Agenda and minutes

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

The Chairman stated there was one registered speaker under the Public Participation scheme, Chris Thomas. The Speaker was then invited to give his statement to the Committee. The following statement was made.

The Speaker stated that he was a resident of the Welton and Dunholme Ward, and expressed concerns about the Planning Application 144526, and the currently under review Central Lincolnshire Local Plan. With the previous application dismissed, and not currently allocated in the Welton Neighbourhood Plan; he expressed that the local population was dismayed with the application submitted, and referenced the lack of sustainability, the access and road safety, and the excessive increase in development as well-known issues with the site.

The Speaker commented that the items in the application had glossed over these issues, and changed wording used to make the site ideal. He then asked for both further consultation and conversation prior to a decision taken, and concluded by asking the Council to assist Welton in the burden of housing provision.

The Chairman thanked the Speaker for his statement, and that a written reply would be sent shortly after the meeting to the Speaker in response to his comments.

i)      Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 2 March 2022.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 2 March 2022 be confirmed and signed 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 D. Cotton declared a personal interest, in relation to agenda item 6iii, application number 144197, as he felt acquainted with the applicant and was not able to give an impartial view and stepped down from the Committee for the duration of that item.

Councillor A. White declared that she was Ward Member for Nettleham, in relation to agenda item 6i, application numbers 142751 & 143621, however she would retain her seat as a Planning Committee Member.

Councillor J. Summers declared that he was Ward Member for Waddingham and Spital, in relation to agenda item 6v, application number 143957, and had given a previous opinion on the application. He would speak to the Committee as a Ward Member on the application, but as such would step down from the Committee for the rest of that item.

Councillor I. Fleetwood declared that he had previously met the applicant, in relation to agenda item 6iii, application number 144197, but had not discussed the application in question. He would remain in the Chair for the item.

Councillor J. Summers declared that he had previously met the applicants, in relation to agenda item 6vi, application number 143877, but had not discussed the application and would remain on the Planning Committee for that item.

Councillor J. Summers also declared, for transparency, that he had met the applicants, in relation to agenda item 6iii, application number 144197, and had discussed the application in question.

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 Planning Manager with the following update, regarding changes to Permitted Development that affected communication devices coming into effect on 4^th April 2022.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2022

The instrument amended the limitations, restrictions and conditions which apply when Code Operators install, replace or alter electronic communications infrastructure through permitted development rights. This was to come into effect Monday 4^th April 2022.

Class A of Part 16 of Schedule 2 (Communications) of the General Permitted Development Order:

“It is essential that the planning system continues to effectively support the deployment of new mobile network infrastructure. The changes will provide Code Operators with flexibility to upgrade existing sites in England for 5G delivery, enhance coverage and meet growing demands for network capacity. They will also reduce the time, cost and uncertainty involved in upgrading mobile network infrastructure and encourage the use of existing infrastructure and promote site sharing to reduce the impacts of new deployment.”

The Officer informed Members of the Committee of the changes that would occur to specific measurements. These were highlighted to the Members of the Committee.

Radio Equipment Housing – this was permitted up to 2.5m³, with prior approval was now required if greater than 2.5m³.

Widening existing masts

Alteration or replacement of existing narrow masts: Where the original width of the existing mast is less than one metre, a width increase of up to two-thirds was now permitted without prior approval; and 

Alteration or replacement of other masts: Where the original width of the existing mast is one metre or greater in width, a width increase of up to one half or two metres (whichever is greater) is permitted without prior approval.

Increasing height of existing masts

On article 2(3) land – up to 20m as before – but now required ‘prior approval’ between 20-25m tall.

All other land – now up to 25m (currently 20m) – now required prior approval if between 25-30m tall.

New (ground based) masts

On article 2(3) land – permitted up to 25m (previously 20m) high, subject to prior approval

All other land – permitted up to 30m (previously 25m) high, subject to prior approval.

ICNIRP Certificates would still be required (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection).

The Officer then informed Members of the Committee of the progress with Neighbourhood Plans. The Sturton by Stow and Stow joint Neighbourhood Plan had undertaken its examination successfully, with a referendum scheduled for 26 May 2022. The Officer highlighted that the Harpswell and Hemswell joint Neighbourhood Plan was in a Regulation 16 consultation process.

The Chairman introduced the first application of the meeting, planning application number 142751, and listed building consent 143621 at Nettleham Hall and Lodge Site, Hall Lane, Nettleham, Lincoln, LN2 2ND. The applications were as listed below:

142751: Planning application for change of use of Nettleham Hall and Diggers Cottage to 2no. dwellings with extensions, alterations, associated landscaping and vehicle access. Also, alterations and repairs to gates.

143621: Listed building consent for repair and conservation of the gates and piers; and partial demolition, conservation, alterations and extensions of Nettleham Hall and Diggers Cottage.

The Officer stated that though this item had two applications, everything that was said applied to both, and the list of conditions applied to both. The Officer then informed the Committee of the one update to the report as presented, specifically in relation to the timings of the development through unilateral undertaking, and stated that the Heads of Terms for this had been confirmed. Members heard that should they grant the applications, the gates would be taken down and put away, and this update provided the timings for the work. The following Heads of Terms was laid out by the Officer:

·         Within 12 months of commencement of building works it was planned to make safe the gates/metal work;

·         Within 36 months of commencement of building works – it was planned to commence work on the gates (metalwork) in accordance with the approved methodology;

·         Within 60 months of commencement it was planned to have completed the restoration of the gates, and;

·         Within 60 months of commencement it was planned to have a maintenance plan in place.

The Chairman advised that there were no Speakers registered, and invited comments from Members of the Committee.

There was discussion on the dilapidated site, and the opportunity that the application had to improve the area, with aspects including littering and fly tipping that had led the site to its current state. There were also supportive comments regarding the historic nature of the site, and emphasis was given to the positive comments from the statutory bodies.

Having been proposed and seconded, the Chairman took the vote and it was unanimously agreed that permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions for planning permission 142751:

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:

2.    No demolition/development shall take place on the site until a Scheme of Archaeological Works including historic building recording (on the lines of 4.8.1 in the Lincolnshire Archaeological Handbook) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This must enable heritage assets within the site to be recorded prior to their alteration or destruction.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

The Chairman informed the Members of the Committee that owing to the withdrawal of application number 142952, by the applicant, the application in this agenda item was no longer being considered by West Lindsey District Council, and would not be considered by the Committee at this meeting.

Note:              Councillor D. Cotton stepped down from the Committee for this item and left the Council Chamber at 6.51 pm.

The Chairman introduced the next item of the meeting, application number 144197, for change of use of existing field to domestic use to grow seasonal fruit and vegetables. After a short presentation on the application, and with no further updates provided by the Planning Officer, the Chairman invited the first speaker, Steve Harper, the applicant for the application, to address the Committee. The applicant made the following statement.

The speaker informed Members in his first point that the application had near unanimous support from the neighbours, the Parish Council, and that none of the statutory bodies had objected to the proposed site that would facilitate the erection of storage, a shed and a greenhouse which was not allowed at the time. The Speaker informed the Committee that these buildings would be inconspicuous and placed in the corner of the plot. The Speaker wanted to grow fruit and vegetables for himself and his family, and was trying to create more biodiversity, which included proposed tree planting, erection of indigenous hedges and the creation of wildlife corridors.

The speaker’s second point was on the report issues raised by the Planning Officer. The Speaker stated that on adjacent streets and fields to the proposed site, there was an industrial site, proposed future homes, a nature reserve and a caravan park with a field lost, which showed that these had all gone through evidence of change of use. Mr Harper hen referenced comments by the Planning Officer in the report.

The speaker concluded his statement that this application was trying to reduce his carbon footprint, focus on self-sustainability, and improve the biodiversity in his property.

The Chairman thanked Mr Harper for his comments, and then invited the second speaker, Rick Poolton, an objector, to address the Committee. The applicant made the following statement.

The speaker said that there was an issue with the applicant’s declaration in the initial application, in box 24 of the application, as he was an elected member, and the way that the public notice of the application had been arranged. The statement then went to say that this application was a ‘Trojan horse’ and referred to the applicant’s history in horticulture. The Speaker stated that only 250 square metres would be needed for an allotment for the desired purpose of the applicant, and referred to that the proposed site was ten times that size, with reference made to it as an ‘industrial scale’.

Mr Poolton informed Members that he had moved to the area due to his medical issues, and stated that the proposed development would increase noise and the pollution would affect his health, and said other neighbours would be affected. The Speaker stated that the application would contravene his human rights, and would contravene Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

The speaker then concluded by saying that the development went against LP55, other planning policies, would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

The Chairman introduced the next application, number 144171, application for change of use from holiday park to 9no. retirement homes for the over 50s resubmission of 143250, at Blyton Ponds, Station Road Blyton, Gainsborough. Bar a response from a neighbouring property, there were no other updates to the published report. The Officer then highlighted the main aspects of the application, since its previous refusal at a past Planning Committee meeting, which highlighted the consultation period embarked by the applicant. It was noted by the Planning Officer that if the applicant was not related to a Member of the Council, the decision would have been delegated.

The Chairman stated there was one submitted statement from an objector, A Goodman, to be read aloud by the Democratic Service Officer. The following statement was read aloud.

“Planning in 2009 stated that caravans were not to be situated on borders of no 11 leaving approximately 16-20 feet yet once again the owner is asking for caravans to be moved to the borders. There is no need for a site for the over 55's as there are already numerous bungalows both private and housing association also there are existing caravan sites within the village with regard to the 2009 planning application several points were not adhered to i.e. workers residing on site and travelling to their work sites.”

The Chairman then invited comments from Members of the Committee.

There was some debate regarding the issue of flooding in the area, with references to past flooding experiences, and the potential for monitoring the situation. It was referenced by a Member that Condition 4 specified flooding issues and the requirement for drainage plans to be submitted prior to occupation.

Note:             Councillor I. Fleetwood declared that he was a Member of the Scunthorpe & Gainsborough Water Level Management Board. Regarding the flooding concerns, he commented that this was heavily considered by the Board.

A query was made regarding the new caravans, with the Planning Officer stating that this application was replacing the current caravans on the site. There was also comment that this would allow for more accommodation suitable for the over-55s.

Note:             Councillor I. Fleetwood declared that he was Member of the Environment Agency’s Anglian (Northern) Regional Flood and Coastal Committee, but he had not discussed this application as a Member of that Committee.

Having been proposed and seconded, the Chairman took the vote and it was 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 must be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:  To confirm 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:

NONE

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

The Chairman introduced application number 143957, to erect 1no. detached dwelling and creation of vehicular access, on Land adjacent to Manor Cottage, Saxby. The Officer informed the Members of the Committee that there were no updates on the application. A short presentation was then given by the Officer.

The Chairman invited the register Speaker, the applicant, Mr Tom Neave, to address the Committee. The following statement was made.

Mr Neave stated that he was to address the reasons for refusal. He stated that the Officer accepted that there were enough dwellings and the village did not form a single cluster, with the proposed development forming part as a single and compact settlement. Whilst there is some open space, the Speaker pointed to nearby land and that this did not form a compact cluster, did not separate the village and therefore met the definition of a hamlet. He said that the Officer viewed the application as finely balanced, and then commented that the application was an ‘infill’, as it was immediately east of one property, and the adjacent side was the access to Manor Farm.

The applicant stated it was within a developed boundary, and continuous frontage and met the requirement of policy LP2. The speaker commented that the design objections were subjective, with the property being in a wider setting of the church and farm buildings, with no impact on the heritage, mimicked a converted barn, and was designed to blend into the surroundings. The speaker concluded that the application was careful to not propose a typical building harmful to the village. He concluded his remarks by saying that he was actively involved in the family’s farm and wanted to be able to work and live in the village.

The Chairman thanked the applicant for his comments, and invited the final Speaker, Local Ward Member Councillor Jeff Summers, to address the Committee.

The Member stated that the Neave family had lived in the area for four generations, and that he felt the family’s history encompassed the village. He informed Members that he was going to run the farm, and that the responsibilities of doing so required a suitable house nearby, and the development would have to be onsite particularly to deal with instances including fire, and protecting livestock. The Member stated that the application site was alongside the farmers’ entrance.

Commenting on the Officer’s report, the Member said St. Helen’s Church was 150 metres away from the site, with 1 house in view within 30 metres of the church, and that you could not see the property site from the church. Remarking about the design, the Member referenced that though the proposed dwelling was of a modern style, it was 100 years since the adjacent house was built, meaning that design practice would have changed, and that the Cliff Road properties had different mixture of stone and red brick design, which the Member stated was seen in the proposed application. The Member then stated that in his view, there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

The Chairman introduced the final application of the meeting, application number 143877, to erect 1no. dwelling, on Land adjacent to 5 Beck Hill, Tealby. The Officer informed the Committee that there was an update to the report, having received additional correspondence regarding the right of way access. The Officer then went through a short presentation on the application.

The Chairman stated that there was one registered speaker for the application, one of the applicants, Jools Ferrier-Hanslip. The following statement was made.

The Speaker commented that she was pleased with the Officer’s recommendation of granting the property. After introducing her family, she detailed their history in the village, and the need for another dwelling on site for the family members. She commented that the proposed non-speculative design tried to reflect the character of the surrounding area. In concluding her remarks, the Speaker stated that this proposal would create their forever home, and hoped that the Committee would support the application.

The Chairman explained there were three statements submitted from objectors to be read aloud by the Democratic Services Officer, the first being from Pauline Bacon. The following statement was read aloud.

“I am not resident in Tealby but have lived closely to the area for fifty years

1.Over development of site. 2. Not in keeping with Area of outstanding natural beauty. 3. Not in keeping with Tealby conservation Area. 4. Added disturbance to neighbours. 5. Added traffic congestion on a tiny lane which already a very busy thoroughfare. Finally, 6. A worrying PRECEDENT. How many more future requests for garden spaces to be almost completely built over? I wish to thank the committee for addressing my deep concerns.”

The Chairman invited the Democratic Services Officer to read aloud the second statement, from Andrew Laing. The following statement was read aloud.

“I am a resident of Beck Hill and live about 40 yards from the proposed scheme. Our house is some 15 feet lower than the ground being considered in the application. I appreciate that our concerns about the previous application have to some extent been addressed but we remain worried that the proposed building will be out of character in an already congested area. There are, however, two matters that should be considered:”

“The effect on Beck Hill.”

“Beck Hill is a narrow lane with no pavement and no passing places for vehicles. It is generally busy with pedestrians (these are local children, elderly residents, their pets, horses and groups of walkers) It is part of “The Viking Way”. It is also used by residents’ cars and, more recently, by delivery vehicles. Pedestrians have to flatten themselves against the sides of the road to avoid accidents. The danger to children, pets, and others would only be increased as a result of the proposal. Furthermore the access entrance would be shared by three households causing additional congestion where it is already crowded.”

“Subsidence.”

“Our house, 8 Beck Hill, suffered from subsidence for several years as a result of a leak  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

A short discussion over the Sudbrooke appeal occurred, with disappointment of its granting, and expressed shock over the Inspector’s thinking regarding the appeal. There was a comment that heartened to see the dismissal of the related costs appeal.

The determination of the appeals were DULY NOTED.