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.

i)      Meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 20 August 2025, previously circulated.

Having been proposed and seconded, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 20 August 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.

Councillor Barrett declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to application WL/2024/00974 as he was ward member for this application. He confirmed that he had received no correspondence in relation to the item under consideration, was satisfied he was approaching the matter with an open mind and were therefore able to participate in the meeting and decision-making process as normal.

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 informed that recent updates had been made to national planning guidance concerning flood risk. In December 2024, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had been revised to clarify that the sequential test must consider all sources of flooding, including surface water flooding, rather than solely fluvial flood risk. The sequential test was intended to direct development towards land that was reasonably available and at a lower risk of flooding.

It was noted that this amendment had caused concern within the development industry, which had sought further clarification on the application of the sequential test. In response, Planning Practice Guidance on Flood Risk had been updated in September 2025.

Paragraph 27 had been revised to state that the sequential test could be avoided if a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrated clearly that the proposed layout, design, and mitigation measures would ensure the safety of residents from both current and future surface water flooding for the lifetime of the development, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. This applies only to land at risk of surface water flooding, and not land at risk of river/coastal flooding.

Additionally, a new Paragraph 27a had been introduced to explain that, for individual applications, the area of search used to identify and compare sites based on flood risk would be determined by local circumstances relating to the catchment area of the proposed development. It was highlighted that this area could extend beyond local planning authority boundaries in cases involving infrastructure proposals of regional or national importance. However, for non-major residential development, the area of search would typically not extend beyond the town or city of the proposed site, or beyond an individual village and its immediate neighbouring settlements.

Further details had been made available through the updated Planning Practice Guidance on Flood Risk, accessible via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change#the-sequential-approach-to-the-location-of-development.

The Committee was advised by the Officer that the application site comprised a large, modern agricultural building situated to the east of Nettleham. The site was surrounded by open countryside, with Ash Tree Farmhouse located to the west, alongside another large agricultural building.

The existing structure measured approximately 41 metres by 18.5 metres and had been constructed using a steel portal frame, with a corrugated sheet roof. A large sliding door was positioned on the south-east elevation, and a hardstanding yard area was located externally.

It was noted that prior approval had been granted on 20 October 2023 for the conversion of the existing agricultural building. This approval had permitted a change of use from agricultural to residential, comprising four smaller dwellings and one larger dwelling.

The current application sought full planning permission for the demolition of the agricultural building and the erection of five dwellings in its place.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her presentation and stated there were two registered speakers for this application; the first, Councillor Angela White, as a representative for Nettleham Parish Council was invited to address the Committee.

The Committee received a statement from Councillor Angela White, Chair of Nettleham Parish Council, who addressed Members in objection to the application.

It was acknowledged that the Officer’s report had accepted the application as a departure from the development plan, specifically in relation to Policies S1 and S5 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (April 2023), and Policy D6(3) of the Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan (November 2024). These policies had formed the principal grounds for objection by the Parish Council.

Reference was made to the prior approval granted under Part 3 Class Q for application 147245, which had permitted the change of use of the existing agricultural building to five dwellings. It was stated that the current proposal relied on the fallback position, supported by case law and local precedent.

Councillor White recalled attending a workshop in 2015 on Neighbourhood Plans and the Localism Act, during which the powers of local communities to influence development location and housing numbers had been discussed. It was remarked that such powers had since diminished.

Concern was expressed regarding the preparation of the November 2024 Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan, in which sites and housing numbers had been determined without consultation with residents, in contrast to the 2016 version which had involved public engagement.

Further reference was made to a government policy change in 2019, which had allowed affordable housing to be built on unallocated sites. This had resulted in the development of 35 properties on Baker Drive, which had not been anticipated by existing residents.

It was noted that no comments had been received from neighbouring properties, as the site was located outside the developed footprint of the village. The only adjacent properties were an upholstery business in a nearby barn and Ash Tree Farm, which had been constructed under agricultural ‘permitted development’ provisions.

Concerns were raised regarding highway safety. The site was accessed via a narrow single-track road from Sudbrooke  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

The Chairman introduced the second application of the meeting and invited the Officer to present.

The Committee was advised that the application site related to a vacant parcel of land located within Grayingham. The site had previously been used as a vehicle breakers yard. It was noted that the site was adjoined to the east by two recently constructed dwellings, with other residential properties situated along all remaining boundaries. The northern boundary of the site was defined by hedging, and a Public Right of Way, referenced Gray/10/1, ran adjacent to this boundary along School Lane.

The application sought full planning permission for the erection of a single storey, three-bedroom dwelling and a detached double garage. The proposed dwelling would measure approximately 26.2 metres in maximum width, 12.7 metres in maximum depth, 2.6 metres to the eaves, and 4.2 metres in total height. The proposed detached double garage would measure approximately 6.2 metres in width and 6.2 metres in depth, with an eaves height of 2.5 metres and a total height of 4.1 metres.

The Committee was informed that a late comment had been received from the Archaeology Department at Lincolnshire County Council. It had been confirmed that there was unlikely to be any archaeological impact arising from the proposed development. It was noted that a minor amendment was required to Condition 9 of the draft decision notice, where the word “dwellings” should be corrected to “dwelling”. Furthermore, it was advised that the wording of Condition 12 should be amended to include the phrase “without express planning permission from the local planning authority” at the end of the condition.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his presentation and stated there were two registered speakers for this application; the first, Kate Kelly, on behalf of the applicant was invited to address the Committee.

The Committee received a statement from the applicant’s representative in support of the proposal. It was stated that the application, similar in nature to the previously considered proposal in Grayingham, had been fully assessed and found to comply with Policy S1 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

It was noted that the plot size was consistent with neighbouring residential plots and similar in character to two recently approved dwellings located adjacent to the site. The proposed separation distances were considered appropriate, and the design included a single-storey bungalow with the main private garden area situated to the rear, on the southern side of the property.

The site benefitted from an existing access, and it had been confirmed by both the Local Planning Authority and Lincolnshire County Council Highways that the proposal would not result in any detrimental impact on highway safety. The application was also confirmed to be compliant with Policy S21.

In relation to drainage, it was stated that foul water services had been considered, and there was no requirement for a single dwelling to address any wider capacity issues. The proposal included rainwater harvesting measures as part of its sustainability credentials.

It was acknowledged that some residents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

The Chairman introduced the final application of the evening and invited the Officer to present.

The Committee was advised that two planning applications had been presented concerning the Ten Acres Café site, situated in open countryside within the wider parish of Osgodby and designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value.

It was explained that both applications had sought the removal of occupancy conditions attached to previous planning permissions. The first application related to Condition 2 of permission 96/P/0805, which had restricted the occupancy of an annex to individuals employed or last employed in the operation of Ten Acres Café and the associated haulage company. The second application concerned Condition 3 of permission W75/872/91, which had limited the occupancy of the main dwelling to individuals employed in the operation of Ten Acres Café and the operation of three heavy goods vehicles.

The Committee had been informed that both dwellings had originally been permitted solely on the basis of their functional connection to the café and haulage operations. It was noted that the removal of these conditions would result in unrestricted residential use, which would be contrary to both local and national planning policy that seeks to prevent unjustified residential development in the countryside.

The Officer raised concerns regarding the potential impact on residential amenity and the character of the designated landscape area. The Officer had recommended that both applications be refused.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for their comments and invited the only registered speaker on this application, Mr Cook, as agent to address the Committee.

Mr Cook addressed the Committee in objection to the officer’s recommendation for refusal of applications WL/2025/00460 and WL/2025/00462. He spoke on behalf of the applicant.

He stated that the applicant was disappointed with the recommendation for refusal, particularly in light of the absence of objections to the proposals. Reference was made to planning law, which required decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It was asserted that such material considerations had not been fully taken into account.

Mr Cook disputed the officer’s view that the proposals would result in unacceptable development in open countryside, stating that no new development was proposed and that both the dwelling and café were existing and established. He emphasised that no physical alterations were intended.

The Committee was informed that the café required investment to secure its long-term future and viability. It was explained that the current arrangements, whereby both properties were considered commercial by lenders, resulted in borrowing costs that rendered investment unviable. Separation of the properties was therefore sought to enable funding to be released.

The speaker further stated that the applicant intended to lease the café to a suitable individual or organisation to ensure its continued operation, while retaining ownership. The café was described as a valued community asset, serving as a social hub and providing meals to local residents, including the elderly.

Mr Cook argued that the existing occupancy conditions restricted flexibility and limited opportunities for improvement.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

With no comments, questions or requirements for a vote the appeal decisions were DULY NOTED.

With no comments, questions or requirement for a vote, the Planning Enforcement Report was NOTED.