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 28 May 2025, previously circulated.

Having been proposed and seconded, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 28 May 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 Dobbie declared a non-pecuniary interest regarding planning applications WL/2025/00326 and WL/2025/00431. He noted that both applications had previously been considered by Gainsborough Town Council, of which he was a Member. He confirmed he would assess the applications based solely on the information presented at the meeting and take part in the discussion and vote.

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/

An update was provided following the previous month’s announcement concerning measures to accelerate build-out rates for consented sites. It was reported that the Government had begun consulting on changes to biodiversity net gain regulations, with a key proposal to exempt small sites of fewer than ten dwellings. Currently, only self-build developments were exempt. Consideration was also being given to introducing a new category for medium-sized developments, defined as those comprising between 10 and 49 dwellings, which might be subject to separate rules.

At the local level, it was confirmed that the Reepham Neighbourhood Plan referendum was scheduled for the following day. The Dunholme referendum had been arranged for 24 July 2025. The Ingham Neighbourhood Plan had been submitted to West Lindsey District Council and was expected to enter consultation shortly. The Saxilby with Ingleby review was undergoing consultation until 22 August 2025. The Grasby and Grasby and Searby cum Owmby plan was at the Regulation 14 stage, with consultation running until 6 July 2025, after which formal submission would follow.

The Committee gave consideration to application number 145475 (WL/2024/00015) seeking approval for permissions to erect 66no. residential dwellings together with associated access, parking and landscaping.

The Officer provided an update to the Committee, confirming that correspondence had been received from Sir Edward Leigh MP in support of objections raised by the occupants of 20 Bay Willow Road, Burton Waters. It was reported that negotiations regarding the viability clause remained ongoing with the applicant. The Officer advised that, should agreement on the clause wording not be reached, the application would be returned to the Committee with revised wording for consideration.

The Officer’s presentation continued, outlining the application for 66 dwellings, access roads, parking, and associated landscaping on land to the south-west of Woodcock Lane, Burton Waters. It was confirmed that the site formed part of an allocation within the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and that extant permission existed for 18 blocks of terraced properties, which constituted the fallback position.

It was explained that a Lawful Development Certificate had been granted on the basis that a material start had been made and that the dwellings could be classed as C3 dwelling houses, due to the absence of conditions or legal agreements to secure the dwellings as a C2 use. The proposed site layout was presented, including open space, a small woodland area to the north, and a one and a half metre landscape buffer along Woodcock Lane. Site levels, street scenes, floor plans, and elevations were also shown, along with photographs illustrating the site context and surrounding area.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her presentation and stated there were six registered speakers for this application; the first speaker, Councillor Sue North, as Chairman of Burton-by-Lincoln Parish Council was invited to address the Committee.

Councillor Sue North, the Chair of Burton Parish Council stated that when the original concept for Burton Waters had been proposed, the then Parish Council had objected to the development, although support had been expressed for elements such as single storey lodges, assisted housing, and the inclusion of a nature reserve.

Reference was made to the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, in which the parcel of land in question had been allocated for approximately one hundred units of extra care housing. It was asserted that this allocation remained in place. Concern was raised that Burton Waters, classified as a medium village, would typically accommodate growth of up to ten dwellings, whereas the current application proposed 66 dwellings with no provision for assisted living. It was stated that the scale and nature of the proposal were at odds with the existing community, which was characterised by over-50’s living and single storey properties.

Councillor North emphasised that the Parish was not opposed to development in principle but considered the current proposal to be unsuitable and non-compliant with the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan. It was noted that Burton Waters fell within Zone Value B for affordable housing, which required a twenty percent provision, yet none had been proposed.

Concerns were also raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The Chairman introduced the application and invited the Officer to share his presentation. The Planning Officer confirmed that no updates had been received and proceeded with a summary of the proposal. The application sought permission for the installation of four silos at the RPC facility on Gallimore Lane Industrial Estate, Market Rasen. Two silos had been proposed to the north and two to the south of the site, each adjacent to existing silos.

West Lindsey District Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer had reviewed the proposed road widening and confirmed acceptance of the plan, subject to advisory conditions regarding the treatment of existing trees, which were to be included in any recommendation for approval.

Visuals were presented showing the proposed elevations and locations. It was noted that the southern silos would be partially obscured by existing structures. A plan showing proposed road widening at the rear of the site was included to facilitate vehicle access. The Landscape Officer had reviewed and accepted the proposal, subject to advisory conditions.

The site had been identified as part of an established employment area within the local development plan. The proposed silo locations were shown on existing hardstanding surfaces. Photographs were shown to illustrate the relationship of the site to nearby residential properties, including views from 25 Caistor Road and Sunnymede cottages.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his presentation and stated there were three speakers registered for this application, and invited Mr Alan Scoffin, as agent, to take his seat.

A statement was delivered by Mr Alan Scoffin of Ross Davies Associates, acting as the planning consultant on behalf of the applicant, Amcor (formerly known as RPC).

It was stated that the Gallimore Lane Industrial Estate had been established since the mid-1960s and had accommodated a range of industrial and commercial businesses. The site, originally known as the Plastic Box Company, had operated in various forms since that time. For over thirty years, the facility had produced specialist packaging for the healthcare, food and personal care sectors.

It was reported that the site currently employed 125 residents, thereby contributing to the local economy. The facility specialised in Injection Blow Moulding (IBM), a niche technology in the United Kingdom, which enabled the production of complex precision packaging with reduced waste compared to traditional methods.

It was explained that, to remain competitive, the site required periodic updates and modifications. A new project had been secured from a major global brand, which would utilise IBM technology and was expected to generate approximately £4.5 million in revenue. The project was anticipated to create at least twelve new jobs and support the long-term viability of the site.

To facilitate this development, permission was being sought for the installation of four new silos. These would support the storage and handling of materials specific to the new production line, including post-consumer recycled polymers. The proposal aligned with both the company’s and its clients’ sustainability objectives, particularly in reducing reliance on virgin polymers and lowering energy consumption.

It was concluded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Committee gave consideration to the third application on the agenda, application number WL/2024/00504 seeking planning permission to erect three dwellings with a new access driveway and associated parking and garaging, as well as a replacement garage serving No.16 Church Street, at the land to the rear of Brinkburn House, Church Street, Scothern.

Elevations and floor plans for Plot One and its associated garage were presented. The drainage plan had been reviewed and accepted, with consultation undertaken with the Council’s Building Control team.

It was noted that the application had been amended during the process following consultation with West Lindsey District Council’s Conservation Officer. Amendments had been made to preserve views of the nearby listed church tower from the public right of way.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his presentation and with no registered speakers for this application, opened the floor for Members to discuss.

A query was raised regarding whether the access road serving the proposed dwellings would be private and how waste collection would be managed. It was confirmed by the Officer that the road would likely be private, serving only three new dwellings and one existing property. However, the Officer was unable to confirm the proposed location for bin storage.

Concern was expressed that, without a designated bin storage area, multiple bins would be placed on Church Street, potentially affecting visibility and amenity. A request was made for a condition requiring the provision of a bin storage area within the site, accessible to waste collection operatives.

It was noted that, in general, residents were responsible for presenting bins at the kerbside for collection. The Vice-Chairman confirmed that this was standard practice for properties accessed via private roads.

The Chairman acknowledged the discussion and proceeded to propose acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation, with no further speakers indicating a wish to contribute.

The proposal to accept the Officers recommendations was duly seconded and voted upon. It was therefore agreed that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Recommended Conditions

Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To conform with Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the development commenced:

2.    No development hereby permitted shall take place until a written Habitat Management and Maintenance Plan [HMMP] in accordance with the Statutory Biodiversity Metric dated 12/12/2024 and prepared by Michelle Huang has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The HMMP shall relate to all ‘significant’ biodiversity gains on site (excluding any habitat within or making up private garden) and must be strictly adhered to and implemented in full for a minimum of 30 years following the initial completion period approved pursuant to condition 13. The HMMP must contain the following:

a)                                              a non-technical summary;

b)                                              the roles and responsibilities of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Chairman introduced the fourth application of the meeting and invited the Officer to present. The Officer provided a presentation and confirmed that there were no updates to report. The application had been brought before the Committee as it represented a departure from parking standards and Policy S49 of the Local Plan. Otherwise, it would likely have been determined under delegated powers.

The proposal sought permission for the creation of three residential units while retaining a reduced retail unit on the ground floor. The scheme also included repair works to the building to restore it to a suitable standard. The Officer presented existing and proposed floor plans and elevations, noting that the retail unit would front onto Lord Street, with three flats located across the ground and upper floors. Photographs were shown to illustrate the current condition of the building, which had been vacant for some time.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his presentation and invited the only speaker on this application, Mr Matt Deakins as Agent, to address the Committee.

Mr Deakins stated that the Officer’s report had comprehensively covered the key points. He emphasised that the building had been long vacant and was in a poor state of repair. His client had made efforts to acquire the western portion of the building, which was under separate ownership, in order to deliver a comprehensive redevelopment, though these efforts had not yet been successful.

It was noted that the building was a heritage asset within the town centre and had been identified within the Townscape Heritage Scheme. The applicant intended to submit a funding application under this scheme, subject to timing.

Mr Deakins explained that the retail unit had been vacant for approximately five years, with the upper floors unused for several decades. He described the internal condition as extremely poor, with limited access to parts of the building. The proposed scheme would reduce the size of the retail unit, which was considered more marketable, and introduce three residential units, bringing the upper floors back into use.

The lack of on-site parking was acknowledged as the reason for the application being considered by the Committee. However, it was noted that the site had never had parking provision and was located within a pedestrianised area of the town centre, with access to public transport and amenities. Cycle storage and external storage facilities had been incorporated into the scheme.

The Chairman thanked Mr Deakins for his statement and invited Members to comment.

A Member expressed appreciation to the agent for the detailed explanation and welcomed the proposal, noting that the building had been in a poor state for many years. It was considered a significant improvement for the town centre.

Further support was expressed by another Member, commenting that the site’s location within a pedestrianised zone made parking concerns less relevant. The building was described as being in unacceptable condition, and the proposed development was seen as a substantial improvement. It was noted that many properties in Gainsborough were being brought  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

The Chairman introduced the application and invited the Officer to make her presentation.

The Officer provided a brief presentation on the application, which sought retrospective advertisement consent for a fascia sign. The sign related to a recently opened gym and included some illumination details. Site photographs were shown, highlighting similar fascia signage in the surrounding area.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her presentation and confirmed that the application had been brought before the Committee solely because the applicant was a relative of a council Officer.

With no comments from Members, having been proposed, seconded and voted upon it was therefore agreed that the permissions be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. The grant of express consent expires five years from the date of the grant of consent.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007.

2. No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

3. No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to—

(a) endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military);

(b) obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; or

(c) hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.

4. Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.

5. Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.

6. Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.

7. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: A-004 Rev P2 (Existing and Proposed Elevations) dated 29/07/2024, Signage Dimension received 30/04/2024 and Illumination Detail received 30/04/2025. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and in any other approved documents forming part of the application.

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Chairman confirmed that there were no appeal determinations to note.

The Development Management Team Manager provided updates on two appeal matters.

The Committee was advised that an appeal had been lodged following the refusal of planning permission for a battery energy storage system near Willingham by Stow, which had been considered by the Committee in February 2025. The appeal would be heard at a public hearing, with the date yet to be confirmed. It was noted that Councillors Mullally (as Ward Member) and Bailey would act as Member leads, as the decision had been a Member overturn.

A further appeal had been submitted in relation to the refusal of a battery storage scheme near Reepham, which had been considered at the December 2024 Planning Committee. The Planning Inspectorate had indicated that this appeal would be heard at a full four-day public inquiry scheduled for October 2025. The Committee was advised that a Member lead would be sought, either from the Planning Committee or the relevant Ward Member, and further communication on this would follow.

The Chairman indicated that any Members interested in acting as a lead for the upcoming inquiry should contact the Development Management Team Manager.

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