Hillcrest Caistor. There were no updates from officers.
The first public speaker was Councillor Jon Wright from Caistor Town Council. He raised the following points:
· There had been commercial decline in Caistor in the recent past;
· Developments such as this application need to spearhead the development of Caistor. Commercial land could fill a large void that is present;
· The change of use would be an alternative to other units on site;
· The development conforms to policies 2 and 6 of the Caistor Neighbourhood Plan;
· There was a walking link to existing pedestrian networks and the town centre. The development was within 800 metres of the market place;
· The development was within an existing employment area and included the opportunity for flexible floorspace arrangements;
· There was very little commercial land available in Caistor;
The second speaker was Oliver Lawrence, the applicant. He raised the following points:
· A full independent noise survey had been carried out; as the final occupants were not known a very high internal level of 85 decibels was adopted. 50 decibels had been the level required;
· In the original report, it was noted that the nature of the modern buildings must be considered; the proposed buildings would in fact screen the adjacent property from any noise;
· The scheme had been designed from the outset to have flexible parking with a 2 hour limit. The unit had four parking spaces in front of it, not three as previously reported. Many of the units on site would not have any visitors;
· Concerns around classes overlapping could be addressed by having time gaps written into any lease;
· The previous application on site was submitted by a tenant without including any information that had been agreed with WLDC planning officers around highways and building improvement;
· In excess of £40,000 had been spent on a new pedestrian crossing and a redesign of the site entrance;
· The original applicant of ‘Soul Healthy’ was now emigrating to Australia on the basis of the previously refused application;
· The agent responsible for the letting of the units has had two applications for identical businesses on site.
The final speaker was Councillor Tom Regis, West Lindsey District Councillor who spoke in favour of the application:
· This was a simple change of use for a D2 purpose. Current uses were pretty similar in their terms;
· Growth was being looked for in the economic growth sector;
· Central Lincolnshire needs assessment had noted that there had been an increase in the need for commercial properties;
· When this development was fully let, there would be a net job total increase of 21 jobs.
Note: Following his speech, Councillor Regis left the Chamber.
The Planning Manager then responded to points raised by the public speakers:
· This site was recognised within the Caistor Neighbourhood Plan, and had a design brief as being used as a ‘gateway development’ or a ‘rural enterprise centre’;
· The units on the site had been built out with business use ‘B1’ – ... view the full minutes text for item 7.
This item had been withdrawn at the outset of the meeting.
The appeals were noted.