Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, County Offices, Newland, Lincoln LN1 1YL

Contact: Rachel Wilson  Democratic Services Officer

Items
No. Item

10.

Apologies for Absence/Replacement Members

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor D Brailsford.

11.

Declarations of Members' Interests

Minutes:

The following declarations of interest were noted:

 

Councillor L A Cawrey declared an interest in item 6.1 as she was a member of North Kesteven District Council (NKDC) and sat on the Planning Committee.  NKDC had been consulted twice on this matter, in June and September, however, Councillor Cawrey left the September meeting before this item was heard.  She was the vice-chairman for the 27 June 2019 meeting, but did not vote and declared an interest as a County Councillor.

 

Councillor S P Roe declared an interest in item 5.1 as the road was adjacent to the entrance of his mother's farm.  He also declared an interest in item 6.1 as his daughter and son-in-law owned a house within 300 yards of the site.  Councillor Roe advised that he would leave the meeting for consideration of these two agenda items.

 

Councillor T R Ashton declared that in relation to item 7.1, he was a member of the South East Local Plan Committee, but his appointment was subsequent to the publication of the local plan, and he has not stated his view.

 

Councillor Mrs A M Newton declared an interest as a member of South Holland District Council and advised that she had been lobbied on both applications, but they were not within her County Council wards.  However the application for Section 5 did form part of her district ward.  She advised that she had made comments on the application on behalf of residents, but did make it clear at the time they were the views of the residents.

 

Councillor H Spratt declared an interest in item 5.1 as it was within his area and had been campaigning for two years for this change.  He advised that he would leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

 

(NOTE: Councillor H Spratt left the meeting at 10.40am and did not return as he had not been in attendance for the site visits)

 

Councillor N H Pepper declared an interest as a member of South Holland District Council, however he was not a member of the Planning Committee, but he had been lobbied in relation to the applications listed under item 7.1.

 

Councillor M J Overton MBE declared an interest in agenda item 6.1 as a member of North Kesteven District Council, as the planning application had been sent to the district council for comment.  Councillor Mrs Overton had been to a number of district council meetings and briefings on this application.   She had attended the site visit and received the report and was approaching this item with an open mind.

 

 

 

12.

Minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee held on 1 July 2019 pdf icon PDF 211 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

            That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2019 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

 

13.

Minutes of the Site Visit held on 22 July 2019

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

            That the inutes of the site visit held on 22 July 2019 be received.

14.

Traffic Items

14a

Lincoln, Hykeham Road and St Margaret's Gardens - Proposed Waiting Restrictions pdf icon PDF 265 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(NOTE: Councillor S P Roe left the meeting at this point in the meeting)

 

The Committee received a report which set out objections received to the proposed waiting restrictions for Lincoln, Hykeham Road and St Margaret's Gardens which were publicly advertised from 28 February to 28 March 2019.

 

The report outlined the existing conditions and the objections received as well as the comments of officers on the objections received.

 

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the comments made included the following:

·         It was a positive to see that a public meeting had been held, and this scheme should be applauded at this location.

·         Parking outside schools was an issue nationally for a lot of schools, as people complained about parents dropping off and picking up children.  It was suggested this was due to parents now having a choice of which school to send their children to and so a lot of children were dependent on their parents to take them to school by car.

·         It was accepted that this was an issue that existed in many towns and villages across the county, and welcomed the work that had been carried out by officers to resolve the situation in this area.

 

On a motion by Councillor T R Ashton, seconded by Councillor P A Skinner, it was:-

 

RESOLVED (10 in favour, 1 Abstention)

 

            That the objections be overruled and that the order as advertised be implemented.

           

15.

County Matter Applications

15a

For the demolition of the existing animal by-products processing plant and all associated installations; and the construction of a new animal by-products processing plant, comprised of: raw material reception and processing buildings; engineers building; boiler house; oxidiser building and flue; DAF plant; effluent treatment plant; bio filter bed; general office; weighbridge and weighbridge office; hardstanding areas for accessing the processing plant and for parking of cars, commercial vehicles and trailers used in connection with the operation; residential development to provide three environmentally sustainable eco affordable homes and one manager's house for the processing plant; alterations to the existing site access from Jerusalem Road; and all associated development, including landscaping at Jerusalem Farm, Jerusalem Road, Skellingthorpe - DS Developing Ltd (Agent: MAZE Planning Solutions) - 18/0709/CCC pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Minutes:

The Committee received a report which sought planning permission by DS Developing Ltd for the demolition of the existing animal by-products processing plant and all associated installations; and the construction of a new animal by-products processing plant, comprised of: raw material reception and processing buildings; engineers building; boiler house; oxidiser building and flue; DAF plant; effluent treatment plant; bio filter bed; general office; weighbridge and weighbridge office; hardstanding areas for accessing the processing plant and for parking of cars; commercial vehicles and trailers used in connection with the operation; residential development to provide three environmentally sustainable eco affordable homes and one manager's house for the processing plant; alteration to the existing site access from Jerusalem Road; and all associated development, including landscaping at Jerusalem Farm, Jerusalem Road, Skellingthorpe.

 

It was reported that further to the publication of the agenda, a letter from the applicant, a representation from Newark and Sherwood District Council and a further representation from a local resident had been received and were set out in the update which had been circulated to the Committee the previous Friday.

 

Officers guided members through the report and set out the main issues to be considered in the determination of this application.

 

Mr James Birch, spoke on behalf of Doddington Parish Council as an objector to the application and made the following points:

·         The recommendation to refuse permission based on 6 planning criteria was applauded.

·         The rendering plant was only in Skellingthorpe for historical reasons, it was believed that if this was a green field application there was no possible way that the Council would authorise a new plant beside a village of 4000 people and in line of sight of Lincoln Cathedral and a mile from Doddington Hall, a tourist attraction with 300,000 visitors per year.

·         It was hoped a combination of stronger environmental laws, climate change resistance and common sense would mean this facility was forced to close in the next 30 years.  If the rebuilding of the plant was allowed, it was an endorsement of a plant on this inappropriate site for a long time into the future.

·         There were claims that newer equipment would mean a less noxious atmosphere, it was the transporting lorries which were the real problem.  The applicant claims that the output level of the new facility would be the same as the current one.  That was clearly not the plan.  The LEO Group had spent £6m on the freehold of the site and would have to spend at least another £20m building the new plant and then demolishing the old one.  They were sophisticated business people and were not going to invest £26m for no increase in revenue.  It could be concluded that the new plant would either have a much higher output or they would decide to keep the old facility once the new one was up and running.

·         The scale of the proposed investment would logically mean that a new plant would mean more output and that would mean far  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15a

15b

For the retention of a temporary store for liquid organic waste at Land to the north of Kirton Road, Blyton - D. R. Jacques & Son (Agent: Robert Farrow (Design) Ltd) - 139472 pdf icon PDF 1007 KB

Minutes:

(NOTE: Councillor S P Roe re-joined the meeting)

 

The Committee received a report which sought retrospective planning permission for the retention of a temporary store for liquid organic waste at land to the north of Kirton Road, Blyton.

 

Officers guided members through the report and set out the main issues to be considered in the determination of this application.

 

Councillor I G Fleetwood advised that he was the Chairman of the Planning Committee at West Lindsey District Council, and he had not discussed this application at the district council.

 

It was reported that further to the publication of the agenda, clarification had been received regarding the cover of the tank which was set out in the update which had been circulated to the Committee the previous Friday.

 

It was highlighted that it was important that the effect of any light pollution was taken into account.  Members were advised that condition 5 detailed that any lighting needed to be approved before being brought onto the site.

 

On a motion by Councillor D McNally, and seconded by Councillor P A Skinner it was:-

 

RESOLVED (unanimous)

 

            That conditional temporary planning permission be granted.

 

 

 

16.

County Council Applications

16a

To construct Section 5 of the Spalding Western Relief Road comprising of a new single carriageway route from the B1356 Spalding Road and Enterprise Way to Vernatt's Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) incorporating a new roundabout junction with the B1356 Spalding Road, a bridge over the Peterborough to Sleaford railway line, and a priority junction into Vernatt's SUE - H14-0326-19
To construct Section 1 of the Spalding Western Relief Road comprising of a new single carriageway route from the B1172 Spalding Common to Holland Park Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) incorporating a new roundabout junction with the B1172 Spalding Common, a bridge over the Peterborough to Sleaford railway line, and a new roundabout junction for access into Holland Park SUE - H16-0327-19
pdf icon PDF 7 MB

Minutes:

The Committee received a report which sought planning permission for Section 1 (the southern section) and Section 5 (the northern section) of the Spalding Western Relief Road.

 

The Spalding Western Relief Road (SWRR) was an important highway infrastructure project for the Spalding area.  The SWRR sought to relieve congestion in Spalding caused by frequent closures of the highway network at level crossing and the facilitate access for and within the Vernatt's Sustainable Urban Extension (VSUE) and the Holland Park Sustainable Urban Extension (HPSUE).  It was planned to build the SWRR in three phases, Section 1 (the southern section) and Section 5 (the northern section) were to be built first with Sections 2, 3 and 4 (collectively referred to as the central section) to be built at a later date as the development of the VSUE and HPSUE progressed.

 

It was reported that since the publication of the agenda, further representations had been received, details of which were set out in the update which had been circulated to the Committee the previous Friday.

 

Officers guided the Committee through the report and set out the background and details of each application including the route, funding and timescales and details of the environmental assessment, transport assessment and results of consultation and publicity.

 

Simon Holmes, representing SPARR (Spalding Pinchbeck Against the Relief Road), spoke as an objector and made the following points:

·         This application contravened PPG14 (Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 2014 Delivering sustainable development in accordance with a wide variety of the guidance4 categories, these including; climate change, design, vitality, flood risk, health and wellbeing, housing and economic development needs and land availability assessments, local plans, natural environments, noise open space, planning obligations, travel plans, viability, the use of conditions and water quality) and was also commented that it defied logic and common sense.

·         In terms of location, the current design was inappropriate.  The road veered towards a waterway, and built on designated green space and impinged key eco-systems.

·         The location of Junction B maximised vehicle movement in a sustainable development, ROM figures suggested 2 million nugatory miles per year (based on 2250 properties, 1 car per household, mean distance to Junction B 1 mile, 5 return journeys per week, 48 weeks per year gives a total of 2,160,000 miles a year) with the environmental, health and financial implications to match.

·         It was noted the central section had returned to consultation; the favoured (by an unscientific show of hands at the public meeting) marked corridor was compromised by the location of Junction B and limited future viable options.  Pushing ahead piecemeal would result in a sub-optimal network.  It would not escape the committee's attention, the unconventional road layout required to join the network.

·         It failed to take into account the Environmental Impact Assessment destroying the water voles' environment, a protected species, and the construction area adjacent further compounded this.

·         Residents had been informed that key elements would adhere to industry best practice (best practice for one situation did not make it best practice for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16a

 

 
 
dot

Original Text: