Agenda and draft minutes

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

Contact: Steve Blagg  Democratic Services Officer

Items
No. Item

45.

Apologies/replacement members

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received Councillors D Brailsford, L A Cawrey, D McNally and Mrs A M Newton.

46.

Declarations of Members' Interests

Minutes:

Councillor M J Storer requested that a note should be made in the minutes that he would not discuss or vote on this matter as he had attended a meeting of the Parish Council when this matter had been discussed and had expressed his support for the proposal in the report as the local Member (minute 49).

47.

Minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee held on 2 December 2019 pdf icon PDF 229 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 2 December 2019, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

48.

Traffic Items

49.

Marston: Main St, School lane and Stonepit lane – Proposed Waiting Restrictions pdf icon PDF 226 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Councillor Mrs M J Overton MBE arrived in the meeting during this item)

 

The Committee received a report in connection with objections received to a proposal for a traffic regulation order to introduce waiting restrictions at Main Street, School Lane and Stonepit Lane, Marston.

 

The report gave details of the existing conditions, the proposals, objections and comments by officers on the objections received.

 

Councillor A P Maughan, the local Member, commented as follows:-

 

·         With regard to the School Lane element of the proposals the proposed no waiting restrictions on Stonepit Lane were fully supported by myself and the Parish Council.

·         An extension to the School Safety Zone (SSZ) was requested some years ago to alleviate traffic and parking issues on School Lane. The Parish Council believe this was the most appropriate way to resolve the parking issues on School Lane.

·         The existing SSZ, although advisory, was well observed by parents and local residents. An extension of this along School Lane was certain to be treated in the same way as the existing boundary, therefore nullifying concerns detailed in the report that the SSZ was not enforceable and potentially not effective.

·         An extension of the SSZ ensured the safety of parents, children and local residents during the busy periods of the school day but did not permanently restrict parking on what was a quiet side road of a small village. In contrast the proposed 24 hour no waiting restriction would reduce the ability of residents to park at any time on any day, which seemed to many, an overreaction to what was purely a school parking issue at specific times of the day.

·         I regularly drove through Marston on an evening on my way back home from various parish meetings and had recently made a point of driving along School Lane both early and late on in the evening. I had not seen any on-street parking on this road, which supported the Parish's view that the proposals were excessive.

·         There was also concern that by placing no waiting restrictions along the entire stretch of School Lane, where there were very few residential properties and a kerbed footpath, we would be moving parking to Barkston Road where there were more residential properties and entrances which could be affected.

·         My views on the proposals were similar to the Parish Council and I would prefer the no waiting restrictions along School Lane to be time restricted in line with the school day, rather than 24 hours.

 

Comments by the Committee included:-

 

·         Parking outside of schools raised concerns across the county. However, the officer's proposals were "heavy handed" and expensive to implement.

·    An enquiry was made about the impact of the officer's proposals on the Community Hub? Officers stated that the Community Hub was well used. Officers added that the SSZs were advisory and only applicable between 08:00-09:00 hours and 15.00-16:00 hours. Officers said that many members of the public were under the impression that SSZs were applicable 24/7, that they were reluctant to extend  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

50.

Ruskington, B1188 Rectory Road - Proposed Zebra Crossing Facility pdf icon PDF 57 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee received a report in connection with the outcome of a survey carried out in response to a request for a pedestrian crossing facility at the location shown at Appendix A in the report.

 

The report gave details of the survey results and the proposal. Officers stated that the survey results indicated that the score lay within 10% of the threshold for a pedestrian refuge facility to be installed. However a comparison between the cost of providing a refuge and installing a zebra crossing was provided with the latter being cheaper on account of the fact that the road would not have to be widened.

 

Members supported the installation of a zebra crossing as detailed in the report and taking into consideration the Pedestrian Crossing Policy.

 

On a motion by Councillor Mrs M J Overton MBE, seconded by Councillor I G Fleetwood, it was –

 

RESOLVED (unanimous)

 

That the submission of a funding bid for a feasibility study and design for the installation of a Zebra crossing at the location detailed in the report be supported.

51.

Great Limber A18 - Proposed 30mph Speed Limit pdf icon PDF 24 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee received a report in connection with objections received to the statutory consultation to a proposed 30mph speed limit on the A18 at Great Limber.

 

The report gave details of the existing conditions, the proposals, objections and comments by officers on the objections received.

 

The neighbouring local Member, a member of the Committee, stated that he supported the views of the Parish Council who wished to see the 30mph proposals extended at either end of Great Limber to cover the two approaching bends. He stated that there were a number of side roads on to the A18 and traffic on these side roads did not have a lot of time to see the approach of on-coming traffic. Another Member supported these comments and stated that the use of a "buffer" zone would have helped in this particular case although it was appreciated that these were rarely used nowadays.

 

Another member stated that any extension of the 30mph limit could be considered in the future and that the officer's proposals were a first step to slow down traffic.

 

On a motion by Councillor I G Fleetwood, seconded by Councillor T R Ashton, it was –

 

RESOLVED (9 votes for and 2 votes against)

 

That the objections be overruled and that the officer proposals detailed in the report be publicly advertised.

 

52.

County Matter Applications pdf icon PDF 5 MB

Additional documents:

53.

To retain a tank for the storage of liquid organic waste at Land off A1084, Kettleby, Brigg, DN20 9HH - Robert Farrow (Design) Ltd - 139858 pdf icon PDF 945 KB

Minutes:

Phil Asquith, an objector, commented as follows:-

 

·         This tank was built a long time ago and as soon as tankers arrived the stench was unbelievable.

·         We complained to the Environmental Health who attended and smelt the tail end of the smell. Enquiries were made by them to see who owned the tank but this was not readily available.

·         Sheets were kept when the odour was particularly pungent. When we could smell it it was especially bad.

·         Eventually, I became aware of a retrospective planning application even though we were not notified as being the nearest building to this tank. There were no planning notices displayed locally nor did we see it in any local papers.

·         This application was made by a company with deep pockets and a more than obliging Council. I specifically made this comment due to the amount of time given to the applicant to slowly drip feed further information on to the planning portal without having to inform objectors or others.

·         The procedures which have allegedly been put into place were at best for you and not for the company to abide by. Examples of this were the wagons were supposed to enter by the most easterly point and exit by the most westerly point. This was for road safety to stop wagons from pulling out onto a 50mph speed limit on a bend when drivers would not be able to see each other and there had been close misses. There were not to be more than one tanker at a time and on several occasions there had been two and on one occasion three. The discharge times had stopped being in office hours and often took place before 7am or after 6pm. I questioned why this happened if everything was open and transparent. There was supposed to be someone there monitoring wind direction and if it was incorrect then there was to be no discharge. Well, that did not happen as the tankers always discharged and there was no cover over the tank to reduce the smell.

·         When we built our house we were aware of the chicken farm to the south for which we had never complained about because at its worst it is 20 times less obtrusive than the stench from this tank. We mitigated it by putting our air intake fans to the north of the property and we had to turn these off when the smell was so bad as it brought the full smell to the centre of the house.

·         When I rang Whites to follow their complaints procedure the reception stated we did not have one, this says it all.

·         The Environmental Agency had objected as the tank was near to a beck and as it was not bundled or monitored for long periods any leak would devastate the local wildlife.

·         When the smell was at its worst my grandchildren had to come in as they could not stomach the smell. This was not right and I, respectfully, request that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

54.

To retain a tank for the storage of liquid organic waste at Dembleby Farm, Ropsley, Grantham, NG34 0EQ - Robert Farrow (Design) Ltd - 19/1105/CCC pdf icon PDF 626 KB

Minutes:

Officers reported that the applicant had requested that this application (agenda item 5.2) and the application at agenda item 5.3 should be deferred to allow time for further discussions to take place with the Environment Agency regarding their objection. The applicant maintained that the tanks were not within 10 metres of a flowing field drain and so there was no discharge risk to a flowing watercourse. They had requested that a representative from the Agency met with them on site to verify and discuss this matter further with the hope that their objection could be resolved.

 

Officers stated that with regard to agenda item 5.3 a further response had been received to consultation, together with the officer's response, which was detailed in the update circulated to members and placed on the Council's website.

 

On a motion by the Chairman, seconded by Councillor T R Ashton, it was –

 

RESOLVED (unanimous)

 

That agenda items 5.2 and 5.3 be deferred to allow the applicant to have further discussions to take place with the Environment Agency regarding their objections and that the applications be reconsidered at the meeting of the Committee on 3 March 2020.

55.

To retain a tank for the storage of liquid organic waste at Somerby Low Farm, Somerby, Barnetby, DN38 6EY - Robert Farrow (Design) Ltd - 139837 pdf icon PDF 519 KB

Minutes:

(see the observations in minute 54)

 

 
 
dot

Original Text: