Agenda and minutes

Venue: MS Teams

Contact: Ele Snow/James Welbourn  Democratic and Civic Officers


No. Item


Register of Attendance

Additional documents:


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.



Public Participation Period

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

Additional documents:


There was no public participation at this point in the meeting.


To Approve the Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 480 KB

i)       Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 14 October 2020.

Additional documents:


RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 14 October 2020 be confirmed as an accurate 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.


Additional documents:


The Chairman noted that application number 140235, the Lindsey Shopping Centre, related to the council and noted a dispensation for all Members of the Planning Committee.


The Chairman also declared a person pecuniary interest for item 6c, application number 141705, Minster View, Stainfield. He stated the property was in the estate of his late father, he had not spoken to anyone in the council regarding the application and he would be standing down from the Committee in order for the Vice-Chairman to stand in and Chair the remainder of the meeting.


Update on Government/Local Changes in Planning Policy


Note – the status of Neighbourhood Plans in the District may be found via this link


Additional documents:


The Committee heard a summary of the following updates to Neighbourhood Plans within the district.



West Lindsey District Council

Neighbourhood Plans Update – PC Meeting 11 Nov 2020

Neighbourhood Plan/s


Planning Decision


Made Neighbourhood Plans

Brattleby, Caistor*, Cherry Willingham, Dunholme, Great Limber, Lea, Nettleham*, Osgodby, Riseholme, Scotter, Scothern, Saxilby, Welton, Willoughton, Glentworth, Spridlington, and Sudbrooke.

Full weight

Scotton NP

Examination successful. Decision statement issued. But due to COVID-19 situation referendum delayed until May 2021.

Significant weight

Bishop Norton NP

Examination successful. Decision statement issued. But due to COVID-19 situation referendum delayed until May 2021.

Significant weight

Gainsborough NP

Submission consultation completed (Reg16). Examiner appointed. Examination begins 23 Nov.

Increasing weight

Morton NP

Submission consultation completed (Reg16). Responses posted on website and appointment of examiner process has begun.

Increasing weight

Corringham NP

Consultation on Draft Plan (Regulation 14) underway from 9 Nov to 22 Dec.

Some weight

Sturton and Stow NP

Consultation on Draft Plan (Regulation 14) underway from 2 Nov to 14 Dec.

Some weight

Hemswell Cliff NP

Enhancements to Design Code being considered.  

Little weight

Normanby and Owmby NP

Applications from Normanby by Spital and Owmby by Spital PCs to prepare their own NPs were approved by Full Council on 2 Nov.

Little weight

*Caistor NP

Review underway. Consultant appointed.


*Nettleham NP

Review underway. Consultant appointed.


Neighbourhood Plans

- made (17)

- in preparation (24)

- to be started (42)

- being reviewed (2)*



To view all of WLDC’s neighbourhood plans go to:

NP stage-weighting

Made–full weight

Referendum successful–full weight

Examination successful–significant weight

Submission Reg16–increasing weight

Draft Reg14 - some weight

Designated – little weight



Planning Applications for Determination

Additional documents:


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



140235 - Lindsey Shopping Centre pdf icon PDF 156 KB

Additional documents:


The Committee was asked to give consideration to application number 140235 for demolition of the former Lindsey ShoppingCentre and proposal to develop multiplex cinema, car parking and commercial units in the following use classes, Class A1 (shops), Class A2 (financial and professional services), Class A3 (restaurants and cafes), Class A4 (drinking establishments), Class A5 (hot food takeaways) and Class D2 (assembly and leisure), together with associated works, in the Market Place, Gainsborough.


Members were shown a presentation regarding suggestions for amendments to the theme and design of the development and heard that it was requested for final design agreements to be delegated to Officers. There were no registered speakers for the application and the Chairman invited comments from Members of the Committee.


There was unilateral support from Members and it was felt that the development would be beneficial not just for Gainsborough, but for the district as a whole. Clarification was sought regarding the pedestrian access through to Heaton Street and it was confimred this would be retained.


A Member of the Committee enquired as to the details of car parking and access via Heaton Street as this was already a congested area with cars double parked and movement of trafic being impeded as a result. It was confirmed that this had been considered and it was anticipated that the Highways Agency would agree with the final design amendments which also addressed the issue.


Having been moved, seconded and voted upon, it was unanimously agreed that permission be GRANTED for the principle of development subject to deferral back to officers for improved design and any other outstanding matters.  


140352 - Horsemarket, Caistor pdf icon PDF 43 KB

Additional documents:


The Chairman introduced application number 140352 for the removal of single-storey bungalow and erect 1no. replacement two storey dwelling at CladdaghHorsemarket Caistor. He invited the Interim Planning Manager (Development Management) to provide updates to the application.


The Committee heard this was a revised plan and further objections had been received following re-consultation. He summarised the objections as follows:


·         My only objection to the revised proposal is the [precedent] of a house rather than a bungalow being built in that location, in that it may be used to justify similar builds in the adjoining land between that property and [58 South St].

·         The concerns over surface water drainage made in my previous objection still apply

·         scale of this property is completely incongruous with the locality

·         The ridge height noted on the recent plans is in our opinion excessive, particularly for this area. At nearly 9m high it is nearly 2m above what could reasonably be expected for a modest two-storey property.

·         photograph with the overlay showing the massing of the proposed build is from Google streetview and as such is much higher and not representative of the perspective from which a pedestrian would view the property

·         The North aspect of the property viewed from the conservation area of Bobs Lane and also the listed buildings along Horsemarket, is frankly a disgrace and shows absolute contempt for the impact it will have on residents and the visual amenity when viewed from the conservation area of the town.

·         In our opinion, this property is proposed in completely the wrong place, has a harmful impact on the local conservation area and has scant regard for surrounding properties and residents.

·         it will clearly build a monstrous brick wall up against the conservation area and plummet gardens into darkness, the plans show the property height rising to the upper bungalow window on the hill opposite and the property width starting from the front of the existing bungalow to be demolished, stretching as far back as the east side of the bungalow above, a huge imposing property from all sides!

·         On closer inspection of the ‘revised’ plans, it also appears that the excessive height of the roof may be to accommodate further rooms in the loft (evident from the side view which looks to show internal walls in the loft space), and effectively creating an additional storey

·         If allowed this property will completely undermine the aesthetics and heritage of the entire conservation area and set a precedent for future developments in and around the historical centre of the town.


The Interim Planning Manager added that these repeat concerns were addressed within the report. The proposal was outside of the conservation area and there was medium risk of surface water flooding.


The eaves height of the replacement dwelling measured approximately 5.3 metres with a total ridge height of 8.9 metres. This elevation also measured approximately 18 metres across. The ridge of the existing dwelling approximately met the eaves of that proposed and the north elevation measured  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.


141705 - Minster View, Stainfield pdf icon PDF 171 KB

Additional documents:


The final application of the evening was introduced, application number 141705 for change of use from holiday let to 1no.dwelling. The Committee heard there were no updates to the report and the first registered speaker was invited to address the Committee.


Mr Sean Madden, Agent for the Applicant, thanked the Committee for their time and made the following points.


  • The change of use application seeks full planning approval for a residential dwelling, not change of use to a C3 dwellinghouse.  This has clearly been stated to the planning officer in an email along with other points which have been included in this report - C3 status has never been suggested at any stage by the applicant or agent.  Permission is sought for Mr P. Fleetwood to occupy the existing building - he has increasing mobility and health issues which require single storey living and he has lived at this location since 1963.
  • The holiday let was never brought into use due to the owner suffering ill health for a period of time, the applicant for the holiday let (Dennis Fleetwood) has now sadly now passed away.
  • The drains are not connected and a completion certificate has never been issued as the works were ongoing by Mr D. Fleetwood.  Building Inspection has been undertaken by West Lindsey District Council, and with work outstanding it would be unreasonable to apply for a completion certificate.
  • A marketing exercise was therefore not carried out due to the building not being brought into use as a holiday let
  • Paragraph 79 has no bearing on this application due to this change of use application which is for an existing building. Paragraph 79 refers to the construction of new buildings.
  • No fence has been constructed between the existing dwelling at Minster View and the building submitted for change of use due to the project being incomplete and under single ownership. The buildings are approx 25m apart and overlooking should not be a problem. A fence can easily be erected between the properties to ensure private amenity space is provided for the properties if ownership changes in the future, therefore ensuring compliance with Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.  This could easily be achieved by conditioning any permission granted.
  • There are 27 properties in the Hamlet of Stainfield, not 9 as indicated in the Officers Report.  These properties are all located within the 'Stainfield' village boards which mark the perimeter of the settlement.
  • Full and concise answers have been given to any questions raised by the planning officer promptly.
  • No objections have been received from any of the consultees, the parish council or highways, we therefore respectfully request for the application to be granted planning permission.


With no other speakers, Members of Committee were invited to comment on the application. It was enquired as to what constituted a hamlet, this was confirmed to be dwellings clearly clustered together to form a single developed footprint. Members queried the essence of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.


Determination of Appeals pdf icon PDF 213 KB

Additional documents:


The Interim Planning Manager highlighted that all three detailed appeals had been dismissed. The determination of appeals were NOTED.