Minutes

Proposed venue: Virtual - MS Teams

Contact: Ele Snow/James Welbourn  Democratic and Civic Officers

Note: Moved from the 19th August 2020. The webcast can be found at ttps://west-lindsey.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/504248 

Media

Items
No. Item

26.

Register of Attendance

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Note:              The meeting reconvened at 6:30pm

 

The Chairman undertook the register of attendance for Members and each Councillor confirmed their attendance individually.

 

The Democratic Services Officer completed the register of attendance for Officers and, as with Members, each Officer confirmed their attendance individually.

 

27.

Public Participation Period

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There was no public participation at this point in the meeting.

28.

To Approve the Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, 22 July 2020 be confirmed as an accurate record.

 

29.

Declarations of Interest

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor A. White declared that she was a Member of Nettleham Parish Council (reference agenda items 6a and b, application numbers 140938 and 141032) however she had not taken part in any previous discussions and would therefore retain her seat as a Member of the Planning Committee.

 

Councillor J. Milne declared that as Ward Member for Lea (reference agenda item 6e, application number 139840) she would be standing down from the Planning Committee and speaking as Ward Member.

30.

Update on Government/Local Changes in Planning Policy

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee heard from the Interim Planning Manager (Development Management) who explained that on 6 August 202, the Government launched its planning white paper “Planning for the Future” promising to “streamline process, cut red tape and harness technology”. Consultation would close on 29 October 2020.

 

Some of the key reforms proposed, included:

-          All land to be categorised into “Growth”, “Renewal” and “Protected” Areas;

-          Local Plans should set clear rules rather than general policies for development.

-          A new emphasis on engagement at the plan-making stage. At the same time, they would streamline the opportunity for consultation at the planning application stage, because this added delay to the process and allowed a small minority of voices, some from the local area and often some not, to shape outcomes.

-          Change from a process reliant on documents, to a process driven by data, with standardized data sets;

-          A new focus on design and sustainability, and to ensure the planning system supported efforts to combat climate change;

-          Introduce Local Design guidance and codes

-          The Infrastructure Levy, a new nationally-set value-based flat rate charge, to replace the Community Infrastucture Levy (CIL) and S106 planning obligations;

The link for the Government White Paper was to be shared with Members:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-future

 

Neighbourhood Plans

 

Morton NP

Submission consultation (Reg16) ends 7 Sept 2020.

Normanby and Owmby NP

Normanby by Spital and Owmby by Spital PCs have decided to now do their own NPs for their parish areas only. Previously they were preparing a joint NP which will be withdrawn.

 

 

 

A Member of Committee enquired about the press coverage regarding amendments to Planning Legislation and how this would be managed within the district. It was suggested there could be some communications sent out to the wider community in order to assist understanding.

 

31.

Planning Applications for Determination

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications detailed in agenda item 6 be dealt with as follows:

32.

140938 - Planning application for construction of 33no.Entry Level homes and associated infrastructure - Phase 2. "Land off", Deepdale Lane, Nettleham

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The first application of the evening was introduced for Members’ consideration. Planning application number 140938 for construction of 33no.Entry Level homes and associated infrastructure - Phase 2. "Land off", Deepdale Lane, Nettleham. The Development Management Team Leader explained three further representations had been received from 8 Midway, 24 Baker Drive and 30 Baker Drive. One representation suggested that the site should be made into allotments however the proposal applied for was dwellings and was assessed as such. No other new matters had been raised that had not already been addressed in the officer’s report. The recommendation remained the same.

 

She added that a change was required for recommended condition 7 in order for this to read correctly. It was suggested that the words “of that phase has been” should be changed to “shall be”.

 

Condition 7 would then read - Prior to occupation, a schedule of landscape management and maintenance for a minimum period of five years from the completion of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

The s106 currently had not been signed therefore it was requested if Members moved the recommendation they delegate back to officers to complete the s106.

 

The Chairman invited the first speaker to address the Committee.

 

Councillor John Evans, of Nettleham Parish Council made the following statement:

 

“Local strength of feeling on this matter can be judged by the large number of submissions in opposition from the community.  But we do understand that developments such as this must be judged on planning grounds.

 

The Parish Council strongly objects to this application and respectfully requests that the committee should refuse this application 140938 for 33 homes off Deepdale Lane on the following planning grounds:

 

1.             This is not an allocated site in the adopted Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan (Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan) or CLLP.

 

2.             The developer claims that this is an entry-level exception site so under NPPF 71 development on an unallocated site is permissible. However the proposal is contrary to para b) of the NPPF 71 as it does not comply with the design policies or standards as per D-6 and D-3 of Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan. 

 

Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan D-6 clearly states that new development should recognize and reinforce the local character in terms of height, scale, density, spacing, layout orientation, features, and materials.  This is supported by LP26 c). 

 

The Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan also identifies the max density for new homes in Nettleham as 20 homes per Ha, which is reflected in the adjacent Phase 1 development by Larkfleet/Allison Homes. 

This proposal seeks to almost double that housing density leading to an inappropriate urban density in a rural village setting.

 

The design and access statement seeks to justify this high density by comparing it to that of the adjacent residential care home development.  This includes apartment style  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

33.

141032 - Planning application for erection of 2no.affordable elderly persons bungalows and 5no. homes.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The second application of the night was introduced. Application number 1411032 for erection of 2no.affordable elderly persons bungalows and 5no. homes on land off Deepdale Lane, Nettleham. The Senior Development Management Officer explained there was an amendment to the recommendation.  It is now recommended that committee delegate powers to officers to finalise the section 106 agreement then grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the report.

 

The final recommended condition should be number 12 not 11.

 

He added that since the report was drafted further objections had been received from residents of 40 Deepdale Lane, 16 Baker Drive, and Orchard Cottage 18 The Crescent, Nettleham summarised as follows:

 

·         This is typical of builder getting onto a site then flexing their wings.

·         Nettleham was a village, now the Council are allowing any building if the builder mentions social housing.

·         Loss of property value due to this development but Council Tax remains the same.

·         Ridge and furrow earthworks have been lost on the existing development. The developer should be made to make good, not tarmac them over.

·         Does the Council exist for the people of the builder?

·         More houses on the edge of the village, pressure on village amenities which are not coping now.

·         Roads cannot cope with more traffic and roads into the village are dangerous.

·         There is already another development on Scothern Road which will increase traffic.

·         It is time to say enough is enough to these greedy developers.

He stated that these objections did not alter the recommendation.

 

The Chairman invited the first speaker to address the Committee.

 

Councillor John Evans, of Nettleham Parish Council, made the following statement.

 

“The Parish Council strongly objects to this application and respectfully requests that the committee should refuse this application 141032 for 7 homes off Deepdale Lane on the following grounds:

 

1. It  does not comply with the design policies or standards as per D-6  of the adopted Neighbourhood Plan.  Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan D-6 (supported by LP26) clearly states that new housing developments should recognize and reinforce the local character in terms of height, scale, density, spacing, layout orientation, features, and materials. 

 

The Nettleham Neighbourhood Plan identifies the typical max density as 20 homes per Ha for housing developments.  This is reflected in the adjacent housing development  for 50 homes currently being completed by Larkfleet/Allison Homes.  This proposal seeks to roughly double that housing density leading to an inappropriate urban density in a rural village setting.  

 

The design and access statement seeks to justify this high density by comparing this housing density to that of the nearby sheltered accommodation.  This offers apartment style accommodation for older people, plus some older persons bungalows. It would therefore be totally inappropriate and invalid point of comparison for a housing development such as this.  

 

The proposed high density design is totally at odds with what has been built on the rest of the housing development on opposite side of the road, where garages and front gardens are provided. 

 

 

2. Car parking provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

34.

140754 - Planning application for erection of 2no. additional poultry buildings and associated infrastructure. Land off Gulham Road, North Owersby

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the next planning application, number 140754 application for erection of 2no. additional poultry buildings and associated infrastructure. Land off Gulham Road, North Owersby. He requested the Officer introduction who stated there was one update to the report for an additional condition to be attached. The previous units had to adhere to a Heavy Goods Vehicle Management Plan and this condition was to ensure any new units also needed to comply with that plan.

 

The Chairman invited the one registered speaker, Mr Alec Mercer, applicant, to address the Committee.

 

Mr Mercer stated that the application sought permission to expand existing poultry farming on the land. He explained the business had been operation since 2018. He noted there were no objections from the statutory consultees and the site itself was in a good location in operation terms. It was in a remote location, well away from neighbours and settlements. He explained that most objections had been regarding the highways impact of the development, however, all commercial vehicles using the site had designated access via the A631. He detailed the route to the site and noted it was deemed to be the least impactful of any possible entry routes. He explained that he had invested over £100k in improvements to the road network which had been in agreement with the Highways Authority. This included passing places, junction improvements and some resurfacing works. Prior to submitting the current application, advice had been sought form the Highways Authority who agreed that the increase in scale of the development was acceptable, subject to the developer agreeing further improvements to the highway, in the form of increased passing places and localised road widening along the route to the site. These further improvements had been agreed. He highlighted that the majority of farming work occurred in rural locations with only single road access, the situation of this enterprise was no different. He addressed other objections received, such as concerns over odours, however they had strict environmental controls in place for odours and other emissions and the site had never received any complaints against them in the time they had been operational. Environmental Health Officers had thoroughly scrutinised the application and offered no objections to the scheme. He requested that the Officer recommendation be followed and for the expansion of the business to be supported.

 

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Mercer and, with no further comment from the Officer, invited comments from the Committee Members.

 

Members of the Committee praised how the developer had worked with highways to alleviate previously raised concerns and noted there had been no complaints raised against the business. A Member commented that it was disturbing to see chickens in sheds such as these, however, having been moved, seconded and with a majority vote it was agreed that planning 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

35.

141128 - Planning application to demolish existing main building and replace with 1no. dwelling including landscaping, ancillary works and installation of solar panels to existing garage. "Land adj", 19 Brook Street,Hemswell

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Note:              The meeting reconvened at 8:30pm and a full roll call confirmed all Members present.

 

The Chairman introduced the next application of the evening, application number 141128 to demolish existing main building and replace with 1no. dwelling including landscaping, ancillary works and installation of solar panels to existing garage on land adjacent to 19 Brook Street, Hemswell. The Development Management Officer explained there had been one further response from the Lincolnshire Bat Group who would endorse the recommendations in section 4.2 of the survey.

 

The Chairman invited the only registered speaker to address the Committee.

 

My Andrew Ryley, agent for the applicant, made the following statement.

 

“I am Andrew Ryley, Director of Planning a DLBP, and I am instructed by the applicant Alan Morris to address you this evening.

 

I want to start first by saying that Mr Morris is not a property developer. He is now retired, having been an engineer who ran his own business in the north east. Mr Morris and his wife would like to settle down in this area to be near their sons and grandchildren who have moved to Lincolnshire.

 

Mr Morris bought this property in the knowledge that it had planning permission to be converted into a family dwelling, and this was his intention. But before commissioning builders to start work, he instructed a Structural Engineer to survey the property.

 

The Structural Engineer’s report confirms unequivocally that the building is in a significant state of disrepair and is not structurally sound and capable of being converted.  The conclusions of the report are clear that demolition of the existing building is the only option for it.

 

This conclusion is shared by the Council’s own building control officer, Mr Rob Berry, who visited the site earlier this year and inspected the inside of the building. He advised Mr Morris that, and I quote: “the existing building is in a very bad state of repair and the best option for you would be the take it down and rebuild it.”

 

We acknowledge that the Conservation Officer has raised concerns with the demolition of the building. However, it is important to consider that the building is not statutorily listed by Historic England. Rather, it is a non-designated heritage asset and whilst this is still important, it is the lowest level of heritage protection.

 

The site is in the Hemswell Conservation Area. This does not mean that it is inherently inappropriate to seek to demolish an existing building within it. The key is whether the proposed development, including the replacement building, enhances or preserves the character and appearance of the area.

 

Preservation does not equate to automatic retention, as one must consider what is proposed in its place. Mr Morris’ proposal is for a modest replacement building. It will be smaller in terms of footprint that the consented scheme, and will be lower in height that the adjacent building at 19 Brook Street. The proposal is to use reclaimed Ancaster stone - sourced from the existing building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

36.

139840 - Application for approval of reserved matters for 60no. dwellings, considering appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following outline permission 136309 granted 12th December 2018. Land off Willingham Road, Lea

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The final application of the night was introduced for consideration. Application number 139840 for approval of reserved matters for 60no. dwellings, considering appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following outline permission 136309 granted 12 December 2018, on land off Willingham Road, Lea. The Senior Development Management Officer explained there had been a request for the application to be referred to the Secretary of State, therefore, any decision the Committee made would be subject to further consideration by the Secretary of State. He also advised the removal draft recommended conditions three and four as these would be covered by conditions on the outline permission.  A new condition was additionally recommended following the submission of new information.  This recommended condition was:

 

·         The development must be completed in strict accordance with the Precautionary Method of Works document by RammSanderson and the Amphibian Management Plan by RammSanderson including enhancement plan RSE_4126_Figure.  All the enhancement measures must be retained as such thereafter.

 

Reason:  In the interests of protecting and enhancing biodiversity to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policy LP21 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036.

 

The Chairman invited the first speaker to address the Committee.

 

Mr Frank Powell, objector, made the following statement.

 

“Firstly, I would like to thank WLDC for allowing me to address the planning committee.

Secondly, in order to provide credence to my statement I am a retired naval officer of some 45 years service, having had command of two submarines. I therefore have considerable experience and knowledge concerning flowing water, pipes and pump capacities.

 

There are numerous serious issues with this planning application, one of which is the current sewage system and the potential for the developer to connect into it.

 

The current Lea village sewage system was laid down some 80 to 100 years ago. The southern section which passes beneath my property, the Old Schoolhouse, consists of a 150mm (6 inch) pipe. There are currently 80 homes connected into this pipeline. The pipe is always full to 2/3 capacity by a continuous flow of water which is designed to keep the sewage flowing to avoid blockages. During heavy rainfall the sewage system is overload owing to some of the 80 homes having their surface water diverted to the sewage system.

 

In 2000, 2012, 2013 & 2014 my property was flooded with sewage. Severn Trent has now bolted down the various manholes on my property to stop further flooding, but this is only a temporary measure. However, the manhole adjacent to my property in Gainsborough Road Lea now lifts and floods the road with sewage during heavy rainfalls. This is a regular occurrence and on 5 occasions during the past 18 months flooded Gainsborough Road Lea with sewage.

 

The risk assessment report by Severn Trent plc contained the impact advice on conducting development on the proposed site as – sewage flooding, high risk, sewage pumping station, high risk and the capacity of the sewage treatment works to accommodate sewage flows from additional properties was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

37.

Determination of Appeals

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The outcomes of the recent appeal decisions were noted.