Agenda and draft minutes

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

There was no public participation.

Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 5 February 2025, previously circulated.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 5 February 2025, 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.

The Chairman made a declaration on behalf of all Members of the Committee in relation to agenda item 6d, WL/2025/00005 & WL/2025/00044 – Trinity Art Centre, as the applicant was West Lindsey District Council. He confirmed that Members of the Planning Committee would retain an open mind and determine the application in line with their training. Members were not required to make a further declaration in respect of this application unless they had additional issues to raise regarding their ability to determine the application with an open mind.

Councillor I. Fleetwood declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to application WL/2024/00446 – Land North of Corn Close, Fiskerton. He explained he was the County Councillor for Fiskerton, he had not spoken with Fiskerton Parish Council in relation to this application.

Councillor Barrett declared, in relation to application WL/2024/00570 – Nettleham Road, Scothern, he had received an email regarding the application, but his decision making would not be affected.

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/

It was confirmed that the Housing Ministry had announced its Planning and Infrastructure Bill would be published later in the month. Further details regarding the Bill were expected to be provided during the week, although these had not been made available prior to the meeting.

At a local level, it was reported that the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Team was continuing its preparation of a design code for Central Lincolnshire. The second stage of consultation was noted to be underway and was scheduled to run for six weeks, concluding on Wednesday 9 April 2025. This stage of consultation was focused on the vision and design principles for the design code. It was further noted that a single survey was to be completed as part of this process, and further details on the design code, including access to the survey, could be found at Central Lincolnshire Design Code (Consultation 2) | West Lindsey District Council.

In relation to neighbourhood plans, it was reported that the Reepham Neighbourhood Plan had successfully undergone examination, with the examiner’s decision statement having been published. The confirmation of a date for a public referendum was still awaited. It was also noted that the examination of the Dunholme Neighbourhood Plan Review was nearing completion. The examiner had issued their draft report to both West Lindsey and the Parish Council for fact checking purposes only.

The Officer confirmed that since the deferral of this application, from the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday 5 February 2025, the applicants had agreed to the contributions required.

The Officer went on to present the site location and its two access points, explaining that the main vehicle access was situated at the southern end while a secondary access point to the east was designated for cyclists and pedestrians. Concerns regarding site density were addressed, with it being stated that the proposed density was low and could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site. Photographs of the site, including Ferry Road and Hall Lane, were shared to illustrate access points and the surrounding area. It was noted that Hall Lane was unsuitable for vehicle access and was instead deemed appropriate for pedestrian and cycle use.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his presentation and stated that there were three registered speakers; the first speaker, Councillor Walker, as Parish Meeting Representative, was not able to attend, so a statement was read out on his behalf by the Democratic and Civic Officer, as follows.  

“With reference to page 25 of the Officer’s report, titled ‘Increase in indicative Capacity’The final paragraph claims that 75% of the development area is 6.3Ha, this is incorrect. Both the CLLP and the applicants submitted documents state the development area to be 8.13Ha so 75% is only 6.09Ha which at 20dph=122 new homes.

The paragraph then goes on to say that if the total site area was developed then the uplift of housing to 150 could be justified. This is a ludicrous statement to make. Within the development area is an already existing surface water attenuation pond which is a vital section of the existing village flood defence system and under a long-term agreement between the land owner and (I think) WLDC to assure its long-term presence, therefore this area should not be considered or claimed to be a part of, or delivered by the new development, this is approx. 0.67Ha in size.

Later in the officers report it is stated the development will provide approx. 2Ha of open space, so the maximum developable area for this application can only ever be 5.46Ha or the CLLP allocated area minus existing infrastructure minus the allocated open space, which equates to only 67% of the designated 8.13Ha area. Therefore the assumption of 75% being developable is incorrect and completely unachievable. The uplift in housing is therefore neither appropriate nor justified, if anything the housing quantity should be lowered to 109 to match the true development area of 67% of the allocated 8.13Ha site at the recommended density of 20dph.

150 houses on a developable site of 5.46Ha equates to a density of 28dph which according to CLLP document HOU002-a makes this development more akin to a large village or town suburb not a medium village in the Lincolnshire countryside. Para 4.16 of HOU002a goes on to say the assumed figures are a starting point and where more accurate site-specific data  ...  view the full minutes text for item 195.

The Committee considered the application for 49 dwellings on a 2.72 Ha site allocated for residential development. The site, located on the eastern side of Nettleham Road, comprised former cropland with grassland, hedgerows, and small trees. It was bordered by residential areas, green space, and commercial properties.

The proposal included 12 affordable and 37 market dwellings, with a mix of one to five bedroom units. The application had been amended to address concerns from consultees and the Local Planning Authority, with changes to the layout while maintaining the same number of dwellings.

The Officer confirmed that there were no updates for this application. An allocated site under Policy S81 of the local plan was presented. The site was proposed for 49 dwellings as a full planning application. The proposed site plan was shown. The proposed housing mix was presented, indicating that 25% would be affordable housing units. The proposed affordable housing plan was displayed, with affordable houses asterisked on the plan and the access point to the west off Nettleham Road.

Various proposed floor plans and elevations were shown, including different types of dwellings such as bungalows, terrace dwellings, semi-detached houses, and detached houses. Examples of the house types included Deene, Albany, Greenwich, Regent, and Sandringham. The existing and proposed site sections were also displayed.

Photographs of the site were shown, taken on Nettleham Road looking south towards the site. The access point was indicated on the bend in the road. Additional photographs were shown from the opposite direction, with the access point straight ahead. Views from within the site, including the eastern boundary and southern boundary, were displayed. Further photographs showed existing dwellings forming the Alders and Cade Close. Finally, photographs from the northeast corner looking west and southwest of the site were presented.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her presentation and invited Mr Mark Foster, who was registered to speak as the applicant, to take his seat.

Mr. Mark Foster, Director of Lindum Homes, addressed the Committee. It was noted that Lindum Homes was a local family-run construction company based in North Hykeham, employing around 600 local employees. The company's commitment to quality was highlighted, referencing their current scheme in Welton. The Welton scheme was nearing completion, and the aim was to continue housing development in West Lindsey with the Scothern site.

The scheme proposed 49 dwellings and had received a recommendation for approval from the Officers. Pre-application public consultation was undertaken with local residents and the Parish Council, and their responses informed the application. Amendments were made in consultation with Officers, statutory consultees, and the Parish Council.

It was emphasised that Scothern had been identified as a sustainable location for development, compliant with both the local plan and the neighbourhood plan. The housing mix included one to five bedroom houses, both market sale and affordable, with 25% affordable housing units. The scheme was designed to be net zero in terms of energy consumption. Residential amenities were considered, with each house exceeding the recommended separation distances. Additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196.

The Officer introduced the application for up to 20 apartments, noting that the scale and layout were considered before the Committee at this stage. The proposed layout was presented, running around the corner of the junction. The scale showed a standard reduction in height, and 3D visuals were displayed.

It was noted that the site had previously received planning permission for flats and apartments, with the most recent application in 2017. The site, subject to this application, had another application recommended for approval by Officers but was refused by the Committee, leading to an appeal. The appeal was dismissed due to the site's contribution to Gainsborough, being within the conservation area and the setting of nearby listed buildings.

These circumstances were highlighted as considerations for the Committee's determination. Despite the site's allocation for development, Officers were unable to support the application due to these specific circumstances.

A point of information was raised regarding the introduction of the application to WL/2023, noting that it was labelled as 2024 at the top. It was clarified that the target decision date was 29 December 2023. The Officer confirmed that the original determination date was correct and explained that the application had gone through various Officers, resulting in its long-standing status.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his introduction and invited Mr James Hartley, who was registered to speak on behalf of the applicant, to take his seat.

Mr Hartley thanked the Chairman and Councillors and provided an overview of the planning history of the site. It was noted that a planning application for 24 apartments and five shops was granted in January 2006. A subsequent application for a four-story block of 19 apartments was refused at Officer level in September 2014. Another application for a four-story block of 17 apartments was granted at Committee in April 2016. A change of use application for the land to a park was refused at Committee.

A named Planning Officer had left the authority in May of the previous year, contributing to the delay. By the end of the Officer’s involvement, Mr Hartley stated, matters such as biodiversity net gain, highways, flood risk, drainage, and affordable housing had been positively addressed and approved by the Officer and relevant consultees. One public objection was received from the tenant at number one's middle terrace regarding natural light. Two consultee objections were noted, one from the Town Council concerning highways, which was superseded by the Lincolnshire County Council’s Highways department's non-objection, and one from the conservation department.

The conservation objection related to the loss of green space and the impact on neighbouring assets, considering the proposal as less than substantial harm under paragraph 208 of the NPPF and policy S57 of the CLLP. This harm must be weighed against public benefits. The Britannia Works Conservation Area Appraisal identified the site as a weak corner and poor open space, emphasizing the need for managed change to retain the special character of the conservation area.

A previous application for a pocket park  ...  view the full minutes text for item 197.

The Officer provided an update, confirming that there were no new developments. The proposal to vary the conditions on the original listed building consent and planning application to rebuild a section of the Trinity Arts Centre wall in Gainsborough was presented. The wall was identified as a curtilage listed wall. The current application aimed to vary several conditions and address previously imposed conditions.

The site plan was displayed, including the secure gravestone storage area as part of the original conditions. The application proposed an adjustment to the extent of the wall required to be underpinned, resulting in more of the original wall being retained. However, the area of walling to be rebuilt would extend by one bay further than the original application. The existing boundary wall and elevation from the previous application were shown, indicating the proposed extent of the rebuild and repair works.

Photographs of the wall were displayed, illustrating the need for repairs to avoid partial collapse. The specific buttresses to be rebuilt were also highlighted.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for their report, and with no registered speakers, looked to Members for debate.

The report was commended, though some difficulties were noted. It was mentioned that a visit to the site had been conducted several months ago, and another Committee had deferred making any judgments. Concerns were raised about the transparency of the process, as a planning application had been submitted without formal approval by any Committee, despite a budget being agreed for the wall.

Sally Grindrod-Smith, the Director for Planning, Regeneration and Communities, was invited to clarify. She explained that the matter would be considered at the next Corporate Policy and Resources Committee. Officers had been tasked with procuring a compliant solution for the wall, and it became apparent that some changes to the planning approval were required. The planning work was deemed logical to proceed with, to support procurement options, pending the Committee's decision.

Further concerns were expressed about the sequence of actions, suggesting that the planning application might be premature. The importance of addressing the wall's condition to prevent potential hazards was emphasised, and the need to move forward with the repairs was supported.

Questions were raised about the handling of headstones, and it was confirmed that conditions imposed on the original application had been discussed with the Conservation Officer. A secure gravestone storage area was included, and the headstones would be stored and then replaced once the development was completed. It was reiterated that the wall was leaning and could pose a danger.

Having been proposed, seconded, and put to the vote, and it was agreed that planning permission, and listed building consent be GRANTED subject to conditions.

There are no Determination of Appeals to note.

There were no Determination of Appeals to note.