Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Kate Marnoch.

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 for this Meeting only.

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

• Councillor Dick Edginton asked it be noted that with regards to Item 9 he would be speaking as Ward Member.

• Councillor Richard Cunnington asked it be noted that with regards to Item 8 he used to be a member of the Skegness Lincoln and Lindsey Blind Society.

• Councillor Daniel McNally asked it be noted that with regards to Item 8 his father was a member of the Lincoln and Lindsey Blind Society, and would refrain from joining in the discussion and voting thereon.

• Councillor Stephen Eyre asked it be noted that with regards to Item 7 he would be speaking as Ward Member.

Councillors Dick Edginton, Stephen Eyre, Neil Jones and Daniel McNally asked it be noted that they were Members of the Lindsey Marsh Drainage Board.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 April 2025.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 April 2025 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Councillor Terry Aldridge, Vice-Chairman of Planning Policy Committee, advised Members that there was no update. 

Members received a report from Colin Horton, Arboricultural Officer which enabled them to consider whether a temporary Tree Preservation Order (TPO), made to protect one Beech tree in Woodhall Spa Conservation Area, 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.

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

A Member queried whether the Beech tree was causing any damage to adjoining buildings, to which the Aboricultural Officer advised that it was not.

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

A Member requested that reports for future TPO’s include pictures of the wider landscape in order to put the TPO into context.

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

Vote:             10 In favour,  0 Against,     1 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That the Woodhall Spa 2025 (215.29) Tree Preservation Order be confirmed without modification.

Members received a report from Colin Horton, Arboricultural Officer which enabled them to consider whether to approve an application to remove a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The tree was a mature Wellingtonia on land adjacent the Bowling Green, Station Road, Sibsey and was 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 the Parish Council objected to the removal of the TPO. 

Members were further advised that should the tree remain, the applicant would seek compensation of around £11,000 from the Council (ELDC) for additional repair costs to the dwelling.

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

A Member queried why ELDC would be responsible for the compensation costs when it was an old tree and the building had been placed there after the tree.  The Arboricultural Officer explained that ELDC was responsible for the costs as it was restricting the rights of the tree’s owner to manage the tree as they felt appropriate.  Without the TPO, the insurance company would ask the owner to remove the tree, following which the owner would then be able to make their own decision.

A Member queried why it had taken so long for the application to come to Committee. The Arboricultural Officer advised that although the application was made in November 2024, the supporting evidence was not provided until afterwards due to the time that was spent considering evidence that the tree was associated to the famous botanist, Sir Joseph Banks.

Following which, the application was Proposed for approval.

Following a query with regards to how many trees were on the land, the Arboricultural Officer confirmed that there were two Wellingtonia trees adjacent to each other.

In response to whether it would be possible to replace the tree at some point in the future, the Arboricultural Officer confirmed that a new tree could be planted further away from the property.

Following which, the application was Seconded for approval.

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

Vote:             10 In favour,  0 Against,     1 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That the Wellingtonia on land adjacent the Bowling Green, Station Road, Sibsey Tree Preservation Order be removed.

N.B.  Having declared an interest for the following item, Councillor Stephen Eyre left the Meeting at 10.48am.

COUNCILLOR ALEX HALL, VICE-CHAIRMAN IN THE CHAIR

N/199/00239/25: 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:                          A.E. Hewison Limited

Location:                           Misty Meadow Holiday Park, Hanby Lane, Welton Le Marsh 

Recommendation:              Approval with Conditions

Officer:                              Lindsey Stuart

Application Type:            Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                         Section 73 application to vary conditions no.2 (approved plans) and no. 4 (landscaping) previously imposed on planning permission ref. no. N/199/02050/18 for the Change of use of land for the siting of 12 no. static caravans and construction of an internal access road.

Location:                          MISTY MEADOW HOLIDAY PARK, HANBY LANE, WELTON LE MARSH

Applicant:                        A E Hewison Limited

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Section 73 application to vary conditions no.2 (approved plans) and no. 4 (landscaping) previously imposed on planning permission ref. no. N/199/02050/18 for the change of use of land for the siting of 12 no. static caravans and construction of an internal access road at Misty Meadow Holiday Park, Hanby Lane, Welton Le Marsh.

The application had been called in for consideration by Committee as the proposal may be considered as adeparture fromthe EastLindsey LocalPlan and was recommended for approval.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       Principle of the development in this location

·       Impact of the development on the character of the area including the

     adjacent national landscape

·       Impact on amenity

·       Flood risk and drainage

·       Impact on ecology and wildlife

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 33 to 34 of the report refer.

Councillor Jim Hardcastle spoke on behalf of Welton Le Marsh Parish Council.

Councillor Stephen Eyre spoke as Ward Member.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speaker.

-       In response to a query as to whether there was any planning permission in place for the signs, Mr Hardcastle informed Members that he was not aware of any.

Following which, the application was opened for debate. 

The Development Management Lead Officer highlighted to Members that the application being considered was to alter the layout of the 12 caravans and an amended landscape scheme, not the unauthorised elements on the site. 

-       A Member commented that it was a reduction of the site and would support approval with the conditions set out by the officers. 

Following which, the application was Proposed for approval.

-       A Member highlighted that as there was an ongoing enforcement case, a decision on the application should be deferred.

Following which, the application was Proposed for deferral.

-       The Development Management Lead Officer reiterated that the enforcement case was very separate to the application that was before the Committee, and any decision needed to be made on the application before Members.

Following which, the application was Proposed for refusal

-       A Member queried what the applicant’s reasoning was for the caravans being moved on the layout of for the application N/199/02050/18.  The Development Management Lead Officer advised Members that he assumed there was an aspiration to intensify the usage of the site, which had not been supported.

Following which, the application was Seconded for deferral.

At this point in the meeting, the Senior  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

N/105/01545/24: 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:                          Forrester Boyd

Location:                           139 Eastgate, Louth 

Recommendation:              Approval with Conditions

Officer:                              Stephanie Watson

Application Type:            Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                         Planning Permission - Rear extension and alterations to existing offices.

Location:                          139 EASTGATE, LOUTH

Applicant:                        Forrester Boyd

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Rear extension and alterations to existing offices at 139 Eastgate, Louth.

The application was to be considered by Planning Committee due to the significant level of localised objection and concerns raised by Ward Members Councillor Andrew Leonard and Councillor Darren Hobson.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       The Principle of development

·       Impact on the character of the area and wider Conservation Area and

Listed Building

·       Impact on residential amenity

·       Traffic and parking implications

·       Construction management

·       Other matters

Stephanie Watson, Planning Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, page 47 of the report refers.

Mr Ricky Newton (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Councillor James Drake spoke on behalf of Louth Town Council.

Councillor Andrew Leonard spoke as Ward Member.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speaker.

-       Following a query on policy SP10 relating to the character and design, Paragraph 7.14 on page 51 of the Agenda pack refers, the Ward Member considered that the new extension would have to be more sympathetic than previous extensions to ensure it did not harm the setting.

-       A Member queried how many new spaces would fit on to the land that had been offered to the applicant for car parking.  Mr Drake advised that it was a small piece of land offering 2 or 3 new spaces.

Mr Newton added that increasing the parking spaces would also increase traffic.  There was currently space for 13 or 14 cars, which would reduce to 7 spaces for disabled staff and senior staff, other staff would be expected to park in the local public car parks.

Mr Newton further informed Members they would be losing office space to provide more services for staff and customers.

Following which, the application was opened for debate. 

-       A Member considered that policy SP10 failed on two different points, being the character and design of the building and amenity of local residents with regards to car parking.

Following which, the application was Proposed for refusal against officer recommendation.

-       A Member commented that Mr Newton gave an excellent presentation including mitigation for the car parking.

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

-       A Member highlighted that it was a very narrow road, with limited footpath. 

Following which, the application was Seconded for refusal against officer recommendation.

-       A Member highlighted that Forrester Boyd was a well-established business and although the parking was an issue, considered the expansion outweighed the parking issue.

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

Further to comments made on the design of the building, the Development Management Lead Officer informed Members that none of the heritage bodies consulted had raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

N/153/00040/25: 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 and Mrs P Cunliffe

Location:                           350 Drummond Road, Skegness 

Recommendation:              Approval with Conditions

Officer:                              Stephanie Watson

Application Type:            Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                         Planning Permission - Extension to existing dwelling to provide additional living accommodation and installation of a flue to the maximum height of 4.6 metres.

Location:                          350 DRUMMOND ROAD, SKEGNESS

Applicant:                        Mr & Mrs P Cunliffe

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Extension to existing dwelling to provide additional living accommodation and installation of a flue to the maximum height of 4.6 metres at 350 Drummond Road, Skegness.

The application was presented to the Planning Committee on the basis of

the finely balanced issues and following concerns and requests by Ward

Member, Councillor Dick Edgington.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

·       Impact on the character of the area

·       Impact on amenity

·       Flood risk

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

Stephanie Watson, Planning Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, page 59 of the report refers.

Councillor Dick Edginton spoke as Ward Member.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speaker.

-       When asked whether Councillor Edginton knew of any agreement with the neighbours with regards to encroaching on their land, he advised that he was not aware of any.

-       Following a request for clarification of the holiday home status of the property, Councillor Edginton advised Members that the property was owned by a family from London and had been used occasionally as a holiday home.  The owners now wanted to relocate and occupy the property on a permanent basis.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

-       A Member queried whether the neighbour’s land that was included in the application was a standard procedure.  The Development Management Lead Officer advised that he was not aware of any intended encroachment, and it was a matter between the two parties.

-       Referring to the guttering that was hanging over the neighbour’s land, a Member queried whether it was acceptable that the drainage coming off the roof of the applicant’s property should be going into the neighbour’s property.  The Development Management Lead Officer explained that the applicant had advised that the new external wall was set to enable the guttering to hang over the applicant’s land.

-       A discussion ensued regarding the height of the extension, with the Planning Officer advising Members that it was slightly higher than the neighbours’ extension. 

Following a query regarding permitted development, the Deputy Development Manager explained that in consideration of a rear extension on a semi-detached dwelling, an extension up to 3 metres from the rear wall of the dwelling with a height restriction of 4 metres was allowed for it to be classed as permitted development. Members were further advised that the height of the new extension was within the height limit, however the distance from the rear wall was greater than 3 metres.

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

-       Following a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

The Delegated Decisions were noted.

The programmed date for the next Meeting of this Committee will be confirmed at the AGM to be held on 21 May 2025.