Agenda and minutes

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

The Chairman invited Heather Sugden to address the Committee and explained she would have three minutes to speak. She addressed Members in relation to a previously approved planning application, stating misrepresentations she felt had not been taken into account. Namely, that the applicant’s home address was not as stated on the application; whether a change of use application had been made for an area of privately owned land; that the siting of the building was not in accordance with the application; that the applicant be made to remove works undertaken, should an investigation prove breach of planning control; and that the time taken to process planning applications onto the portal was too long.

The Chairman thanked Heather for attending and speaking to Members, and explained Planning Officers were dealing with the request and would respond directly in due course.

i)      Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 17 July 2024, previously circulated.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 17 July 2024, 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.

Councillors Bierley, Carless and Snee declared interests in application 147461 as they did not attend the site visit and would be abstaining from the vote on this application.

Councillor Fleetwood declared an interest in application 147926 as the application was in his ward as a County Councillor.

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/

Members heard from the Development Management Team Manager that the new Government had made planning reform a priority and on 30July, published its proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) along with wider planning changes. The consultation will close at 11.45pm on Tuesday 24September 2024, and officers were currently reviewing the consultation in preparation of a response. See Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Whilst the changes were widespread, some of the key headlines are as follows:

·         The return of mandatory housing requirements, using the Government’s new Standard Method. Under the Government’s proposed methodology, the Central Lincolnshire Annual housing requirement would rise from 1,054 to 1,676 dwellings per year (?59%).

·         Under its transitional arrangements, it proposes that Local Plans at early stages of preparation “should be prepared against the revised version of the NPPF and progressed as quickly as possible”. As the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan was adopted in April 2023, this would apply to the next version as it commences preparation.

·         The reintroduction of requiring a five-year housing land supply (with 5% buffer to “to ensure choice and competition in the market for land”).

·         Amendments to green belt policy (n.b. West Lindsey does not currently include any green belt designated land)

·         Local Character and design coding: Rather than district-wide design coding, the government proposes to focus on the preparation of localised design codes, masterplans and guides “for areas of most change and most potential”.

·         Planning fees: increase fees for householder applications to meet cost recovery levels, with possible increases for other applications and other planning services (but still no proposal to ring-fence). The government are also looking at allowing local authorities to recover their Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project-related costs.

·         Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: increasing the scope of commercial projects covered, but also raising the thresholds for some renewable energy projects to account for improved generation (i.e. the District Council would receive solar developments up to 150MW (currently 50MW)).

·         Strategic planning: “It is our intention to move to a model of universal strategic planning covering functional economic areas within the next five years,” the document says.

·         Climate-change: policy is likely to be strengthened but the government wants ideas on how. There are hints that a more proportionate approach may be taken to flood-risk although the NPPF remains unchanged at present, so it remains a consideration.

The Secretary of State had also written (30^th July) to all Local authorities and stated: “As announced in the King’s Speech, we will introduce a Planning and Infrastructure Bill later in the first session, which will: modernise planning committees by introducing a national scheme of delegation that focuses their efforts on the applications that really matter, and places more trust in skilled professional planners to do the rest; enable local authorities to put their planning departments on a sustainable footing; further reform compulsory purchase compensation rules to ensure that what is paid to landowners is fair but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

Planning application to erect 2no. dwellings.

The Case Officer confirmed there were no updates since the previous committee meeting and delivered the presentation which showed the proposed floor plans and site photographs of the proposed development area.

Members discussed the application and explained they felt assured having attended the site visit that the development was appropriate and Members were surprised at how generous the size of the site was for the two dwellings.

On taking the vote, it was agreed that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions set out in the Case Officer’s report.

The Case Officer presented the proposed floor plans and explained the proposed use for two flats on the first floor and a health centre on the ground floor. He explained that Members sought a deferral regarding clarity on the use of the ground floor and the applicant had confirmed their view that they consider the proposed use would fall within use class E, being for the provision of medical or health services, principally to visiting members of the public. He advised they had provided details of intended hours of opening, and a new recommended condition for operating hours for 09:00-20:00 Monday to Friday, and 09:00-17:00 9-5pm on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays was now proposed by Officers. He advised the applicant had not provided answers to other questions, such as whether the ‘health clinic’ would be open to ‘walk in’ visiting members of public, or by pre-appointment only. He advised Members that as a former ice-cream parlour (use class E(b)), the authorised use of the ground floor was considered to fall within use class E, and use for another purpose under use class E would not comprise “development” for planning purposes. He advised that the applicant claimed the proposed use would fall within use class E(e), which, on the limited information given, would suggest development would not be taking place. At the rear of the site a new entrance would be created for access to the flats above.

The Chairman explained there was one speaker on this application, Councillor Jeanette McGhee, Ward Member for Gainsborough South-West.

Councillor McGhee addressed the Committee and explained she was aware of the charity planning to use and operate the health centre. She commended the charity for doing a fantastic job, but she was aware of the type of service users who would be potentially accessing the services and objected to the location of the site. She understood that with the complexities of life, a variety of people could benefit from the service, but the Council had received no input with the existing health centre this Charity ran, and it was felt it would be replicated in the town centre. The priority was not to demonise or stigmatise people using the service but consider their wellbeing and privacy using the service. The town centre location was not appropriate, and safeguards needed to be in place to protect individuals accessing help.

Members commended Councillor McGhee for putting the points across so eloquently and compassionately.

Members expressed disappointment that the application had been deferred and the applicant had refused to give more information to Members. Members urged the charity to work alongside the Council to ensure that safeguards were in place and the appropriate location could be put forward for the health centre. It was felt that the health centre would affect the regeneration of Gainsborough town centre and have a detrimental impact on those using the service, in a location surrounded by pubs and restaurants.

The Case Officer advised Members that the application included change of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

The Case Officer provided an update to the Committee, since writing the report Officers had received an email regarding contamination through a sheep dip on the site. Members could add a condition relating to this if they felt it was required. The proposed floor plans had received prior approval from the Planning Committee, and the new proposal was to add a double garage and remove the existing agricultural building.

Mr Michael Orridge, the agent and architect for the application, addressed the Committee and explained the proposed development would provide betterment to the site, energy efficiencies, biodiversity net gain and landscaping. The applicant would be willing to add a condition to landscaping and the new proposal would include solar panels and would aim to be carbon zero through using renewables. The agent was happy to add a condition in line with the concerns regarding the suspected contamination. He concluded that the Parish Council had no concerns with the site.

Mr Philip Smith, a resident at Abbey House, outlined his objections to the development and explained he became aware of the development through local paper. He felt that material planning considerations had not been taken into account and there was a need to balance the needs of nature and environment against the needs for development.

Members discussed the development and felt the report was well-written and explained the history of the site and present situation very clearly. It was felt that betterment would be delivered through the application and Members supported the aim to reduce carbon footprint.

It was proposed and seconded that a site visit take place to consider the location and appropriateness of the development. Upon the vote, the proposal for a site visit was lost

Having been proposed and seconded to vote on the application as per the Officer’s recommendations, on taking the vote, it was agreed that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions set out in the Case Officer’s report.

With no comments, questions or requirement for a vote, the determination of appeals report was NOTED.