Agenda and minutes

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

No statements were made during the public participation period.

i)      Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 31 May 2023, previously circulated.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 31 May 2023 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.

In relation to agenda item 6(a), (application number 142460 – Land West of North Moor Road, Scotter), Councillor Peter Morris indicated that he had been unable to attend the site meeting and would not therefore be voting on this application.

Councillor Peter Morris also indicated that in respect of item 6(b) (application number 146461 – Land at Hillcrest Park, Caistor) the applicant was well known to him and accordingly he would not be taking part in the discussion or voting on this item and would leave the meeting whilst this matter was considered.

Councillor John Barrett indicated that in connection with item 6(b) (application number 146461 – Land at Hillcrest Park, Caistor), he had been involved in correspondence with a Director concerning this application. However, he had a completely open mind and would therefore participate in the discussion and vote as a Member of the Committee.

Councillor John Barrett also stated, that in relation to item 6(c) (application number 146424 – Land adjacent to 51A Washdyke Drive, Nettleham), which was within his District Ward, he had had correspondence with a local resident.  However, he had a completely open mind and would therefore participate in the discussion and vote as a Member of the Committee.

In connection with item 6(a) (application number 142460 – Land West of North Moor Road, Scotter), Councillor Sabastian Hague had not been able to attend the site visit and would not therefore be voting on this item.

Also in connection with item 6(a) (application number 142460 – Land West of North Moor Road, Scotter), Councillor Trevor Young advised that he too had been unable to attend the site visit and would not be voting on the application.

Councillor Adam Duguid also indicated that he had been unable to attend the site visit in relation to item 6(a) (application number 142460 – Land West of North Moor Road, Scotter) and would not be voting on this item.

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 was advised that the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill had been returned to the House of Lords for its final report stage on 11 July 2023. Changes had been tabled to the proposed Infrastructure Levy, centred around affordable housing. (https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3155/stages)

The Bill contained a number of proposed reforms to the Planning System, previously reported to the Committee. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/levelling-up-and-regeneration-further-information/levelling-up-and-regeneration-further-information#wider-improvements-to-planning-procedures)

As far as Neighbourhood Plans (NP) were concerned, the Committee was advised as follows:-

·       The Keelby NP had been successful at Examination and a referendum would take place on 20 July 2023.

·       The Hemswell Draft NP Examination had been completed and the Examiner’s Fact Check report had been received.

·       The submission version of the Scothern NP had been received for Examination and the consultation period would expire on 14 July 2023.

·       With regard to the Nettleham NP, the review had been subject to a second Regulation 14 Draft Plan consultation which ended on 13 June 2023.

The Planning Officer reminded Members that progress on all Local Neighbourhood Plans with West Lindsey District could be viewed using this link: https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/my-services/planning-and-building/neighbourhood-planning/

The first application before the Committee was item 6(a), application number 142460, seeking approval of reserved matters for 43 dwellings, considering only the outstanding matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following the granting of outline permission on 19 December, 2017 on land west of North Moor Road, Scotter.  The application had been referred to the Committee following the receipt of third party objections, including from the Local Ward Member and Scotter Parish Council.

The application had previously been considered by the Committee on 31 May 2023 when it had been resolved that there should be a site visit prior to determination of the application.  The site visit took place on 15 June and had taken in the views of the site from North Moor Road and from within the site.

The Planning Officer presented the report and gave an update.  Since the report had been published, two further representations had been received.  The first was from Scotter Parish Council along the following lines:-

The Parish Council had concerns over the proposed footpath that linked the development to the centre of Scotter.  Due to the third party ownership of the footpath, it could not run the full length of North Moor Road on the same side as the development.  Therefore, the Parish Council contended that the elderly and those with young families in particular would have to cross the busy North Moor Road twice, which would deter them from visiting facilities in Scotter.  Whilst appreciating that third party ownership was not within the control of the Planning Authority or the developer, the Parish Council was of the view that further investigations should be undertaken to find a satisfactory solution such as the provision of a Zebra Crossing or Pelican Crossing.

The second representation had been submitted by a resident of “Applegarth”, Messingham Road.  This was similar to the statement to be read out by the Democratic Services Officer.

Reference was made during the Planning Officer’s presentation to a revised drainage plan submitted by the applicant.  Reference was also made to the proposed ridge heights.

Having received the Planning Officer’s presentation, the Vice-Chairman welcomed the agent for the applicant, Mr Chris Dawkins, who addressed the Committee along the following lines:-

“Thank you and good evening everyone.

At the previous Committee meeting concerns were raised regarding the height of the 3 bedroom bungalow at Plot 43 and its potential impact on the neighbouring property known as “The Rustlings”.

Since then, a site visit has been carried out and we have submitted an additional site section drawing showing the relationship of the proposed bungalow and the existing property which you have just seen as part of the presentation.

I would like to reiterate some of the key points illustrated by that drawing, which is that the ridge of the proposed bungalow is 0.88 metres lower than the ridge of the existing property, “The Rustlings”.  The eaves of the proposed property are 0.51 metres lower than the eaves of “The Rustlings” and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Note:               Councillor S. Hague left the Chamber at 7.15 pm.

The Chairman introduced the next application of the meeting, Item 6(b), application number 146461 seeking permission for the erection of a wind turbine on land at Hillcrest Park, Caistor. The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the applicant was a close family member of a serving District Councillor.

Note:               Councillor S. Hague returned to the Chamber at 7.17 pm, missing part of the presentation. This meant that he could not vote on the application.

The Planning Officer presented the report and gave an update. It was reported that the applicant had been in contact to query the first reason for refusal and had questioned the reference to the proposal being contrary to Policy 12 of the Caistor Neighbourhood Plan.

The Planning Officer stated that the Neighbourhood Plan did say that to maximise the proportion of electricity source locally, residential and commercial developments were encouraged to incorporate appropriate energy generation technologies, either on-site or off-site.  However, it was the view of the Officers that the proposal would not amount to an appropriate energy generation technology and therefore did not benefit from the support of Policy 12, although it was accepted that it would not be directly in conflict with the policy and it was therefore recommended to that reference to the policy be removed from the first reason for refusal.

The Chairman welcomed the applicant Mr Oliver Lawrence who addressed the Committee along the following lines:-

“My name is Oliver Lawrence and I own the redeveloped Hillcrest Park in Caistor.  It is  written all over this (office) building that West, Lindsey District Council is entrepreneurial and committed to achieve a Net Zero carbon footprint.  This wind turbine would serve 17 small local businesses.

West Lindsey District Council press releases have highlighted the success of this site and I have been asked how you can replicate and improve the business model which has been featured on “Look North”. The feedback we got was the need to protect small businesses from sudden energy price rises. Solar does not work on this site because the majority of our electricity consumption is in winter.  We are on the top of the hill and it is  a perfect location for a wind turbine.

One of the primary objectors is the national air traffic, who, ironically, are one of the fastest growing contributors to carbon pollution.  Frustratingly, the correspondence with NATS is not included in the officer's report, but it was forwarded.

NATS have said that the turbine only might be an issue and there are two much larger turbines nearer to them that are not an issue and they could upgrade their system. If they needed to, but they do not really want to spend the money. I feel that NATS’ budgetary policy is taking precedence over West Lindsey's planning policy in this instance.  Please do not confuse this with a large commercial wind turbine.  The Telegraph poles in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

The Committee then moved on to consider the last application of the meeting, item 6(c) application number 146424 seeking outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for the erection of 3 dwellings on land adjacent to 51A Washdyke Lane, Nettleham. The application had been referred to the Committee following the receipt of third party representations including from Nettleham Parish Council, referring to the Neighbourhood Plan policy.

The Chairman invited the Planning Officer to present the report, concerning which there were no updates.  However it was indicated that condition 5 referred to a construction method statement but unfortunately it referred to a demolition and construction method statement.  The word “demolition and” should therefore be deleted from the condition as no demolition was involved.

The Chairman welcomed Parish Councillor Angela White, Chairman of Nettleham Parish Council to address the Committee.  Parish Councillor Angela White commented along the following lines:-

“Good evening. I am Angela White, chairman of Nettleham Parish Council. I am here to represent the objections agreed by the Nettleham Parish Council, as listed on page 67 of the officers’ report.

I would query the comment on page 75 of the report that the existing Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan is silent on smaller residential development within the developed footprint of the settlement.  Policy D6 Design of New Development includes infill and so D6C referring to housing proposals reflecting existing residential density in the locality of the scheme could be taken into consideration.

Despite the fact that Highways say that the driveways are of adequate width and visibility this is still an area of concern at this stage, although it will be finalised in reserved matters.

I do not know the exact length of the driveway, but it is much longer than the 10 metres recommended to be widened from 3.4 metres to 4.1 metres.  It has three sharp turns and is the only access to four properties. There is mention of a turnaround area for emergency vehicles, but will the driveway be wide enough for access?  Furthermore has there been any consideration of pedestrian access: the definition of access on page 82 of the report includes vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.

Trees have already been removed on the proposed development site and numerous others will be felled if the application is approved. It will be desirable to retain enough trees to ensure that there is a green barrier between the properties and the adjacent houses.

So should the application be approved, condition 4, in response to the comments made by the West Lindsey Tree Officer should be closely monitored as there are no tree protection orders in force.

Most of the other provisions of D6 Design of New Development in the existing Neighbourhood Plan, and the review will be considered in reserved matters.  But I will indicate some of them here, as they were important considerations in our response.

Protecting natural assets, incorporating adequate landscaping, to mitigate the visual impact and seeking to retain mature or important trees. Thank you”.

The Vice-Chairman thanked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Members were advised about past Committee decisions, and the effect of them on possible appeals. In response to a query about the payment of costs awarded, Members heard that it was the Authority’s responsibility to pay out of existing budgets.

The determination of appeals was NOTED.