Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors C S Macey, Mrs A M Newton, and R P H Reid.

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

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 6 December 2021, be approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered a report in connection with one objection received to the proposed introduction of waiting restrictions at the junction of Bell Street and Edward Street, Lincoln. The objection complained that the proposal would inconvenience residents through reduced parking availability close to their properties with potential risks to personal safety on dark evenings with limited street lighting. However, in the officer’s view parking close to the junction either on Bell Street or Edward Street obstructs the flow of traffic in and out of Edward Street, and the tendency for vehicles to pull onto the footway then obstructs the route for pedestrians.

On a motion proposed by Councillor I G Fleetwood and seconded by Councillor P A Skinner, 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 a request for the existing 30mph speed limit within Tattershall Thorpe to be extended southwards beyond Paul’s Lane and northwards along the B1192 as well as a new 40mph limits at either end. Surveys have indicated that these changes may be considered as 'Borderline Cases’, as defined within the Council's Speed Limit Policy. Therefore, the Planning and Regulation Committee can approve a departure from the criteria if appropriate.

On a motion proposed by Councillor T R Ashton and seconded by Councillor I G Fleetwood, 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 an amendment to a previously approved ‘borderline case’ for a 30mph speed limit within the village. Surveys had indicated that the mean speed of traffic in the vicinity of the level crossing was 32mph Therefore, in accordance with the speed limit policy the initial proposal can be extended to include the level crossing.

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

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the intention to proceed with an extended 30mph speed limit be noted.

The Committee considered a report in connection with one objection received to the proposed introduction of waiting restrictions at the junction with accesses on Deacon Road and at its junction with Bishops Road. The objection was received from a local business complaining that, as their off-road parking space was reserved for customers, staff park on street, and would be displaced onto the opposite side of the road, potentially causing a hazard for through traffic. However, it was the officer’s view that on street parking reduces visibility of oncoming traffic for vehicles exiting these accesses and alternative on street parking is available nearby. 

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 two objections received to the proposed introduction of waiting restrictions at Garden Close in Grantham. The objections complained that the private drive outside Numbers 1-4 Garden Close would attract parking displaced from the restricted areas, as the public may not realise that it was not public highway. However, it was the officer’s view that landowners here are able to install signage on their land to indicate the status of the drive or physical measures to restrict access. Objectors suggested that to mitigate displacement of parking the restrictions should apply throughout the development, but that view was not shared by the Council as this could adversely affect those residents who did not have sufficient off-street parking available for their own or visitors’ vehicles.

As local Member for Grantham South, Councillor A N Stokes was invited to address the Committee via Microsoft Teams. His comments were as follows:

• He was in full support of the recommendation and had worked closely with residents to progress the proposals.
• The concerns made by residents on Garden Close could likely be effectively mitigated through appropriately placed signage.
• This Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) was vital for the safety of residents entering and egressing Gardens Close and was supported by a majority of residents. 

On a motion proposed by Councillor I G Fleetwood and seconded by Councillor P A Skinner, it was:

RESOLVED (unanimous)

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

Councillor M Overton MBE left the meeting at this point.

The Committee considered a report in connection with the outcome of a statutory public consultation for the introduction of a residents’ permit scheme in Bailgate and Chapel Lane requested by the City of Lincoln Council. Those stakeholders who were likely to be affected were consulted, and broad support was received. Following further consultation, it was identified that, generally, residents supported the scheme, believing it would offer significant parking convenience, while local businesses objected to the overall loss of parking and perceived subsequent loss of trade. In recognition of the divisive proposal, the Committee were presented recommendations to either proceed with the scheme as advertised, abandon the scheme altogether or agree for further work to identify a permit scheme with a reduced impact Bailgate’s commercial activity.

As local Member for Ermine and Cathedral, Councillor K E Lee was invited to address the Committee. Her comments were as follows:

·       She had met with both representatives of the Bailgate Guild and local residents and felt she could appreciate concerns from both sides.

·       The accounts of local residents were relayed to the Committee including detail of a paramedic who worked long shifts and often started or finished work at very unsociable times having to subsequently walk some distance to get to her home in darkness which she found frightening and unsafe. A second resident worked as a cardiac practitioner on call so needed to get to the hospital to assist in life-or-death procedures at short notice despite having to walk to work because she didn’t have a convenient place to park her car. A third resident, a retired Bailgate retail owner, supported residents’ parking currently and before his retirement. Other residents included an elderly suffer of dementia who needed straightforward access to her home and a disabled resident whose carers struggled to find parking. Other general daily problems included dropping off weekly shops and arranging for a tradesman to be able to access homes for repairs.

·       Residents of streets near Bailgate had been awarded parking permits which made the residents of Bail gate feel that they were being treated unfairly.

·       Councillor Lee felt the results of a survey, stating 59 responses were against while 33 were in support, were misleading as the hostility faced by residents resulted in one person responding on behalf on of 24 residents. Of the 59 responses against the proposals, only 18 were submitted from local traders and 70 per cent were received from visitors to the area.

·       The spaces identified in option one of the recommendations sat in the residential area of Bailgate and, Councillor Lee felt, were a substantial enough distance from businesses to mitigate any detrimental effect. Furthermore, she suggested that visitor parking spaces were available on Highgate, Castle Hill Car Park, and the Westgate Car Park which, in her experience, appeared to be available at peak times.

·       She commented that there was no evidence to support speculation that granting residents’ parking places would come into conflict with local business viability citing previous changes to Bailgate including  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

The Committee were advised that, at the 15 February 2021 meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee, an application 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 was approved, subject to the officer recommended planning conditions and the application entering into and completing a Section 106 agreement.

Despite being finalised and sent to the applicant; the Section 106 agreement hadn’t been signed. Furthermore, the applicant indicated that they no longer wished to commit to the obligation. However, since publication of this agenda, the applicant had committed to the completion of the Section 106 agreement therefore officers recommended that the Committee withdraw the report from consideration.

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

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That this application be withdrawn.

The Committee were advised that the decision to refuse planning permission relating to an application to remove condition six from planning permission B/16/0217, which would enable outside storage of tyres to take place when the site was not in operation, was appealed by the applicant, and on 27 January 2022, the Planning Inspectorate allowed the appeal with a partial award for costs made.

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the update be noted.