Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Virtual - MS Teams

Contact: Ele Snow/James Welbourn  Democratic and Civic Officers

Media

Items
No. Item

92.

Register of Attendance

Additional documents:

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.

93.

Public Participation Period

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

94.

To Approve the Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 287 KB

i)       Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 6 January 2021, previously circulated.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor D. Cotton made a statement to the Committee relating to comments he had made at the meeting of the Planning Committee in December 2020. He stated that, in relation to the lobbying that had taken place regarding one specific application, he wished to clarify that whilst it was imperative for Members to declare whether they had been lobbied, lobbying itself was not illegal. He apologised if his comments had misled the Committee and he wished to put on record his clarification.

 

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 6 January 2021 be confirmed as an accurate record.

 

 

95.

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:

Minutes:

Councillor I. Fleetwood declared that he had been copied into an email sent to Officers in relation to planning application 142148 but he had not responded or dealt with the email. He also declared that he was the Ward Member for application number 141033 but he had not had any representations placed in front of him and he would remain in the Chair.

 

Councillor R. Waller declared that he would speak as Ward Member for application number 142148 and would leave the meeting at that point.

 

Councillor A. White declared that she had called in application number 142065 but she would remain in her seat as Committee Member.

 

96.

Update on Government/Local Changes in Planning Policy

 

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/

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee heard from the Interim Planning Manager (Development Management) regarding updates and changes in planning policy. He stated there was a Government consultation underway on the draft revision to the NPPF. This was to incorporate the “Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission” report and placed greater emphasis on beauty and place-making, and new trees. Local Planning Authorities would be required to produce local design guides and codes.

 

There was also a consultation on the draft National Model Design Code which would close on 27 March 2021. The proposals could be found at:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-and-national-model-design-code-consultation-proposals

 

Members also received the following update regarding Neighbourhood Plans.

Neighbourhood Plan/s

Headlines

Planning Decision

Weighting

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. Referendum to be held 6 May 2021.

Significant weight

Bishop Norton NP

Examination successful. Decision statement issued. Referendum to be held 6 May 2021.

Significant weight

Gainsborough NP

Examination successful. Decision statement issued. Referendum to be held 6 May 2021.

Significant weight

Morton NP

Examination underway. Examiner’s Clarification Note issued. Assuming examination is successful, referendum to be held 6 May 2021.

Increasing weight

Corringham NP

Consultation on Draft Plan (Regulation 14) ended 8 Jan 2021.

Some weight

Sturton and Stow NP

Consultation on Draft Plan (Regulation 14) completed.

Some weight

Ingham NP

Consultation on site assessment report completed.

-

*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:

https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/my-services/planning-and-building/neighbourhood-planning/

NP stage-weighting

-Made–full weight

-Referendum successful–full weight

-Examination successful/Decision Statement issued–significant weight

-Submission Reg16–increasing weight

-Draft Reg14 - some weight

-Designated – little weight

 

 

97.

Planning Applications for Determination

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

 

98.

141033 - Bardney pdf icon PDF 64 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced application number 141033 as an outline planning application to erect 5no. dwellings with access and layout to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications, on land adj to 15 Abbey Road Bardney. The Principal Development Management Officer stated there were no updates to the report however he had been provided with some photos to be shown on screen during the registered speaker’s statement. The Chairman invited Councillor Robin Darby to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Darby thanked the Committee and stated he was representing the Bardney Group Parish Council. He stated that the first objection was in relation to the public footpath that ran along the eastern boundary of the property. He explained that this footpath was owned by the Parish Council and they had not been consulted regarding the proposals. He stated that if the application was granted, access would be difficult for construction traffic and drew Members’ attention to the photos on screen depicting the access and narrow layout of the road. He highlighted there had been previous complaints regarding access to homes on the road and the proposed development would worsen the situation. He added that there was currently a request lodged with Lincolnshire County Council for there to be double yellow lines along the stretch of road. With regard to the site, he stated there was insufficient parking allocation for all properties, including existing residents, and it was necessary for residents to park on Station Road. He noted that the proposed pedestrian access would remove two parking spaces which would make parking increasingly difficult. He added that there were existing difficulties with residents parking on Abbey Road which affected the visibility of the road for all users. He invited Members to note the incline of the road and the difference between the site and road level. Councillor Darby explained that drainage in the area and for the proposed development was not sufficient and would increase the risk of flooding in an area that was already liable to flood. He also stated that the property adjacent to unit 5 had been a commercial property with an underground fuel storage tank and removal and decontamination of the area would need to be undertaken. Councillor Darby stated that he believed the application would be granted however, the Parish Council requested that the access to Station Road be blocked, the drainage needs be fully addressed, S106 should be levied, there should restrictions on traffic movement in place during the construction phase and the Parish Council should be consulted regarding the public right of way.

 

The Chairman invited any comments from the Principal Development Management Officer who confirmed there were no alterations proposed to the right of way and it did not fall within the application site. He added that no issues had been raised by the Highways Agency with regards to parking and access and additional car parking provision was given on site. It was not possible to restrict the access on Abbey Road, this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

99.

142065 - Nettleham pdf icon PDF 166 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the second application of the night, application number 142065 for construction of 30no. Entry Level homes andassociated infrastructure on land off Deepdale Lane Nettleham Lincoln – resubmission of 140938. There were no updates from the Officer and the Chairman confirmed there were four registered speakers. He requested the first speaker to address the Committee.

 

Councillor John Evans, of Nettleham Parish Council, made the following statement.

 

Local strength of feeling on this matter can clearly be judged by the large number of submissions of opposition from the community.  But we do understand that developments such as this must be judged on planning grounds.

 

The Parish Council strongly objects to this application and respectfully requests that the committee should refuse this application for 30 homes off Deepdale Lane on the following planning grounds:

 

1. This is not an allocated site in the adopted Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan (Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan) or CLLP.

 

2. The developer claims that this is an entry-level exception site so under NPPF 71 development on an unallocated site is permissible. However the proposal is contrary to para b) of the NPPF 71 as it does not comply with the design policies or standards as per D-6 and D-3 of Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan. 

 

NettlehamNeighbourhood Plan D-6 clearly states that new development should recognize and reinforce the local character in terms of height, scale, density, etc.  This is supported by LP26 c). 

 

The Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan also identifies the max density for new homes in Nettleham as 20 homes per Ha, which is reflected in the adjacent recent development by Larkfleet/Allison Homes where a total of 86 homes were originally approved (PA 135567) on a site of some 4.6Ha. giving a gross density of 18.7 homes /Ha.  Even when the additional 7 homes were approved for the site in August 2020 it resulted in 20.2 homes/Ha. 

 

LP2 spacial strategy section 4 on large villages  refers to -

Exception sites are unlikely to be of a scale over 25 dwellings / 1 ha per site.

This proposal seeks to produce 33 homes/Ha. leading to an inappropriate urban density in a sensitive rural village edge setting. 

 

The design and access statement and officers report seeks to justify this high density by comparing it to that of the adjacent residential care home development for older people which was a part of the earlier development.  This would be a totally inappropriate and invalid as a comparison for a housing development such that proposed now.

3. It is clear that none of the properties in the proposal have garages and the parking provision is in place of a front garden which will provide a car cluttered street scene. This is more usual in urban developments and does not reflect the character of Nettleham.   

 

4. The applicant, and officer’s report, seek to identify local need by referring to the housing register which is inappropriate as that refers to rented accommodation requests not entry level or affordable housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

100.

142148 - Sudbrooke pdf icon PDF 152 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the final application for the evening, application number 142148 for demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a large house of multiple occupation (sui generis use class) with associated access alterations, vehicle parking and landscaping at Rosemary Villa, 30 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke, Lincoln – resubmission of planning application 140180. The Senior Development Management Officer provided the following update.

 

Since the report was written additional objections had been received from residents of 28, 61 and 96 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke; 50 Windsor Close, Sudbrooke; 10, 21 and 35 Sibthorpe Drive, Sudbrooke; 3 and 5 Courtfield Close, Sudbrooke; 2 and 23 Holme Drive, Sudbrooke, 13 Park Close, Sudbrooke; 3 Fir Tree Close, Sudbrooke; and 6 Oak Tree Close, Sudbrooke which were summarised as follows:

 

  • Contrary to several policies in the CLLP and neighbourhood plan
  • Harmful to residential amenity by virtue of noise and disturbance, overshadowing, reduced light, increased fumes and light pollution contrary to LP17, LP26 and Policy 9
  • Not sustainable development, not best use of existing stock, use of natural resources, is energy inefficient, does not minimise waste or pollution or travel contrary to LP1, LP13 and LP18
  • Scale, height, materials and mass are out of keeping with the area and adjacent dwellings
  • No need for a HMO and no local support contrary to LP2 and LP4. The proposal is not designed to be a home.
  • With 8 double bedrooms up to 16 people could live in the proposal instead of 8 people as considered in the noise assessment and by the planning inspectorate. Rooms could be occupied by more people
  • The submitted streetscene drawing is inaccurate because 26 Wragby Road is smaller than drawn and the proposal would be taller than 28 Wragby Road. The application plot is higher than 28 Wragby Road which will emphasise the difference in scale. This erroneous document seems to have been used in the appeal
  • Light from car movements, interior lighting and exterior lighting
  • 28 Wragby Road is built below the road level meaning any movement to and from the property will increase light pollution from overlooking. The front wall would not prevent this
  • There has never been vehicular access to the rear of this cluster of properties and the information submitted regarding 24 Wragby Road is inaccurate. The applicants assertion that parking at 24 Wragby Road causes problems is contradicted by his assertion the proposed parking arrangements are acceptable
  • Is a garage proposed?
  • It is unclear what type of fence/wall will be built and what the noise assessment recommends
  • The site may be levelled off meaning fence heights are increased and this is not shown on the plans
  • The proposal does not meet the CLLP objective of promoting healthy lifestyles and wellbeing and provides insufficient amenity
  • No push bike facilities. Cars would have to be used
  • Plans show inaccurate 45 degree line. It would affect neighbouring windows. Are the plans accurate?
  • The property is currently being renovated. The garage has already been demolished.
  • The example properties given by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

101.

Determination of Appeals pdf icon PDF 215 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The determination of appeals was NOTED.