Agenda and minutes

The Chief Executive reported that under the Local Government (Committee and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, he had appointed Councillor R A Renshaw to the Committee, in place of Councillor C Morgan, for this meeting only.

(Councillors are reminded that there is no need to declare an

Interest if it has already been recorded on the register of

disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or notified to the Monitoring

Officer in accordance with the regulations. However, Councillors

declaring interests must state what the DPI is and accordingly not

speak or vote on the item)

It was noted that the following members of the Committee had not attended the site visit on 1 October 2014 (minute 68):- Councillors M S Jones, D C Morgan (Note: Was a member of the Committee at the time of the site visit), N H Pepper and W S Webb and would not take part in the discussion or voting thereon.

Councillor I G Fleetwood requested that a note should be made in the minutes that he had been lobbied by the public on the application and would let the Vice-Chairman, Councillor D McNally, chair the meeting at this stage but would continue to take part in the debate and voting thereon as the adjoining local Member (minute 68).

Councillor D Brailsford requested that a note should be made in the minutes that he had been lobbied by the public (minute 63).

Councillor W S Webb requested that a note should be made in the minutes that he had been lobbied by the public and that in his former capacity as the Executive Councillor for Highways and Transport he had a lot of background knowledge of the scheme (minute 63).

Councillor T M Trollope-Bellew requested that a note should be made in the minutes that he had been lobbied by the public (minute 63).

Councillor R A Renshaw requested that a note should be made in the minutes that he was the adjoining Division Member (minute 68).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee held on 8 September 2014 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the site visit to Hawthorn Road, Lincoln in connection with planning application No's L/0110/13 and W42/131879/14 on 1 October 2014, be noted.

The Committee received a report in connection with proposals to extend the No Waiting At Any Time on Station Road, Grantham in order to maintain road safety and access for service vehicles.

The objections and comments of officers on the objections were detailed in the report.

Councillor D C Morgan, the local Member, commented as follows:-

1. Wished to speak on behalf of local residents and businesses.

2. Station Road East was not a through road which led to the Railway Station.

3. The use of Station Road East as a through road to the Railway Station was discouraged by Network Rail.

4. The area was surrounded by Victorian housing.

5. The area was used for over flow parking.

6. There was a private owned car park nearby but the cost of parking there was expensive and people could not afford to use it.

7. There was a local Church and the prevention of on-street parking could affect attendances.

Comments made by the Committee included the effects of the high cost of parking and on local people and businesses.

Officers responded to the comments made by the Committee as follows:-

1. The local Church was unaffected by the proposals.

2. South Kesteven District Council proposed to examine residents' parking arrangements once the residents' parking had been addressed in Stamford.

3. Only one objection had been received from the public.

4. With the removal of the barrier on Station Road East this had provided a "rat run" for motorists.

On a motion by Councillor I G Fleetwood, seconded by Councillor D Brailsford, it was -

RESOLVED (11 votes for, 3 votes against and 1 abstention)

That the the objections be overruled and that the order be confirmed as proposed at consultation.

The Committee received a report in connection with objections received to the proposed zebra crossing on Dysart Road, Grantham.

The objections and the comments of officers on the objections were detailed in the report.

On a motion by Councillor I G Fleetwood, seconded by Councillor D McNally, it was -

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the objections be overruled and that the order be confirmed as proposed at consultation.

The Committee received a report in connection with an objection to the proposed introduction of additional waiting restrictions and school Keep Clear Clearaway.

The objection and comments of the officers on the objection were detailed in the report.

Councillor D C Morgan, the local Member, commented as follows:-

1. Supported the proposals.

2. Noted that the school was now able to re-arrange the time of Mass and therefore this was no longer an issue.

3. Irresponsible parking in the vicinity by students attending nearby educational establishments caused parking problems for parents of children attending the school and access for emergency vehicles.

On a motion by Councillor W S Webb, seconded by Councillor N H Pepper, it was -

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the objections be overruled and that the order be confirmed as proposed at consultation.

The Committee received a report in connection with objections received to a proposal to introduce limited waiting restrictions on Wyberton Road, Boston.

The objections and comments of officers on the objections received were detailed in the report.

Comments sent in by email from the local Member, Councillor A M Austin, were read to the meeting in support of the officer recommendation.

On a motion by Councillor R A Renshaw, seconded by Councillor C L Strange, it was -

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the objections be overruled and that the order be confirmed as proposed at consultation.

The Committee received a report in connection with responses received following the formal consultation and advertising stage on proposals by South Kesteven District Council to introduce a Permit Parking Scheme in parts of Stamford.

The objections and comments of officers on the objections received were detailed in the report.

Officers stated that since the publication of the report both South Kesteven District Council and the County Council had been threatened with a judicial review. Officers stated that South Kesteven District Council considered that they were able to defend the proposals against any judicial review. The two complaints did not apply to the County Council's consultation but only to South Kesteven District Council's consultation. The County Council's consultation had been carried out in accordance with the statutory requirements.

Officers stated that residents' parking in Stamford had been an on-going issue for many years. Unlike the City of Lincoln's residents' parking scheme which restricted on-street parking to where a resident lived, in the proposals for Stamford residents living in the proposed area would be able to purchase a permit and this would allow them to park on most streets within the town centre for an unlimited time. Other motorists without a permit would still be able to use the spaces but would be limited to 2 hours. The scheme would be available for business as well as residents. Should the Committee decide to implement the proposals then the scheme would be reviewed one year after its implementation.

On a motion by Councillor T M Trollope-Bellew, seconded by Councillor D Brailsford, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the order be confirmed as proposed at consultation with the amendments specified in the report and that otherwise the objections be overruled.

Christine Kirby, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

1. The site was purchased by the applicant in 2011 and had made a big investment in the site.

2. The creation of employment for 46 employees and further employment opportunities would be created for 10 more employees if the application was approved.

2. The work carried out at the site was explained.

3. The applicant was a good neighbour and HCVs were re-routed to and from the site to avoid the village of Baston.

4. Unlike the multi-national companies which existed nearby the applicant was a relatively small company and was therefore willing to make a financial contribution to improve the condition of Cross Road over a five year period.

Officers responded to comments made by the Committee as follows:-

1. Explained the difference between a Section 278 Agreement and a Section 106 Agreement.

2. In view of the suggestion by the applicant that he was prepared to make a financial contribution over a five year period the Committee was requested to defer consideration of the application to allow a further report to be considered by the Committee.

On a motion by Councillor T M Trollope-Bellew, seconded by Councillor W S Webb, it was -

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the Committee is minded to approve the application subject to the applicant making a financial contribution to improve Cross Road over a three year period, not five years as suggested by the applicant, and that a report with revised conditions be submitted to a future meeting.

Parish Councillor M Wylie, an objector, commented as follows:-

1. In addition to speaking on behalf of Harmston Parish Council he was also speaking on behalf of Aubourn and Haddington Parish Councils.

2. Had spoken to other quarries in the locality and none of them remained open until 7pm.

3. Should approval be granted then HCVs would travel through local villages after 7pm causing noise and pollution for local residents.

4. Many of the villages were traditional in character and quiet.

5. It was likely that there would be an increase in HCVs if the hours of opening were increased.

In response to a question from the Committee, Parish Councillor Mike Wylie stated that there was constant movement of HCVs entering and leaving the quarry but it was difficult to quantify the number of HCVs involved.  However, if the Committee agreed to the recommendation in the report then HCV movements would continue after the quarry had closed.

Comments made by the local Member, Councillor Mrs M J Overton MBE, included:-

1. The application should be refused in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (potential impacts on the amenities of local residents from noise and pollution).

2. There was no economic advantage to the company of increasing the opening hours.

3. The applicant should seek a compromise and a 6pm closure should be considered.

4. Adverse effect on local residents if the application was approved.

5. The application should be refused as there was no accurate information on traffic flows.

6. The access road to the quarry was through the village of Harmston and the road was too narrow to allow two HCVs to pass side by side.

7. HCVs damaged buildings and posed a risk to pedestrians, particularly where there was a shortage of footpaths.

Officers in response to the comments made by the local Member stated that highways had no objection to the application and that any transgression of the hours of operation could be addressed by enforcement. Any traffic survey would also be difficult to undertake due to the numerous locations needed to be covered.

Comments made by the Committee included:-

1. HCVs could use the A607 and A15 and therefore avoid the local villages.

2. HCVs carrying sugar beet were more likely to cause damage to villages than that caused by the applicant’s HCVs.

3. Should the opening times of the quarry be extended then it was likely that HCVs would be operating until 8pm which would affect the quality of life of local residents.

A motion moved by Councillor W S Webb, seconded by Councillor I G Fleetwood, that the recommendation detailed in the report should be approved, was defeated by 4 votes for, 8 votes against and 1 abstention.

On a motion by Councillor Mrs H N J Powell, seconded by Councillor T Keywood-Wainwright, it was –

RESOLVED (8 votes for, 2 votes against and 1 abstention)

That, the Committee is minded to refuse the application in accordance with paragraph 120 of the National  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

The Chairman stated that a request to speak against the application had been received from Sir Edward Leigh MP (representing the Gainsborough Parliamentary Constituency which covered part of the application site).  He added that, in accordance with the planning development control process set out in the Council’s Constitution it was not possible for Sir Edward Leigh to speak as the specified number of speakers had already requested to speak.

The Chairman stated that he would not chair the meeting during consideration of this application as he had been lobbied extensively on the application as one of the local members for the area where it was proposed to locate the Non-Motorised User Bridge (NMU) and would therefore ask his Vice-Chairman, Councillor D McNally, to chair this item. However, he would speak and vote on the application. 

(Councillor D McNally in the Chair)

The Vice-Chairman stated that because there were two planning applications under the same report he would allow two objectors to speak for three minutes each, six minutes in total, and the applicant to also speak for six minutes in total. He reminded the Committee that only those members of the Committee who had attended the site visit on 1 October 2014, were able to speak and vote on this application.

Since the publication of the report responses to consultation had been received as follows:-

Members of the public – a further 15 letters/emails of representation have

been received (bringing the total to 69 representations for both applications).

These representations largely object to the proposal and repeat the same

issues and concerns as already set out in the Officers report (Paragraph 23).

City of Lincoln Council – no objection to the proposed revisions to the bypass

(application L/0643/11).

Canwick Parish Council - no comments to make on either application.

Environment Agency – confirmed no objection to the revised Non-Motorised

User (NMU) bridge.

Historic Environment Team (Lincolnshire County Council) – the potential for

archaeological remains was taken into account when the original design for

the bridge (and bypass) was considered and any mitigation strategy needs to

be revisited to ensure that they are adequate to incorporate the revisions to

the bypass and bridge design. It is therefore recommended that a planning

condition be imposed to ensure that archaeological monitoring is secured.

British Horse Society – maintain an objection on the following grounds:

(a) Failed to provide details on how segregation on the NMU bridge would

be achieved.

(b) Failed to provide adequate provision for equestrians and cyclists at the

crossing point on Hawthorn Road which would allow users to continue

their journey on the east side of the Lincoln Eastern Bypass.

(c) If NMUs are travelling from the east to west along Hawthorn Road the

NMU has no option than to cross Hawthorn Road close to the junction of

the LEB, this being the main reason for the Inspector not approving the

Orders in July.

Church Commissioners – maintain their objection and consider that

insufficient consideration has been given to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.