Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A M Austin, Mrs S Blackburn and R P H Reid.

There were no declarations of interest at this point in the meeting.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2023 be signed  by the Chairman as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the site visit held on 12 April 2023 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

A report was received which invited the Committee to consider an objection to proposed amendments to waiting restrictions in the vicinity of the health centre, cinema and multi-storey car park.

The Design Maintenance Engineer introduced the report and shared a presentation which detailed the areas under consideration. It was noted that the cinema had expressed concerns about being unable to access their off-street parking with the current restrictions as they stand and that one objection had been received.  The details of the objection were set out in the report.

On a motion proposed by Councillor C L E Vernon and seconded by N H Pepper, it was:

RESOLVED (Unanimous)

That the objection be overruled, and that the Order, as advertised, be introduced.

A report was received which invited the Committee to consider objections received to proposals for waiting restrictions as set out in Appendices, B, C and D to the report.

The Design Maintenance Engineer introduced the report and shared a presentation which detailed the areas under consideration.  It was noted that these restrictions were proposed as there was little turnover of parking in the area.  The objections received were centred around Victoria Road, and there were concerns that residents would be unable to park and that the restrictions were not needed all year round.  The Committee was advised that the reason for the changes to the waiting restrictions was to allow a turnover of on street parking for customers visiting local businesses.

It was commented that there were a lot of issues in this area during the high tourist season, and it was hoped that these proposals would resolve some of them.  It would be important to monitor this and see what effect the changes had.

On a motion proposed by Councillor I G Fleetwood and seconded by Councillor N Sear, it was:

RESOLVED (Unanimous)

That the objections be overruled, and the proposals as advertised, be approved.

Consideration was given to a report in which IGas Energy Plc sought planning permission to construct a hydrocarbon wellsite, with the drilling of one vertical appraisal well and up to seven horizontal development wells and ancillary development at land to the west of Northlands Road, Glentworth.

The Head of Planning introduced a report and shared a presentation which detailed the area under consideration.  He highlighted that there were a wide range of issues to be carefully considered in the determination of this proposal including the need for the development and climate change considerations; landscape and visual impacts; highways and traffic impacts; impact on air quality; noise; historic environment; flood risk and drainage and ecology biodiversity and restoration.

The results of the consultation and publicity were detailed at paragraph 15 of the report and summarised for the Committee.  Comments had been received from the local member as well as an objection from Glentworth Parish Council and Harpswell Parish Meeting.  The Environment Agency and West Lindsey District Council had not raised any objections.  Concerns had been identified by the Highways Officer regarding the condition of the access roads to the site, the Committee was advised that it could be confirmed that the necessary highways improvements had been put forward by the developer and these addressed the concerns of the Highways Officer.

Comments had been received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust around the biodiversity net gain, and it was noted that the applicant had since submitted further information and the necessary metrics, and this concern had been addressed.

It was reported that 62 representations had been received as a consequence of the publication of the notification of the proposed application.  Comments mainly focused around traffic and highways safety, climate related matters, environmental impacts and amenity.  The details around these comments was set out in pages 61 – 63 of the agenda pack.

In relation to paragraph 51 of the report, the applicant had now provided the tables that sat behind the biodiversity metric and officers were satisfied that the information presented addressed the concerns of the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

The potential impacts of the proposed solar development (Tillbridge Solar Project), which would be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) were also highlighted to the Committee.

Mr John Latham spoke on behalf of Glentworth Parish Council as an objector to the application and made the following points:

·       There were two material planning considerations that were believed to be relevant:

-       Climate change – the NPPF para 152 made it clear that decisions ‘should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate’ and

-       The impact on the residents of Glentworth – NPPF para 185 states that decisions should ‘protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise’ – this was reinforced by the Glentworth Neighbourhood Plan.

·       Any reference to this development helping the fuel crisis or meeting domestic energy needs were not material considerations and should be disregarded, they were not identified in either the NPFF or the CLLP as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Consideration was given to a report in which planning permission was sought by New Earth Solutions (West) Ltd for the installation of new internal plant, replacement external cladding and external doors, roof mounted photovoltaic panels and the retention of lean-to extension to accommodate a materials recovery facility and variation of operating hours within Buildings 9 & 10 at New Earth Solutions (West) Ltd, Heath Lane, Caythorpe.  The application was not part retrospective insofar as the plant and equipment for which planning permission was being sought had already been installed within the building however, this has yet to become operational and the other works/developments subject of this application had yet to commence (e.g replacement cladding, PV panels etc).

The Applications Manager introduced the report and shared a presentation which detailed the area under consideration.  He advised that there had been 60 representations which had raised issues around noise and highways concerns, with most concern being expressed about the proposed extended hours of operation.

Mr Andy Crawley, Vice Chair of Caythorpe and Frieston Parish Council, spoke as an objector to the application and made the following points:

·       He was addressing the meeting as the Vice Chair of Caythorpe and Frieston Parish Council, and was representing the views of the Parish Council, but also the public opinion which had arisen as a result of this application.

·       He stated that the Parish Council and the residents of Caythorpe and Frieston were strongly against this application.

·       The general feeling was that there was no objection to the proposed building works but did not want the extended working hours.

·       Whilst there was some disagreement between the two noise consultants involved, both were in agreement that this application would generate significant additional noise which would impact upon the quality of life of nearby residents.

·       Neither of the noise consultants seemed to have taken account of the noise that would be generated by the high speed doors or the audible reversing warning signals generated by plant operating within the site.  It also did not factor in those occasions when the plant would be operated with the doors open during the warmer summer months (at exactly the time when residents may be trying to sleep with open windows).  This was likely to further exceed the permitted levels and would be intermittent noise which would be most disruptive to sleep patterns and would case a loss of amenity and adversely impact on the right of local residents to a quiet and peaceful life which may in turn lead to affecting their physical and mental health.

·       There was no dispute that these works could not be carried out during the current operating hours of the site, and the only reason given for extending the operating hours was to achieve a quicker payback upon investment.  This was not a good reason to allow the company to adversely impact the quality of life of local residents and it should not be taken into account.

·       The Committee was urged to reject the application on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.