Agenda item

The Committee considered a report inviting them to confirm their agreement of the reason for refusal for variations to conditions attached to an extant permission for exploratory drilling and an associated permission for a security compound at land to the east of Smithfield Road, North Kelsey Moor. as agreed at the 14 March 2022 meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee.

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 Committee were advised that a late representation was made on the Friday prior to the meeting requesting further points be brought to the Committee’s attention.

The representation suggested that the report didn’t make clear that no work whatsoever had been undertaken at the site. The Head of Planning responded that auxiliary works had actually been carried out, including minor works undertaken to construct the beginning of the access point together with some highway improvements.

Secondly, there was concern that the recommendation didn’t reference the Committee’s apprehension that the 12-month time frame was unrealistic and may result in a further extension therefore causing anxiety to local residents. Furthermore, that 49 weeks work in the 52-week period hadn’t taken into account the period of March to August inclusive for the production of breeding birds. The Head of Planning responded with an example of a similar site that was completed within a six-month period therefore, whilst time may have been limited, it wasn’t appropriate to state it was unrealistic.

Finally, the representation requested the inclusion of Policy R1 within the reasons for refusal. The Head of Planning raised no objections to Policy R1’s inclusion for refusal.

The report recommended that, in line with the Committee’s resolution to refuse 144203 and 144207 at the 14 March 2022 meeting, the Committee confirm its reasons for refusal in line with that cited within the report.

Some members of the Committee felt minded to include Policy R1 within the reasons for refusal, however this view wasn’t shared throughout the membership.

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

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That it be confirmed that planning permission be refused for application 144203 for the reason set out below:

‘Policy DM3 of Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy and Development Management (CSDMP) Policies (2016) grants permission for minerals development only where it does not generate unacceptable adverse impacts to the occupants of nearby dwellings or other sensitive receptors. Where unaccepted impacts are identified which cannot be addressed through appropriate mitigation measures planning permission will be refused.

The site is situated within open agricultural land with residential properties located in and around the town of Caistor, small villages, hamlets, and farmsteads within 5.0 kilometres of the site. The nearest residential property being approximately 600 metres north.

Temporary planning permission was first granted for this development in 2014 and has been extended since then a number of times. Sufficient works have been undertaken that the original permission has been implemented although no drilling operations have taken place. The applicant has sought to extend the period to undertake the drilling works and restoration of the site for a number of reasons, the most recent due to the Covid pandemic. Representations from the local community have made it clear that the delay and prolonging the uncertainty with each extension of time has caused unacceptable levels of anxiety to local residents which has been exacerbated through the repeated extensions of time sought by the applicant. The anxiety of local residents from these delays and repeated applications creates unacceptable adverse impacts to resident’s amenity contrary to Policy DM3 of the CSDMP.

It is also contrary to the requirements of Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2017) which states that amenities, which all existing and future occupants of neighbouring land and buildings, may reasonably expect to enjoy, must not be unduly harmed by development. In this case, it is considered that to allow a further extension of time for a development creates a level of uncertainty and anxiety for local residents as they wait for the full development to be completed, which conflicts with the requirement of Policy LP26.’

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

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That it be confirmed that planning permission be refused for application 144207 for the reason set out below:

In light of the Council’s decision to refuse application 144203 to extend the period to undertake exploratory drilling and restore the site back to agricultural use there is consequently no need for the security cabins to be stationed at the site. To permit the security cabins to be situated in this location without connection to a mineral operation would be contrary to the principle of development in the open countryside and be visually intrusive.

The site is situated within open countryside and consequently does not meet the requirements of Policy DM3 of the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2016) as it would create unacceptable visual intrusion in the open countryside. It is also contrary to the requirements of Policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2017) as the proposed development does not respect the landscape character of the area and there is no essential reason to locate the development in this location.