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.

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

i)       Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 11 November 2020, previously circulated.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 11 November 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 stated that he had not received any communication regarding any of the applications due to be considered and was impartial in relation to all applications.

With regard to application number 141736, Station Road Bardney, Councillor R. Patterson declared that he had been lobbied by the Bardney Group Parish Council but he remained impartial. He also declared that he had visited Home from Home Care and attended a party in 2016 and he knew a person who worked at the site, however his judgement had not been impacted.

Councillors M. Boles, J. Ellis, R. Waller, A. White, C. McCartney, C. Hill and O. Bierley all declared they had received the lobbying emails from Bardney Group Parish Council but either did not read the emails or did not consider themselves influenced by the content.

Councillor J. Milne declared that she had also received the emails but had not read them. She also declared that she had visited the site through her work with Sir Edward Leigh MP but her impartiality was not affected.

Councillor D. Cotton, as Vice-Chairman of the Standards Committee, raised concerns regarding the lobbying from the Bardney Group Parish Council.

Councillor J. Rainsforth declared that she had received the emails from the Bardney Group Parish Council and believed the information contained would prejudice her against the application and as such she would not be involved in discussions or the vote for application number 141736.

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 Committee heard from the Interim Planning Manager (Development Management) regarding recent updates from Government.

Retail Opening Hours

Written ministerial statement from Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-11-30/hlws602

“…the purpose of this Written Ministerial Statement, which comes into effect from 2 December, is to make clear that, as a matter of urgency, local planning authorities should take a positive approach to their engagement with retailers to ensure planning controls are not a barrier to the temporary extension of retail opening times in December and January.

In particular, local planning authorities, having regard to their legal obligations, should not seek to undertake planning enforcement action which would result in the unnecessary restriction of retail hours during this period. The National Planning Policy Framework already emphasises that planning enforcement is a discretionary activity, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.

Where appropriate, local planning authorities should also highlight this temporary relaxation to retailers in their area so that they can take advantage of longer opening hours if they wish to do so.”

Supporting housing delivery and public service infrastructure

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/supporting-housing-delivery-and-public-service-infrastructure

Consultation would close at 11:45pm on 28 January 2021

A new PD right would allow all buildings within the newly created use class E (which includes offices, restaurants, shops, gyms, professional services and light industrial) to be converted to residential use (Class C3) without requiring a planning application. There would be “no size limit on the buildings that can benefit from the right”, the consultation document states. prior approval system would be restricted to factors including flooding, noise, contaminated land, and adequate levels of natural light. The new homes must also meet national space standards.

A proposed new “fast track” planning route to build public service buildings - such as schools, colleges, universities, prisons and hospitals - would require local authorities to determine applications for such schemes within ten weeks. The current statutory requirement was 13 weeks. In practice, this would mean local planning authorities having to “prioritise these decisions over other applications for major development", said the MHCLG. Meanwhile, the statutory publicity and consultation period for such applications would be cut from 21 to 14 days.

Existing permitted development rights allowing public service buildings to expand would be changed to allow greater enlargement. Instead of the limit on such changes being set at 25 per cent of the original buildings’ gross floorspace, this would be set at 25 per cent of their footprint. Instead of total extra floorspace being capped at 100 square metres, this would be set to 250 square metres, as it currently was for schools. The height limit for such work would be raised from five metres to six metres. An exemption from developing playing fields would remain.

The government had announced plans to "simplify and rationalise" permitted developments rights, as part of a review of such rights following recent changes to the Use Classes Order. The government proposed to review and update references to use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

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

The Chairman introduced the first application of the evening, number 141736 for change of use of existing care facility to 4no. bed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 51 Station Road Bardney Lincoln. In being the first application, the Chairman detailed the process for invited registered speakers to address the Committee and requested the Planning Officer to provide any updates to the Committee.

The Planning Officer stated that a further representation had been received from the Parish Council with allegations of inaccuracies in the report as well as withholding objections. He stated that Officers had responded to these comments, that all written objections were included in the report and although audio and video files could not be made public, these had been shared with Members of the Committee for transparency of decision making. He clarified that the application was looking for a change of use to residential use with no care provision required. He also noted a small update to the report in that at the bottom of page 18 there was an insertion to be made after the sentence ending “use class C2.” to read “Permission was subsequently granted for a change of use including extensions to use class C2.”

The Chairman invited the first speaker, Councillor Robin Darby to address the Committee.

Councillor Darby thanked the Committee and started by clarifying that the Bardney Group Parish Council had not been lobbying Members of the Committee, rather they had sought to highlight the issues with the application. He wished to highlight to the Committee that the application was not from a charity, rather it was a Limited Company and their motives were for financial gain not for the benefit of their clients. He referenced a previous application for an HMO in Sudbrooke which had been refused based on the potential for noise impact and likened it to the problems already experienced at the site in question. He stated that the complex was not an asset to the village and did not serve local residents. He explained that there were over 80 employees who provided 24 hour care which led to excessive traffic movements at all times of day and night. He added that parking was always problematic and was having a severely negative impact on the area. He wished to make the Committee aware that the only time any noise was reduced, was at the times when they were aware there was a noise report being undertaken. He added that several local residents were reporting an effect on their mental health as a result of the noise generated on the site. In addition to these concerns, Councillor Darby stated that local services, such as GP appointments, were being exploited to the detriment of other residents. He believed that the complex should be looked at as a whole, not with each stage being considered in isolation. He urged the Committee to reject the application and thanked them for their time.

The second speaker, the applicant Mr Hugo DeSavary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

The Committee gave consideration to application number 141447, outline planning application for 1no. single storey dwelling with access to be determined and all other matters reserved on land to the rear of 56 Saxilby Road Sturton-by-Stow Lincoln. The Planning Officer updated the Committee that since the report was drafted, the Neighbourhood Plan application had been received and was in the early stage of preparation. Its consistency with the NPPF was yet to be tested and it was to be afforded little weight in decision making. He added there appeared to be conflict within the policies and, in relation to the application, there was little to no community support and focus was on the concerns regarding flooding. Having given his presentation on the application, the Chairman invited the first speaker to address the Committee.

The first speaker introduced herself as Councillor Carol Gilbert of the Parish Council. She stated that the main concerns were regarding the risk of flooding and access to the site. She stated that in 2019 the site, and neighbouring properties, suffered significant flooding and the only reason the flood water did not breach into houses was because of the efforts of the fire service in pumping water away and residents digging their own defensive trenches. She felt the applicant had accepted there were potential issues but had not proposed any kind of solution. She explained that the site was much lower than surrounding land and formed a catchment pond at times of heavy rain. She stated that the soil was of a heavy clay consistency and so excess water did not simply drain away. She felt the existing drainage did not work and to build on the site would only worsen the existing problems. With regard to access, Councillor Gilbert highlighted that the track was narrow and this had been the reason for previous refusal to build on the site. She noted there was not capacity for additional vehicular usage and the access was not sufficient for two way traffic or to enable passing places. In addition to these concerns, she stated that there would be little garden or amenity space for the proposed dwelling and what was there would be in the shade. She summarised her concerns to focus on the flooding concerns and access to the site and thanked the Committee for their time and consideration.

The second speaker, Mr Jon Cook, Agent for the Applicant, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak. He stated they were disappointed that the Officer recommendation was to refuse permission and also felt it should have been a decision made under delegated powers. He highlighted that Lincolnshire County Council, as Lead Flood Authority had not raised any issues, neither had the Environment Agency nor the Flood Specialist. He stated that other, similar, applications had been approved in the same area and decision making should be consistent. He explained that nothing was unsurmountable and there was the opportunity for a positive impact on the drainage of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

The Chairman introduced application number 141637, outline planning application to erect 1no. bungalow with access and layout to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications, on  land off Middle Street, Scotton, Gainsborough. This was a resubmission of application number 140488. The Officer advised there were no updates to the report and so the Chairman invited the first of the two registered speakers to address the Committee.

Mr James Mumby, Agent for the Applicant, made the following statement.

“Chairman & members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Background

The proposed site is at present, part of a side & rear garden to 11 Middle Street, Scotton, Gainsborough. The site lies within the recognised development boundary of Scotton, does not lie within a flood risk zone & has no special features or bio-diversity.

Proposal

This proposal is to erect a 2 bedroom single storey bungalow on the site with detached garage off-road parking & turning area. The only items to be determined by this application are the development in principle and the new access as appearance, landscaping, layout & scale are to be left as reserved matters.

Although the design of the bungalow would be left for reserved matters it would be proposed to build the dwelling in materials which would be sympathetic to the area & setting.

Access & Parking

The access & parking for the new bungalow & no 11 will be off Middle Street as indicated on the proposed block plan. The position of the entrance is to be where the existing electric post has a stay wire. A discussion has already taken place with Northern Grid and the 4 metre stay wire can be replaced with a 2 metre wooden outrigger stake on the opposite side to accommodate this new entrance.

Justification for Development

The host dwelling is fairly small in size when compared with those dwellings adjacent to it with a garden which is much larger and deeper than those around it – this makes the overall plot look out of character with the general plot sizes in the area. Therefore this proposal to divide the plot into 2 smaller plots would create a layout which we feel would be more in keeping with the general layout & character of the area.

We do not concur with the officer’s statement that the new dwelling would create a pattern of development which would be discordant to or have an adverse effect on the area. In fact the resultant plot sizes will be similar to many existing plots around the immediate area.

Effect on Amenity of Adjacent Dwellings

The new bungalow would not affect the amenity of adjacent dwellings for the following reasons:

1. The proposed dwelling & the host property will each have sufficient land to provide adequate amenity space without causing a cramped development.

2. The proposed bungalow will be single storey only so no overlooking issues will occur.

3. There is sufficient spacing between the new bungalow and all adjacent properties to prevent any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

The Chairman introduced application number 141848, for balcony to west elevation at Summer House, 3 Summer Hill,Gainsborough. There were no updates from the Planning Officer and, with no registered speakers, the Chairman invited comments from Committee Members.

A Member of Committee noted that the applicant was a relative of a council officer and as such, the application was beofre the Committee for reasons of transparency. The decsiion would have otherwise been made under delegated powers.

Note:              Due to technical issues, the meeting was adjourned at 8:19pm and reconvened at 8:25pm. A full roll call was undertaken to confirm all Members were present.

On restarting the meeting, the Chairman summarised the Member comments as detailed above. The Officer recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and voted upon. It was unanimously agreed that 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 are to be observed during the course of the development:

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 drawing: Site Location Plan, Elevations 10/20 RP, Floor Plans 10/20 RP received 2 October 2020. 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.

3. The balcony hereby approved shall be finished in the colour black, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Conditions which apply or relate to matters which are to be observed following completion of the development:

None.

The Committee were asked to give consideration to application number 141726, for removal of prefabricated double garage and construction of double garage with additional habitable space/games room above at 12 Ulster Road Gainsborough. This was a resubmission of previously approved permission 140242. There were no updates from the Officer and she presented the details of the application to the Committee.

Note:              Due to a recurrence of the technical issues, the meeting adjourned at 8:32pm and reconvened at 9:00pm. The Chairman conducted a full roll call to ensure all Members were present. This was confirmed to be the case.     

The Planning Officer continued her presentation and, once completed, the Chairman invited the registered speaker to address the Committee.

Mr Peter Benson, Agent for the Applicant, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak. He stated that, as mentioned, the proposal originally was granted permission in February 2020 however, the proposed redesign was to try to get more space on the first floor. To do this, they were suggesting a slightly increased pitch of roof. This increased the first floor space without increasing the footprint. They considered this to be a minor change. The original application approved had an overall ridge height of 5.7m with a corresponding eave height of 2.85m. The distance from the front boundary was 15m which was exactly the same distance as the existing garage. The new amended application had an identical footprint but with a revised height of 6.4m. He stated that due to previous discussions, they were aware the increase would be met with some resistance but they had taken steps to ensure the impact was minimised. They also undertook lengthy consultation with neighbours to ensure there were no neighbourhood issues. In order to mitigate the increase in height they had moved the building 1.5m further back into the plot so it was further away from the road. This reduced the garden space but the applicants felt this was a suitable compromise in order to gain the additional space on the first floor. They felt the impact on neighbouring properties was minimal, due to the garden areas being raised and the garage being built at a lower level. With regard to the formal and informal consultation with neighbours, Mr Benson stated it was important to note that no negative feedback had been received from residents on the street. Formal letters of support had been received from residents of Ulster Road, including two neighbours, and informal positive feedback had also been received from other residents of Ulster Road. There was also no negative feedback received from the Parish Council, Lincolnshire County Council or the Ward Member. He stated that taking into account all of the above, the recommendation to refuse could be reconsidered by the Committee. He added that the materials to be used were in keeping with the area and the design of the proposal was not changed to the previously agreed application aside from the change to the roof pitch. He summarised the points made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

The Committee gave consideration to application number 140997 to erect extension(s) to existing dwelling at Clinton Villa, Owersby Bridge Road, Kirkby Cum Osgodby, Market Rasen. There were no updates from the Officer so the Chairman invited the Democratic Services Officer to read the followingn statement provided by Mr Peter Everton, Agent for the Applicant.

“Good evening Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for your time this evening.

As stated, this application is for a demolition of the existing garage and a proposal for a single storey rear and side extension to Clinton Villa.

The main concerns raised by the planning officer and neighbour objections from the previously submitted scheme were the views to and from the listed building, scale and massing, and the residential amenity impacts on the neighbouring dwellings.

Following a very productive site meeting and numerous email correspondence with Joanne Sizer, the scheme evolved to what you see before you today.

The design is sympathetic to the existing bungalow and maintains the character of the property. Scale has been reduced along with the amenity impacts on the neighbouring dwellings. Whilst the extension is large, it is appropriately proportioned to the large plot and is of a height and scale which reflects the existing dwelling.

The flat roof element will have minimal visual impact from the street scene and neighbouring properties, with the majority of the flat roof extension only visible from the rear garden which has been designed to negate the impact to the nearby listed building. This was a previous concern of the Conservation Officer and as seen in her most recent response, the Officer states that the setting of Kirk House will not be harmed.

We now present a well-rounded scheme addressing all previous issues, in our opinion adhering to all relevant Planning Policy and with an Officer recommendation for approval, which has been achieved through a proactive approach.

Joanne has been extremely professional, great to work with and we believed going forward this project would be seen positively, especially with the conservation officer now having no issues with the revised design and the planning officer recommending it for approval.

We can now no longer see why this application should not be seen as favourable and granted.

Many thanks for your time.”

With no further comment from the Officer, the Chairman opened the floor for comments from Members. The size of the planned extension was called into question and the Planning Officer confirmed the application for consideration was smaller than had been proposed originally. A Member of Committee commented that she had read the comments from neighbouring properties with interest, as well as the conservation report. She noted that the applicants had worked with Planning Officers to agree on what was being considered this evening and she was happy to support the application.

Having been moved and seconded, there was discussion regarding the need to condition the use of the workshop for personal use only and whether to remove permitted development rights.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

The Chairman introduced the final application of the night, 141621, to erect 1no. dwelling on land adjacent 1 & 3 Padmoor Lane Upton Gainsborough.

NOTE:            Councillor D. Cotton declared a non-pecuniary interest in the application as it was in one of the parishes to which he ministered and was in reference to the church as a listed building. He therefore left the meeting at 9:40pm.

There was no update from the Planning Officer and as such the Chairman invited the first speaker, Mr Martin Furnish, Agent for the Applicant, to address the Committee. Mr Furnish made the following statement.

“Good evening to all members of the Committee.

I would firstly like to thank the Planning Officer Martin Evans and Conservation Officer Liz Mayle for their support and assistance during the application process in delivering an excellent scheme seeking your support tonight.

It is recognised to be a sensitive site located in the vicinity of three listed buildings in the settlement of Upton, but it has been the main aspiration of this application not to impact on any of these existing buildings.

Therefore, through consultation with both Conservation and Planning Officers, the scheme before you today has been designed to protect visual impact on all the listed buildings, whilst delivering a desirable but modest residential dwelling for the applicants.

The new dwelling is in an infill plot considered in an appropriate location and provides a vast improvement to the street scene in the heart of the village. It would remove an existing flat roofed garage and storage block with no architectural merit, replacing with a dwelling design that includes all the architectural features that would have been expected 100 years ago.

The dwelling has focused on the applicants need to provide a separate piano room to allow the teaching of pupils away from the residential element of their home, which has become more prevalent during recent times. The current residence does not have the ability to provide suitable access to prevent pupils entering the home nor provide the additional space.

Additionally, there has been a significant level of parking allocated within the site, which will avoid any need of parking on the street, helping to maintain the open aspect to the central area of the village.

The new dwelling would provide continued long-term residency in Upton where the applicant, Mrs Crow, has lived all her life, maintaining her close connection to the local community. The applicant’s current property would become available and be suitable for local first time and retirement occupants.

The applicant is a well-respected resident of Upton and has received strong local community support for this application, being fully backed by the Parish Council and Local Residents. The applicant’s family have lived in the village for nearly 100 years and have been supportive of the church and local community and continue to do so. Therefore, it would be considered a shame to see the applicants have to move away to seek suitable accommodation.

We therefore hope that the committee can  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

The determination of appeals was NOTED.

The Chairman thanked everyone for their patience through the technical difficulties and wished all present a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.