Venue: Council Chamber - The Guildhall. View directions
Contact: Ele Snow/James Welbourn Democratic and Civic Officers
Variation of the agenda
The Chairman opened the meeting, and as an additional item of business asked the committee to vary the printed agenda as one of the planned speakers was running late.
The Committee agreed to this variation, and as a result application 140180 – Rosemary Villa, 30 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke was moved to being the third application for consideration.
Public Participation Period
Up to 15 minutes are allowed for public participation. Participants are restricted to 3 minutes each.
There was no public participation at this stage of the meeting.
Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 11 December 2019, previously circulated.
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 11 December 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
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.
Cllr Ian Fleetwood declared an interest in application 140180 – Rosemary Villa, 30 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke as he had received an email from the applicant. This had been sent to all Members of the Planning Committee – however no-one declared that they had responded to this email, so it did not preclude any Councillors from speaking, or voting on this item.
Cllr Ian Fleetwood also declared an interest in application 140077 – land adjacent to 2 Church Street, Glentworth as he had seen the applicant, Mrs Hazel Walker at another meeting the previous night. He did not deem himself close enough to the applicant to affect his judgment on the application.
Cllr Bob Waller declared an interest in application 140180 - Rosemary Villa, 30 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke; as the Ward Member for Sudbrooke he had decided to stand down from Committee for this application only and speak against the application as Ward Member.
Cllr Angela White declared an interest in application 140003 – 23 Greetwell Lane, Nettleham; she would speak to the Committee as Ward Member.
Cllr Matt Boles declared that on application 140111 – Land off Bowling Green Road, Gainsborough, he was the Ward Member for Gainsborough North. However, he was entering the committee with an open mind and would not be standing down from Committee.
Finally, Cllr Paul Howitt-Cowan declared an interest in application 140077 - land adjacent to 2 Church Street, Glentworth. He would speak as Ward Member to this item and stand down from Committee.
Update on Government/Local Changes in Planning Policy
Note – the status of Neighbourhood Plans in the District may be found via this link
The Planning Manager (Development Management) gave an update to Committee, and raised the following:
· A planning white paper will be published in the coming months. In a briefing note published alongside the Queen's Speech, the government said the white paper was intended to "make the planning process clearer, more accessible and more certain for all users, including homeowners and small businesses". It would also "address resourcing and performance in planning departments";
· The Environment Bill will return to Parliament. The Bill was originally introduced to Parliament in the autumn but was withdrawn when the general election was called. Policies included a mandatory requirement for developers to secure an overall ten per cent biodiversity net gain in all new schemes, whilst local authorities would have to draw up spatial "local nature recovery strategies";
· The following Neighbourhood Plans (NP) were at a range of different stages:
o Spridlington NP – a report was going to Full Council on 20 January recommending that the NP be made;
o Sudbrooke NP - the examination of the NP was successful. The referendum would be held on 13 February;
o Scotton NP – the submission version (Reg16) was out for consultation;
o Bishop Norton NP – the submission version (Reg16) was out for consultation;
o Gainsborough NP – the draft version (Reg14) was out for consultation;
o Corringham NP – there had been a change of NP area. The consultation was being run again.
Members considered a planning application for residential development of 135no dwellings, comprising one and two storey dwellings and 2no.four storey apartment buildings, with associated amenity spaces and car parking at land off Bowling Green Road, Gainsborough.
There was an officer update attached to this item:
· There had been further correspondence from the Environment Agency (EA) on 23 December. They advised that they maintained their objection, due to the way flood heights had been calculated in the breach modelling. They advise setting a site specific model, or setting floor levels at 6.71 metres.
Any decking should not encroach onto the five metre easement so that it did not impede any future improvement works.
The applicant had already taken steps to address these measures having revised the finished floor levels to meet the 6.71 metre requirement, as well as making sure the decking would not encroach onto the five metre easement.
Written confirmation was still awaited from the EA on whether they wished to withdraw their objection on the aforementioned grounds. Under planning law, there was a requirement to notify the Secretary of State if WLDC were minded to grant permission and the objection remained in place.
The officer advised that if committee was minded to follow the recommendation to approve the development, the application be delegated back to officers to ensure written confirmation that the Environment Agency’s objection has been resolved prior to issuing the decision and also add any conditions they suggest to the decision notice.
A plans condition would also need to be amended to reflect the information received with regards to the finished floor levels and easement.
The first speaker to this item was Greg Bacon, the Chief Executive of ACIS Group, the applicant. He raised the following points:
· ACIS operated across 19 local authority areas, with their head office being based in Gainsborough. Half of ACIS’s stock was in the Gainsborough and wider West Lindsey area;
· 60 homes had recently been completed in Saxilby for over 55s;
· There was a planned regeneration of North Parade Road in Gainsborough;
· The proposal in this application was regeneration of the area along the riverside adjacent to Wilson Street and Japan Road; the site had stood derelict for some time. The proposal was 135 properties comprising two blocks, one of which could lend itself to supported housing; a small 8 bedroomed property for high dependent housing; 36 1-4 bedroomed houses for affordable rent; 12 2-3 bedroomed houses for shared low cost ownership, and 26 2-3 bedroomed properties for outright sales;
· Sales values in the area appeared to be unbeneficial for private developers; therefore this was a ‘place making’ opportunity for Gainsborough. The development was heavily contingent on Homes England grant funding and grant support from the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership (GLLEP);
· The total cost of the development was expected to be in excess of £20 million over a 4 to 5 year timescale;
· This development was to be seen as a cornerstone for ACIS to develop better quality housing ... view the full minutes text for item 54.
Members considered an application for the erection of a new single storey retail unit, including associated hard and soft landscaping within the site boundary at land off Stallingborough Road, Keelby DN41 8JA.
The Planning Officer provided a verbal update to this item:
· Condition 9 of the recommendations contained a number of infrastructure features which may cause problems in achieving the design and extent of the footpath leading to the proposed store. Work was still ongoing with this condition, but Committee support for the development was still recommended with the caveat of a deferral to officers to allow the Planning authority to maintain control, whilst also allowing the applicant time to discuss the aspect. In the officer’s opinion, this would lead to a successful resolution. If this could not be resolved, the application would have to return to Committee;
· Condition 3, which contained information on contamination had been updated following a conversation with Environmental Health colleagues at West Lindsey District Council. This indicated that the area of concern related to the access road in the former farmyard area, rather than the whole site.
Condition 3 would therefore read ‘No development of the access road shall take place……..’ rather than ‘No development shall take place…………..’;
· Additional consultee responses had been received from neighbours from Riby Road, Eastfield Road and Dixon Close; none of these consultees raised additional comments that hadn’t already been considered in the report. One letter of support from Dixon Close had been received.
The only speaker on this item was Matthew Wilkinson, a Development Manager at Lincoln Co-operative (Co-op), the applicant. He raised the following points:
· The Co-op wanted to focus on:
o Providing valued services;
o Growing the local economy;
o Health and wellbeing;
o Looking after the local environment.
· The Co-op sought to provide a store in Keelby to meet these values and had recently developed similar schemes in West Lindsey;
· The application sought to construct a single storey store with a modern shopping environment;
· The store would offer a selection of ‘on the go’ foods amongst other items;
· There were severe reservations from the Co-op about condition 9 relating to the footpath. The wording was a big concern as there were too many unknown risks on land that was beyond the applicant’s control and there would be unknown costs. Also required would be the demolition of the farm building.
There was adequate opportunity to cross using the existing road network, and this had been advised by a Planning Consultant employed by the applicant, who in turn referred to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Members were asked to consider the application minus condition 9. If this was deemed unacceptable, then there would be further discussions with West Lindsey District Council (WLDC) Planning Officers;
· In summary, the Co-op wanted to provide a food store with parking spaces. The store would employ 15 staff recruited from the local area.
The Planning Officer responded to the public speaker only to say that condition 9 requiring ... view the full minutes text for item 55.
Members considered a planning application for demolition of the exiting dwelling and erection of a large house of multiple occupation (sui generis use class) with associated access alterations, vehicle parking and landscaping at Rosemary Villa, 30 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke, Lincoln LN2 2QU.
There was no update to this application from officers at the start of the item.
The first speaker to this application was Councillor Peter Heath from Sudbrooke Parish Council. He raised the following points of view:
· The Sudbrooke Neighbourhood Plan (NP) was due to go to referendum in February; as it had been examined, it should be taken into account;
· Policy 1 of the proposed Sudbrooke Neighbourhood Plan related to additional development, in that it would be supported provided that there was clear support from local residents. Applicants were encouraged to agree a scope and a consultation with Sudbrooke Parish Council prior to development taking place. A consultation statement should accompany the planning application;
· Development proposals for smaller homes for younger individuals, as well as specialist homes for older people with specific needs would be encouraged;
· Extensions and alterations to homes was considered under Policy 2 of the Sudbrooke NP. This allowed extensions and alterations that were sensitive to the character of the area. This policy only applied where planning permission was required;
· Extensions and alterations within the parish where planning permissions would be required would be supported when the following criteria were met:
o Size, scale and materials should be in-keeping with the surrounding area;
o Extensions and alterations do not result in the reduction of the private amenity of neighbouring residents through overlooking, overshadowing, loss of light or an overbearing appearance;
o There should also be no adverse effect on the amenity benefits for the community, or for the landscape or local wildlife;
· The parish council did not object to the redevelopment of the site provided that it complied with sections 1 and 2 of the proposed Sudbrooke Neighbourhood Plan; the current application did not do so;
· There had been conflicting advice from WLDC officers on the ‘loss of light’. This was a national guideline, and it had been incorrectly stated that this development did not breach it. However, when this was pointed out WLDC stated that this ‘loss of light ‘guideline had not been adopted;
· Despite Lincolnshire Highways having no objection to additional traffic near to the junction of the A158 and Scothern Lane, Sudbrooke Parish Council remained concerned for public safety.
The second speaker to the application was Mr Vaddaram, the applicant. He raised the following points:
· A response had been given to all objections previously;
· Against the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan specifically, the following points were raised:
o LP1 – this application delivered the core aim of the policy, sustainable development;
o LP2 – this proposal did not add any additional dwellings in the village;
o LP3 – the local plan’s aim was to facilitate new dwellings;
o LP7 – this development would deliver high quality sustainable visitor facilities, and respected the ... view the full minutes text for item 56.
Members considered an application for 1no. dwelling, including the upgrade of access, private drive and new associated garage – a redesign of approved plot 2 under application number 135838.
There were no officer updates at the start of this item.
The first public speaker to the item was the applicant, Mrs Hazel Walker. She raised the following points:
· People at neighbouring properties and the parish council had raised issues that had previously been dealt with;
· The applicant wanted a site to build a dream home; the principle of a new home had previously been established;
· Legislation encouraged the fact that designs should not be imposed unnecessarily;
· Materials had been used in the design that were more complementary of the surrounding area;
· There was no need in the location to develop a second dwelling that mirrors the property on Plot 1 – this was supported by Planning officers;
· The footprint of the proposed development had increased on the northern end of the site, without any implications for the south of the site;
· The revised design was not significantly larger in mass to the original dwelling;
· The windows were no higher than previous designs and would not overlook any amenities;
· The twisting of the building did not create any element of overlooking or loss of privacy;
· The proposal would not have a negative impact on any views; in fact it was considered that the proposal would be less detrimental than the previously approved design;
· Foul sewage would be discharged into a private sewage plant; this solution had been deemed acceptable by an ecologist, as well as Natural England;
· The approach taken by the applicant toward potential harm to species had been supported by Natural England and was not a consideration.
The second speaker was Mr Styles, an objector to the application, speaking on behalf of his family and a neighbour. He raised the following points of view:
· A stretch of the private lane accessing the property was owned by the neighbour;
· The first application on the site was not objected to, despite others in the village raising their objections. The vendor in that application kept residents well informed throughout the design process, and talked about two ¾ sized houses which was deemed acceptable;
· Objections to the application included:
o It would be impossible to manoeuvre a fire engine in the lane;
o A dustbin lorry could not access the lane;
o An inadequate sewer was discharging waste into the village sewer, which floods every time it rains. Anglian Water had not corrected a problem which has existed for years;
o Permission had been granted for two ¾ sized houses; the present application was for a 5 bedroomed house with a significant sized workshop;
o There was potential for 5 or more cars daily accessing the site;
o The demand on the sewer would create even more foul water and would affect water voles;
o This proposal could set a precedent for the adjoining plot; the proposal was too big and out ... view the full minutes text for item 57.
Note: Councillor Paul Howitt-Cowan re-joined the meeting before the start of this item..
Members considered an application for an outbuilding to be used as a beauty salon at 23 Greetwell Lane, Nettleham, Lincoln LN2 2PN.
There was no officer update on this item.
The first public speaker on this item was Ms Hindle, the owner of 23 Greetwell Lane. She raised the following points:
· Alterations had been made to the design of the salon following comments made on the planning portal;
· The cabin would no longer be visible from the conservation area in Nettleham;
· Due to her husband’s shift pattern, the applicant could not work in any other salons. She wanted to work, and would only treat one customer at a time. There was ample parking available on the driveway; currently the family only had one car;
· The cabin was designed to look like a summer house;
· Lincolnshire County Council as the Highways authority and the lead local flood authority had concluded that local development was acceptable. Access to the salon would be via the footpath between 23 and 25 Greetwell Lane;
· All treatments offered were relaxing, so there would be no noise. The salon would add another service to the village;
· Since the application had been submitted the applicant had worked positively with the Planning department.
The second and final speaker was Cllr Angela White, Ward Member for Nettleham. She raised the following points:
· Cllr White supported the objection from Nettleham Parish Council; the proposed building was inappropriate on this site;
· The salon building would protrude over side fences, impacting the view;
· The UPVC cladding was unsuitable, which had been stated in the parish council’s objections, and outlined in Nettleham NP section d6a;
· Cllr White would disagree that UPVC cladding was used in neighbouring properties. Owing to the height of the structure, it would be contrary to Nettleham NP section d6c;
· The site had potential for increased noise, lighting and parking. There were already 3 beauty salons in Nettleham and other business rentals in the village.
Note: Following her contribution, Councillor White left the Chamber and did not return.
Officers responded by acknowledging the issues that Nettleham Parish Council had raised on the design of the salon, but reminded Members that had this been for domestic rather than commercial use and set slightly into the site, it would not have required planning permission. The salon would be in a domestic garden, and the building would not be out of keeping or character for the area.
Neighbours had raised concerns on the air conditioning units; officers believed this could be provided subject to a condition imposed on the applicant.
Members provided comment, and highlighted that Nettleham was characterised by substantial houses on large plots, and the risk of extra traffic. Praise was given to the objections, as in one Member’s view they had responded to the objections that had been made.
The development was seen as sustainable for Nettleham, as well as creating employment in the village.
Because of ... view the full minutes text for item 58.
· 138971 – Land East of Laughton Road, Blyton
· 139732 – 25a Willingham Road, Lea
· 139312 – Salisbury, Main Street, Grasby
The appeals were noted.