Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - The Guildhall. View directions

Contact: Ele Snow/James Welbourn  Democratic and Civic Officers

Media

Items
No. Item

39.

Public Participation Period

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There was no public participation at this stage of the meeting.

40.

To Approve the Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 249 KB

i)       Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 13 November 2019, previously circulated.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 13 November 2019.

 

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 13 November 2019 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

41.

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.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Ian Fleetwood declared that he had received a telephone call from a gentleman in regards to agenda item 6a (application number 140180). He had advised the caller to contact Vice-Chairman Councillor Waller who would be speaking on the application as Ward Member.

 

Councillor Cherie Hill declared that she was Ward Member for an application detailed in agenda item 7, Determination of Appeals.

 

Councillor Angela White declared that she would be speaking as Ward Member for agenda item 6d (application number 140042).

 

Councillor Robert Waller declared that he would be speaking as Ward Member for agenda item 6a (application number 140180) and would retire from the room for the duration of the item.

 

The Chairman explained for all present that those Committee Members speaking to applications would step down from the Committee and retire from the room for the duration of discussions. He confirmed there were arrangements for Councillors to watch proceedings in a separate room.

 

42.

Update on Government/Local Changes in Planning Policy

 

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/

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee heard from the Development Management Team Leader regarding updates to three Neighbourhood Plans. She explained that the Spridlington Neighbourhood Plan was due to be heard at Council on 20 January 2020 recommending to be made; the examination for the Sudbrooke Neighbourhood Plan had been successful and the referendum was due to be held on 13 February 2020 and the Scotton Neighbourhood Plan (submission version) was out for consultation from 27 November 2019 to 22 January 2020.

 

She also detailed that the Housing Delivery Test, the Accelerate Planning White Paper and the Environment Bill were all on hold pending the General Election on 12 December 2019.

 

43.

Planning Applications for Determination

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

44.

140180 - Wragby Road, Sudbrooke pdf icon PDF 133 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the first application of the evening, application number 140180 for demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a large house of multiple occupation (sui generis use class) with associated access alterations, vehicle parking and landscaping. He explained there were speakers registered to speak and asked the Senior Development Management Officer to provide any update to the report.

 

The Senior Development Management Officer explained that Reepham Parish Council had made comments and objections that the traffic and general disturbance associated with a HMO of this scale was totally inappropriate for this location. They felt it would seriously damage the amenity value of the adjacent properties that are family homes. The Committee heard that 40 additional letters of support had been received from various addresses in India and 6 Shepherds Way, Sudbrooke; 17 St Lawrence Drive, Bardney; 72 Greetwell Close, Lincoln; 62 Worthington Road, Balderton; 32 Brooklans, Milton Keynes; and Deadmans Lane, Greenham. He summarised these as follows:

 

              would help boost economic development

              support the proposal

              would provide good accommodation

              “I stayed there it is a good place”

              would provide a suitable place to stay for visitors including those to Lincoln.

 

He noted that an additional objection had been received from The Blacksmiths Yard, 21 Station Street, Timberland summarised as follows:

 

              Concerned about the sudden interest in proposal and disputed the validity of the comments because of lack of local connection. Hope the application is refused.

 

In addition, general observations had been received from 25 Wragby Road, Sudbrooke summarised as follows:

 

              a replacement dwelling at 23 Wragby Road may be used as guest accommodation.

              harmful impact on residential amenity of occupants of 28 Wragby Road

              querying removal of hedge and garage before permission is granted.

              concerns about burning waste on site and in the area.

 

The Senior Development Management Officer stated that these representations did not change the officer recommendation.

 

The Chairman asked the Vice Chairman to step down from the Committee and seat himself in the Visiting Members section. The Chairman took control of the stopwatch in order to ensure all speakers had their allowed five minutes and he invited the first speaker to address the Committee.

 

The first speaker introduced himself as Councillor Peter Heath, Chairman of Sudbrooke Parish Council. He explained that the Parish Council had reviewed the application and wished to object under LP1, it did not provide sustainable development; LP2, it far exceeded the housing stock; LP3, development targets had been exceeded; LP7, it was not high quality visitor accommodation. He stated that the Parish Council felt there was a complete uncertainty as to the use and purpose of the building. It was stated that it would be an Air BnB or overflow for consultants working at Lincoln Hospital. Councillor Heath stated that the proposal was contrary to LP10, meeting accommodation needs and contrary to LP17 as it was not in keeping with the village aesthetic. The Parish Council felt that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

45.

139839 - Main Street, Osgodby pdf icon PDF 142 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Note:              Councillor Robert Waller returned to the room at 7:14pm and retook his seat at Committee.

                        The meeting also reconvened at 7:14pm.

 

The Chairman introduced application number 139839 for outline planning to erect 2no. dwellings with all mattersreserved. He invited the Development Management Team Leader to provide any updates to the report. She stated that there was a typographical error in that application number 140128 referenced in the report was for one dwelling. She explained that application number 140160 had been granted for one dwelling the week prior to Committee and this took the remaining growth level for Osgodby to two dwellings. She reiterated that, notwithstanding that recent approval, the Officer comments in the report on page 38 about there being no requirement for the applicant to demonstrate community support still stood, as, at the point of submission of the application, there was headroom to accommodate the number of dwellings proposed. It was also highlighted to Members that the wording of LP2 stipulated that community support should be demonstrated at the point of submission in respect of applications in settlements where growth levels had been met or exceeded. In this instance, it was the case that there was capacity for each proposal individually and therefore no community support was required for them. The Development Management Team Leader commented that the fact that the council had received three separate applications for the same village should not be a determining factor in each of the applications. Following determination of the two applications before Committee, the growth figures would be reassessed and any future applications determined accordingly.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer and invited the first speaker to address the Committee.

 

The first speaker introduced herself as Councillor Yvonne Knibbs, Chairman and representative of Osgodby Parish Council. She stated that the Parish Council objected to the application, as it did not meet the criteria in the Neighbourhood Plan. She explained that the Parish Council felt it was not an appropriate site, that it was a green field site and a previous application had been refused as the whole of the site was not considered to be appropriate. She added that the proposed development would go against the core shape and character of the village and was in conflict with section 7.8 of the Neighbourhood Plan regarding frontages and Main Street. Councillor Knibbs stated that the Parish Council felt the applicant needed to demonstrate clear support for the proposed development, as it would exceed the maximum of 25 houses in the area and that, not only was there no support, there were actually several objections. She explained that the access lane was not suitable, that there were already issues with the road breaking up and they had concerns about flooding and drainage issues. Councillor Knibbs stated that West Lindsey District Council had a duty of care to the community and requested that the application be refused.

 

The second speaker was invited to address the Committee. He introduced himself as Mr Ian Hutchison, agent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

46.

140128 - Low Road, Osgodby pdf icon PDF 119 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced planning application number 140128 for 1 no. dwelling on land south of Low Road, Osgodby and invited the Development Management Team Leader to provide any updates. She stated that the update provided for agenda item 6b (application number 139839), regarding there being no requirement for the applicant to demonstrate community support and in relation to the growth figures for the area, was also relevant to this application.

 

The Chairman invited Councillor Yvonne Knibbs to return to address the Committee. She highlighted that the previous application on the site in question had been for four dwellings, which was in line with the Neighbourhood Plan. She stated that the proposed additional dwelling would be exceeding the limit of four dwellings as stated within the Neighbourhood Plan and the recommendations within the Local Plan to limit housing developments to around four dwellings. She also informed the Committee that there was outline permission on an adjacent plot of land for three dwellings, which the Parish Council felt would be akin to a mini housing estate. Councillor Knibbs reiterated her previous comments of the ribbon footprint in Osgodby and that the Parish Council felt this was in danger of being eroded by new developments. She stated that the Neighbourhood Plan should be taking precedence and requested the Committee to consider refusal of the application.

 

The Chairman invited the second speaker to make his comments.

 

Mr Sam Marriott introduced himself as agent for the applicant and thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak. He provided Members with some background information as to the nature of the development and explained it was owned and developed by a local couple making their first foray into development. He highlighted that, of the original four dwellings, the first was about to be handed over to the new owners and had been sold within four days of being on the market. He stated that there was a demand for bungalows in the area and this was an opportunity to provide for that need. Mr Marriott explained to the Committee that the area of land was considered to be underdeveloped, with space for up to 10 units, and that should the application be approved there would still only be five units on the site. He felt that the argument of the Parish Council was one of semantics between the phrasing of the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan but the application should be considered for what it was – an application for a single bungalow. He added that it was important to note there had been no residential objections to the proposed dwelling and reiterated that it would be fulfilling a need for these properties in the area. He thanked the Committee for their time.

 

The Chairman asked for any response from Officers and the Senior Development Management Officer reiterated that the application was for a single dwelling. The outline permission mentioned by the Parish Council was a separate site entirely.

 

On inviting comments from Members of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

47.

140042 - Deepdale Lane, Nettleham pdf icon PDF 278 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Note:              Councillor Angela White stepped down from Committee at 8:09pm for the duration of this item.

 

The Chairman introduced application number 140042 for a two and a half storey office building and associated car park. On seeing there were no updates from the Officer, he invited the first speaker to address the Committee.

 

The first speaker introduced himself as Councillor John Evans, Chairman of Nettleham Parish Council. He stated that the Parish Council had no objection to building on the proposed plot and fully supported the completion of the enterprise park however, they strongly believed that the proposed building was out of proportion with the rest of the park. He explained that the other buildings on the site were one or two floors high. The building on the other side to the proposed development stood at 7m high with a second floor built into the roof space. He stated that the new building would stand at 12m high, a size difference which would be exacerbated by the proximity to smaller buildings as well as the proposed site being the highest point of the park. He commented that the topographical effect would emphasise the additional height of the building. Cllr Evans stated that they believed the application to be contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan as well as LP5 (appropriateness of size and scale) and LP55 (inappropriate for the rural character of the locality). He made enquiries of the Officer regarding the hedge height and amenity space but concluded by requesting the Committee to reject the application.

 

The Chairman invited Councillor Angela White to address the Committee. She explained she was speaking as Ward Member and had requested that the application be decided by Committee. She reiterated the comments from the Parish Council that the enterprise park was supported but it was the proposed building she objected to. She referred to LP26, section c, regarding the design of the building and LP26 section d, that there would be no coalescence with other buildings. She commented that the proposed building would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and would harm the character of the site. She reiterated the support for the park, but not for the proposed building on account of its inappropriate size and height. She thanked the Committee for their time and requested that the application be declined.

 

Note:              Councillor Angela White left the room at 8:18pm

 

The Senior Development Management Officer clarified for Committee Members that the proposed building was 3m higher than anything else on the site which was not a significant increase and did not make it unacceptable. He confirmed the hedge was labelled as 1.5m to 2m in height on the site/landscaping plan and although there was no specified position for bins, there was space available and it could be addressed in the conditions.

 

The Chairman invited comments from the Committee and whilst there was overall support for the completion of the enterprise park, it was felt that the size of the proposed building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

48.

Determination of Appeals pdf icon PDF 216 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman explained the Determination of Appeals were there to be noted but invited comments from Committee Members.

 

A Member of Committee noted that this was the first time he could recall all applications at a meeting having a Neighbourhood Plan and commented that he felt this demonstrated the importance of these Plans. He enquired whether there would be the option to work with Officers to understand the impact and discuss how the prevalence of Neighbourhood Plans may effect decisions in the future.

 

There was further discussion amongst Members regarding the importance and legal implications of Neighbourhood Plans. The Legal Advisor explained that Neighbourhood Plans form part of the development plan for the district and had to be taken in context with national policies and the Local Plan.

 

The Chairman invited Visiting Member Councillor Giles McNeill to speak in relation to an allowed appeal in Nettleham. He apologised to the Committee for not having succeeded in defending the appeal and explained the strategic actions he would be looking to take through the strategic forum.

 

            RESOVLED that the determination of appeals be noted.

 

The Chairman thanked all present for their time and wished all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.