Agenda and minutes

The Chairman undertook the register of attendance for Members and each Councillor confirmed their attendance individually.

The Democratic Services Officer completed the register of attendance for Officers and, as with Members, each Officer confirmed their attendance individually.

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

The Democratic and Civic Officer confirmed there were no public participants registered for this part of the meeting.

i)       Meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 29 April 2020, previously circulated.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 29 April 2020 be confirmed as an accurate 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 I. Fleetwood declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was Vice Chairman for Cherry Willingham Parish Council, in relation to application number 140743, Bleak Farm. He stated he had not held any conversations regarding the application nor had he been a part of any planning discussions for the village.

Councillor D. Cotton declared a prejudicial interest in application number 141030, 18 Lindholme, as he had had lengthy conversations with the applicant and as such, would stand down from the Committee for the duration of that item.

Councillor P. Howitt-Cowan declared that, as Ward Member for Hemswell, he wished to speak on the application and would therefore stand down from the Committee for the duration of that item.

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 Interim Planning Manager (Development Management) introduced a short update to Members explaining that the Government had announced further measures to introduce flexibility into the planning system in Mid-May, due to the current pandemic.

This included:

• Measures to allow CIL payment deferments for small developers;
• Encouraging new applications to be made online, as much as possible;
• Confirmation that MHCLG did not intend to extend the timescales for determining applications “Developers should be encouraged to agree extensions of time where possible”
• Flexibility in publicising applications where the normal statutory requirements could not be met;
• They continued to want to see Local Plans progressing through the system as a vital means for supporting economic recovery in line with the government’s aspirations to have plans in place across the country by 2023.

See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-planning-update

On 13 May 2020, the government published a written ministerial statement on planning and construction working hours. This statement expected local planning authorities to approve requests to extend construction working hours temporarily to ensure safe working in line with social distancing guidelines until 9pm, Monday to Saturday, unless there were very compelling reasons against this.

See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-construction-update-qa

In addition, the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) latest update (28 May) advised they had now recommenced site visits where safe to do so. For “the foreseeable future” they would not be arranging face-to-face inquiries and hearings however, following a successful trial, they had begun arranging virtual Hearings.

See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-planning-inspectorate-guidance

Members were given the following update regarding Neighbourhood Plans:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/neighbourhood-planning--2#covid-19

RESOLVED that the applications detailed in agenda item 6 be dealt with as follows:

The first planning application of the night was introduced for Members’ consideration. Planning application number 140416 seeking to erect 14no. grain storage silos, 1no. dryer, associated structures and conveyor. The Planning Manager explained that a member of the public had informed the Planning Department that they had requested the Secretary of State use his powers under s77 to “call-in” the application for his own determination. It was the Secretary of State’s policy that they would normally only do this if the application conflicted with national policy in important ways, or was nationally significant. The Planning Casework Unit had been in contact, and it had been requested that, whilst the Committee may proceed to make its resolution, that no decision be issued, until the Secretary of State had determined whether he wished to exercise his powers.

The Senior Development Management Officer presented the details of the application and highlighted there was one update to report, that being the proposed conditions as a result of the revised noise report.

The Chairman explained there were a number of public representations which were to be read out by the Democratic and Civic Officer.

Statement from Hemswell Cliff Parish Council.

“Hemswell Cliff Parish Council has objected to this application on the following grounds:

1. Despite the disquiet, felt by residents of Hemswell Cliff about the noise already created by the existing silos and associated plant. The noise report has been conducted at a quiet time of year and is not representative of what it is like during the busy time of year, whilst this does not suit the grant funding that the applicant is applying for it should not be overlooked. This study would have different results if conducted in August or September. If it is not a Material consideration as stated at page 35 para 1 “The position and importance of this funding to the business is acknowledged, however this funding position is not a material consideration in the determination of the application”

Then why not delay the application until a noise study can be carried out at a more suitable time.

2. Page 34 Quotes

“The 85,000 tonnes of grain is collected from the members and delivered by local hauliers. The proposal will provide an additional 60,000 tonnes of grain storage which is aimed to be delivered in the next 10 years and provide storage for local farmers that currently store their grain outside of Lincolnshire”. If this is a long-term plan over the next ten years are there more Silos and fans in the pipeline.

3. Page 39 Quotes

“The NIA lists the silos and associated fans making it clear on page 10 that the assessment is based on the fitting of fan silencers. The NIA (page 11) is based on the fact that due to power constraints, it is not possible for all 14 no. silo fans to be in operation simultaneously and that only 6 fans would ever be in use at any one time. This has been confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Senior Development Management Officer introduced planning application 140743 for 6no. detached dwellings. He stated there were no updates to the application and presented a brief summary of the history of the site.

The Chairman stated there were two speakers for this application and invited the first speaker to address the Committee.

Councillor Sharron Brylewski made the following statement on behalf of the Parish Council.

“This is an ambitious project and the developer we feel has made changes when necessary. The fact that many reclaimed bricks from the original site are being used again would reflect the age, heritage and overall historical importance of the site. None of the surrounding residents had anything but positive comments to make about the plans. Also, feedback from a public meeting suggested a very positive reaction, even though they have changed slightly over time.

Seven years on and the site has deteriorated massively and we fear if the plans are rejected again the site would obviously get worse. It is now, and has been from the start, a magnet to youths who have systematically broken windows, set fires, and generally caused damage to the property, which in turn has led to residents’ complaints.     

Although not a perfect design, from people who know more than we mere mortals, the phrase ‘blinkered by science’ comes to mind. Perfection to every individual is perceivably different, so difficult to quantify. 

“One of the basic rules of the Universe is that nothing is perfect. Perfection simply doesn’t exist. Without imperfection, neither you nor I would exist.”  Professor Stephen Hawking.

We have shown the plans to a planning officer from another District and in his opinion the plans are better than others that have been submitted before.   I know the following will not influence the planning application decision, but Roy Bowser was a well-respected man who gave a lot to our village. It would be a fitting tribute to his memory to have this development come to fruition. The time is right to give the Village a boost to moral during this difficult period.

Something to look forward to, and be proud of, a rebuilt historically important part of our Village. Let it be remembered that Cherry Willingham is a large village with a diversity of housing, both old and new. This development, we envision, will add another opportunity for diversity, as well as enhancing our Neighbourhood Plan. In fact diversity seems to be the key word here. We are not a ‘pretty village’, we are living in a semi-rural community with housing of all types, but mainly detached properties, so this development fits in well with what attracts people to come and live in Cherry Willingham.         

The residents and Parish Council feel this development, will raise the bar in terms of its design and layout, and again enhance the mission statements set out in our neighbourhood plan. 

The resilience of the residents of this Village over the last few months has been nothing short  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Note:              Councillor M. Devine spoke on behalf of all Committee Members to advise that they had all received an email from the applicant for this item.

The Area Development Officer introduced planning application 141030 for the replacement of a dormer bungalow with a three storey house. She explained this was a review of the previous application which had been refused permission at the April meeting. She explained that previous objections to the proposal had been withdrawn. She added that condition two relating to flood risk would also be amended subject to approval.

The Chairman invited the two registered speakers to address the Committee.

Statement from Mrs Laura Calvert, Applicant

“Thank you once again Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee.I will be brief.

Our situation has not changed since the last committee meeting. This application is born out of necessity to protect from future flood events following almost a metre of flood water destroying our property last November, the third severe flood event in 12 years. It is now 7 months since the flooding, and we, and our home, remain devastated following the effects. Following refusal we engaged in further discussions with Planning in recognition of the points of concern expressed by councillors at the last Committee Meeting.

The overbearing concerns on the Western boundary have been addressed by reducing the extension to a single storey and replacing the displaced accommodation in the loft space of the main block. We acknowledge that Planning have some reservations about the raised ridge and appreciate that they have accepted it to enable workable space in the roof void.

We also note that Mr Richards, owner of No.16, has no objection to the revised proposal and we are committed to consulting him on all interface issues throughout construction.

We sincerely hope that the Committee can now support our application to enable a long awaited return to a dry house.Thank you.”

The Chairman invited Councillor Lesley Rollings, Ward Member, to speak.

Councillor Rollings reiterated her support for the application and explained that the applicants had worked hard to address the concerns that had been raised previously. She felt it spoke volumes that the objections had been withdrawn. She thanked the Committee and asked them to support the Officer recommendation to approve the application.

The Chairman again thanked the speakers and invited comments from the Committee Members. It was noted again that condition two would be amended, however, with significant praise for the amendments to the proposal, the Officer recommendation was moved, seconded and voted upon and it was agreed that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions.

Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To conform with Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the development commenced:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Members gave consideration to the last application of the night, application number 140545 for approval of reserved matters for the erection of 1no. dwelling and detached garage with annex accommodation, considering appearance, landscaping, layout and scale- following outline permission 139520 granted 16 January 2020. The Development Management Officer stated there had been one further objection received, summarised as follows:

·         They questioned the use of extensions of time on the outline application and this reserved matters application and said that the application should have been refused immediately

·         Issues in relation to highways and access still outstanding

·         Policies from the neighbourhood plan had been cherry picked by the planning officers

·         Size of the dwellings being approved on the site were too large

·         Plot 9 should be a single storey dwelling

·         Impact on the residential amenity of no. 32-oveshadowing and scale

·         Loss of the view to grade 1 listed church

The Chairman noted there were four speakers registered for the application, with the first being a statement to be read out by the Democratic and Civic Officer.

Statement from Scotton Parish Council

“1. The Parish Council has sent in an objection to this application and wish that you please note these objections.

2. The Parish Council would like to inform you that the Scotton Neighbourhood Plan has been approved and therefore should be considered regarding this application. This application contravenes Policy 5 and 6 of the Plan. The size is over 2 to 3 times what is required for any development within Scotton. This is also contrary to Local Policy LP26 as it will adversely affect the amenities of other properties.

3. The Parish Council has concerns that the original percolation test for the plot has not been made public or any other tests.

4. The present road leading to this application is only wide enough for one vehicle. The delivery of materials and vehicles of the workmen will cause this road to be blocked for other traffic unless the road improvements are in place before any building work is allowed.

The Chairman thanked the Democratic and Civic Officer and invited the next speaker, Jessica McCague, Agent for the applicant, to address the Committee.

The Agent explained there were three main points she wished to make in response to objections raised against the application. Firstly, with regard to the scale of the house, she noted that there had been an objection raised which stated the proposal in the current application was 50% larger than the indicative house size on the original application. The Agent stated that this was not true. The footprint of the house on both applications was at 238m² and therefore had not altered. The garage with one bedroom annex was larger than originally planned, however with a footprint increase from 81m² to 134m² this was an overall increase of only 16%. She stated that, in response to several requested amendments to the plan, they had complied with the requests accordingly, such as reducing the length  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

During the Covid-19 pandemic appeal casework has been placed on hold by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS). Consequently there have not been any appeal decisions received. The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) has recently announced however, that they will be recommencing site visits and are seeking to run inquiries and hearings in a virtual manner where possible. For updates see https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-planning-inspectorate-guidance 

The Chairman reiterated that during the Covid-19 pandemic appeal casework had been placed on hold by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS); consequently, there had not been any appeal decisions received. However, as mentioned in the update earlier in the meeting, it had been announced that they were in the process of recommencing site visits and hearings where possible.