Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Dick Edginton, Alex Hall and Sam Kemp.

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

-        Councillor Kate Marnoch asked it be noted that in relation to Item 9 she was a Scout Group Leader and used the Sherwood Field site with her group.   

-        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 Terry Taylor asked it be noted that in relation to Item 7 he was Ward Member but would remain in the Meeting with an open mind.

-        Councillor Stephen Eyre asked it be noted that in relation to Item 7 he was employed by the applicant and confirmed he would leave the Meeting during that item.

-        All Members asked it be noted that they had been lobbied in relation to Item 7 but would remain of an open mind.

-        Councillors Richard Cunnington, 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 2 July 2026.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 2 July 2026 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Councillor Terry Aldridge, Vice-Chairman of Planning Policy Committee reminded Members that a briefing would be taking place on 10 September 2026 instead of the timetabled Committee Meeting and that all Councillors were welcome to attend.

To seek confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order.

Members received a report from Andrew Hudson, Arboricultural Officer, which enabled them to consider whether a temporary Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at 137 Eastgate, Louth should be confirmed (made permanent).

The Arboricultural Officer referred Members of the Committee to the presentation which displayed the plan and images of the trees and outlined the report, pages 15 to 22 of the agenda pack refer.

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

A Member sought clarification on the purpose of a Section 211 Notice. In response, the Arboricultural Officer explained that within a conservation area, a Section 211 Notice served as notification of intended works to trees rather than an application for consent.  The Council may then assess the proposed works and where appropriate, make a TPO if the trees were considered to have significant amenity value.

A further question was raised regarding the distinction between notifications under a Section 211 Notice and works to trees protected by a TPO.  The Arboricultural Officer advised that while an applicant was not required to provide detailed technical evidence when submitting a Section 211 Notice, the confirmation of a TPO would require any future application for works to be supported by appropriate evidence, such as engineering reports and where subsidence issues were cited.  This would enable the authority to properly assess the justification for the proposed works.

Members also queried why the additional three trees had been included in the Order when they were not currently implicated in the subsidence claim.  The Arboricultural Officer explained that the trees had comparable amenity value and visual importance to those already identified and it was considered prudent to protect them in anticipation of any future threats or claims.

A Member queried whether the roots of the protected trees could still be managed if they were shown to be causing structural damage to nearby buildings.  The Arboricultural Officer confirmed that should a future claim arise, applicants would be required to submit supporting evidence including engineering reports, root analysis and soil investigations.  Where sufficient evidence demonstrated that the trees were responsible for damage, works could be approved.  The TPO would not prevent justified works from taking place but would ensure that decisions were based on a robust evidential assessment.

The Arboricultural Officer further explained that in the present case, some evidence had accompanied the original Section 211 Notice, but further information requested by the Council had not been provided.  As the Council could not compel submission of additional evidence under the Section 211 process, the making of the TPO was considered the appropriate mechanism to ensure the necessary evidence would be provided before any significant works could proceed.

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 without modification, Members voted as follows:

Vote:            10 in favour,            0 Against,     0 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That 137 Eastgate, Louth (105.36) Tree Preservation Order be confirmed (made permanent).

To seek confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order.

Members received a report from Andrew Hudson, Arboricultural Officer, which enabled them to consider whether a temporary Tree Preservation Order (TPO), at land adjacent to 116C Horncastle Road, Roughton Moor should be confirmed (made permanent).

The Arboricultural Officer referred Members of the Committee to the presentation which displayed the plan and images of the trees and outlined the report, pages 31 to 46 of the agenda pack refer.

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

A Member noted that the Council's Arboricultural Officer had visited the site and that he had considerable experience in assessing trees.  The Member expressed the view that the developer should have fully considered the trees before submitting the application and expressed support for the officer recommendation to protect the trees.  It was further noted that should any remedial works be required in the future, these could be brought forward with appropriate supporting evidence for consideration.

A further Member supported the comments made, highlighting the importance of protecting this type of woodland and emphasising its value to the local area. 

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 without modification, Members voted as follows:

Vote:            10 in favour,            0 Against,     0 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That land adjacent to 116C Horncastle Road, Roughton Moor (215.31) Tree Preservation Order be confirmed (made permanent).

N.B. Having declared an interest for the following item, Councillor Stephen Eyre left the Meeting at 11:05am.

COUNCILLOR DANIEL MCNALLY IN THE CHAIR

02241/25/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:                          RH-J (Farms) Ltd

Location:                           Land North East of Grange Farm Yard, Fenside Road, Toynton St Peter, Lincolnshire

Recommendation:             Approve Subject to Conditions.

Officer:                             Kathryn White

Application Type:       Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                  Planning Permission - Erection of 4no. poultry units with associated control rooms, feed bins, gate house, plant room, substation and dead bird shed, construction of a concrete apron, car parking and attenuation pond with the siting of a water tank and 2no. dirty water tanks.

Location:                   Land North East Of Grange Farmyard, Fenside Road, Toynton St Peter, Lincolnshire

Applicant:                  RH-J (Farms) Ltd

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Erection of

4no. poultry units with associated control rooms, feed bins, gate house, plant

room, substation and dead bird shed, construction of a concrete apron, car

parking and attenuation pond with the siting of a water tank and 2no. dirty

water tanks at land North East of Grange Farmyard, Fenside Road, Toynton

St Peter, Lincolnshire.

The application had been the subject of a significant number of representations (over 2400) together with a request by Councillor Terry Taylor as Ward Member for the application to be determined at Committee and the officer recommendation was for a grant of planning permission.  

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       Environmental Impact Assessment

·       Principle of Development  

·       Landscape Character and Visual Impact

·       Impact on Highway Safety and Accessibility

·       Flood Risk and Drainage

·       Impact of amenities of third parties/surroundings through noise and   

odours

·       Ecology and Biodiversity including impact of ammonia, protected  

species and BNG

·       Waste/Manure Management and Green House Gas Emissions

·       Climate Change

·       Animal Welfare

·       Other Matters

Members were referred to the additional information contained on pages 1 to 2 of the supplementary agenda.

Ian Irwin, Interim Development Manager – Planning, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, pages 49 to 50 of the report refer.

Mr Alistair Hall-Jones (Applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Mr Lyndon Brace spoke in objection to the application.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

-        Following a query on whether figures were available regarding existing levels of air pollution associated with intensive poultry units, Mr Brace responded that he was aware of approximately 856 intensive poultry units operating in Lincolnshire but was unable to provide current air pollution figures.  He referred to DEFRA targets to reduce particulate pollution and suggested existing levels remained a concern.

-        A Member further queried whether Mr Brace objected to intensive poultry farming generally or only to the proposed location.  Mr Brace replied that he was opposed to intensive poultry farming in principle expressing concern about animal welfare and the housing of large numbers of birds indoors.  He stated that alternative farming methods should be pursued.

-        In response to being asked to clarify his relationship to the farm, Mr Hall-Jones explained that he was a tenant farmer.  Members were advised that the land associated with the proposal was owned separately while his principal farming operation was held under a tenancy agreement.

-        A Member queried what Mr Hall-Jones’ views were on reports relating to PM2.5 emissions and concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

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 and Mrs Noble

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

Recommendation:             Refuse

Officer:                             Stephanie Watson

Application Type:       Full Planning Permission

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

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

Applicant:                  Mr & Mrs Noble

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Erection of 1

no. dwelling at land at The Chantry, Jubilee Road, North Somercotes, LN11

7LH.

The application was presented to the Planning Committee for

determination following deferral from the meeting held on 2^nd July 2026 to

allow for clarification of advice from the Environment Agency.

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 pages 3 to 5 of the supplementary agenda.

Ian Irwin, Interim Development Manager – Planning 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 Chris Noble (Applicant) and 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 speakers.

-        A Member requested clarification on the timing of the original deferral and the publication of the updated NPPF.  The Interim Development Manager – Planning confirmed that the application had been deferred in July and that the revised NPPF had only been adopted a few weeks prior to the meeting.

-        A Member further queried whether the Environment Agency had previously categorised the site incorrectly.  In response, it was confirmed that the Environment Agency had initially identified the site within the wrong coastal project area and later corrected this error, acknowledging that the location fell within a different project zone than originally stated.

-        A further question was raised regarding whether the corrected classification would now allow the development to satisfy planning policy requirements.  The Interim Development Manager – Planning advised that despite the correction, the Environment Agency's overall objection remained unchanged.  It was explained that the Agency maintained concerns regarding future flood risk, although it had acknowledged that no modelling evidence had been undertaken to demonstrate the extent of the potential impact identified.

-        A Member requested an explanation on the principal reason for seeking to relocate a short distance to a newly built dwelling.  Mr Noble stated that the existing property, originally constructed in 1954 and subsequently extended, no longer met the occupants' needs as they became older.

-        A Member also sought clarification regarding comments made about flood defence infrastructure and the economic justification for future works.  Mr Noble, drawing on professional experience in flood defence engineering, explained that failure of defences further south could potentially affect a much larger area of the Lincolnshire and Humber coastline.  He argued that strategic flood defence works could provide wider benefits by protecting communities and land further north. The applicant also referred to the Environment Agency's Humber  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

00489/26/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:                          Sis Pitches

Location:                           Sherwood Fields, Sherwood Road, Mablethorpe, Lincolnshire

Recommendation:             Approve Subject to Conditions.

Officer:                             Carrie Law

Application Type:       Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                  Planning Permission - Construction of a MUGA with associated fencing and flood lighting.   

Location:                   Sherwood Fields, Sherwood Road, Mablethorpe, Lincolnshire

Applicant:                  Sis Pitches

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Construction

of a MUGA with associated fencing and flood lighting at Sherwood

Fields, Sherwood Road, Mablethorpe, Lincolnshire.

The application was presented to Planning Committee for determination

for reasons of transparency and good governance as it related to East

Lindsey District Council owned land.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       Principle of development;

·       Impact upon the character and appearance of the area;

·       Impact upon residential amenity;

·       Highway safety and parking;

·       Flood risk and drainage;

·       Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain.

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, pages 105 to 106 of the report refer.

There were no speakers on this item.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

-        A Member commented on the application, explaining that she had initially been concerned about the potential loss of playing field space used by local Scout groups operating from the Girl Guide Hut.  Having reviewed the proposed layout and siting of the MUGA, she was satisfied that sufficient space would remain available for Scout activities.  She further advised Members that through her involvement with the Mablethorpe Youth Council, local young people had expressed a clear need for a dedicated facility where they could play football and other sports throughout the year. The Member further stated that such provision had been lost with the closure of previous facilities and expressed her support that the application be approved.

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

-        The Chairman welcomed the local knowledge provided and acknowledged its value in informing the Committee’s consideration of the application.

-        A Member stated that he supported the comments made by the local ward member, noting her direct knowledge of local needs and the views expressed by young people in the area. 

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

-        A Member observed that the proposal was similar to a previous MUGA application in Sutton-on-Sea considered by Committee on 5 February 2026, Minute No 91 refers.   He noted that the earlier proposal had ultimately been refused despite officer recommendation and had resulted in the loss of external funding.  The Member welcomed the current application, highlighting the importance of improving recreational opportunities for young people and supporting investment in coastal communities. 

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

Vote:         7 In favour            0 Against              1 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved.

00672/26/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:                          East Lindsey District Council

Location:                           Public Conveniences, Castle Lane, Coningsby, Lincolnshire

Recommendation:             Approve Subject to Conditions.

Officer:                             Carrie Law

Application Type:       Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                  Planning Permission - Erection of public toilets,

                                provision of hardstanding, fencing, associated drainage

                                improvements and electric kiosk.  Existing toilet facility

                                to be demolished. 

Location:                   Public Conveniences, Castle Lane, Coningsby, Lincolnshire

Applicant:                  East Lindsey District Council

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Erection of

public toilets, provision of hardstanding, fencing, associated drainage

improvements and electric kiosk.  Existing toilet facility to be demolished at

public conveniences, Castle Lane, Coningsby, Lincolnshire. 

The application was presented to Planning Committee for determination

for reasons of transparency and good governance as it related to East

Lindsey District Council owned land.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       Principle of Development

·       Impact on the Character of the Area

·       Impact on Residential Amenity

·       Highway Safety

·       Flood Risk and Drainage

·       Biodiversity and Landscaping

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, pages 119 to 120 of the report refer.

N.B. Councillor Daniel McNally returned to the room at 12:59pm.

There were no speakers on this item.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

-        A Member sought clarification regarding the nature of the proposed structure including its appearance and construction method.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for a modular building which would be transported to site either as a single unit or in sections and assembled on site.  The existing facility was currently a brick-built structure.

-        A Member commented that there was a clear need for the facility, noting that they had personally found such facilities useful in the past and expressing disappointment that the previous toilet had closed. It was further noted that there were limited alternative facilities available in the surrounding area.

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

-        Questions were raised regarding the proposed provision of two unisex toilets and one accessible toilet.  A Member referred to recent changes in legislation relating to toilet facilities and asked whether the proposal complied with current requirements.  In response, it was explained that the scheme complied with the relevant legislation and that the proposed arrangement met current standards.  It was confirmed that the development was considered compliant with the latest requirements.

-        A further question was raised regarding the relationship between the proposed toilet block and a neighbouring property boundary.  Members were advised that the existing toilet block currently formed part of the boundary wall.  As the replacement modular building would have a smaller footprint, the existing boundary wall would be removed.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant proposed to install a replacement boundary fence, and a planning condition would require this to be provided before the facility was brought into use.

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:         7 In favour            0  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

The Appeals Decided were noted.

The Delegated Decisions were noted.

The date of the next meeting was noted as Thursday 1 October 2026.