Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Sam Kemp. 

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

-        Councillor Richard Cunnington asked it be noted that he had been lobbied in relation to the first item but would remain of an open mind.

-        Councillor Neil Jones asked it be noted that in relation to Item 6 he was acquainted with the applicant’s father but had had no contact with him regarding the item.

-        Councillor Daniel McNally asked it be noted that in relation to Item 8 he was Ward Member and would be speaking on the item.

-        Councillor David Hall asked it be noted that in relation to Item 5 he was Ward Member and would be speaking on the item.

-        Councillor Stephen Eyre asked it be noted that in relation to Item 6 he was employed by the applicant from time to time and was also acquainted with the objector and confirmed he would leave the Meeting during that item.

-        Councillors Dick Edginton, Stephen Eyre, Neil Jones and Daniel McNally asked it be noted that they were Members of the local Internal Drainage Boards.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 May 2026 and the Minutes of the Special Meeting held at the rising of the Annual General Meeting held on 20 May 2026.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 May 2026 and the Minutes of the Special Meeting held at the rising of the Annual General Meeting held on 20 May 2026  were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Councillor Terry Aldridge, Vice-Chairman of Planning Policy Committee, advised Members that the last Planning Policy Committee Meeting took place on 25 June 2026 and included updates on the 5-Year Housing Land Supply, Housing Delivery, East Lindsey Local Plan 2044 Progress, New Data Standards for Plan Making and Active Travel England.

 N.B. Having declared an interest for the following item, Councillor David Hall left the

Meeting at 10:35am in order to speak on the following item.

03090/25/OUT: 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:                          Snape Properties Ltd

Location:                           Land at Fanthorpe Lane, Louth, Lincolnshire

Recommendation:             Approval Subject to Conditions.

Officer:                             Lindsey Stuart

Application Type:    Outline Planning Permission

Proposal:                Outline erection of 49no. dwellings (with means of access and landscaping to be considered).

Location:                 Land at Fanthorpe Lane, Louth, Lincolnshire.

Applicant:                Snape Properties Limited.

Members received an application for Outline Planning Permission – Outline

erection of 49no. dwellings (with means of access and landscaping to be

considered) at land at Fanthorpe Lane, Louth, Lincolnshire.

The application was recommended for approval, however due to the viability

of the proposal, no affordable housing would be provided and no contributions

would be made towards the local health and education facilities. 

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       Site History and the current housing supply position.

·       Principle of Development

·       Impact of the Development on the Character of the Area

·       Impact of the Development on the Amenity of the Neighbours.

·       Highway Safety and Capacity.

·       Flood Risk and Drainage.

·       Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain.

·       Impact of the Development on Local Services.

·       Other Issues (Contamination, noise from the A16 Louth by-pass

and archaeology).

Members were referred to the additional information contained on page 1 of the supplementary agenda.

Lindsey Stuart, Principal Planning Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, pages 13 to 14 of the report refer.

Mr Adrian Kerrison (Planning Consultant) spoke in support of the application.

Councillor David Moore spoke on behalf of Louth Town Council.

Councillor David Hall spoke as Ward Member.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

-        A Member referred to concerns regarding access to the site and flood risk, noting that supplementary information appeared to address flooding issues.  The Member further queried whether the applicant was making any contribution towards improving the access arrangements which had been described as little more than a farm track.

Mr Kerrison advised that his involvement was limited to viability matters and that he had not been engaged in the technical design of the scheme.  He stated that the proposed access arrangements would have been assessed by the Highway Authority and would be required to comply with relevant technical standards.  He further explained that drainage proposals including attenuation ponds would have been designed by drainage engineers and that the technical solutions were considered feasible, although he was unable to comment on specific design details.

-        A Member expressed concern that the proposal included no affordable housing provision and no Section 106 contributions towards local infrastructure.  The Member asked whether any government support was available to developers to assist with scheme viability and enable greater contributions to the local community.

Mr Kerrison explained that the scheme was expected to return a profit of approximately 12% which was below the typical government guidance range of 15% to 20%.  He advised that abnormal development costs, particularly those associated with the site's long spine road and layout requirements had significantly affected viability. He stated that build costs had increased substantially in recent years and that many affordable housing policies adopted several years  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

03617/25/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:                          Mr Simon Hawkes

Location:                           Thorpe Farm, Dalby Road, Skendleby, Lincolnshire, PE23 4QG

Recommendation:             Approval Subject to Conditions.

Officer:                             Kathryn White

Application Type:    Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                Planning Permission – Change of use of land to site 15no.

                               holiday lodges, construction of a vehicular access and

                               associated infrastructure.

Location:                Thorpe Farm, Dalby Road, Skendleby, Lincolnshire, PE23

                               4QG

Applicant:                Mr Simon Hawkes

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Change of

Use of land to site 15no. holiday lodges, construction of a vehicular access

And associated infrastructure at Thorpe Farm, Dalby Road, Skendleby,

Lincolnshire, PE23 4QG

Due to the number of representations both in objection and support, the application was required to be determined at committee.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

• Assessment of whether the site is a major development in the

Protected Landscape.

• Principle of Development
• Visual Impact on Protected Landscape

·       Impact on Heritage Assets

·       Impact on Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)

·       Impact on Trees

·       Highways

·       Flood Risk and Drainage

·       Other Matters

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 41 to 42 of the report refer.

Mr Simon Hawkes (Applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Mrs Sue Johnson spoke in objection to the application.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

-        A Member queried whether the applicant could provide reassurance regarding concerns about highway safety and access, noting his local knowledge of the site and surrounding area.

In response, Mr Hawkes stated that he did not consider there to be any highway issues associated with the proposal.  He explained that large agricultural vehicles regularly used the road and that significant volumes of farm traffic already travelled along it.  He advised that he had personally used the route several times a day over the previous year without experiencing any difficulties and considered concerns regarding the highway network to be unfounded.

-        Following a query on whether the proposal would form part of a mixed-use operation with agricultural activities continuing alongside the proposed tourism development, Mr Hawkes explained that he wished to live at the site and had invested substantially in restoring the historic property located there.  Members were further advised that the proposed holiday lodges would provide a means of funding continued occupation and maintenance of the property.  The development would also generate construction work and future employment opportunities while also supporting local businesses through increased visitor spending within the area.

-        A Member queried whether Mrs Johnson believed conditions at the site had improved under the current ownership, given the site's past history and previous activities.

Mrs Johnson advised that she had lived in the neighbouring property for nine years and explained that previous activities at the site had not been widely known at the time, as they had been concealed behind equestrian activities.  She commended the current owner for the work undertaken to clear the site and acknowledged the challenge involved. However, she expressed concern that the scale and design of the proposed development were excessive and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

03860/25/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:                          London Road Sports Partnership

Location:                           The Pavilion, London Road, Louth, Lincolnshire, LN11 9QP

Recommendation:             Approval Subject to Conditions.

Officer:                             Carrie Law

Application Type:        Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                     Planning Permission – Erection of outdoor padel court

                                    with floodlighting.

Location:                     The Pavilion, London Road, Louth, Lincolnshire, LN11

                                    9QP                             

Applicant:                    London Road Sports Partnership

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Erection of

outdoor padel court with floodlighting at The Pavilion, London Road, Louth,

Lincolnshire, LN11 9QP.

The application had been referred to Planning Committee as it related to land in the ownership of East Lindsey District Council.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       Principle of Development  

·       Impact on the Character of the Area

·       Impact on Neighbour Amenity

·       Highway Safety

·       Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain

Members were referred to the additional information contained on pages 2 to 6 of the Supplementary Agenda.

Carrie Law, Senior Planning Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, page 77 of the report refers.

Mr Ewan Findlay (Applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Paul Starsmore spoke on behalf of Louth Town Council. 

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

-        Following a request for some clarification on the projected annual income from the facility, Mr Findlay advised that the forecast income figures had been provided by a specialist company. He stated that a cautious approach had been adopted with initial usage levels expected to be around 30 to 40 per cent until the facility became established.

-        A Member further queried whether charging rates had been determined.  Mr Findlay advised that charges had not yet been finalised but were expected to be comparable with similar facilities in the town.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

-        A Member queried whether Sport England could prevent approval of the application.  The Development Management Lead Officer explained that whilst Sport England maintained an objection, any resolution to approve the application would require referral to the Secretary of State.  Members were advised that delegated authority was being sought to continue discussions with Sport England and should the objection be withdrawn, permission could be issued without referral.

Following which, the application was proposed and seconded for approval in line with officer recommendation.

-        Several Members supported the application, commenting that it would enhance existing sporting provision and provide health and wellbeing benefits to the community.

-        A Member queried whether a condition restricting the hours of operation should be imposed.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that no such condition had been recommended.  They noted that the site was already in sporting use and considered any restriction could be difficult to justify.  It was also noted that anticipated noise levels were expected to be modest.

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

Vote:         11 In favour            0 Against              1 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That this Council resolve to grant planning permission with the application being referred to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2024 for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

00555/26/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:                          Mr & Mrs Noble

Location:                           Land at The Chantry, Jubilee Road, North Somercotes, Lincolnshire, LN11 7LH

Recommendation:             Refusal

Officer:                             Stephanie Watson

Application Type:    Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                Planning Permission – Erection of 1no. dwelling.

Location:                 Land at The Chantry, Jubilee Road, North Somercotes

Applicant:                Mr and Mrs Noble

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Erection of

1no. dwelling at land at The Chantry, Jubilee Road, North Somercotes.

The application was considered appropriate for consideration by the Planning Committee following a request by Councillor Daniel McNally as Ward Member in recognition of the apparent local support for the application.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       Principle of new housing in this location and flood risk

·       Impact on the character of the area and neighbouring amenity

·       Other matters

·       The planning balance

Members were referred to the additional information contained on page 6 of the Supplementary Agenda.

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 91 to 92 of the report refer.

Mr Andrew Clover (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Daniel McNally spoke as Ward Member.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speaker.

Following the Ward Member’s reference to the Environment Agency’s comments in the Supplementary Agenda, Members discussed the comments received.  It was noted that it had come as new information to the Committee that the Environment Agency's comments may have related to an incorrect site.  The Development Management Lead Officer advised that the planning department had not previously been made aware of any such error.

In response to a query, it was acknowledged that if the comments had been submitted in respect of the wrong location, this would raise concerns regarding the information available to the Committee.  A Member queried whether the application should therefore be deferred until the correct information had been obtained.

The Chairman noted that there appeared to be support amongst Members for the proposal to defer the application pending clarification of the Environment Agency's comments.

-        A Member sought clarification around the source of information Councillor McNally had referred to regarding flood risk and the Environment Agency's position.

Councillor McNally clarified that the information was contained within the Supplementary Agenda circulated to Members.  He explained that the Environment Agency's original response had been more detailed than the summary provided and referred Members to shoreline management information available through the Environment Agency's website.  He stated that, in his view, the original Environment Agency response, which raised no objection, should continue to carry weight.

-        During a further discussion, it was suggested that if clarification supported the original position, consideration could be given to delegating the final decision to officers.  However, the Development Management Lead Officer advised that the preference would be for the matter to return to Committee for determination once all information had been verified.

N.B Councillor Daniel McNally left the Meeting at 12:25pm.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

Following which, a deferral of the application was proposed and seconded. 

Further discussion ensued, following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Appeals Decided were noted.

The Delegated Decisions were noted.

The date of the next meeting was noted as Thursday 6 August 2026.