Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - The Guildhall. View directions

Contact: Andrew Warnes  Democratic and Civic Officer - 01427 676595

Media

Items
No. Item

39.

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.

 

40.

To Approve the Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 360 KB

i)       Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 10 August 2022, previously circulated.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 10 August 2022 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

41.

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, in relation to agenda item 6c, application number 142874, that he was a Member of Cherry Willingham Parish Council, and was also the County Councillor for Bardney and Cherry Willingham. He had not participated or discussed the application, and would remain in the Chair for the item.

 

Councillor C. Darcel declared, in relation to agenda item 6c, application number 142874, that he was the District Councillor for Cherry Willingham, but that he had not participated or discussed the application prior to the meeting, and would sit as Member of the Planning Committee.

 

Councillor A. White declared, in relation to agenda item 6e, application number 144930, that she was the Chairman of Nettleham Parish council, and would be speaking in that role, and then leave the Chamber for the remainder of the item.

 

Councillor J. Milne declared, in relation to agenda item 6a, application number 144574, that she would speak as the Local Ward Member, and then leave the Chamber for the remainder of the item.

 

42.

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 Development Management Team Manager updated Members of the Committee on the main national updates to planning policy, and that with a new government in formation, there was a new Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Secretary, Simon Clarke MP, and an update on proposed planning reforms would likely be announced soon.

 

The Officer then progressed to highlight local updates, and updated that the Hemswell and Harpswell Joint Neighbourhood Plan was in examination. Members also learnt that the Hemswell Cliff and Keelby neighbourhood plans were in Submission Regulation 16 public consultations. Additionally, the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan Review was under Regulation 14 Consultation.

 

43.

144574 - Land to the east of Church Road, Upton pdf icon PDF 311 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the first item of the meeting, application number 144574, to erect 5no. detached dwellings with attached garages on land to the east of Church Road, Upton, Gainsborough, DN21 5NS.

 

The Officer stated that there was an update to the report, which was that the S106 agreement was created, and was in consideration with the applicants. The Officer then gave a short presentation on the application.

 

The Chairman advised that there were two registered speakers for the item. The Chairman invited the first registered speaker, the agent for the application, Vic Fowlers, to address the Committee. The following statement was made.

 

The speaker thanked the Committee for their consideration, and stated the current application was based on a previously approved application. He then stated that the current application was similar to the previously agreed outline, with the same number and type of dwellings, and with a similar layout.

 

The speaker progressed to respond to objections previously made, specifically the removal of the hedge on the western side to Church Lane. This was only being removed due to Lincolnshire County Council requiring a two metre footpath between the access points to the site. The speaker stated that there was sufficient room, and the application provided for additional tree planting in a mitigation attempt of any environmental issues. Other measures proposed included lights and movement senses, nesting boxes, fences to the rear gardens, and openings to allow hedgehogs to access the site. Regarding the access roads to the proposed site, Lincolnshire County Council expressed no concerns regarding these roads, neither in the outline application or the proposed application.

 

The Chairman thanked the speaker for his statement, and invited the second and final speaker, the Local Ward Member, Councillor Jessie Milne, to address the Committee.

 

The Member stated that she knew the area very well, and that attending the site visit was useful. The statement expressed concern about the footpath linking the two access points, with the nearby Church Road hosting poor visibility issues, and dangerous road situations in the surrounding area. The Member then expressed concerns about road flooding and individuals avoiding cars in the village, with flooding not dealt with and the roads subsequently covered in mud. The statement then asserted that there were nearby archaeological sites of interest that could be affected.

 

Moving to suggestions for the committee, the Member highlighted that better management of flood risks, the historic environment, transportation, and construction control could be put in place in order to guarantee a better development. The Member asserted that this could be also assisted by the enforcement of the conditions, and made sure that the site was being looked after. The Member concluded her statement to state that she was tired of dealing with complaints from construction work in her ward, and that builders were not adhering to the conditions placed upon them in the approval of planning applications.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Milne for her statement.

 

Note:               Councillor J. Milne left the Chamber at 6.47  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

44.

144010 - 18 South Drive, Stow pdf icon PDF 72 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the second application of the agenda, application number 144010, for two dwellings at 18 South Drive, Stow, Lincoln. The Development Management Team leader informed Members that that there was an update to the application, with the Landscaping Officer having visited the following a request from the neighbour to assess the existing trees and place a Tree Preservation Order. The Landscape Officers comments were read out.

 

“I visited the property with the 2 ash trees adjoining the west side of the dev site yesterday. Although both trees are very large and clearly visible, they are both low quality trees and do not meet the criteria for a TPO. The southerly ash of the two trees is and adequate distance from both the house and garage of the adjacent plot. This tree is infected with Inonotus hispidus which causes decay and significant loss of wood strength over a short period of time.

 

It appears to be two trees that have grown very close together with the bases moulded around each other. The southerly stem has a significant lean to the southeast, and the more upright stem has a low fork with included bark that could potentially split apart as they continue to grow in diameter with annual growth. The northerly tree of the two is forked into three from just above ground level, and appears to have early stages of Chalara ash on them.”

 

Note:               Councillor C. Darcel returned to the Chamber at 7.41 pm.

 

The Officer then gave a short presentation on the application.

 

The Chairman invited the first registered speaker, the Parish Council representative from Stow Parish Council, Councillor Chris Turner, to address the Committee. The following statement was made.

 

“Stow Parish Council objects to the application as it stands. We do not object to development on this site, but we do object to the size and scale of the dwellings proposed. The application is for two 3 storey houses of substantial proportions with each having six bedrooms, two bathrooms plus three en suites, which was 5 bathrooms, an office and a gym.

 

As pointed out at the previous meeting, the Sturton by Stow and Stow Neighbourhood Plan states: "We need a range of low carbon and energy efficient homes in terms of size and affordability to meet the needs of local residents including provision of smaller homes, both as starter homes allowing young people to remain within the area, and for older people downsizing...” Policy 1a goes on to say we will support development where: "new homes are of size, type and tenure that meet local housing requirements;” 

 

While the Housing Needs Assessment for Central Lincolnshire may consider the evidence implies a need for larger family homes, there is nothing to suggest that ‘larger’ means six bedrooms (plus bathrooms, en-suites, offices and gymnasia). How many families with five children do you know who need to have a six bedroomed house to provide a separate bedroom for each of the children? We certainly found no such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

45.

142874 - Land to the north of Rudgard Avenue, Cherry Willingham pdf icon PDF 344 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the next item on the agenda, application number 142874, for an Outline planning application to erect up to 144no. dwellings – access to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications, on land to the north of Rudgard Avenue, Cherry Willingham.

 

The case officer provided an update to the Condition 9 in the report. Condition 9 needed amendment so that after development was commenced, it would need to include within 10m of the railway line. This has been agreed with Network Rail. This is to allow a start on site.

 

The new condition was to read: “9. Development shall not commence within 10m of the railway line until a construction methodology has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority. The construction methodology shall demonstrate consultation with the Asset Protection Project 2 Manager at Network Rail. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved construction methodology unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.”

 

After a short presentation on the application, the Chairman advised that there were no registered public participants for the application, and invited comments from Members of the Committee.

 

Debate ensued, and Members brought up multiple points, which included access, the possible layout, and the principle of development, and the nature of outline applications. There was also deliberation over the error of the initial numbers for the site, and the density of the application, with one Member asserting that it was not of high density in many new development sites. It was also emphasised at multiple points that the application was only looking at the outline, with emphasis that there would be no dwellings built from the possible granting of the application.

 

In response to the numbers of dwellings proposed, the Development Management Team Manager explained that the housing numbers came from the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan, with the application being on an allocated site. There was an issue with the incorrect figure of 1.75 hectares, with an expectation that 75% of the site being used for dwellings, that the proposed figure was based on the area size being 5.17 hectares. The Officer explained that the plan was indicative, and that the approved local policies indicated that 40 dwellings was insufficient.

 

The Officer explained that the figure of 144 dwellings was up to that number, and that consideration would be given to the accommodating road space, layout and the open space. The Officer further elucidated that the Committee at this point should mainly consider the scale and reserved matters for the application, and whether the high number affects these issues, in addition to housing needs in the area. In a response to a later enquiry, Members heard that the actual number of dwellings might be reduced to factors around the site.

 

In response to a query on affordable housing, Members learnt from the Development Management Team Leader that the figures were advised by one of the West Lindsey District Council Housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

46.

145118 - 5 Beck Hill, Tealby pdf icon PDF 99 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the next item of the meeting, application number 145118, to erect 1no. dwelling – resubmission of 143877 on land adjacent 5 Beck Hill, Tealby, Market Rasen, LN8 3XS. The Officer stated that there was one update, which was an additional letter of support for the application, and then gave a short presentation on the application.

 

The Chairman advised that there were 3 statements, with these to be read out by the Democratic and Civic Officer. The first was from the applicants, Nik and Jools Ferrier-Hanslip. The following statement was read out.

 

“Good evening. The officer’s report is well considered and recommended for approval as they have judged that the proposal fits with local and national planning policy. You may recall that a similar application was brought before committee in March which was recommended for approval, but unfortunately the members moved the application for refusal siting grounds of character and amenity.

 

You can obviously understand our frustration as we spent a long period of time getting the design of the property right and the approval from the then conservation officer Liz Mayle. I understand she is a person of extreme professionalism who takes pride and diligence in her role passionate about conserving the local areas. Basing all decisions on local planning policies and her professional opinion.

 

In essence she would not have given backing to the proposals if she thought it would be harmful to local character. To address this previous reason for refusal we have revisited the scheme and made extensive amendments, I would also like to make you aware that the previous scheme is also subject to an appeal which we would be willing to withdraw if you accept the officer’s recommendation for approval of this new application.

 

At first glance this design may look similar to the previous but as already stated this is what the planning office deemed acceptable. We didn’t want to change the location, style, or the shape of the building, but what we have done is reduce it in size by 44%! We have reduced both the buildings in length and width, lowered it by a further 80cm and removed the basement. We have also had visual images produced so you can see exactly how it will sit at a much-reduced level on the plot and look very much in keeping with its surroundings and setting.

 

We took on board the comments from the previous committee and we would like to address them. Firstly, one of the members comments last time was “it obviously doesn’t fit in with the style of Tealby”. No two houses on Beck Hill are the same. There are brick, stone and rendered houses, timber clad houses, tiny cottages, large barns and even a 1990’s bungalow. Some have UPVC windows, others are wooden casement. Some have tiled roofs, others are slate. Photos have been shown. So, we were confused by that comment.

 

Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the Tealby Conservation Area Appraisal refer to the character of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

47.

144930 - "Troika", 21 The Green, Nettleham pdf icon PDF 273 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the next item, application number 144930, to refurbish retail unit and sub-divide residential unit to form 1no. apartment over existing retail unit and 2no. dwellings, including first floor extension to infill and cover rear first floor balcony, at “Troika”, 21 The Green, Nettleham, Lincoln, LN2 2NR. The Officer informed Members of the Committee that there was no update to the report, and gave a short presentation on the application.

 

The Chairman invited the register speaker, Cllr Angela White, Chair of Nettleham Parish Council, to give her statement. The following statement was made.

 

The speaker wanted to speak in support of the objections to the application, and gave a brief history of the shop that had existed and was currently in use. The speaker referenced the access to the properties was limited around the nearby church, and partly due to the Co-op car park. The speaker then referenced the attractiveness of the approach adjacent to the Co-op for potential buyers, and asserted that there was enough space in the back of the properties for parking.

 

The speaker stated that the existing Nettleham plan was silent to parking standards for development, and that in the review, there was to be an insertion on day parking standards for additional bedrooms in existing dwellings in the village. This was to ensure that when planning permission was granted for additional bedrooms, there was sufficient parking space for each new bedroom. The speaker progressed to state that any parking space needed to be within the existing curtilage of the property, which was the main objection by the Parish Council. In concluding her remarks, it was referenced that a bus stop was immediately outside of the property, and queried that stopping location.

 

The Chairman thanked the Member for her statement.

 

Note:               Councillor A. White left the Chamber at 9.00 pm for the remainder of the item.

 

The Chairman then invited comments from Members of the Committee. Debate ensued, and Members drew attention to a return to the originally designed usage of the dwellings, the possible refurbishments, and the Conservation Officer’s comments. There was also some discussion on the parking situation both surrounding the property, and generally with different property types, such for new developments.

 

In response to a comment about parking, the Officer replied that there was space in the back of the properties for parking spaces, and does have the right of access, but this was blocked off by a separate party.

 

Members also learnt in a separate response from the Officer that the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan review was only at consultation.

 

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 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

48.

145141 - Gainsborough Town Centre pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the final application of the meeting, planning application 145141, for advertisement consent for 7no. freestanding map monoliths and 9no. fingerpost signs, in Gainsborough Town Centre. The Development Management Team Manager stated that there were no updates to the report, and gave a short presentation on the application.

 

The Chairman advised there were no registered public participants for the application, and invited comments from Members of the Committee.

 

Debate ensued, and Members were in general praise of the application, and that it would possibly help bring people into Gainsborough. There was some raised annoyance about the lack of solar panels, with a Member stating that Gainsborough Town Council wanted future proofing of the designs. It was also remarked that the application would not have come to the Committee’s consideration if the applicant was not West Lindsey District Council.

 

Note:               Councillor D. Dobbie declared that he had participated as Member of Gainsborough Town Council for the application, and left the Chamber at 9.15 pm for the remainder of the meeting.

 

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

 

1. The grant of express consent expires five years from the date of the grant of consent.

 

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007.

 

2. No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

 

3. No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to

(a) endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military);

(b) obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; or

(c) hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.

 

4. Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.

 

5. Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.

 

6. Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.

 

7. 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 drawings: Proposed Sign Details received 08/07/2022, Sign Removal Details received 08/07/2022 and Map of Proposed Sign Locations received 08/07/2022. 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

49.

Determination of Appeals

As at 30 August 2022, there were no appeal determinations to be noted.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no appeal determinations for noting.