Transcript

On my right, I've got, on my right, that's about right there, the Legal Advisor of Democratic Services, and to my left I've got Russell and the Planning Officer's Team. This meeting will be webcast, so please speak clearly to the microphone after pressing the button to switch it on. Can I request that mobile devices are switched off? I want it silent for the duration of the meeting, please. Toilets, exits on the rear corners there, and there's some refreshments. In the event of the alarm being activated, please evacuate the building through the nearest exit at the back of the Council Chamber and follow the exit signs. The assembly point is in the fountain at the front of the, in front of the fountain. The Guild all is adjacent to Costa Coffee. If you require any assistance in vacating the building, please inform officers and we can assist you. Could I please ensure that any members of the public observing the meeting have signed in, and ask that when you leave, could you please sign out? This is to ensure that in the event of an emergency, we are a register of all those present as a matter of health and safety. Thank you. We'll move on to the meeting. Item 1, apologies for absence. Thank you, Chairman. We've received apologies from Councillor Bowles, with Councillor Bunny attending as substitute, and from Councillor Haig. Thank you. Item 2, public partition patient period. The Chairman, to explain that up to 15 minutes are allowed for the public participation. Participants are restricted to three minutes each. Do we have anybody this evening? No, Chairman, we have no public speakers this evening. Thank you. Item 3, minutes from the meeting held on the 24th of April 2024. Can I please have a proposer from the floor? Councillor Bailey, thank you. And the seconder, Councillor Fleetwood. Thank you. All those in favour? That's unanimous, thank you. Item 4, declarations of interest. Members make any declarations of interest at this point, but may also make them at any time during the course of the meeting. Do we have anyone wishing to make any declarations at this moment in time? Councillor Bunny. Excuse my ignorance, but have we not got something in from West Lindsay, so do we as members have to declare an interest in that? I can pop that in the minutes, Councillor Bunny. Thank you. Steven, it's not a West Lindsay application. That's fine, thank you. Councillor Bunny, Dobby, sorry. I get my hair cut at Debra's, so I don't know if I have to declare an interest. No comment. Thank you. Okay, so we move on to the first item tonight, and the item is item number 147639, land off Northumberland Avenue and Westmoreland Avenue, Scampton. Sorry, I missed that one. Sorry, I do apologise. We'll skip to item 5, update on government and local changes in planning policy. Yeah, thank you, Chairman. Only a short one today, which is that the scope for agricultural buildings to be converted to residential development without requiring planning permission, what's known as a Class Q development. It was expanded yesterday, that was Tuesday 21st of May, and it is now that agricultural buildings are permitted to convert for up to 10 dwellings, which was previously five, or up to 1,000 square metres, whichever the larger, and also have a single storey rear extension. Previously, they couldn't undertake any extensions. However, the government has abandoned plans to allow this within protected areas such as the Lincolnshire Wolds AOMB. We still need planning permission to convert an agricultural building within the Wolds, but for the rest of the district, you can convert up to 10 dwellings without requiring full planning permission, one agricultural building up to 10 dwellings without requiring planning permission. And that's everything. Thank you, Chairman. Can I just question that, in that we presume there might be an election coming up, and I assume that the statement you've just made will be set in stone from the previous government, and it will not be altering with regard to any new government. That's correct, it was in a order which came into force yesterday, so it is now government legislation. They consulted on this last summer, they released it, fairly short notice actually, that's now came into force, so unless a new government took the view to rescind that legislation, that is now in force and part of planning law. I'll just ask the question just for clarity, just in case people are watching online. Thank you, Councillor Fleetwood. Okay, we move on. Item 6, applications for determination. First one tonight is 147639, land off North London Avenue and Westmoreland Avenue, Scampton. Thank you, Chair. So this application is an outline application for the erection of nine dwellings. All matters are reserved with the exception of access, which is not reserved for subsequent consideration. So next couple of slides just outline the location, so it's located within the south, so the red circle there is the southwest of RAF Scampton, so not the old village, it's the RAF village there. This second slide just shows the red line boundary of where the site is, so it's located in a small area of modified grassland at the junction of Northumberland and Westmoreland Avenues. And again, just a satellite view, just showing the location. So this site plan is an indicative site plan with the only exception is the access point, so you can see going down the side of a number of houses, that would be where the accesses to the dwellings would be achieved from. That cannot change unless the applicant applies for it. The layout, however, is indicative. And this is just some site photos. So this is looking from the west, or looking west towards the site. And looking towards a row of dwellings with the trees to the southeast. Again, to the northwest with a row of dwellings on the adjacent side of Northumberland Road. This is the far southeastern corner of the application site looking to the north and northwest. And that's all the slides. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Tonight we have three speakers. The first one is Chris Boutil of the parish council. To say you are now five minutes, you will now step up and take your seat. Good evening. Chris Boutil, Chairman of the Scampton Parish Council. Scampton Parish Council object to this planning request for the following reasons. The proposed development is at odds with the West Lindsay District Council plan to treat the site as a whole and not allow fragmented, disjointed and uncoordinated development. The proposed development is at odds with the West Lindsay District Council sponsored study undertaken by open plan which placed the preservation of existing green spaces at the core of its recommendations. As yet, the exact nature of the design of the houses has not been submitted. However, given the size of the site, it is expected that beyond the two proposed attached houses, the design of the proposed houses would not support mixed housing style development. Policy S1 of the CLLP states that development should provide a mix of housing types that will secure balanced communities. Policy S4 restricts the number of dwellings in a development or unallocated land in order to avoid overdevelopment in small communities and protect existing infrastructure. The purpose of policy S45 is to restrict development from commencing or in certain cases from being permitted in absence of proven infrastructure capability or accepted mitigation. There is insufficient infrastructure including access roads on Scampton Estate to support existing accommodation. Access to the proposed development would have to be via non-adopted management company owned roads. There is a single point of entrance to the estate which would be unable to support, is unable to support the existing levels of traffic. Policy S45 states that planning permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is or will be sufficient infrastructure capacity to support and meet all the necessary requirements arising from the proposed development. Policy S75 states that an adequate amount of range of infrastructure to support the community on the site to be delivered in tandem with or ahead of development. The local plan also directs growth in housing supply to the locations best suited and most attractive to the market, whilst ensuring that there are no locations that are overburdened. With the closure of RAF Scampton more than 60 service family accommodation have been refurbished for sale and are now on the open market. The majority of these houses are currently empty and more ex-military quarters will be released from the MOD for sale. The proximity of this SFA to the service person's location of employment negated the requirement for use of vehicles to commute to work. Additionally, the majority of medical care was undertaken by the RAF. Occupation of these houses by up to 60 new families will inevitably increase the pressure on the existing infrastructure. The Home Office plan to accommodate 800 plus asylum seekers on the Scampton site through the use of a special development order will place additional burden on the existing infrastructure and only serve to exacerbate the situation. Policy S50 states that all development proposals should recognise that community facilities are an integral component in achieving and maintaining sustainable, well-integrated and inclusive development. With the recent closure of the local shop, the Scampton estate now has no community facilities. This proposal represents overdevelopment of a small area without consideration for the current residents. The increased pressure on the existing infrastructure and the current asylum seeker situation. However, Scampton Parish Council would consider this application, if appropriate infrastructure development was made a requirement of any planning permission. Thank you. Our next speaker is JD Jackson. Again, you have five minutes. Good evening. At the time of writing, 46 objections to this proposed development have been submitted online by the local residents of RAF Scampton, of which I am one. I won't rehash the points that the gentleman speaking before me has already spoken on, but I will expand on a few of these if I can. So the objections include but are not limited to the following points. The makeup of existing homes on the estate is two to three bedroom semi-detached and terraced dwellings with on-road parking and a limited number of shared parking areas. While the proposed new developments are comprised of three to four bedroom detached and semi-detached homes with private driveways and garages. These proposed dwellings do not meet the current aesthetic of the estate, especially this particular area of it. And it comes as quite a surprise that this is currently being discussed as a proposed development when applications of this kind have been rejected previously based on the reason that they do not fit the makeup of the estate at present. In short, the proposed development would appear as an incongruous eyesore by virtue of its design, layout and external appearance, particularly due to its prominent siting on the estate. The A15 has already been mentioned. Obviously, this is an area of significant concern for existing occupants. It isn't able to support the existing level of occupation on the site and with the Annington homes that have recently been refurbished, we are expecting a significant influx of new residents, which will add to the burden already on an overburdened, over congested 50 mile an hour highway. The gentleman before me has already mentioned policy S75 of paragraph D of the central Lincolnshire local plan that states that an adequate amount of range in infrastructure to support the community on sites to be developed in tandem or ahead of the development. To date, I've seen no acceptable solution proposed or implemented to ease congestion at the single point of entry onto the A15. Nor do I see any mention of investment in aged infrastructure such as drains, roads, lightings, pipes and communications, or any contributions to provided services such as GPs and schools, all of which will be directly impacted by this proposal. Not only this, but the roads on the estate, particularly the access site to the proposed development, which is a vital through road for many people living on County Way, are narrow and badly maintained as it is, with numerous deep potholes requiring patching throughout the year. Adding construction traffic to these roads would cause an escalation and deterioration of the roads, which regularly takes months and many, many residents' complaints to get fixed. On another point, William Farr School and the local medical practices are already oversubscribed. I would point out again that this is without the expected influx of new residents in the former Allington properties. A percentage of whom will require school places, a school that is already full, and all of whom will require a place at a GP surgery, which is already struggling. Adding any additional homes and residents would further exacerbate this issue. Not only this, but with no local amenities, the closest shop, post office, and cash point is 3.7 miles away and is inaccessible without a vehicle. A poor limited bus service. We are becoming a community who, without vehicle, cannot access basic necessities. To this point, the proposal represents overdevelopment of a small area with no consideration for the current residents that already ignored needs and allowed objections to yet another highly valued green space. With the refurbishment of the 63 homes at former Arias-Scampton, there are already plenty of properties within the area and there is no further need for development of such a small area. This sentiment was echoed by members of the council when the Sussex Gardens development was approved on the estate in 2017, with it clearly being stated at the time that there was no need for any more houses up here. Having also read through the ecological impact assessment for this development, I also note that the plan is to fell 19 out of 30 mature trees on the site. Two of these trees earmarked with felling were found to have bat roosting features present. As I'm sure you're aware, bats are a protected species, as are badgers and evidence of these were also found within the boundaries of the site. I have also been made aware of a breeding pair of red kites nesting in one of those 19 trees, as I'm sure you're also aware, the red kite is listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981. While the proposal does include replacement trees, which, due to their immaturity, would be unsuitable for bird and bat roosting for a considerable number of years, and hedgerows are also proposed with the new housing, these would be placed in the confine of the private properties and could be removed at will by prospective owners, furthering irreversible habitat destruction unless a covenant is placed upon these homes. Another major concern is the sewage drainage on the estate. The decades-old vacuum pump system, which flushes into Welton's waste as it fills, is in desperate need of repair or replacement and is barely able to cope with current occupation levels with manholes regularly backing up into people's back gardens. As such, we have sewer shankers on site on a regular basis for days at a time draining and pumping waste. Can I ask you to call it a day, please? Yes, certainly. Can I just finish off this point? You can, yes, as well, please. Putting additional properties on the estate, again with the imminent arrival of 100-plus new neighbours, would put severe strain on the pumping system and could lead to complete failure of our sewage system. Thank you. Thank you. Our final speaker tonight is Councillor Paterson, who is a ward member for Scampton. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I won't keep this long. I think most of what I wanted to say has already been said eloquently by two previous speakers. My objection to this proposal is simply no evidence that it is needed on the site and with 63 houses come back online from the MOD, there is no need for any more additional housing that will place a burden on the estate. The roads around there, I mean, you'll see the drawing of the roads. If you actually see the roads, they're potholed, they're all over the place, and we have soakaways. And quite often, I know you hear it all the time, but it's absolutely true here, quite a lot of our roads flood all the time. The soakaways cannot cope with what we've got around there. We do not need any more of these houses. Also, these houses are not in keeping with the rest of the estate. The estate is a mixture of terraced housing and semi-detached, apart from the single housing, the detached housing, which is the old officer's quarters on the entrance in the A15. What I'm seeing here is some detached houses, garages, it's completely out of keeping with the rest of the site, the whole site. The other thing that concerns me is we have four maintenance companies out there, Annington's, Countyway, the MOD, and there's a private people at the front in the old officer's quarters that maintain their own areas. I see no proposals here for anything to join any of the management companies and contribute financially to the maintenance of the facilities and the roads here, which means that everybody else would have to pick up the burden for looking after this. As it's already been stated, we have no facilities out there. We've gradually lost everything. We have a bus service, it's a couple of hours. Every couple of hours, if you want to go to the doctors, we have Call Connect. But again, getting Call Connect is a bit of a lottery. If you can't get Call Connect and you can't drive, you have to go to Lincoln. So it's a four bus journey, about two and a half hour round trip to go to the doctors if you can't drive. The whole estate has just completely been devastated by the closure of RAS Scampton and we get to see any benefits from it. And this additional housing will make it worse. So I'm asking people tonight to do the right thing. We have new housing coming on, we have 63 new, well, refurbished houses for 63 families to come on site. We cannot cope with any more. Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councillor. Dan, any comments from the officers? Yeah, thanks, Chair. I think there's been a number of points raised. So if I've missed anything, Russ can let Russ cover me or you can pick it up as a subsequent question. I think just I'll try and start with some principal matters and then respond to some of the points raised. So just on the numbers of new housing, so I know the West Lindsay local plan was referenced at one point. The current local plan we're referring to is the 2023 version of the central Lincolnshire local plan, which is based on a settlement hierarchy which lists settlements within tiers. So RAF Scampton is designated as a medium village. So the housing requirements or the principal housing requirements for new development fall to policy S4 of the central Lincolnshire local plan, which states that on development sites within developed footprint in an appropriate location, which the definitions are outlined in my report, state that development that meets both of those definitions is acceptable for up to ten dwellings. On the site which is not allocated explicitly for housing in the central Lincolnshire local plan. I can explain anything if people have subsequent questions on that. On the points of, it's a green space, although it is a site of what we can, I guess, manage grass verge or modified grassland, it's not allocated. So the policies map within the local plan specifically allocates both local green space and important open space. This site does not have any statutory or non statutory designations with respect to any of the sort of common, the landscape heritage or cultural, I guess, planning constraints that we would expect to see here. There's been some comments on the housing mix. I think, as I stated in my initial presentation, the layout that you can see on the screen before you is currently indicative. The only, so if the applicant gets permission, if the committee resolves to grant plan permission for this, they would have to subsequently come back for matters of landscaping, layout, appearance and scale. So we currently do not have any details on what the number of bedrooms could be or whether this will actually be the housing mix. Although there is some staggered accesses, so it might give you an indication as to where the houses would fall, but the scale of those is currently not known and neither is the number of bedrooms. I think access, I think highways has been mentioned. I think the highway authority hasn't objected to the proposed development on particularly, they've explicitly mentioned the A15. I think my report aims to sort of address the impacts within the estate considering, or relatively speaking, the cumulative impact was determined to be relatively minimal. And I think just a final couple of points, and again, if I've missed anything, it can be picked up on. So I'm trying to think of appropriate names. So reference to empty houses, I think, again, the aim of all references to new housing, the aim of policy S4 is to set out what acceptable levels of growth are within a village or a settlement, depending on which tier it falls within policy S1. And I think final point would be to do with any references were made to impacts on the environment. I think the applicant is proposing a 10% net gain. I think it's 11% actually on site. The ecological impact assessment was undertaken by a chartered ecologist, and there are a number of recommendations in that report, which we have conditioned as part of the approval. The final landscaping is also a condition. And any impacts on protected species, there are recommendations for those. And the Wildlife and Countryside Act is an independent legal piece of legislation that stands alone. So the applicant would have to comply with those provisions to not impact protected species, regardless of whether permission is granted tonight. Okay, over to members. Councillor Fleetwood. Good evening. I have some difficulties with this application. Whilst the people have been speaking, I've had a quick look on Rightmove, and I've identified 16 properties alongside which are currently up for sale. Okay, it's alluded to within the report that there are 60 refurbished houses or whatever. I don't know which is the right number. I've just done a quick survey of what I can see within Rightmove. I'm not quite familiar. I know West Lindsay exceedingly well, but I'll be honest and say I don't go to the back end of Scampton site, Westmoreland Avenue and North Amberland Avenue on a regular basis. I have been onto the camp, but I don't know the area particularly well. I hear that the access is going to be through the old part of Scampton, and I do have some concerns because we don't know what the full outcome of Scampton will be and where the vehicle movements might be for what other development might be going on in that area. But it's been alluded to that some of these roads, I don't know if they are formally adopted to highway standards and are part of the highway network or if they're run by the management company because it's alluded to that they are in a poor state of repair. Well, obviously, when you start moving construction traffic across these roads, there's only one way they're going to go, and that's going to be a worse state of repair. So I have concerns there. And the suggestion is that with the proposal, with access to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications, whilst we do talk in terms of a little bit of ecology, et cetera, attached to the report, there's a whole lot more detail to come in the secondary application. This is only outlined, so there is a full permission to come at a later date. So regardless of where we go tonight, I'd like to see this application. If this is granted, come back to committee so that we can view it fully. However, with all these doubts in my mind, you know where I'm going to go. I think we should go with a site visit because there's just too many variables attached to this. We need to go and ascertain where it is exactly, and I'm sure I've been on the planning committee a couple of years or so, but I'm sure that a lot of members won't have been to the back end of Scampton. I've been to various parts of the Scampton site. I've been to the heritage centre. I even went to the swimming pool when it was open before the roof caved in a few years ago. So I've been to all sorts of parts of Scampton. I've not been to see the local member at home. I don't quite know where he lives, but I think he's somewhere in that vicinity, but I think that we should go on a site visit. Councillor Bailey. Thank you, Chair. Just for clarification, with policy S1, when you made reference to it being a medium-sized village, does that take into account the 60 refurbed houses as they would presumably have been derelict before that? So would they have been classed within that amount? That's my first question. Yes, so policy S1, so the size of a settlement, at least with respect to villages, is based on the number of houses that existed as of 2018. I think it's the 1st of April 2018. So I think a medium village, I think it's over 250 houses, I think, in a settlement between 250 and 750. So it would have taken into account, unless those houses were built within the last five years or six years, then that figure would have taken into account the 60 houses that have been refurbished, because I'm guessing they would have already existed in some form. Okay, thank you for that clarification. And the other thing that I was concerned about is that I know highways have got no issue, because presumably it's all private, and you've mentioned the cumulative impact of the traffic. My concern is that have they then considered the impact onto the public highway, with those 60 properties being occupied as well as these? Because getting in and out of that onto the A15 is difficult enough sometimes, let alone going through the back village. Would you know that? Obviously, again, I always preface this saying I'm not a highway engineer, but I think when we assess planning applications, I think as much as is like current, so you've got current vehicle movements onto a road, they would have to take into account theoretical movements. So those houses are there, so there is a, I guess you could say there is a theoretical number of cars that are attached to an existing dwelling. So they would look at the whole, they would look at the development with respect to the entire village, not just nine new dwellings, if that. I think, so in the report they've explicitly stated that the access onto the A15 is not considered to be unacceptable, cumulatively speaking. My presumption would be that they would include all dwellings that currently exist, whether occupied or not, in that consideration. Councillor Dobby. Chairman, I think I should come back and say that you moved on from my comments. I did propose a site visit, but more specifically, I did make points with regard to the ownership of the roads, whether they're within the management company, and I got no response from the points I made. You just drifted off to other people, and I really think that some of the points I made should have had a response. Okay, can we not, so your point is made? Yes, sorry about that. I think, I think just with regard to the, so obviously with the private road, we have to consider whether there is acceptable. So development can only be refused on highways grounds where the impact on highway safety is unacceptable, or where the cumulative impact is severe. So those are the two kind of criteria that we're going with, and my report kind of outlines why we considered the access to the site to be acceptable. I think with regard to construction traffic, there is a presumption that that would, obviously you need to gain access to the site to build the houses, but I think the point that I would kind of fall back on is, even with construction traffic, the relative number of movements from nine dwellings, cumulatively speaking, is marginal when there's, I don't know how many hundreds of houses within the whole estate, and I think the scale of the development is defined by policy S4. If I can come back, the Northumberland Avenue, Westmoreland Avenue, are they part of the adopted highway network, or are they in the ownership of the management company, is there a ransom strip even that we might preclude any development or anything at that point, because yes, you might want to give somebody a permission at this location, but if they can't get to it to build it, because they've got to go over somebody else's ground, it would become a difficulty. So I think the key thing, I guess, with any site is that, so my or our role within planning is to consider whether a proposal is an acceptable use of land. If, say, a site has a legal covenant on it, that may create its own restriction, but in itself our role as planning officers is to consider whether a proposal complies with the policies in the development plan, unless there are specific material planning considerations which indicate otherwise. Now my understanding is that the main road, so off the A15, is not an adopted highway, so we have to consider whether this proposal has an unacceptable impact on the highway safety, or whether there is a cumulative impact which indicates that planning permission should not, that is severe, which should indicate that planning permission is not granted, and that is what my assessment is based on within the report. So if the roads are not adopted highway, that implies that they are in the ownership or the management of some other organisation, and I assume at some stage somebody has served the appropriate certificate, certificate B, onto the people, with regard to access egress across this land to gain access to this location. So I think, I'm just going to have a look, I'm just going to pull open the application form, I think there's obviously two things there, there's the ownership of the actual grass, like the verge itself, and then there's the actual highway, I think, because you could own the actual, you could own the red line boundary, but you may not own the highway, so to speak. So within the application form, so it talks about, I think it's certificate A they've served, so that would indicate that they have certified that they own the land, but I believe that's with regard to the actual building of the actual site itself. As I say, the role of planning is to determine the matters with respect to the highways, the matters that I have just, or that are outlined in the report. I don't know if Russell wants to add to that at all. If I can just come back on that, we have a plan on the report which shows a red line around including the trees, and if I look at it, and it's not that plan, but it illustrates that the footway along the side of the site is included within the red line, yet if I go along to the photograph with a wavy line around it, that illustrates a different area, so I presume we're working to the plan and not the photograph. What I would advise on that is the application before shows the red line which is on there, and they have signed certificate A to say that they are the owner of the land. Now what I would say is that shouldn't prevent the committee making a resolution tonight because you are considering the land use of the site. Nonetheless, what we can do is just simply clarify with the applicant that they have served the correct certificate, with no reason not to, it's a formal certificate, they've signed the data that say they own all the land within the red boundary, but in the event the committee resolves one way or another a decision, that is something we can always clarify. If it was the case that was needed, it would delay making a decision because they do quite correctly. As you know, Councillor Fleetwood need to require server notice, but at this point, they have signed certificate A. They're saying it's all land within their area. It's that land within the red, blue also shows land within their ownership, it's all within the red. So that's the application side. But as I say, whatever the committee resolution is, we would always seek and clarify that and just make sure that the correct certificate is signed. Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, I agree with what Mr Clarkson's saying, the land ownership does not prevent determination by the committee tonight. Obviously, you've heard your officers are going to seek to clarify just that the correct certificate has been signed. In the event that it hasn't, then the legal requirements are that the applicant reserves the correct certificate, notifies the owners of the land that was originally included in the red line, and then we would have to wait 21 days just to allow for any objections or further comments to be come in from those people served, and then the officers would be free to issue decision if that's where committee went tonight. So it's not a barrier to the committee making determination tonight. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Councillor Dobie. This district council has had an awful lot of old Air Force sites that have gone and become decommissioned and become part of access for everyone. I'm not aware how long it takes for the roads to become adopted. Obviously, it takes some time for roads to become adopted within these sites, so is that something that the county councillor has to apply for within the county council? Okay, I've got some of you very experienced, nodding his head, shaking his head at the top end. I'm not aware how long it takes for roads to become adopted, but I think that that's something that's been raised, that that would make an improvement of the infrastructure if the roads were adopted by the county council, because another number of sites across the district, old RAF sites, have roads that are adopted by the county council. So obviously, there's been a process that's occurred there. About the green space, I've noticed that the Scampton neighbourhood plan was designated in 19th May 2022, but there's been no further development there. By going and doing a neighbourhood plan within the parish council, they would have had much more ability to point out what were important green spaces. We did that in Gainsborough with our Gainsborough neighbourhood plan, so we're able to help protect our own green spaces within the town. That would be something going forward from this application that might help preserve green space going forward, and so a movement along the Scampton neighbourhood plan would probably help that in the future. It seems to be a mixed development. A lot of the other houses on this site are old RAF spaces. These seem different, so it would be a mix of housing. I've always been one who's been in favour of a mix of housing across areas. Usually, what we're having to do is put in more affordable homes, because there's not enough affordable homes within planning applications, and usually that's where this council pushes to try and get more affordable homes, but these seem to be the other way. These seem to be two- to three-bedroom houses that are being discussed on the Lincoln Fringe that people might want to go and live in rather than in Lincoln. So to me, it doesn't seem wrong that they're a different style of housing to what's on the estate. And with the discussion about a site visit, if we are going to have a site visit, it could be in the afternoon, because I work nights, and if it's in the morning, I'm not going to be able to go, and I'm not going to be able to make a determination on this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. That's been noted. Councillor Smith. Thank you, Chairman. Before I make my points, just to clarify the point that Councillor W raised, it is a nightmare, and I will draw my attention to my own patch in Rookhamby, which is an old RAF base. Those sections of road, believe it or not, are not adopted. They are owned by management companies, but they are maintained at public expense, but they are not adopted. It is on the onus of the landowner to make them adoptable standard before they are adopted by Lincolnshire County Council. Lincolnshire County Council will not make them adoptable standard at the public expense. So you are talking a legal and legislative minefield, and it can take a long time. And in some instances, like in Rookhamby, Chairman, it doesn't happen. An arrangement is made where the roads are maintained at public expense, but they are not to adoptable standard, because the planning legislation, which governs us in the United Kingdom, enables base roads, be they Army, Navy or Air Force, to be developed to a standard that is not deemed acceptable for civilian highways. Why this is, I do not know, Chairman. I can't tell you why that is. I don't have a crystal ball, but that is where we are at the moment, which then causes a problem when you get decommissioned bases such as RAF Scampton. Although it is not specifically an interest in the most conventional sense, Chairman, I will declare, in the interest of transparency, I used to, many, many moons ago, live on the base, as my late father served in his hermitages at the time, Royal Air Force. As Councillor Fleetwood said, I, and I know Scampton fairly well, having lived on it for a number of years, but I can't recall for the life of me that particular part of the site, at least not from the photographs. And I am certainly more than happy to second Councillor Fleetwood's motion for a site visit, but my question, Chairman, is around policy S75, which has been mentioned, and particularly paragraph 2 in the CLLP, which says, The presentation of a master plan with the status of a development plan document, either through a single policy review of this local plan or an area action plan, will be required prior to a planning application being submitted. Major development proposals on this site, not detailed in a master plan, or any proposals that will result in a conflict between uses, safety concerns in connection with the ongoing use of the site or the airspace, or which delivers substandard development, will not be supported. Now, how have our economic regeneration team been consulted on this, and are they content that this application does not contrive S75? Because I certainly take Councillor Paterson's point of view, that that base intentionally has a very uniform style of architecture, and whilst I appreciate that is in itself usually a reserve matter, policy S75, because of where we are, is engaged. And I would argue that is not a reserve matter. I would argue that's an issue of principle, because S75 is about development in principle, not conventional means where we would determine that reserve matters, Chairman. So just like officers' clarification of, are they happy that that policy has been satisfied? And if we haven't had comments from our relevant officers, I'd certainly suggest we get them before any determinations made, Chairman, on such an important site. Thank you. Thank you. Dan? Thank you, Chair. Councillor Smith, what I could advise, so S75, so there was an application to the south west, about 200 metres to the south west of this site for 14 dwellings last year, which was refused on a number of grounds. That was a major development, and this policy was engaged. I think the critical distinction that I would want to advise the committee on is the distinction between minor and major development. So an application is considered minor development when it is nine dwellings or less, and is on land under one hectare. The policy S75 explicitly refers to major development. So that would be the, I think, on the previous development, I consulted quite closely with Rachel Hughes, the head of policy and strategy on that matter. With this case, we're considering on the basis of it being a minor development for nine dwellings. I think the primary distinction, I think that also kind of relates to matters to do with the roads and wider infrastructure cases, is if you, so policy S45 was mentioned sort of in tandem with this, which if you, there's sort of the generic opening paragraph, but if you go into the specific provisions there, it talks about health, NHS and affordable housing. That is kind of deliberately worded to reflect the nature that that is aimed, so the wider infrastructure concerns, whilst they're not, I can't say they're irrelevant to the proposal, their primary thrust is towards major development, whereas this proposal is minor development, as kind of the policies have tried to sort of gear towards dealing with. I hope that sort of clarifies something for you. Thank you, Chairman. It does, that was what I was driving at, because it's quite what I would consider exceedingly close to being over the other side, so it was making sure for myself and other members of the committee what this is constituted as, be it minor or major, so that is very helpful. But I still think a site visit is very much needed on this, because if we're assessing the principle of, is this acceptable in terms of the principle of development on that land, that we need to see that in situ, Chairman, not from photographs. Thank you. Councillor Carlos. Thank you, Chair. Reading this report, I was quite interested in the West Lindsay District Council Tree Officer Report, which was very limited, just sort of a single paragraph, with no objections to the trees, which the lady speaker tonight brought up in the conversation, and correct me if I'm wrong, is it 19 trees that we're talking about? So I think that's the indicative figure that is indicated. I think what I would say with regard to, so the primary policies we consider with respect to trees, but also to biodiversity more general, so it's S60, S61, and S66. So S66 does talk, so these trees are not subject to a tree preservation order in themselves, so the applicant in theory could go along and clear every single tree on that site tomorrow, regardless of whether a planning commission is submitted or whether there's an application or not. I think what granting this proposal would do, or what the conditions do, is they give a legal kind of framework under which the applicant has to operate to. But I think generally speaking, there is this presumption that they would have to compensate for this loss in terms of biodiversity net gain. Well, could I come back to you on that then, because I just feel that the descriptive here is very basic, and I feel that it should have been more explanatory of how many trees, what the age of the trees are, and are they still of health that they could be replanted somewhere else? Because I believe that if they're more than five years old, it's likely less that they could be to survive transplanting due to their immunity value. So is their immunity value just nothing? Yes. There is a detailed tree condition survey within the application, which Dan's just checking on now. Well, I would say in terms of trees and in terms of biodiversity in general, is that that has been something which has changed remarkably in the last six months this year, and that is now that we require a biodiversity net gain. So any loss of trees, they have to ultimately compensate. It has an attribute value to that site, and it's a green site with trees on. Post-development, this would be -- well, what requires -- we're looking at over 10 percent, aren't we, in terms of gain? So they've got to achieve 10 percent net gain on site. And they're proposing -- They're saying it's 11.78 percent through condition enhancement, so -- That was something, just for the sake of the microphone. So one of the things, when we received this application, it was below the 10 percent, and the case officer has worked with them to do that. So any loss of trees, they're not protected trees, they're not subject to a tree preservation order, we're not in a conservation area, they're not. Loss of trees, however, and loss of biodiversity is a consideration before you. Ultimately, what they're having to do is show us how to -- not only can they compensate for that, but it results in a 10 percent increase. That's something we've worked with them, we've now got them to 11 percent. So the value which it currently has, post-development they'd be reaching 11 percent on that with new planting. I hope that helps. Yeah, Martha. Thank you. Slightly unrelated point, but just to put it in, whilst members are still debating and considering it, is we've got -- the only proposal on the table currently is the site visit. I'd just draw members' attention to the -- currently the determination date is tomorrow on this application, so obviously that's a consideration for members. It might be that they lose their ability to determine this application if a further extension isn't given. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Councillor Bunny. Thank you, Chair. I heard this issue of infrastructure, and I was quite interested to pick up the situation that the area seems to be served by vacuum sewers, of which I believe, from what we were told, are quite elderly. Now, we are well aware that when you put the application in, there could well be a condition saying to get the water and the foul water off the site, and that I understand. But actually, once it goes into the road system, and we've seen this in other areas as well, and the water doesn't get away, it backs up, and then the sewage comes through into the site, and that to me means that they haven't actually succeeded in their initial system of doing it, because I think quite often what happens is that we're looking at mathematical models when we come up with whether this works or not, and I do hope that some consideration could be made in conjunction with angling water, that those sewer systems, if they are going to be there, and if we do determine to go ahead, are in fact adequate to ensure that sewage is taken off at all times, because as we know, flooded water on the roads goes into those systems, back flows, and it goes back onto the site, through the people's toilets and things, and we should not be accepting that. Thank you, Councillor Bonny. Councillor Bailey, I have you down still. Yes, sorry, that was quite a while ago now, and I was going to second that now. Thank you. Councillor Barrett. Thank you, Chair. It is interesting here, there's been a lot of objections, there's been some very good speakers. We've talked about all sorts of issues, and as you're aware, once the highways authorities say no objections, we seem to be up the creek, or I do anyway, without a paddle, on that one. A lot of the objections are about the views that would be spoilt, but unfortunately you can't buy a view. The thing I'm interested in is the wildlife aspect here, and what's just been mentioned there are a pair of red kites that are nesting there. Now, if that's the case, then by cutting down 19 trees, is that going to affect it? Have we looked at red kites and whether they could be affected, and is that going to affect the actual development? Thank you, Councillor Barrett. I'm just looking through, so the applicant has provided the ecological impact assessment, so they don't consider specific bird species, but they take wild birds as a collective, so it would include red kites, and they are a legally protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and so it's regardless of whether planning permission is granted, it's a criminal offence to deliberately harm such habitat. So I'm trying to find the exact, so I'm trying to find the exact recommendations, but on the, it's either within the recommendations or it's an explicit, so I've conditioned the recommendations on that report, or there's an even, I don't know if there's a separate recommendation or condition in itself, but one of those recommendations is that any site clearance should take place outside of the bird nesting season, so trees is a common habitat for birds, but it's one of those things where the, unless they are previously inspected by a qualified ecologist, they have to be cleared outside of the bird nesting season, which I think is May to September inclusive, I believe. So, and there's also, I think, recommendations with respect in the report to pre-commencement survey. I think, I'm not sure if that's to do with birds, but there's another protected species on that site. I'm just trying to find the relevant, the relevant, here we go. So I found it, so there's paragraph 5.3.10 of the ecological impact assessment. So it says removal of trees during site clearance has the potential to impact upon nesting birds. The following measures should be included within the construction work package. So vegetation removal should be undertaken outside the bird breeding season, which is March to September inclusive. Where this is not possible, then a check for nesting birds should be undertaken by a suitably experienced ecologist prior to any work commencing. If any bird nests are found, then they should be left undisturbed until offspring are fully fledged. If necessary, an exclusion zone suitable for the species should be enforced to minimize disturbance and potential abandonment of nests. And then it goes on to say the operational phase has the potential to impact nesting bird species during semi-natural, its impact of semi-natural habitat. And so it talks about, to avoid that there should be management of semi-natural habitats within the site should only occur outside the bird nesting season. So, and there are conditions in my decision, in the decision that is to address those points in tandem. If I can come back to you. Yeah, I'm not sure whether, and it was mentioned actually by the Speaker, that there is a special case for red kites. And it's something I think you might want to look at, and that's why I support a site visit as well. Thank you, Chairman. Members, this is where we have to be careful that we don't overstep into other legislation and overstep the remit of the Planning Committee. There are wildlife protection acts, and regardless of any planning permission granted, and what those conditions or that permission allows or does not allow, that does not override any legislative restrictions in other acts. So regardless of conditions, for instance, saying that you cannot clear during bird nesting season, et cetera, the legislative provisions of other acts do apply. They cannot be overridden. It would be a fence to say, well, I've got planning permission, so I'm doing it, that does not override that. And the MPPF does direct that members must assume that those other legislative provisions will be adhered to and work. So yes, obviously, concern is noted in terms of protected species, but they are dealt with under other legislative provisions. And that obviously is backed up by your office's proposed conditions, which have obviously been shaped by the ecological assessment also. But yes, in terms of whether we need to give any further consideration to red kites, that would be beyond the remit of the Planning Committee. Councillor Barrett, thank you. We're just looking through the ecological impact assessment, and in terms of that, when you visit the site, the only nesting they found was of an inactive wood pigeon nest in the canopy of tree 26. So the ecologists haven't found red kites nesting on the site, on the evidence before. Obviously, we've heard a third party's comments today, but they've only found wood pigeon nests. I hope that clarifies. Thank you. Thank you, Russell. Councillor Fleetwood, anything to add? In the last few days, I've had a similar issue in my ward with regard to somebody removing hedging. And I've tried to talk to enforcement at West Lindsay and others with regard to what might or might not happen with regard to hedging and tree removal. It isn't something, these are not protected trees. The developer can go in and scratch them out at any stage. But of course, if he does it within bird nesting season, that becomes an issue. And the people that would enforce against that is going to be the police. It's not the council. And so that's the important thing with regard to all of that. Just as a secondary issue, I've just spent a couple of minutes looking at Google Maps. And I've been looking at Google Photos. And I've been wandering up and down the A15. And guess what? Scampton and all the roads attached to Scampton aren't recognised by Google. Now, I'm not suggesting Google are the benchmark of where adopted highways are or not. But if you try and go off any of the left accesses as you go up the A15, you cannot use Google Maps or Google Photographs to go up and down any of those streets. And that really brings me down to the fact that I really, really think we should do a site visit. So I'm going to propose now that you move the vote. And whatever is offered, if there's going to be an alternate proposal, let's have it on the table. But I think that we do need to get on and make some decisions. Quickly, yeah. Thank you, Chairman. I was just saying to Councillor Morris, this is the second time we've had an application come before us. And then tomorrow we have a deadline date. Now, I know how -- and Russell know, but I know how hard you all work and how much pressure you're under. But that really isn't conducive to things like this when we then have a site visit because, as Martha has rightly said, there is a risk. They can apply for non-determination tomorrow and go, well, I've had enough. I'm taking the ball and not playing the game. So if we can avoid this, we really need to because this puts a lot of difficulty on us as planning committee members and almost backs us into a corner. Only in terms of that, I understand your comments, Councillor Smith. Application like this would not determine it within the statutory eight-week period. That's all we get from nine houses. We've had to work with them a lot on things like biodiversity net gain and various clarifications of information. So it's very often when we're agreeing, it's essentially time with them. It will be to cover up to a meeting. It's not easy to get an allowance to go future meeting should you delay it. Having said that, there is a risk to the committee that they do have a right of non-determination. That would be their right to do so. What I would just say to the wider room and to the developer for listening is that your next meeting is in three weeks. The average time for an appeal at the moment is 32 weeks. So that's their choice. But I suspect you will get to a decision quicker than any planning inspector would. So it's not take away their right. There is a risk there. But, you know, obviously it sounds like the committee will vote shortly. But a few of you have raised the issue of wanting to visit the site for yourself. With that risk in mind, you know, that would be for them. But I would hope it wouldn't prevent you from making a decision tonight. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Can I just say thank you to all members of the committee because you've absolutely gone through it, left, right and centre. You've covered everything. And the outcome, I think, is pretty obvious. So we have a proposal from Councillor Fleetwood for a site visit, seconded by Councillor Smith. Do we need to know the reasons why, specific reasons, Martha, or is it - can you? Councillor Fleetwood summarised them when giving the proposal. I have no concerns with what he said at the time, Chair. Thank you. So can I have a show of hands, please? All those in favour of the site visit? That's unanimous. No, Councillor. Oh, sorry. I'm abstaining because I don't have to make it if it's important. That's what I'm saying. Thank you. So that's passed. Thank you very much. And now we move on to the second agenda item tonight, which is Agenda Item 148059, 16 Silver Street, Gainsborough. Thank you, Chair. There are no updates on this application, so we can go straight to the presentation. Councillor Dolby. I have just actually thought about this application. As well as me going and pointing out, I've got my hair cut. It was previously the office for the Liberal Democrats during the last general election. Not general election, last district elections. So I don't know if that has a valid reason for me to be able to make an impact on this. Because it's where we had our printing facility that printed all our leaflets that we put out across the whole district. So I really don't know if I can determine in this. No, Councillor Dolby, unless you particularly feel that it influences your decision. But yes, in terms to members more widely, I've got no concerns with the members determining the application. Regardless of its association with previous headquarters. It's only if you personally feel that you are unable to approach it open minded. Could you now please state for the record that you are open minded or make a declaration? I appreciate it puts you in a position. But given that you've asked the question and said, OK, I'm now not exactly sure where you lie. Well, I have had my hair cut there and it was used as the office. So I think I am probably a little bit more pro having support in the application. And again, so I do not think that I'm open minded. So I'd want to abstain on the on the application. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. OK, can we move on to you, Danielle? Thank you. And existing floor plans. And then proposed elevations. So there's no changes on Silver Street and the ship core elevation. There is a single roof light and the widening of one of the access doors. And this application, although it is a departure from S49, it does include two car parking spaces, but it is technically still a departure. So floor plan. So it's to convert it into three flats. So flat one is on the ground. No, the first floor. Flat two is on the second floor and then flat three goes over the second and third floors. And that's it. Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Any comments? Councillor Fleetwood. This is town centre. This is living above the shop, which is supported by all sorts of policy. Yes, it's a listed building, but there's an awful lot of rejuvenation going on in this vicinity. And it will be good to see properties being brought back and reused. I don't know what's currently in those upper floors, but I'd guess that there's a fair amount of pigeons or something similar and not much else. Well, there might be other things that pigeons leave, but I'm not going there. But otherwise, I think it's a good idea and I'm going to propose the recommendation that we grant permission to Councillor Fleetwood. While I've got the chair, I will second it. Sorry, Councillor Barrett. Councillor Bunny. Thank you, Chair. I would have seconded it as well, but I actually echo the points that Councillor Fleetwood are making. We all know that the centres of our towns are in some sort of trouble from personal experience in areas other than Gainsborough. The upstairs floors and that sort of thing can make a big difference if they're done up for the whole shop building. And therefore, I think that anything we can do or can support to encourage the development should be undertaken because it only enhances the area. It doesn't do anything negative. Councillor Morris. Thank you. Just clarification, really. It says on here at the top of page 36, the removal of four roof lights and a plan to show car parking spaces. What's all that about? Can you explain to me? I'll tell you why I asked the question. I spent two hours in a meeting in case last week said people building flats in the shop know where things park. That's simple as that. I'd just like clarification on that, please. Sorry. Thank you. So this makes reference to the amended plans we received. So the initial plans had four additional roof lights on the ship core elevations. The amended plans have taken those off and then we got made aware that there was actually two car parking spaces associated with the site. Councillor Barrett. You're so kind, Chairman. Thank you very much. Can we go back to that photograph of the barbers as it is now? Now, I mean, just look at that. And we're talking about regeneration of Gainsborough. This has got to be 100 percent better, even if he goes to the barbers shopping question. Yeah, I think it's terrific, is this? And the problem is with the town centre, you can't get the car parking spaces, so we've got to have a look at it and we've got to bring it here. But this is a great asset to Gainsborough. OK, with that in mind, we have a proposal and a seconder. All those in favour? Thank you very much. We move on to the last item of the day, which is the determination of planning appeals. Thank you, Chair. The report is just a note. On that note, we close the meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you chair.

Transcript