Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Wren.

Members are asked to declare an interest in matters for consideration at the meeting

Councillor Adam Stokes declared a personal interest in agenda item number 6, as a member of Lincolnshire County Council, the site’s owners.

Councillor Judy Stevens declared a personal interest in application JJ1, as the applicants had given her some topsoil in the past, for use on local community projects.

   (Enclosure)

A Member said that in her opinion the minutes required two amendments, firstly to the second paragraph of minute 92, and secondly to condition number 8 referred to in application NB1 on page 4 of the minutes. 

She outlined her proposed amendment to minute 92 orally, and gave reasons for her request, and then went on to request an amendment to the minute on NB1, which should, in her opinion, have made reference to the preservation of the line of the proposed link road, preferably by a condition.  The Principal Planning Officer said that there was no policy requiring this, and that it could not be conditioned.  In addition, the plans submitted for the proposal did not show any built form on the preserved line, and any development in the future would require a separate planning application.

Another Member supported the view of the Member requesting amendments.  The Chairman then asked that the proposed amendments be written down and submitted before further discussion took place.  Further consideration of the minutes was then deferred to enable this to be done.

(Resumption of consideration later in the meeting).

On receipt of the written down amendments, the Chairman read them to the Committee.  The Development Management Service Manager reminded members that the planning permission for the application referred to had actually been issued, and it therefore could not be amended as had been requested.  He drew the attention of members to condition 13 which required that the development be carried out in accordance only with the plans listed in that condition.  These referred to the access being left undeveloped and, as had been stated, it would require planning permission if any development affecting the road was required in the future.  He repeated the assurance given by the Principal Planning Officer.

The Vice-Chairman recollected that in previous discussions about development in this area it had been understood that the 4^th exit from the island (the road now under discussion) was always intended for the relief road.  Other Members agreed with this recollection.

The Member originally raising the issues on the minutes then read and proposed her first amendment, which was to be added at the end of paragraph two of minute 92, as follows:

“It was requested by a Member that whereas the officer had said that the ‘benefits’ of the wind farm ‘outweighed’ the negatives, when asked, the Developer’s agent could not satisfy the Development Control Committee that there was any worthwhile ‘benefits’ to the community which outweighed the negatives of which would indeed affect all the residents in the area.”

The Solicitor gave advice in regard to the formation of minutes, particularly noting that minutes were only a summary.  Several Members made comment on the proposed amendment and in relation to the minutes generally, during the course of which the proposal was seconded. 

On being put to the vote the proposed amendment was agreed.

The Member originally raising the issues then read and proposed her second amendment, which was to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To consider applications received for the grant of planning permission – reports prepared by the Case Officer.

                                                                        (Enclosure)

Decision:-

To determine applications, or make observations, as listed below:-

PWM1

Application ref:         S11/2371/HSH

Description:               Retention of two conservatories, veranda, extension to Coach House and various structures within the cartilage (including fountain, fencing, CCTV cameras and landscaping works), erection of leisure building, greenhouse and cold frames within existing walled gardens, construction of tennis court

Location:                    Caythorpe Hall, Church Lane, Caythorpe, Grantham, NG32 3EL

Decision:                   Deferred

Following the receipt of a letter from the applicant’s Solicitor raising questions about the procedure which has been followed in respect of this proposal, pending a new report to a future meeting of the Committee.

PWM2

Application ref:         S11/2372/LB

Description:               Extensions and alterations to listed building including retention of two conservatories, veranda, and extension to Coach House, erection of leisure building and greenhouse within existing walled garden, replacement of Coach House doors and other associated works

Location:                    Caythorpe Hall, Church Lane, Caythorpe, Grantham, NG32 3EL                             

Decision:                   Deferred

Following the receipt of a letter from the applicant’s Solicitor raising questions about the procedure which has been followed in respect of this proposal, pending a new report to a future meeting of the Committee.

JJ1

Application ref:         S11/2050/MJRF

Description:               Construction of 18 dwellings

Location:                    Land north of, Spalding Road, Deeping St. James

Decision:                   Approved subject to a Section 106 agreement

Noting no objection from the Environment Agency, Anglian Water, Heritage Lincolnshire or the Highway Authority, comments from the Community Leisure Officer, Planning Policy, LCC Children’s Services, and the Parish Council and objections from nearby residents, together with a note of the required S106 Heads of Terms and comments from the Partnerships and Projects Officer (Affordable Housing), letter in support from the applicants, and comments made by Members at the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer drew the attention of Members to the comments in regard to the amended application as set out in the report.  He reminded the Committee that when the application had been considered at the last meeting concern had been expressed with regard to the parking, layout and access arrangements to the proposed development.  In particular, concern had been expressed about the lack of two parking spaces per dwelling and the fact that the driveway to the site would not be to an adoptable standard.

The applicant had now submitted amended plans indicating that each dwelling would have two off-street parking spaces; the access roads had been widened to 5 metres and would be built to an adoptable standard; and the scheme had been redesigned to improve the turning facilities within the site.

The Principal Planning Officer addressed the Committee in relation to amended and additional conditions, and said that the Highway Authority had requested four conditions, there would be a necessary amendment to proposed condition 8 to include the amended plans and a new condition 10 would be required to include a requirement to submit elevations of a proposed new carport to plot 218.

Members discussed the application in detail, and asked questions, particularly with regard to the extent of the adoption  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

- DEMOLITION OF 49 ST CATHERINE'S ROAD AND 1A DUDLEY ROAD AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETIREMENT ACCOMMODATION FOR THE ELDERLY INCLUDING PROVISION OF COMMUNAL FACILITIES, LANDSCAPING AND CAR PARKING, ST. CATHERINE'S HOUSE, 49 ST. CATHERINE'S ROAD, GRANTHAM.

Decision:-

In the interests of fairness and transparency on behalf of the duly elected members and members of the public, the Committee require the officers of the Council to request the Secretary of State to not consider the revised application by MacCarthy and Stone until this has been formally considered by the Development Control Committee.

The Development Management Service Manager gave an update in regard to the state of the appeal for the St Catherine’s House site, and reported on matters of procedure.  He stated that there should be no discussion on the merits of the appeal or the first or second applications.  He said that he was aware of contact made with Members by local residents and the applicants.  There should be no discussion whatsoever on these contacts.

Members were reminded of the history to the consideration of the application which was now subject to the appeal.  The application had been deferred for certain further details to be submitted in regard to a review of the design to reduce the size and bulk of the buildings and to reconsider the car parking and access arrangements and if possible to incorporate the existing building into the scheme.  Since that meeting, the applicants had appealed and the Committee had, on 3^rd April, agreed the grounds of the appeal.  An informal hearing was scheduled for the middle of June.

The applicants had now submitted a revised application, and had requested that this amended scheme form their case at the hearing.  The Development Management Service Manager said that he was unhappy at this, as the second application would come before a future Committee, and the Officers had expressed the view to the Inspectorate that the second application should be subject to the normal Committee process.

The Chairman reminded Councillor Morgan that she had previously declared an interest in this matter, to avoid the impression of pre-determination or bias. Councillor Morgan said that she did not consider that she had an interest, but nevertheless left the body of the meeting and sat at the rear of the room. 

The Chairman read a suggested proposal as follows:

“In the interests of fairness and transparency on behalf of the duly elected Members and members of the public, the Committee require the Officers of the Council to request the Secretary of State to not consider the revised application by MacCarthy and Stone until this has been formally considered by the Development Control Committee.”

On being put to the vote, the proposition was agreed.

Report No. PLA932 by the Development Management Service Manager.

                                                                                  (Enclosure)

The Development Management Service Manager submitted his report PLA932 listing details of applications not determined within the eight week time period.  Also submitted was a list of applications dealt with under delegated powers, a planning appeals update/summary as at 14^th April 2012, and a table showing planning applications performance as at April 2012.

In response to queries from Members, the Development Management Service Manager gave an update in relation to various applications listed in the tables.  A Member mentioned that an appeal had been submitted in respect of the development at the Shirley Croft, Grantham site, and wondered why it didn’t appear in the appeals list.  The Development Management Service Manager said that notification had been received too late to include it within the report now before members, but it would be included in the report to the 26^th June meeting.

The meeting closed at 2.56pm