Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Austin, Hall, Macey and Skinner.

No declarations of interest were made with respect to any item on the agenda.

RESOLVED:

1.         That the minutes be amended to reflect Councillor N H Pepper sent his apologies.

2.         That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 26 July 2021, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED:

1.         That the minutes be amended to reflect that the site visit was held 29 July 2021.

2.         That the minutes of the site visit to King Street, Greatford held on 29 July 2021, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered a report in relation to the introduction of six car parking orders that were deferred at the 26 July 2021 meeting as it was considered that further detail was needed regarding the implementation of a system permitting schemes for night fishing and local residents.

In summary, the report outlined that fishing permits would be explored during the winter ready for the next season. With regard to residential permits, car parking charges would only be applicable during the peak hours of the summer season. The complexity of implementing a system for the minority of residents who objected to the proposal wasn't considered to be cost effective; however it was recommended that this be reviewed over the 2022 summer season to evaluate its efficacy.

Members agreed that the proposals were now acceptable and ultimately felt it necessary that revenue be generated to maintain the facility. Particular appreciation was given to review period before implementation.

On a motion proposed by Councillor I G Fleetwood and seconded by I D Carrington, it was:

RESOLVED (10 with one abstention (Councillor Mrs Newton))

1. That a self-service, electronic system for the purchase of fishing permits be implemented over the winter season of 2021-2022 and following the implementation of the proposed Off Street Parking Order considered in the previous committee meeting of 26 July 2021
2. That no residential permitting scheme be immediately implemented but that this be kept under review during the period 1 October 2021 to 1 October 2022 to determine whether there is a need to alter this position.
3. That the objections made to proposal details in the off street parking places order presented on the 26 July 2021 be overruled and the proposal become operative.

The Committee considered a report in connection with three objections received to the proposed introduction of waiting restrictions on Langworth, Barlings Lane. Concerns were raised by Langworth Parish Council regarding parking in the vicinity of the junction of the A158 with Barlings Lane in the village. This sat on a route used by large and agricultural vehicles and the presence of parked vehicles here could lead to the obstruction of traffic flow on both approaches as well as overrunning of the adjacent verges and footways. Objections were raised that the proposed restrictions were too long and risked displacement of parking onto private property. Suggestions were therefore made that other restrictions such as weight limits were introduced instead. Assessment of parking at Barlings Lane indicated however that proposed was the minimum required to ensure vehicular access in and out of this junction was safely maintained. A weight limit couldn't be justified as the vehicles using this lane would most likely be visiting premises situated there so would be exempt from such a restriction.

Members acknowledged that the area was very tight and was subject to limited visibility from the east. In addition, it was noted that sections of Barlings Lane were very narrow and larger vehicles struggled to navigate when busy.

On a motion proposed by Councillor I G Fleetwood and seconded by Councillor T R Ashton, it was:

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the objections be overruled so that the order, as advertised, may be introduced.

The Committee considered a report in connection with four objections received to the proposed introduction of waiting restrictions on Lincoln, Exchange Road. A number of businesses had raised concerns that access for HGVs (Heavy Goods Vehicles) was being impacted by on street parking in the area. Objections suggested that the proposals would negatively impact businesses and displace parking onto residential streets. Assessment of parking at Exchange Road indicated however that the proposed restrictions aimed to facilitate HGV movements in a predominately commercial and industrial area whilst allowing on street parking where it would not impact on the manoeuvres of larger vehicles, and could be accommodated safely.

Some Members raised concerns that the proposal could be detrimental to businesses on Exchange Road, suggesting that HGV movements were typically expected before commercial traffic activity. However, it was appreciated that unobstructed traffic flow was required for all vehicles to support commerce. It was considered that restrictions may encourage employees to commute to work through different methods.

On a motion proposed by Councillor I G Fleetwood and seconded by Councillor T R Ashton, it was:

RESOLVED (10 with 1 abstention (Councillor Mrs M Overton))

That the objection be overruled so that the public advertisement of the proposal, as shown at Appendix B of the report, could be carried out.

The Committee considered a report in connection with objections received to the proposed introduction of bus stop clearways at Barkston, Church Street; Sutton Bridge, Bridge Road; Deeping St James, Thackers Way and Crowson Way; Lincoln, Wolsey Way. Objections were received at all sites, complaining about the removal of private parking outside properties and businesses. Assessment of proposed bus stop clearways however indicated that it would benefit passengers and improve the service provided by bus companies.

Some Members registered their surprise that two bus stops, as shown in Deeping St James, Thackers Way, were positioned in parallel opposite each other, particularly noting their concern if two buses were to arrive at the same time however unlikely. In addition, Members added that there may be an impact to fire fighters accessing the fire station.

Officers appreciated Members' reservations regarding parallel bus stops and agreed to consider relocation where relevant.

On a motion proposed by Councillor I G Fleetwood and seconded by Councillor I D Carrington, it was:

RESOLVED (10 with 1 abstention (Councillor N H Pepper))

That the objections be overruled and that the clearways, as advertised, be introduced.

The Committee considered a report where Planning permission was sought by Dr Charles Daniel Lane (the applicant) to extract and process sand and gravel and to progressively restore the site to a mixture of agricultural land, nature conservation area and an agricultural water reservoir at Land at King Street, Greatford, Lincolnshire in the parish of Greatford.

The Head of Planning guided members through the report and set out the main issues to be considered in the determination of the application.

The report recommended that, following consideration of the relevant development plan policies and the comments received through consultation and publicity, that conditional planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure the following:

• HGV route restricting access to local villages;
• Creation of a Community Liaison Group/Meeting; and
• Long-term Management Plan for the proposed nature conservation area.

Simon Tucker, Director of David Tucker Associates, was invited to address the Committee in his capacity as applicant for this proposal.All the relevant potential impacts of a proposed gravel quarry had been explored in detail in the application, including a detailed report for all likely impacts including noise, dust, air quality, heritage features, landscape and hydrology. The overall conclusion of those reports was that the scheme was wholly acceptable and policy compliant subject to the usual planning conditions. The scheme had been subject to a detailed Transport Assessment which had been scoped and agreed with the Highway Authority. The planning decision was deferred in July following the debate, specifically on matters of highway safety and the adequacy of the widening proposals agreed with the County Highway Authority. Having listened carefully to the debate and read the minutes of the site visit, Mr Tucker noted the recommendation required the widening of the road to at least 5.5 metres. It was important to be clear that the accidents on King Street related to speed and failure of cars to judge give way lines. These were not issues which would be exacerbated by the proposed quarry. The introduction of HGV traffic would, if anything, reduce vehicle speeds on the road.It was essential that a proper balance was reached between the width of the road and the scale of development proposed. While necessary to ensure two HGVs could pass, over wideningwould likely result in yet higher vehicle speeds and potentially also encourage more traffic to use the route instead of the A15. The proposal to widen the road to 5.5 metres was likely appropriate. He agreed with that approach and considered it to deliver the most appropriate form of road which could accommodate the development without resulting in unintended and adverse consequences of an over-widened route. In statistical terms the road was safe and appropriate to serve the development. The site went through a formal Mineral Plan adoption process and was found to be acceptable. He had agreed to mitigation strategies:

(a)  A routing agreement, secured by a S106 agreement, which would prevent movements through nearby villages;

(b)  A carefully designed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.