Those present were noted.  It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Terry Aldridge, Billy Brookes and Sid Dennis.

It was noted that in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, notice had been given that Councillor Edward Mossop had been appointed to the Committee in place of Councillor Terry Aldridge.

At this point in the Meeting, Members were invited to disclose any relevant interests.  The following interests were disclosed:

With regard to Item 5, Councillor Jim Swanson asked that it be noted that he was currently a patient at the surgery at Spilsby.  He considered that he was pre-disposed to be open minded to the matter and therefore did not consider that he had to remove himself for the Item.

With regard to Item 5, Councillor Thomas Kemp asked that it be noted that he sat on Spilsby Town Council and would therefore be leaving the room for the Item.

With regard to Item 6, Councillor Edward Mossop asked that it be noted that he was the Ward Member for Covenham St. Bartholomew.  However, he informed Members that he would be speaking as a member of the Planning Committee, not the Ward Member and considered that he remained open minded regarding the matter.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on Thursday 2^nd September 2021.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 2^nd September 2021 were agreed as a correct record.

It was noted that Councillor Sid Dennis was absent and therefore no report regarding the Planning Policy Committee was presented to the Members.

(NOTE: Councillor Kemp left the meeting at 10:25)

S/165/02238/20: View the plans and documents online, please click on the Application Number.  (Please note:  If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not available).

Applicant:                             Gin Property (Spilsby) Ltd

Location:                              Land at Halton Road and,

Ashby Road,

Spilsby

Recommendation:             Approval with Conditions

Officer:                                   Andy Booth

Application Type:  Outline Planning Permission

Proposal:                  Outline erection of up to 600no. dwellings and a medical centre with provision of associated open space, landscaping, estate roads and cycleways.

Location:                  Land at Halton Road and Ashby Road, Spilsby

Applicant:                 Gin Property (Spilsby) Ltd

Members received an application for outline erection of up to 600no. dwellings and a medical centre with provision of associated open space, landscaping, estate roads and cycleways.

This application sought outline planning permission for residential development of up to 600 dwellings, a Medical Centre, open space, structural landscaping, estate roads and cycleways on 39ha of land to the east of Spilsby between Ashby Road and Halton Road.  The site was based on an allocation in the East Lindsey Local Plan.

The application had been called in to be heard at committee for the reasons outlined at Paragraph 1.1 (agenda page 35 refers).

Members were referred to the Supplementary Agenda which included comments from the NHS regarding the Medical Centre and Highways regarding a request for further conditions.  The Development Management Lead Officer confirmed that the conditions requested by the Highways Department had been agreed with the applicant and were therefore to be considered implicit to the recommendation and included in any conditions agreed on approval.

The Development Management Lead Officer detailed the site and surroundings information to Members, which were contained with the report presented, Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.7 refers (Agenda pages 35 to 36 refers) and displayed on the presentation slides.

The main Planning issues were considered to be:

·         The principle and quality of development.

·         Technical considerations

·         S.106 requirements, viability and other considerations.

As the application was for Outline permission and the planning recommendation was an unusual one (agenda page 51, para 9.1 refers), the Development Management Lead Officer detailed the reasoning behind the request for authority to be delegated to the Assistant Director Planning and Strategic Infrastructure to further discuss the way forward for the scheme.  It was noted that due to the size of the scheme (600 houses plus a medical centre) the matter was considered a long term project, and was expected to take many years and numerous applications regarding the implementation of the reserved matters.  He concluded by drawing attention to the urgency regarding the delivery of the medical centre as one of the main reasons for the unusual methodology being applied to the matter.

There was one speaker for this application, the applicant’s agent Mr Michael Braithwaite.

Once the speaker had concluded his presentation, Members were invited to ask questions.

One Member queried that although the matter was an Outline application and they could not go into details, Sports England had commented regarding the lack of sports facilities for young persons.  The Member commented further on a lack of references to health and wellbeing for young people.  Therefore, Mr Braithwaite was asked if bearing in mind the size of the development, would not some sports-based facilities be desirable?

Mr Braithwaite responded that 1.5 hectares  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

N/037/01064/20: View the plans and documents online, please click on the Application Number.  (Please note:  If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not available).

Applicant:                             Mr D. Baker

Location:                              Haiths Farm,

Main Road,

Covenham St Bartholomew

Recommendation:             Approval with Conditions

Officer:                                   Claire Girdley

Application Type:  Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                  Planning Permission – Extension and alterations to the existing dwelling (which is a listed building) to provide a ground floor enlarged dining room, erection of a detached barn and construction of a manege.

Location:                  Haiths Farm, Main Road, Covenham St. Bartholomew, Louth, LN11 0PF

Applicant:                 Mr D. Baker

Members received an application for planning permission for an extension and alterations to the existing dwelling (which is a listed building) to provide a ground floor enlarged dining room, erection of a detached barn and construction of a manege.  Listed Building Consent for the alterations and extension to the dwelling had been granted under separate application.

The application had been called in to be heard at committee for the reasons outlined at Paragraph 1.1 (agenda page 55 refers).

The Development Management Lead Officer detailed the site and surroundings information to Members, which were contained with the report presented, Paragraph 2.1 refers (Agenda page 55 refers) and displayed on the presentation slides.

The main Planning issues were considered to be:

·         Impact of the development on the Historic Character and Significance of the Listed Building.

·         Impact on the character of the area and impact on nearby residents.

·         Archaeology.

·         Drainage.

·         Tree Preservation Orders.

There were two speakers for this application, Ms. Laura Clark who spoke in opposition and Mr. Darren Baker the applicant.

Once the speakers had concluded their presentations, Members were invited to ask questions.

The Applicant confirmed that the barn and the manege would be for the sole use of his family.

The applicant was queried as to why that particular portion of the farm’s land had been chosen and the Panel’s Legal Officer reminded Members that questions to the applicant or the objector should only refer to the application as detailed.  It was argued that as the applicant had referred to his land to the north and east, then Members had the right to include this in their questioning.

The Development Management Lead Officer requested Members concentrate on the land covered by the application.

One Member queried the objector as to whether a fence would be of assistance with regard to her loss of privacy and amenity – she responded that as the fence would need to be over three metres high and she did not believe that it would assist, either by ensuring her privacy or muffling the noise from the manege.  It would also inhibit sunlight from reaching her property.

At this point no further questions were raised by Members for either the applicant or the objector.

A Member queried the conditions requesting confirmation that they covered night lighting, restricted the barn to horses only, no commercial activities and environmental health issues.  The Development Management Lead Officer confirmed they did cover those issues, Conditions 12, 13 and 14 referred.

There was some confusion with regard to the distance of the barn and the manege to the neighbour’s property and both the applicant, the objector and the plans  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

N/137/01559/21: View the plans and documents online, please click on the Application Number.  (Please note:  If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not available).

Applicant:                             Mr. E. Titley

Location:                              Pinfold Cottage,

Hagg Road,

Raithby

Recommendation:             Approval with Conditions

Officer:                                   Carrie Law

Application Type:  Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                  Planning Permission – Erection of a detached house with single garage and construction of a vehicular access.

Location:                  Pinfold Cottage, Hagg Road, Raithby, Spilsby, PE23 4DT

Applicant:                 Mr. E. Titley

Members received an application for Planning Permission for the erection of a detached house with single garage and construction of a vehicular access.  The plans showed a detached two storey dwelling positioned centrally within the plot.  A new access was to be created to Hagg Road and a parking and turning area was shown to the front of the dwelling.

The application had been called in to be heard at committee for the reasons outlined at Paragraph 1.1 (agenda page 71 refers).

Members were referred to the Supplementary Agenda which included a statement from the Applicant’s Agent, who was unable to appear at the meeting.

The Chairman gave Committee Members a few minutes to consider the additional supplementary information.

The Development Management Lead Officer detailed the site and surroundings information to Members, which were contained with the report presented, Paragraph 2.1 refers (Agenda page 71 refers) and displayed on the presentation slides.

The main Planning issues were considered to be:

·         The principle of the development in this location.

·         Impact on the character of the area including the Raithby conservation area.

·         Impact on neighbour amenity.

·         Other matters – trees, drainage and highway safety.

There was one speaker for this application, Mr Trevor Brighton who spoke in opposition to the application.

Once the speaker had concluded his presentation, Members were invited to ask questions of the Speaker.

One Member queried the speaker’s definition of intrusive, as he did not consider the positioning of the new dwelling to be intrusive.

Mr Brighton agreed with some of the Member’s comments but retorted that as the dwelling would be beside the current cottage and it would also be the largest building and therefore intrusive.  He continued that he agreed there were places that the dwelling to be placed but the reason for the current placing was simply financial and he believe that the objections outweighed that one good reason.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved with conditions and upon being put to the vote, the proposal for approval was carried.

Vote:                           9 in favour                 0 Against                   1 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be approved with the following conditions:

1.   The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of four years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To take account of the present restrictions on implementing permissions, in order to assist the recovery and in order to comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.   The development hereby permitted shall only be undertaken in accordance with the following approved plans;

Plan No. 135-EDT-0504-A1-01 B     Received by the LPA on 02/09/2021.

Plan No. 135-EDT-0504-A1-02 B     Received by the LPA on 02/09/2021.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

The Delegated Decisions were noted.

The programmed date for the next Meeting of this Committee will be Thursday 2^nd December 2021.

The date of the next programmed meeting was noted as Thursday 2^nd December 2021.