Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Daniel McNally.

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 Terry Aldridge had been appointed to the Committee in place of Councillor Steve McMillan and Councillor Ru Yarsley had been appointed to the Committee in place of Councillor Sam Kemp for this Meeting only.

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

-        Councillor Neil Jones asked it be noted that with regards to Item 6 he was Ward Member but had not taken part in any discussions.

-        Councillors Terry Aldridge, Dick Edginton, Stephen Eyre, Alex Hall, Neil Jones and Ru Yarsley asked it be noted that they were Members of the local internal drainage boards.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 2 October 2025.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 2 October 2025 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Councillor Tom Ashton, Chairman of Planning Policy Committee, advised Members that at the previous Meeting held on 16 October 2025, Members received a presentation from the Environment Agency on the Fens 2100+ Programme which considered long-term landscape protection in the context of climate change and rising sea levels.

Members were further informed of a forthcoming workshop on 20 November 2025 (to be held in place of the programmed Planning Policy Committee Meeting) being led by Councillor Paul Rickett looking at greater energy efficiency and energy regeneration.

To seek confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order

This item was removed from the Agenda.

To consider whether to approve an application to remove trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

Members received a report from Andrew Hudson, Arboricultural Officer, which enabled them to consider whether to approve an application to remove trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at Tregarthen House, Main Road, Sibsey. The trees were a mixed group of birch, elm and sycamore and were causing subsidence damage to the neighbouring dwelling.

The Arboricultural Officer referred Members of the Committee to the presentation which displayed the plan and images of the tree.

Members were advised that refusal would carry a financial risk to the Authority of £63,000 which was the estimated cost of the repair to the building and recommended to Committee that the application be approved. 

Councillor Tom Ashton spoke as Ward Member and expressed concern about the loss of trees and questioned whether the damage to the neighbouring property was due to poor construction rather than tree roots.

Members raised questions regarding the site visit, the credibility of the evidence, and the financial risk to the Council if the application was refused. The officer confirmed that he had visited the site and reviewed the evidence with the applicant and neighbour.

Following which, the application was Proposed and Seconded for approval.

Upon being put to the vote for approval in line with the officer recommendation,  Members voted as follows:

Vote:            12 in favour,            0 Against,     0 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That the application to remove trees protected by a TPO atTregarthen House, Main Road, Sibsey 1975 (152.02) be approved.

To seek confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order.

Members received a report from Andrew Hudson, Arboricultural Officer, which enabled them to consider whether a provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO), at 19 Witham Road, Woodhall Spa should be confirmed (made permanent).

The Arboricultural Officer referred Members of the Committee to the presentation which displayed the plan and images of the tree.

The Arboricultural Officer recommended to Committee that the TPO should be made permanent.

Members queried the tree’s lean and potential safety risks.

A Member commented that they had visited the site and reported that should the tree be removed, an unpleasant gap would be left in its’ place. 

Following a query on whether there had been any damage to the nearby footpath, the Aboricultural Officer confirmed that no damage had been observedand that any future concerns would require a formal application for works.

Following which, the application was Proposed and Seconded for approval.

Upon being put to the vote in line with the officer recommendation, that the TPO be confirmed with modification, Members voted as follows:

Vote:            7 in favour,             4 Against,     1 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That the 19 Witham Road, Woodhall Spa 2025 (215.30) Tree Preservation Order be confirmed (made permanent).

02556/25/FUL: 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:                          Mrs J Atkinson

Location:                           9 Spa Road, Woodhall Spa, Lincolnshire

Recommendation:             Approval Subject to Conditions

Officer:                             Carrie Law

Application Type:     Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                 Extension and alteration to existing mixed used use dwelling and day nursery to provide living accommodation and additional daycare business space to accommodate an increase to 30no. childcare spaces.

Location:                 9 Spa Road, Woodhall Spa, Lincolnshire

Applicant:                Mrs J Atkinson

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission - Extension and alteration to existing mixed used use dwelling and day nursery to provide living accommodation and additional daycare business space to accommodate an increase to 30no. childcare spaces at 9 Spa Road, Woodhall Spa, Lincolnshire.

The application was referred to Committee due to significant local representations.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·        Principle of development

·        Impact on neighbour amenity

·        Impact on the character of the area, conservation area and protected trees

·        Highway safety

·        BNG

Andrew Booth, Development Management Lead Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, pages 55 to 56 of the report refer.

There were no speakers on this item.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

-        Commenting on the fact that the children attending the day nursery had doubled in numbers in less than 12 months, a Member queried what the planning regulations were for that type of business in a residential area and what measures could be taken in order to stop it growing further.

The Development Management Lead Officer referred Members to Paragraph 7.7 on page 59 of the report outlining the relevance of policy SP14 (Town/Village Centres and shopping).  Members were further advised that SP10 (Design) should be taken into consideration as a balanced judgement was needed in order to acknowledge the broader community benefits and the safeguarding of impact on the amenity of neighbours and character.

-        A Member commented that it was better to have this type of business in a residential area rather than on an industrial estate.

Following which, the application was Proposed for approval in line with officer recommendation.

-        A concern was raised regarding outdoor playtime restrictions and the condition that allowed the children to play outside only twice a day, for 30 minutes at a time.

The Development Management Lead Officer advised that the conditions were imposed on the permission that was currently implemented as a safeguard for the amenity of neighbours. 

Following which, the application was Seconded for approval in line with officer recommendation.

-        A Member commented that it was normal to find childcare establishments in residential areas and that childcare spaces were in demand.

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for approval in line with officer recommendation was carried.

Vote:         12 In favour            0 Against              0 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

N/017/00024/25: 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 P Davey

Location:                           Pumping Station, West of Chestnut Farm House, Ludford Road, Binbrook

Recommendation:             Approval Subject to Conditions

Officer:                             Graeme Hyde

Application Type:     Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                 Change of use and extension of existing water pumping station to dwelling.

Location:                 Pumping Station, West of Chestnut Farm House, Ludford Road, Binbrook

Applicant:                Mr P Davey

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission - Change of use and extension of existing water pumping station to dwelling at Pumping Station, West of Chestnut Farm House, Ludford Road, Binbrook.

The application was referred to the Planning Committee given the concerns raised and volume of representation from third parties, and the Parish Council. The Officer recommendation was for conditional approval such that it was considered appropriate for committee referral.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       Principle/ design issues

·       Effect on third parties

·       Biodiversity and BNG

·       Contamination

Members were referred to the additional information contained on pages 1 to 4 of the Supplementary Agenda. 

Graeme Hyde, Senior Planning Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, pages 67 to 68 of the report refer.

There were no speakers on this item.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

-        A Member queried whether there was alternative access to the proposed development site to which the Senior Planning Officer responded he was not aware of any.  Members were advised that access through a third party was an unusual situation and was a private arrangement which may have to be managed differently.

-        A Member queried whether a condition could be added to put a hold on the development until the civil matter was resolved.

The Development Management Lead Officer confirmed that access rights were a civil matter but had been considered in terms of residential amenity.

Following which, the application was Proposed for refusal against officer recommendation, under SP10 (character and design of the local area).

-        A Member commented that the proposal was a huge improvement to the current state of the building.

Following which, the application was Proposed for approval in line with officer recommendation.

-        Following a query with regards to whether there were any known flooding issues on the site, the Senior Planning Officer advised that no issues had been identified. 

-        Members further highlighted that the development proposal was a betterment and that there were a number of conditions attached to the proposal which would cover all eventualities.

Following which, the application was Seconded for approval in line with officer recommendation.

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for approval in line with officer recommendation was carried.

Vote:        10 In favour            1 Against              1 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

The Appeals Decided were noted.

The Delegated Decisions were noted.

The date of the next meeting was noted as Thursday 4 December 2025.