Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies received from Councillors.

There were no declarations of interest made at this point in proceedings.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 October 2022 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Committee considered a report which detailed an objection to proposed waiting restrictions at the junction of St Catherine’s Grove and St Catherine’s Court, Lincoln.

The Programme Leader: Minor Works and Traffic introduced the report and shared a presentation which detailed the area under consideration.

Members commented that the restrictions improved access to the area.

On a motion proposed by Councillor T Ashton and seconded by Councillor P Skinner, it was:

RESOLVED (unanimous)

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

For openness and transparency, Councillor I Carrington declared that he had attended Branston Parish Council meetings regarding this item and maintained an open mind.

The Committee considered a report which detailed an objection to a proposed traffic regulation order to introduce waiting restrictions at Station Rd, Fairleas and Archer Rd, Branston.

The Programme Leader: Minor Works and Traffic introduced the report and shared a presentation which detailed the area under consideration.

Members commented that the restriction improved safety and noted that the Council could not compel the school to ensure provision for a drop-off point.

On a motion proposed by Councillor P Skinner and seconded by Councillor I Carrington, it was:

RESOLVED (unanimous)

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

The Committee considered a report which detailed a request for the existing 50mph speed limit on the A17, East Heckington, to be reduced to 40mph.

The Programme Leader: Minor Works and Traffic introduced the report and shared a presentation which detailed the area under consideration.

Members commented that reducing the speed limit would impact heavy traffic and that traffic was already largely self-regulating as the average speed on the stretch road in question was already close to 40mph. However, it was noted that there were various turn-offs along the road for small businesses. Members felt that, as this was a borderline case, further information was required to make a decision, especially concerning the nature and number of collisions under the current speed limit.

On a motion proposed by Councillor T Ashton and seconded by Councillor T Smith, it was:

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the item be deferred, and further information provided.

For openness and transparency, the Chairman declared that all Members of the Committee had received correspondence from a resident and confirmed that Members had not responded to any messages.

For openness and transparency, the Chairman declared that some residents within the proposed area were known to him.

The Committee considered a report which detailed objections received to a proposed Permit Parking Scheme Zone 5C – Roads between Sincil Bank Drain, High Street, Pennell Street and Portland Street.

The Programme Leader: Minor Works and Traffic introduced the report and shared a presentation which detailed the area under consideration.

Members commented that it was well know that the area was used by commuters for free parking, which impacted on available spaces for residents, and it was noted that the majority of residents supported the scheme. It was also clarified that permits would cost £26 per annum for one car and &52 per annum for two cars. Overall, Members felt that it was difficult to envisage the full site and as a notable minority of residents had raised objections, a site visit would be useful in making a decision.

On a motion proposed by Councillor T Smith and seconded by Councillor P Ashleigh-Morris it was:

RESOLVED (unanimous)

1. That the item be deferred, and further information provided.

2. That prior to any further consideration Members be offered the opportunity for a site visit.

For openness and transparency, the Councillors I Fleetwood and T Ashton declared that they were appointees to the Environment Agency Regional Flood Committee.

For openness and transparency, Councillor T Ashton declared that he was the Local Member for Coningsby.

The Committee considered a report which detailed permission was sought for the enlargement of an existing irrigation pond and the removal from site of extracted minerals for treatment at Bede Farm, Cross Keys Lane, Coningsby.

The Applications Manager introduced the report and shared a presentation which detailed the and location of the proposed development.

The Applicant, Mr Hanson, spoke in support of the application.

Members asked the Applicant numerous questions. In response, the following comments were made:

·   The Applicant had attempted to complete the necessary paperwork to secure a variation to his water abstraction licence for on multiple occasions, but documents had purportedly been lost by the Environment Agency.

·   The application would not have an effect on neighbouring irrigation systems.

·   It was not clear how long it would take the applicant to secure a licence from the Environment Agency.

Members commented that there was a need for more reservoirs and irrigation systems across the county, and that the application was sound in terms of County matters. Members noted that the reason for refusal was largely due to issues surrounding the absence of an extended abstraction license which would allow water to fill the larger reservoir, which the Applicant was actively pursuing, and felt assured that the license could now be secured in a timely manner. Members recognised that if more time was given to the applicant to secure a license, then the application would no longer be in breach of the policy and could be dealt with by officers.

The Applications Manager advised that should Members be minded to approve the application then they could defer the application and give the Applicant 3 months in which to secure the revised licence. If the revised licence was secured within this timeframe then the application could be determined by Officers under delegated powers as there would be no outstanding issues. If the licence was not secured in that timeframe then the application could be brought back to the Committee for a decision.

On a motion proposed by Councillor N Pepper and seconded by Councillor T Ashton it was:

RESOLVED (unanimous)

1. That the item be deferred for 3 months.

2. That officers be given authority to deal. If the revised licence is secured within this timeframe.