Public reports pack PDF 4 MB - East Lindsey District Council

Tedder Hall, Manby Park, 

Louth, Lincs. LN11 8UP 

The public and press are welcome to attend. 

If you would like any further information or 

have any special requirements in respect of 

this Meeting, please contact Cath Pearson, 

Member Services Officer on 01507 613421 

Tel: (01507) 601111 Ext. 3421 

Low Call No: 08446 601111 

Fax: Louth (01507) 600206 

Email: cath.pearson@e-lindsey.gov.uk 

Website: www.e-lindsey.gov.uk 

Date: Tuesday, 14 May 2013 

Please note the change of time for this Meeting 

Dear Councillor, 

Planning Committee 

You are invited to attend a Meeting of the Planning Committee to be held in the 

Council Chamber, Tedder Hall, Manby Park, Louth on Thursday, 23rd May, 

2013 at 10.00 am, for the transaction of the business set out in the attached 

Agenda. 

Yours sincerely 

Stuart Davy 

Chief Executive 

Councillors N.D. Cooper (Chairman) S. O'Dare (Vice-Chairman) Mrs. P.M. Cooper, 

S.A. Dennis, D.R. Edginton, R. Harvey, P. Kemp, T.J. Knowles, 

Mrs. F.M. Martin, M.B.E., E.P. Mossop, Mrs. H. Newcombe, R.J. Palmer, 

Laura Stephenson, J.M. Swanson and S. Watson

PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 

Thursday, 23 May 2013 

Item Subject Page No. 

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: 

2. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS (IF ANY): 

3. MINUTES: 1 - 32 

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 18 April 

2013 and the Special Meeting held on 8 May 2013. 

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING APPLICATIONS: 

4. N/084/00642/10: 36 - 39 

N/084/00642/10:- (To view the plans and documents 

online, please click on the Application Number). (Please 

note: If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not 

available). 

Applicant: 

Location: 

Recommendation: 

Officer: 

Mark Caudwell Limited 

Land at Marsh Lane, Orby 

Continue with the Appeal 

Mr. D. Loveday 

5. N/110/00320/13: 40 - 49 




available). 

Applicant: 

Location: 


Officer: 

LB Mablethorpe Limited 

Land South of Jacklin Crescent, Golf 

Road, Mablethorpe 

Approve with Conditions 

Mr. D. Loveday

6. N/134/00118/13: 50 - 71 




available). 

Applicant: 

Ms. H. Cooke 

Location: Skegness Stadium, Orby Road, 

Addlethorpe (within the Parish of 

Orby), Skegness 


Officer: 


Mr. P. Thompson 

7. S/090/00287/13: 72 - 91 

S/090/00287/13:- (To view the plans and documents 



available). 

Applicant: 

Location: 


Officer: 

George Bateman & Son Limited 

The Three Tuns Public House, High 

Street, Ingoldmells, Skegness 



8. S/039/00619/13: 92 - 103 




available). 

Applicant: 

Juwi Renewable Energies Limited 

Location: The Hollies, High Lane, Croft, 

Skegness 


Officer: 


Mr. P. Thompson

9. S/153/00383/13: 104 - 117 




available). 

Applicant: 

Location: 


Officer: 

Mr. F. Burbridge 

Land Adjacent and North of Killiney, 

Beacon Way, Skegness 

Refusal 


THE MEETING WILL ADJOURN FOR LUNCH FOLLOWING THIS ITEM AND WILL 

RECONVENE AT 2.00PM 

10. S/013/02254/11: 118 - 135 




available). 

Applicant: 

Location: 


Officer: 

Mr. J. Boulton 

Land off Narrow Lane and Fulletby 

Road, Belchford, Horncastle 


Mr. A. Allen 

11. N/105/00418/13: 136 - 147 




available). 

Applicant: 

Location: 


Officer: 

Mr. P. & M. Tipper 

The Greyhound Inn, 38 Upgate, 

Louth 

Refusal 

Mr. A. Allen

12. N/105/00419/13: 148 - 157 




available). 

Applicant: 

Location: 


Officer: 

Mr. P. & M. Tipper 

The Greyhound Inn, 38 Upgate, 

Louth 

Refusal 

Mr. A. Allen 

13. N/105/02416/12: 158 - 177 




available). 

Applicant: 

Mr. A. Waller 

Location: Revenue Buildings, Chequergate, 

Louth 


Officer: 

Refusal 

Mr. A. Allen 

14. N/105/02624/12: 178 - 191 




available). 

Applicant: 

Mr. A. Waller 

Location: Revenue Buildings, Chequergate, 

Louth 


Officer: 


Mr. A. Allen

15. N/125/02402/12: 192 - 213 




available). 

Applicant: 

Location: 


Officer: 

Mrs. D. Baxter 

The Nurseries, Coots Lane, Mumby, 

Alford 

Reasons for Refusal 

Mr. C. Panton 

16. S/152/00279/13: 214 - 223 




available). 

Applicant: 

Boston Methodist Circuit 

Location: Northlands Methodist Church, 

Northlands, Sibsey, Boston 


Officer: 


Mr. C. Panton 

17. N/084/00506/13: 224 - 228 




available). 

Applicant: 

Mr. W. Richards 

Location: Belmont Court, Thames Street, 

Hogsthorpe, Skegness 


Officer: 

Approve 

Mr. C. Panton 

18. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER: LOUTH 2013 (105.28): 229 - 234 

Report of the Arboricultural Officer.

19. GROUP II APPLICATIONS: 235 - 236 

Group II Applications deferred by Committee upon which 

verbal reports can be given at the Meeting. 

20. MAJOR APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL: 237 - 256 

Monitoring reports in respect of Major Applications. 

21. CHECKLISTS: 257 - 260 

22. APPEALS DECIDED: 261 - 262 

23. DATE OF NEXT MEETING: 

The programmed date for the next Meeting of this 

Committee will be 27 June 2013.

This page is left intentionally blank

Agenda Item 3 

Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council 

Chamber, Tedder Hall, Manby Park, Louth on Thursday, 18th April, 2013 

at 10.00 am. 

PRESENT 

Councillor N.D. Cooper (Chairman) 

Councillor S. O'Dare (Vice-Chairman) 

Councillors Mrs. P.M. Cooper, S.A. Dennis, D.R. Edginton, T.J. Knowles, 

Mrs. J. Makinson-Sanders, Mrs. F.M. Martin, M.B.E., Mrs. H. Newcombe, 

Laura Stephenson, J.M. Swanson and E.P. Mossop (In place of East 

Lindsey Independent Group Vacancy). 

OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE: 

Stuart Tym 

Chris Panton 

Mitchell Tipper 

Andy Allen 

Graeme Hyde 

Paul Thompson 

Michelle Walker 

- Legal Advisor 

- Team Leader, Planning 

- Member Services Officer 

- Senior Planning Officer 



- Major Applications Planning Officer 

164. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P. Kemp, R.J. 

Palmer and S. Watson. 

It was noted that, in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local 

Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, notice 

had been given that Councillor E.P. Mossop had been appointed to the 

Committee in place of the East Lindsey Independent Group Vacancy. 

165. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS (IF ANY): 

At this point of the Meeting, Members were given the opportunity to 

disclose any relevant interests, the following interests were noted :- 

Councillor E.P. Mossop requested that it be noted that in respect of Minute 

No. 181 that his company had a contractual agreement with the applicant 

and would leave the Meeting during discussion and voting thereon. 

Councillors N.D. Cooper and J.M. Swanson requested that it be noted that 

they were Members of Lincolnshire County Council’s Planning and 

Regulation Committee. 

Councillor S. O’Dare requested that it be noted that in respect of Minute 

No. 179 that he had provided the applicant with advice early in the 

application process and would abstain from voting. 

Page 1 

PL 1


18.04.2013 

Councillor Mrs. P.M. Cooper requested that it be noted that in respect of 

Minute Nos. 172,173,175,176 and 182 that she was the Ward Member 

and remained in the Meeting during discussion and voting thereon. 

Councillor J.M. Swanson requested that it be noted that in respect of 

Minute No. 178 he was the Ward Member and remained in the Meeting 

during discussion and voting thereon. 

166. MINUTES: 

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 March 2013, were confirmed and 

signed as a correct record. 

167. N/133/00586/12: 

Application Type: Full Planning Permission 

Proposal: The erection, 25 year operation and 

subsequent decommissioning of three wind 

turbines up to 113.5m tall to the tip of a blade 

in a vertical position, control/substation 

building, installation of underground electrical 

cables, formation of access tracks and 

upgraded access from the A1031 Fen Lane, 

meteorological monitoring mast of up to 78m 

height, crane hard standings areas, re-design 

of vehicular access into the Environments 

Agency’s flood reservoir and a temporary 

construction/storage compound together with 

other works ancillary to the main development 

including landscaping, fencing and habitat 

management enhancements. 

Location: 

Land at Louth Canal, Fen Lane, North Thoresby 

Applicant: 

PFR (Louth Canal) Limited 

Mr. Newman spoke in objection to the application. 

Mr. Pocklington spoke in support of the application. 

Members received an application for the erection, 25 year operation and 

subsequent decommissioning of three wind turbines up to 113.5m tall to 

the tip of a blade in a vertical position, control/substation building, 

installation of underground electrical cables, formation of access tracks 

and upgraded access from the A1031 Fen Lane, meteorological monitoring 

mast of up to 78m height, crane hard standings areas, re-design of 

vehicular access into the Environments Agency’s flood reservoir and a 

temporary construction/storage compound together with other works 

ancillary to the main development including landscaping, fencing and 

habitat management enhancements at land at Louth Canal, Fen Lane, 

North Thoresby. 

PL 2 

Page 2


18.04.2013 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee for 

consideration as it was a major application that had attracted a 

substantial amount of interest. 

Some of the main planning issues for the application were considered to 

be :- 

• Renewable energy policy and targets 

• Landscape and visual impact 

• Cumulative landscape and visual impact 

• Air traffic safety 

• Effect on Tourism and Economy 

• Shadow Flicker 

• Electro Magnetic Interference 

The Major Applications Planning Officer detailed site and surroundings 

information to Members, details of which were contained within the report. 

Members were referred to the supplementary agenda which detailed 

objections from North Cotes Parish Council, Marsh Windfarm Action Group 

(MWAG) and residents. An email from the applicant was also provided. 

Councillor A. Bridges spoke on behalf of the local Ward Member. 

(NB: Councillor E.P. Mossop requested that it be noted tha he thought 

part of the applicationt the application encroached onto his companies 

land. As a precaution he left the Meeting at 10:57am. It was confirmed 

that it did not encroach onto his land and therefore confirmed by the Legal 

Advisor that this did not constitute a Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest) 

The application was Proposed and Seconded for Refusal, as per the 

Officer’s recommendation. 

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for refusal was declared carried 

unanimously. 

RESOLVED 

That the application be refused for the following reasons :- 

1) The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the 

residential amenities of Eastfield Farm due to overbearing outlook 

and noise and in conjunction with the existing Newton Marsh wind 

farm and the proposed Bishopthorpe wind farm it would cause 

cumulative visual harm. This harm would be contrary to Policy A4 in 

the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 and paragraph 9 in the 

National Planning Policy Framework and would outweigh the 

national need for the development. 

2) The proposed development, by reason of its siting, scale and 

moving parts, would have an adverse impact on the Grade II listed 

Page 3 

PL 3


18.04.2013 

Thoresby Warehouse and its setting contrary to Policy C2 in the 

East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 and would outweigh the 

national need for the development. This reason for refusal would be 

in line with Paragraph 132 in the National Planning Policy 

Framework. 

3) The proposed wind farm would, in conjunction with the existing 

windfarms at Newton Marsh, Conisholme, Mablethorpe and Croft 

and the proposed wind farms at Bishopthorpe, Gayton le Marsh and 

Orby, cause cumulative visual harm. It would also lead to the 

eastern flank of the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB being dominated by 

wind turbines which would be detrimental to the panoramic views 

for which it is partially designated thus being harmful to its 

character. This harm would outweigh the need for the development 

and would be contrary to Policies A4 and C11 in the East Lindsey 

Local Plan Alteration 1999 and Paragraphs 109, 114 and 115 in the 

National Planning Policy Framework. 

168. N/133/02567/12: 

(Councillor E.P. Mossop entered the Meeting at 10:59am) 

Application Type: 

Proposal: 

Location: 

Full Planning Permission 

To site a temporary meteorological mast to a 

maximum height of 70 metres, supported by 

guy wires with a maximum diameter of 70 

metres, for a period of up to 24 months being a 

renewal of planning application number 

N/133/02030/10. 

Land at Louth Canal Reservoir, Fen Lane, North 

Thoresby 

Applicant: Partnership for Renewables Development 

Company Ltd 

Mrs. Miller spoke in support of the application. 

Members received an application to site a temporary meteorological mast 

to a maximum height of 70 metres, supported by guy wires with a 

maximum diameter of 70 metres, for a period of up to 24 months being a 

renewal of planning application number N/133/02030/10 at land at Louth 

Canal Reservoir, Fen Lane, North Thoresby. 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee due to the 

comments received from North Thoresby Parish Council. 

The main planning issue for the application was considered to be whether 

there had been any material planning changes in circumstances since the 

previous decision was made and if there have been such changes, would 

those changes be sufficient to result in a different decision 

The Major Applications Planning Officer detailed site and surroundings 

information to Members, details of which were contained within the report. 

PL 4 

Page 4


18.04.2013 

The Application was Proposed and Seconded for Approval, as per the 

Officer’s recommendation, but to include an amendment to condition 2 

that bird deflectors be installed on all guy wires. 

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for approval was declared 

carried. 

Vote: 8 for 3 against 

RESOLVED 

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions :- 

1) The meteorological monitoring mast hereby permitted must be 

removed, including all of its ancillary fixing structures, and the land 

reinstated to its former condition as open agricultural land on or 

before 17th April 2015. 

2) Within 2 months of the date of this permission bird deflectors with 

reflective centres must be placed on all guy wires at 5m intervals 

and must thereafter be so maintained to the satisfaction of the 

Local Planning Authority throughout the lifetime of the mast. 

169. N/125/02402/12: 


Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 


Change of use of existing land to site 30no. 

touring caravans, erection 2no. amenity blocks 

(which have already been built) erection of a 

reception building and change of use of land to 

form an extension to the domestic cartilage, in 

accordance with the amended site layout plan 

received by the Local Planning Authority on the 

25 th January 2013. 

The Nurseries, Coots Lane, Mumby, Alford, 

LN13 9JZ 

Mrs. D. Baxter 

Mrs. Bradley spoke in objection to the application. 

Mr. Clover spoke in support of the application. 

Members received an application for the change of use of existing land to 

site 30no. touring caravans, erection 2no. amenity blocks (which had 

already been built) erection of a reception building and change of use of 

land to form an extension to the domestic cartilage, in accordance with 

the amended site layout plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 

25 January 2013 at The Nurseries, Coots Lane, Mumby, Alford. 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the 

request of Councillor Mrs. A. Smith. Mumby Parish Council and a number 

Page 5 

PL 5


18.04.2013 

of third parties had also objected to the application whilst letters of 

support had also been received. 

The main planning issues for the application were considered to be :- 

• The principle of the whether this site was suitable location for a new 

caravan site. 

• How the site sat within the wider landscape of the area. 

• Whether the proposal met the criteria of the National Planning 

Policy Framework (NPPF) relating to Flood Risk. 

• Whether the access route along Coots Lane was suitable having 

regard to the relationship with the adjacent farm yard, the 

carriageway width and how it affected the residential amenity of the 

dwellings along Coots Lane. 

• Potential conflict between the proposed caravan site and 

neighbouring farm and dwellings. 

• Whether the number of caravan pitches could be regulated and 

other controls over the use. 

• Extension to residential curtilage, amenity buildings, reception 

building and amenity pond. 

The Team Leader Planning explained to Members that the proposed 

application was a departure from policy T15 of the Local Plan. However, 

the NPPF was supportive of a prosperous rural economy. Members noted 

that this up-to-date planning advice was supportive of sustainable rural 

tourism and leisure development that benefited businesses in rural areas 

and as the NPPF was a material consideration in the decision making 

process, on balance, the application was recommended for approval. 


Officer’s recommendation. Following which, an Amendment was Proposed 

and Seconded that the Application be Refused due to the effect on 

residential amenity, effect on the landscape, effect on the rural character 

of the area and the effect on an existing business and as such the 

proposal was contrary to paragraph 123 of the NPPF and A4 and T15 of 

the Local Plan. 

Upon the amendment for refusal being put to the vote, it was declared 

carried. 


Upon the Substantive Motion for refusal being put to the vote, it was 

declared carried. 


RESOLVED 

That the application be refused due to the effect on residential amenity, 

effect on the landscape, effect on the rural character of the area and the 

PL 6 

Page 6


18.04.2013 

effect on an existing businesss and as such that the proposal was contrary 

to paragraph 123 of the NPPF and A4 and T15 of the Local Plan and that 

the reasons for refusal be brought to a future Meeting of the Planning 

Committee. 

170. N/003/02558/12: 


Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 


Alterations to existing shop which is a listed 

building to provide a new shop front and 

replacement window on the ground floor at 

existing building. 

15 Market Place, Alford, Lincolnshire, LN13 9EB 

Coopland & Son Ltd 

Members received an application for alterations to an existing shop which 

was a listed building to provide a new shop front and replacement window 

on the ground floor at the existing building at 15 Market Place, Alford. 


controversial nature of the proposed change of retailer as exemplified by 

the objections received. 

The main planning issues for the application were considered to be:- 

• Given the nature of certain objections, particularly in the form of 

the submitted petition, whether the proposed use will undermine 

the vitality and viability of the town centre 

• Whether the design of the development was of the necessary 

quality to meet the requirements of modern design policy and 

guidance whist ensuring that the character or appearance of the 

listed building and the Alford Conservation Area were preserved or 

enhanced. 

The Senior Planning Officer detailed site and surroundings information to 

Members, details of which were contained within the report. 



Upon the proposal for approval being put to the vote, it was declared 

carried unanimously. 

RESOLVED 

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:- 

1) The development must be begun not later than the expiration of 

three years beginning with the date of this permission. 

2) The new window proposed on the north facing elevation of the 

building shall be a timber single glazed sliding sash window. The 

Page 7 

PL 7


18.04.2013 

new window shall be identical to the existing timber sliding sash 

window located directly above. The new window shall be installed 

before the bakery is brought into use and retained thereafter. 

3) The works hereby given consent must be carried out only in 

accordance with the details and specifications included on the 

submitted application form and shown on the submitted drawings 

as may be modified by the details required by other conditions of 

this consent. 

171. N/003/02559/12: 


Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 

Listed Building Consent – Alterations 

Internal and external alterations to existing 

shop to provide a new shop front an 

replacement window on the ground floor and 

signage at existing building, 

15 Market Place, Alford, LN13 9EB 

Coopland & Sons Ltd 

Members received an application for the internal and external alterations 

to an existing shop to provide a new shop front and replacement window 

on the ground floor and signage at existing building at 15 Market Place, 

Alford. 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee due to its 

association with the previous planning application relating to a 

controversial change of retailer and as it was subject to objections. 

The main planning issue for the application was considered to be whether 

the design of the development was of the necessary quality to meet the 

requirements of modern design policy and guidance whilst ensuring that 

the character or appearance of the listed building and the Alford 

Conservation Area were preserved or enhanced. 





Upon the proposal for approval being put to the vote, it was declared 

carried unanimously. 

RESOLVED 


1) The works must be begun not later than the expiration of three 

years beginning with the date of this permission. 

PL 8 

Page 8


18.04.2013 

2) The new window proposed on the north facing elevation of the 

building shall be a timber single glazed sliding sash window. The 

new window shall be identical to the existing timber sliding sash 

window located directly above. The new window shall be installed 

before the bakery is brought into use and retained thereafter. 

3) The works hereby given consent must be carried out only in 

accordance with the details and specifications included on the 

submitted application form and shown on the submitted drawings 

as may be modified by the details required by other conditions of 

this consent. 

4) The hanging signs and wording to be applied to the shop front 

fascia hereby granted consent must be hand painted. 

(Members broke for Lunch at 12:15pm and returned at 2:00pm) 

172. S/064/00041/13: 

Application Type: Remove or Vary a Condition 

Proposal: 

Application to vary condition no.5 which states 

“None of the log cabins the subject of the 

application shall be residentially occupied by 

the same person or persons for a period in 

excess of three consecutive calendar months” 

imposed on planning permission ref no. 

S/064/01767/89 to read “The log cabins shall 

be occupied for holiday purposed only and shall 

not be occupied as a persons sole or main 

place of residence. The owner/operator of the 

site shall maintain an up-to-date register of the 

names of all owners/occupiers of 

accommodation on the site, and of their main 

home addresses, and shall make this 

information available to the Local Planning 

Authority upon request”. 

Location: Meadowlands, Great Steeping Road, 

Monksthorpe, Spilsby, PE23 5PP 

Applicant: 

Mr. H. Smith 

Mr. Smith spoke in support of the application. 

Members received an application to vary condition no.5 which states 

“None of the log cabins the subject of the application shall be residentially 

occupied by the same person or persons for a period in excess of three 

consecutive calendar months” imposed on planning permission ref no. 

S/064/01767/89 to read “The log cabins shall be occupied for holiday 

purposed only and shall not be occupied as a persons sole or main place 

of residence. The owner/operator of the site shall maintain an up-to-date 

register of the names of all owners/occupiers of accommodation on the 

site, and of their main home addresses, and shall make this information 

Page 9 

PL 9


18.04.2013 

available to the Local Planning Authority upon request” at Meadowlands, 

Great Steeping Road, Monksthorpe, Spilsby. 


planning history and level of public interest in the site. 


• The principle of the Variation to Planning Condition No. 5 

• Whether the remaining planning conditions need to be imposed 


Members, details of which were contained within the report. It was 

explained to Members that paragraph 2.1 of the Officers report detailed 

that there were eight lodges as part of the application, however it was 

confirmed that there were only seven lodges. 


Officer’s recommendation, but that an 18 month time frame be 

implemented to allow for current occupiers of the lodges to find 

alternative permanent accommodation. 

Members considered that it was also important that the register was 

implemented and maintained. 


carried. 


RESOLVED 

That the application be approved, subject to the following conditions:- 

1) The log cabins shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and shall 

not be occupied as a person’s sole or main place of residence. The 

owner/operator of the site shall maintain an up-to-date register of 

the names of all owners/occupiers of accommodation on the site, 

and of their main home addresses, and shall make this information 

available to the Local Planning Authority upon request. 

2) The area(s) shown on the plan accompanying the original 

application (reference E64/1767/89) reserved for the parking of 

vehicles shall be used or be available for vehicle parking at all times 

when the change of use has been implemented. 

173. S/064/00051/13: 


Proposal: 

Modification of Planning Obligation 

Modification of Planning Obligation relating to 

Section 106 Agreement for planning 

PL 10 

Page 10


18.04.2013 

application reference EO64/01767/89 relating 

to sections for the need for a register of all 

persons occupying the log cabins to be 

occupied for holiday purposed only and shall 

not be occupied as a persons sole or main 

place of residence. The owner/operator of the 

site shall maintain an up-to-date register of the 

names of all owners/ occupiers of 

accommodation on the site, and of their main 

home addresses, and shall make this 

information available to the Local Planning 

Authority upon request. 

Location: Meadowlands, Great Steeping Road, 

Monksthorpe, Spilsby, PE23 5PP 

Applicant: 

Mr. H. Smith 

Mr. Sidden spoke in objection to the application. 

Mr. Smith spoke in support of the application. 

Members received an application for the Modification of Planning 

Obligation relating to Section 106 Agreement for planning application 

reference EO64/01767/89 relating to sections for the need for a register 

of all persons occupying the log cabins to be occupied for holiday 

purposed only and shall not be occupied as a persons sole or main place 

of residence. The owner/operator of the site shall maintain an up-to-date 

register of the names of all owners/ occupiers of accommodation on the 

site, and of their main home addresses, and shall make this information 

available to the Local Planning Authority upon request at Meadowlands, 

Great Steeping Road, Monksthorpe, Spilsby. 


planning history and level of public interest in the site. 

The main planning issue for the site was considered to be the principle of 

the revisions to the planning obligation. 



explained to Members that paragraph 2.1 of the Officers report detailed 

that there were eight lodges as part of the application, however it was 

confirmed that there were only seven lodges. 




carried. 


RESOLVED 

PL 11 

Page 11


18.04.2013 

That the application be approved subject to the following condition:- 

1) Clauses 1 and 2 of the Third Schedule to the Planning Obligation 

dated 7 January 1994 made between East Lindsey District Council 

and Mr. D. R. Wilford and Mrs. S. J. Wilford are modified to read as 

follows: 

“The log cabins shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and shall not 

be occupied as a person’s sole or main place of residence. The 

owner/operator of the site shall maintain an up-to-date register of the 

names of all owners/occupiers of accommodation on the site, and of their 

main home addresses, and shall make this information available to the 

Local Planning Authority upon request.” 

174. N/134/00118/13: 


Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 


Erection of 3no. micro scale wind turbines to a 

height of 14.87 metres to the hub with a blade 

span of 5.6 metres (maximum height of 17.77 

metres) with provision of underground cabling. 

Skegness Stadium, Orby Road, Addlethorpe, 

(within the Parish of Orby), Skegness, PE24 

4TS 

Ms. H. Cooke 

Members received an application for the erection of 3no. micro scale wind 

turbines to a height of 14.87 metres to the hub with a blade span of 5.6 

metres (maximum height of 17.77 metres with provision of underground 

cabling) at Skegness Stadium, Orby Road, Addlethorpe, Skegness. 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee for 

consideration at the request of Councillor Mrs. A. Smith. 


• The principle of the development 

• The impact of the development upon the landscape 

• The impact of the development upon residential amenity 

• Flood risk 

The Team Leader Planning, referred Members to an email that had been 

sent from the Clerk of Addlethorpe Parish Council explaining that they had 

not consulted on the application but felt that they should have been. 

Members considered that it would be important to hear the views of the 

Parish Council and it was therefore Proposed and Seconded that the 

Application be Deferred to allow for further consultation on the 

application. 

PL 12 

Page 12


18.04.2013 

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for Deferral was declared carried 

unanimously. 

RESOLVED 

That the application be deferred to allow for further consultation. 

175. S/039/00207/13: 


Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 


Change of use of land for the siting of 15no. 

transportable modular holiday lodges. 

Land at The Hollies, High Lane, Croft 

Mr. T. Spencer 

Mr. Spencer spoke in support of the application. 

Members received an application for the change of use of land for the 

siting of 15no. transportable modular holiday lodges at land at The Hollies, 

High Lane, Croft. 

That application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the 

proposal was for development which would be a departure from the Local 

Plan. 


• The location of the development 

• The impact of the development upon the setting of the listed 

building 

• The landscape impact of the development 

• The effects of the development upon residential amenity 

• Highway safety and traffic capacity 



The Team Leader Planning explained to Members that the proposed 

application was a departure from policy T12 of the Local Plan. However, 

the NPPF was supportive of a prosperous rural economy. Members noted 

that this up-to-date planning advice was supportive of sustainable rural 

tourism and leisure development that benefited businesses in rural areas 

and as the NPPF was a material consideration in the decision making 

process, on balance, the application was recommended for approval. 


Officers recommendation. 


carried. 


PL 13 

Page 13


18.04.2013 

RESOLVED 




2) In accordance with the details contained with Paragraph 6.1.4 of 

the Design and Access Statement and the plan LDC0788-02, both 

received by the Local Planning Authority on 4th February 2013, the 

development of the site shall be completed in two phases. The 

second phase shall only be implemented once applicant / developer 

has received written confirmation from the Local Planning Authority 

that they are satisfied that the landscaping referred to in Condition 

No. 3 below has been completed in accordance with the approved 

details and that the landscaping proposed would sufficiently screen 

the site from the Listed Building known as ‘The Hollies’. 

3) Except for the northern boundary of the site, the scheme of 

landscaping and tree planting shown on Drawing Reference 

LDC0788-02 received by the Local Planning Authority on 4th 

February 2013 shall be carried out in its entirety within a period of 

six months beginning with the date on which development is 

commenced, or within such longer period as may be agreed in 

writing with the Local Planning Authority. The northern boundary 

shall also be planted with a native species hedge as set out on the 

plan. All trees, shrubs, bushes and hedges shall be maintained in 

accordance with the details shown on the approved plan up until 

and for a period of five years following the completion of Phase 2 of 

the development and during that period all losses shall be made 

good as and when necessary, unless the Local Planning Authority 

gives written consent to any variation. 

4) Before the commencement of the development hereby granted, 

details of the means of foul water disposal shall be submitted to 

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details 

so approved shall be implemented in full before the development 

hereby permitted is first brought into use. 

5) Before the development is commenced, full details of the proposed 

soakaway system for the disposal of surface water from the 

development hereby permitted, including percolation test results, 

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority. Should the percolation test results be considered 

unacceptable by the Local Planning Authority details of an 

alternative means of providing for surface water drainage shall be 

submitted for consideration. The approved means of surface water 

drainage shall be implemented in full before the development 

hereby permitted is first brought into use. 

PL 14 

Page 14


18.04.2013 

6) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, 

details of the design and materials of construction of all access 

roads and the final colour of the external faces and roofs of the 

proposed lodges shall be submitted to and approved in writing by 

the Local Planning Authority. The access roads and lodges shall 

only be constructed in accordance with the approved details and 

retained as such thereafter. 

7) Other than the details shown on the approved plans forming part of 

this application, there shall be no erection or provision of any 

structures (including fencing, lighting); nor any engineering or 

other operations (including surfaced paths, hardstandings, soil 

excavations, embankments); nor siting or storage of any chattels 

(including tents, caravans, temporary buildings, containers, 

portable wc's, lorry backs or any other equipment or non-visitor 

vehicles) whatsoever within the land outlined in red on plan 

LDC0788-01, received by the Local Planning Authority on 4th 

February 2013, unless the subject of a further planning permission. 

8) The holiday lodges hereby permitted shall be occupied for holiday 

purposes only and shall not be occupied as a person’s sole or main 

place of residence. The owners/operators of the site shall maintain 

an up-to-date register of the names of all owners/occupiers of 

individual holiday lodges on the site, and of their main home 

addresses, and shall make this information available to the Local 

Planning Authority upon request. 

176. S/039/00214/13: 


Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 


Erection of 2no. semi detached houses, and a 

block of 3no. houses with fencing to a 

maximum height of 1.8m and construction of 

vehicular/pedestrian accesses on the site of 

existing 4no. dwellings which are to be 

demolished, in accordance with amended plans 

received by the Local Planning Authority on 25 

March 2013 

Nos. 3A, 4A, 5A and 6A, Church Lane, Croft, 

Skegness, PE24 4RS 

New Linx Housing Trust 

Mr. Parker spoke in support of the application. 

Members received an application for the Erection of 2no. semi detached 

houses, and a block of 3no. houses with fencing to a maximum height of 

1.8m and construction of vehicular/pedestrian accesses on the site of 

existing 4no. dwellings which were to be demolished, in accordance with 

amended plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 25 March 

2013 at Nos. 3A, 4A, 5A and 6A Church Lane, Croft, Skegness. 

PL 15 

Page 15


18.04.2013 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee given the 

significant objection received from the Croft Parish Council, and a 

resident. 



• Flood risk and drainage 

• The impacts of the design of the development upon the character of 

the area 

• The impacts of the development upon residential amenity 

• Highway safety and access 



The Application was Proposed and Seconded for Refusal due to the 

impacts of the development upon residential amenity and the over 

intensification of the site. Following which an Amendment was Proposed 

and Seconded that the Application be Approved, as per the Officer’s 

recommendation. 

Upon the amendment for approval being put to the vote, it was declared 

carried. 


Upon the Substantive Motion for approval being put to the vote, it was 

declared carried. 


RESOLVED 

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions 



2) There shall be no site compound sited in connection with the 

approved development until such time as details of the location and 

arrangement of any proposed site huts or other structures, and all 

construction parking associated with the development, have been 

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority. The site compound shall only be located and arranged in 

accordance with the approved details and there shall be no material 

variation from these restrictions unless otherwise approved in 

writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

3) No vehicular traffic associated with the construction of the 

development hereby permitted shall access or egress the site until 

PL 16 

Page 16


18.04.2013 

such time as the details of the precautions to be taken to prevent 

the deposit of mud on public highways by vehicles travelling from 

the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the 

Local Planning Authority. These precautions shall be made available 

before any construction traffic associated with the development is 

permitted to access or egress the site and shall be kept available 

and in full working order until such time as the Local Planning 

Authority agrees in writing to their withdrawal or the completion of 

the development. 

4) Prior to any facing bricks to be used in the construction of the 

dwellings hereby permitted being laid, details of the type, texture 

and colour of bricks used in their construction shall be submitted to 

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The 

development shall be completed in accordance with the approved 

bricks. 

5) Prior to the construction of the roofs of any of the dwellings hereby 

permitted, samples of the roofing materials shall be submitted to 

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All the 

roofing materials shall conform to the samples so approved and 

thereafter so maintained. 

6) Further to the requirements of Condition Nos. 4 and 5, prior to the 

installation of any of the remaining materials to be used in the 

construction of the development hereby permitted, a schedule of 

those materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by 

the Local planning Authority Prior. The schedule shall include the 

following: 

• Details of the window frames to be used in the construction of the 

development, including their position in relation to the brickwork, 

their finished colour and method of opening; 

• Details of the design and finished colour of the external doors and 

frames to be used in the construction of the development; andThe 

materials of construction and final colour of all rainwater goods. 

Samples if so required, shall be submitted to and approved in 

writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to their installation and 

the materials shall be installed in accordance with the approved 

details. 

7) Construction of the development hereby permitted shall not be 

permitted outside the hours of 08:00-18:00 Monday to Saturday, 

nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays without the 

express written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 

8) No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside 

the hours of 08:00-18:00 Monday to Saturday, nor at any time on 

Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays without the express written 

consent of the Local Planning Authority. 

PL 17 

Page 17


18.04.2013 

9) The dwellings hereby permitted must only be occupied by a person 

or persons allocated by the Council’s Housing Advice Service (or 

equivalent) or a Registered Provider, and subject to a Local 

Cascading Provision, details of which must first be submitted to and 

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first 

occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted. The Local 

Cascading Provision shall include details of the following: 

• The arrangements to ensure that such provision is affordable for 

both first and subsequent occupiers of the affordable housing; and 

• The occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of 

occupiers of the affordable housing and the means by which such 

occupancy criteria will be enforced. Those criteria shall accord with 

local cascading provisions. 

10) Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby 

permitted the walls, fences and other means of enclosure shall be 

erected in accordance with the details as shown on approved plans 

0067/PA/003, Revision B, and 0067/PA/010 both received by the 

Local Planning Authority on 11th February 2013, and retained as 

such thereafter. 


permitted, the foul water disposal from the dwellings shall be 

connected to the mains system as set out in the planning 

application. 


permitted, full details of the proposed soakaway system(s) for the 

disposal of surface water from the development hereby permitted, 

including percolation test results, shall be submitted to and 

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should the 

percolation test results be considered unacceptable by the Local 

Planning Authority details of an alternative means of providing for 

surface water drainage shall be submitted for consideration. The 

approved means of surface water drainage shall be implemented in 

full before the development hereby permitted is first brought into 

use. 


permitted, the development must be carried out in complete 

conformity with the approved plans and specifications, unless 

otherwise indicated or to a timetable to be submitted to and agreed 

in writing by the Local Planning Authority (the development must 

be completed in accordance with any such timetable). In particular, 

the development should be constructed in accordance with the 

requirements of the Flood Risk Assessment, received by the Local 

Planning Authority on 4th January 2013, including the following 

mitigation: 

PL 18 

Page 18


18.04.2013 

• Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 2.50m above 

Ordnance Datum (AOD); and 

• Flood Resilient construction techniques as outlined in the FRA to 

minimum height of 2.8AOD. 

• The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to 

occupation or within any other period as may subsequently be 

agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. 

14) The arrangements shown on drawing number 0067/PA/003, 

Revision B, received by the Local Planning Authority on 11th 

February 2013, for the access, turning and parking of vehicles shall 

be available at all times when the dwellings are in use. 

(Councillor D.R. Edginton left the Meeting at 3.27pm) 

177. N/134/02265/12: 


Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 


Change of use of land to form a 30no. pitch 

static caravan site, partly on the site of land 

used for 10no. touring caravan pitches, 

including the construction of an internal access 

track and the erection of 1no. lighting column 

to the existing public house car park and 23no. 

bollard lights to the internal access track, in 

accordance with amended plan received by the 

Local Planning Authority on 20 November 2012 

and 8 February 2013. 

The Gunby Inn, Station Road, Gunby, Spilsby, 

PE23 5SL 

Champion and Marshall 

Mrs. Marshall spoke in objection to the application. 

Mr. Champion spoke in support of the application. 

(Councillor D.R. Edginton entered the Meeting at 3:33pm) 

Members received an application for the change of use of land to form a 

30no. pitch static caravan site, partly on the site of land used for 10no. 

touring caravan pitches, including the construction of an internal access 

track and the erection of 1no. lighting column to the existing public house 

car park and 23no. bollard lights to the internal access track, in 

accordance with amended plan received by the Local Planning Authority 

on 20 November 2012 and 8 February 2013 at The Gunby Inn, Station 

Road, Gunby, Spilsby. 

The application was referred to the Planning Committee on 14 February 

2013 by Councillor Mrs. A. Smith in order for Members to consider the 

location of the static caravan development adjacent to the Area of Great 

Landscape Value and close to the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding 

Natural Beauty, 

PL 19 

Page 19


18.04.2013 

Following discussions, Members voted to approve the application and that 

the conditions for approval be brought to a future Meeting of the Planning 

Committee for consideration. 

The Team Leader Planning presented the conditions to Members for 

consideration explaining that the maintenance period for condition no. 5 in 

respect of landscaping could be extended from 5 to 10 years and there 

was also flexability in the condition to allow for planting to be carried out 

at the appropriate time of the year. Also the Team Leader Planning 

explained that in view of the comments from the applicants a seasonal 

restriction would be appropriate to only allow occupation between 1 st 

March in one year and 5 th January inclusive in the following year. 

That Application was Proposed and Seconded for Approval to include a 

variation to condition no. 6 that static caravans can only be occupied 

between 1 March to the 5 January the following year. Also the 

maintenance period for the landscaping in condition 5 was extended to 10 

years. 

Upon being put to the vote, the Application was declared carried. 


(Councillor D.R. Edginton abstained from voting) 

RESOLVED 




2) There shall be no more than 30no. static holiday caravans sited 

within the land outlined in red on the site location plan and to the 

layout shown on drawing number A/2679/02 Revision B, received 

by the Local Planning Authority on 1st November 2012 and 8th 

February 2013 respectively. 

3) Prior to any of the approved static holiday caravan pitches first 

being brought into use, details of how egress from the site onto 

Station Road shall be managed to direct vehicles to turn left shall 

be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority. The details shall include the design, dimensions and 

position of any signage to be positioned directly opposite the 

access/egress which shall indicate the travel of direction and that 

the highway is a dual carriageway; and how the egress will be 

marked out to direct traffic in the same manner. Only the agreed 

details must be implemented prior to any of the approved static 

holiday caravan pitches first being brought into use, and retained as 

such thereafter. 

PL 20 

Page 20


18.04.2013 

4) Notwithstanding the details shown on plan reference A/2678/05 

Revision A, received by the Local Planning Authority on 20th 

November 2013, the lighting to be used in connection with the 

development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved 

in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved 

lighting shall be implemented and there shall be no alteration to the 

approved lighting, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. 

5) Notwithstanding the details shown on plan reference A/2678/02 

Revision B, received by the Local Planning Authority on 8th 

February 2013, before the commencement of the development 

hereby permitted, the approval of the Local Planning Authority is 

required to a scheme of landscaping and tree planting for the site 

indicating, inter alia, the number, species, heights on planting and 

positions of all the trees, together with details of post-planting 

maintenance. Such scheme as is approved by the Local Planning 

Authority shall be carried out in its entirety within a period of six 

months beginning with the date on which development is 

commenced, or within such longer period as may be agreed in 

writing with the Local Planning Authority. All trees, shrubs and 

bushes shall be maintained by the owner or owners of the land on 

which they are situated for the period of ten years beginning with 

the date of completion of the scheme and during that period all 

losses shall be made good as and when necessary, unless the Local 

Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. 

6) The static holiday caravans hereby permitted shall not be occupied 

between 6th January and the last day in February inclusive and 

shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and shall not be 

occupied as a person’s sole or main place of residence. The 

owners/operators of the site shall maintain an up-to-date register 

of the names of all owners/occupiers of individual static holiday 

caravans on the site, and of their main home addresses, and shall 

make this information available to the Local Planning Authority 

upon request. 

7) The foul water disposal from the development shall only be 

connected to the ‘Modulus’ sewage treatment system, details of 

which were received by the Local Planning Authority on 12th 

November 2012 and to the layout shown on drawing number 

A/2679/02 Revision B, received by the Local Planning Authority on 

8th February 2013, unless otherwise approved in writing by the 

Local Planning Authority. 

8) In accordance with the details referred to in the application, the 

surface water disposal from the site shall only be to the existing 

pond within the site and/or to soakaway. Full details of the latter 

must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority prior to any soakaway system being provided. This shall 

PL 21 

Page 21


18.04.2013 

include percolation test results and should the percolation test 

results be considered unacceptable by the Local Planning Authority 

details of an alternative means of providing for surface water 

drainage shall be submitted for consideration. The approved means 

of surface water drainage shall be implemented in full before the 

development hereby permitted is first brought into use. 

178. S/072/00111/13: 


Proposal: Erection of 2no. pairs of semi-detached 

bungalows, 1no. pair of semi-detached houses, 

1no. block of 3 no. houses, (total 9no. 

dwellings, which have already been 

constructed but with roof heights to be 

reduced) to include the erection of associated 

garden sheds (which have already been 

constructed), to include fencing to a maximum 

height of 2.3 metres, reduction in rear garden 

levels, surface water filter drain, in accordance 

with an amended plan received by the Local 

Planning Authority on 15 February 2013. 

Location: 

Land at, Manor Drive, Halton Holegate 

Applicant: 

New Linx Housing Trust 

Members received an application for the erection of 2no. pairs of semidetached 

bungalows, 1no. pair of semi-detached houses, 1no. block of 3 

no. houses, (total 9no. dwellings, which had already been constructed but 

with roof heights to be reduced) to include the erection of associated 

garden sheds (which had already been constructed), to include fencing to 

a maximum height of 2.3 metres, reduction in rear garden levels, surface 

water filter drain, in accordance with an amended plan received by the 

Local Planning Authority on 15 February 2013 at land at Manor Drive, 

Halton Holegate. 

The application was originally referred to the Planning Committee at the 

request of Councillor J.M. Swanson in order for Members to consider the 

proposed changes to the development as built. 

The application was considered at the Planning Committee Meeting held 

on 14 March 2013, where Members refused the application but that the 

reasons for refusal be brought back to a future Meeting of the Committee 

for consideration. 

The Team Leader Planning explained to Members that he had now 

received amended plans from the applicant which differed from the plans 

that Members considered at the last Meeting. The changes detailed the 

reinstatement of chimneys to address some of the design concerns 

mentioned by Members which formed the basis of the draft reasons for 

refusal. It was explained that the applicant considered that the overall 

changes represented a more than adequate mitigation and therefore 

respectively asked that the application be reconsidered. 

PL 22 

Page 22


18.04.2013 

Councillor J.M. Swanson spoke as Ward Member, following which he left 

the Meeting at 3:44pm. 

Members considered that the changes described (reintroduction of 

chimneys to the design) only addressed a small part of the problem. As 

not enough had changed it was considered that the revised plans did not 

constitute a new material planning consideration. Members encouraged 

the applicant of submit amended plans by the following the proper process 

The Reasons for Refusal were Proposed and Seconded for Approval. 


carried. 


(Councillor E.P. Mossop abstained from voting) 

RESOLVED 

That the application be refused for the following reasons:- 

1) The proposed revisions to the development as built, not in 

accordance with the approved details, and the other mitigation 

measures proposed through changes to the land levels and 

landscaping and boundary fences would not satisfactorily address 

the oppressive impact of the development upon the occupiers of the 

properties to the south and west of the site in Manor Drive and 

Station Road in order to ensure a good standard of residential 

amenity. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the provisions 

of Policies A4 and H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 

1999; and the requirements of Paragraph 56 the National Planning 

Policy Framework 2012. 

2) The proposed revisions to the development, as built, through the 

alternative design of the roof form, particularly the change from 

gabled to hipped roofs and the removal of the chimneys would 

result in a detrimental design and consequent harm being caused to 

the character of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary 

to the provisions of Policies A4 and H12 of the East Lindsey Local 

Plan Alteration 1999; and the requirements of Paragraphs 56 and 

64 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 

(Members broke for a comfort break at 3:45pm and returned at 3:55pm) 

179. S/194/02271/12: 

(Councillor J.M. Swanson returned to the Meeting at 3:55pm) 



PL 23 

Page 23


18.04.2013 

Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 

Change of use and alterations to existing Youth 

Access Centre to form a hot food takeaway and 

to include the installation of an external flue 

and provision of a gas bottle store in 

accordance with amended details received 

from the applicants by the Local Planning 

Authority on 17 th December 2012. 

61 High Street, Wainfleet, Skegness, PE24 4DA 

Mr. M. Uddin 

Members received an application for the change of use and alterations to 

existing Youth Access Centre to form a hot food takeaway and to include 

the installing of an external flue and provision of a gas bottle store in 

accordance with amended details received from the applicants by the 

Local Planning Authority on 17 December 2012 at 61 High Street, 

Wainfleet, Skegness. 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee due to an 

objection from Wainfleet All Saints Parish Council and a high number of 

neighbour objections received. 

The main planning issues for the application were considered to be :- 


• Impact on neighbours 

• Impact of character of area 

• Highway safety and parking 

The Team Leader Planning detailed site and surroundings information to 


explained to Members that Regulatory Services now had no objection. 

The Application was Proposed and Seconded for Approval as per the 

Officer’s recommendation but that condition 5 be removed. 


carried. 


(Councillor S. O’Dare abstained from voting) 

RESOLVED 




2) No waste bins that are used in conjunction with the takeaway 

hereby permitted shall be stored on the pavement onto High Street 

or on New End. 

PL 24 

Page 24


18.04.2013 

3) The gas bottle store shall be installed in accordance with the details 

received by the Local Planning Authority on 17th December 2012 

and shall be black in colour and retained as such thereafter. 

4) The flue hereby permitted shall be installed in accordance with Plan 

Number 2054/02 which was received by the Local Planning 

Authority on 2nd November 2012. 

5) The use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers except 

between the hours of 09:00 and 23:00 without the express written 

consent of the Local Planning Authority. 

6) Prior to the takeaway hereby permitted being brought into use, the 

filtration system shall be installed in exact accordance with the 

details received by the Local Planning Authority on 25th February 

2013. This filtration system must be maintained in accordance with 

the manufacturers specification submitted with the application. 

180. N/132/02310/12: 


Proposal: 

Change of use of former butchers shop to use 

as a hot food takeaway, in accordance with 

amended plans and information received by 

the Local Planning Authority on 17 th and 22 

January 2013. 

Location: Millson Butchers, Keeling Street, North 

Somercotes, Louth, LN11 7QT 

Applicant: 

Costcutter 

Mrs. Page spoke in objection to the application. 

Mr. Udek spoke in support of the application. 

Members received an application for the change of use of former butchers 

shop to use as a hot food takeaway, in accordance with amended plans 

and information received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 and 22 

January 2013 at Millson Butchers, Keeling Street, North Somercotes, 

Louth. 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee by the Ward 

Member due to the nature of the proposed business. 



• Impact on residential amenity 

• The effect on the character of the area 

• Highway safety 

• Flood risk and drainage 

PL 25 

Page 25


18.04.2013 



Members were referred to the supplementary agenda which detailed 

further neighbour comments. 




carried. 


RESOLVED 




2) Deliveries to the application site must only occur between the hours 

of 7am and 6pm Monday to Saturday (inclusive) and must not 

occur at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, unless 

otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

3) The use hereby permitted must only be open to the public between 

the hours of 7am and 11pm and must not be open at any other 

times, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority. 

4) Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, a bin must be 

provided for customers on the forecourt facing Keeling Street at all 

times when the business is open, unless otherwise agreed in writing 

by the Local Planning Authority. Emptying of the bin must be 

managed by the business operating from the site. 

5) Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, before the 

commencement of the use hereby permitted, full details of the 

locations and method of storage of any commercial waste, including 

bins and used oil, must be submitted to and agreed in writing by 

the Local Planning Authority. Waste must only be stored within the 

site in accordance with the agreed details. 

6) Before the commencement of the use hereby permitted, the 

extraction flue and ON100 odour unit must be installed in 

accordance with the submitted details and must be retained as such 

thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority. The odour unit must be maintained in accordance with 

the manufacturer’s specification and all maintenance and servicing 

PL 26 

Page 26


18.04.2013 

records must be kept and made available to the Local Planning 

Authority when they are requested in writing. 

7) Before the commencement of the use hereby permitted, a full noise 

survey carried out to BS4142 must be undertaken in relation to the 

odour neutraliser unit and a copy of the report must be submitted 

to and be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The 

report must detail any mitigation measures that are required to 

ensure that the rating level of the noise output from the unit is no 

more than 5db above background noise level at the site. The 

mitigation measures must be implemented in full before the 

permitted use commences and must be retained as such thereafter, 

unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

181. N/056/00141/13: 

(Councillors E.P. Mossop and S. O’Dare left the Meeting at 4:37pm) 


Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 


Installation of 50kW ground mounted solar 

photovoltaic panels with a maximum overall 

panel height of up to 3.5 metres, in accordance 

with amended plans received by the Local 

Planning Authority on 19 February 2013. 

Southfields Farm, Mill Way, Fulstow, Louth, 

LN11 0XU 

Lincs Turkeys Ltd 

Members received an application for the installation of 50kW ground 

mounted solar photovoltaic panels with a maximum overall panel height of 

up to 3.5 metres, in accordance with amended plans received by the Local 

Planning Authority on 19 February 2013 at Southfields Farm, Mill Way, 

Fulstow, Louth. 

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee due to an 

objection received from Fulstow Parish Council, and also from a 

neighbour. 


• The principle of the development in this location 

• Impact on the amenities of nearby residents 

• Impact on the rural character of the area 

• Highways 




Officer’s recommendation, and to include conditions that ensured all 

planting was in place prior to the solar panels being installed and that all 

cabling to the site was kept underground. 

PL 27 

Page 27


18.04.2013 


carried. 


RESOLVED 




2) The solar panels hereby permitted must be taken down and 

removed from the site no later than 28 days following any date on 

which it is no longer used or capable of being used for the purpose 

for which they are designed. 

3) Notwithstanding the details submitted before the commencement of 

the development hereby permitted details of a screen planting 

scheme of trees, hedges and/or shrubs on the northeast boundary 

of the site including details of positions, heights on planting and 

species shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be carried out in 

their entirety before any development is commenced. All trees, 

hedges and/shrubs shall be maintained by the owner or owners of 

the land on which they are situated for the period of ten years 

beginning with the date of completion of the scheme and during 

that period all losses shall be made good as and when necessary, 

unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any 

variation. 

4) The solar arrays hereby permitted shall be connected to the 

national grid by underground cables only. 

182. S/020/02381/12: 

(Councillor E.P. Mossop entered the Meeting at 4:48pm) 


Proposal: Extensions and alterations to an existing 

bungalow to provide a rear single storey 

bedroom with en-suite and a side ground floor 

lounge, dinning room and study with 2no. first 

floor bedrooms both with en-suites and one 

with dressing room and a separate bathroom 

over and existing rear conservatory to be 

removed and erection of a detached double 

garage and store with guest bedroom and 

bathroom over in accordance with amended 

plans received by the Local Planning Authority 

on 15 January 2013. 

PL 28 

Page 28


18.04.2013 

Location: Woodlands, Summergate Lane, Bratoft, 

Lincolnshire, PE24 5BZ 

Applicant: 

Mr. P. Graham 

Members received an application for the extensions and alterations to an 

existing bungalow to provide a rear single storey bedroom with en-suite 

and a side ground floor lounge, dinning room and study with 2no. first 

floor bedrooms both with en-suites and one with dressing room and a 

separate bathroom over and existing rear conservatory to be removed 

and erection of a detached double garage and store with guest bedroom 

and bathroom over in accordance with amended plans received by the 

Local Planning Authority on 15 January 2013 at Woodlands, Summergate 

Lane, Bratoft, Lincolnshire. 

The application was first considered at the Planning Committee Meeting 

held on 14 March 2013, where Members considered that the application 

should be refused and that the reasons for refusal be brought to a future 

Meeting. 

The Team Leader Planning presented the reasons for refusal to Members 

for consideration. 

The Reasons for Refusal were Proposed and Seconded for Approval. 


carried. 


RESOLVED 

That the application be refused for the following reasons:- 

1) Policy A5 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 seeks to 

achieve good quality sustainable design that respects the distinctive 

character of the locality. This advice is reiterated in the National 

Planning Policy Framework in paragraph 56. In the opinion of the 

Local Planning Authority the proposed development would not be in 

keeping with character and proportions of the existing bungalow by 

reason of their design, materials and scale, which would dominate 

and conflict with the parent property. The proposal is therefore 

considered to be contrary to Policy A5 of the East Lindsey Local Plan 

Alteration 1999 and paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy 

Framework. 

The Meeting closed at 4.50 pm. 

PL 29 

Page 29

This page is left intentionally blank 

Page 30

Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Planning Committee held in the 

Council Chamber, Tedder Hall, Manby Park, Louth on Wednesday, 8th 

May, 2013 at the rising of the Annual General Meeting of the Council. 

PRESENT 

Councillor Mrs. P.F. Watson (Chairman of the Council in the Chair) 

Councillors N.D. Cooper, Mrs. P.M. Cooper, D.R. Edginton, P. Kemp, 

T.J. Knowles, Mrs. J. Makinson-Sanders, Mrs. F.M. Martin, M.B.E., 

E.P. Mossop, Mrs. H. Newcombe, S. O'Dare, R.J. Palmer, 

Laura Stephenson, J.M. Swanson and S. Watson. 

1. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN: 

Councillor N.D. Cooper was duly nominated and upon being put to the 

vote, it was 

RESOLVED 

That Councillor N.D. Cooper be elected Chairman of the Planning 

Committee for the Council year 2013/14. 

2. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN: 

Councillor S. O’Dare was duly nominated and upon being put to the vote, 

it was 

RESOLVED 

That Councillor S. O’Dare be elected Vice-Chairman of the Planning 

Committee for the Council year 2013/14. 

PL 1 

Page 31


Page 32

Agenda Annex 

PLANNING COMMITTEE 

23 rd May 2013 – 10:00am 

EAST LINDSEY DISTRICT COUNCIL 

LIST OF APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED 

ITEM 

APPLICATION 

NO./ APPLICANT 

LOCATION RECOMMENDATION OFFICER 

04. 

Pages 

36-39 

(SPECIAL ITEM) 

N/084/00642/10 

MARK CAUDWELL 

LTD 

LAND AT, MARSH 

LANE, ORBY 

CONTINUE WITH THE 

APPEAL 

MR. D. 

LOVEDAY 

05. 

Pages 

40-49 

N/110/00320/13 

LB MABLETHORPE 

LIMITED 

LAND SOUTH OF 

JACKLIN CRESCENT, 

GOLF ROAD, 

MABLETHORPE 

APPROVE WITH 

CONDITIONS 

MR. D. 

LOVEDAY 

06. 

Pages 

50-71 

N/134/00118/13 

MS. H. COOKE 

SKEGNESS 

STADIUM, ORBY 

ROAD, 

ADDLETHORPE, 

(WITHIN THE 

PARISH OF 

ORBY),SKEGNESS 

APPROVE WITH 

CONDITIONS 

MR. P. 

THOMPSON 

07. 

Pages 

72-91 

S/090/00287/13 

GEORGE BATEMAN 

& SON LIMITED 

THE THREE TUNS 

PUBLIC HOUSE, 

HIGH STREET, 

INGOLDMELLS, 

SKEGNESS 

APPROVE WITH 

CONDITIONS 

MR. P. 

THOMPSON 

08. 

Pages 

92-103 

S/039/00619/13 

JUWI RENEWABLE 

ENERGIES LTD 

THE HOLLIES, HIGH 

LANE, CROFT, 

SKEGNESS 

APPROVE WITH 

CONDITIONS 

MR. P. 

THOMPSON 

09. 

Pages 

104-117 

S/153/00383/13 

MR. F. BURBRIDGE 

LAND ADJACENT 

AND NORTH OF 

KILLINEY, BEACON 

WAY, SKEGNESS 

REFUSAL MR. P. 

THOMPSON 

BREAK FOR LUNCH - RECONVENE AT 14:00 

10. 

Pages 

118-135 

S/013/02254/11 

MR. J. BOULTON 

LAND OFF NARROW 

LANE AND, 

FULLETBY ROAD, 

BELCHFORD, 

HORNCASTLE 

APPROVE WITH 

CONDITIONS 

MR. A. ALLEN 

Page 33

11 

Pages 

136-147 

N/105/00418/13 

MR. P & M. TIPPER 

THE GREYHOUND 

INN, 38 UPGATE, 

LOUTH 

REFUSAL 

MR. A. ALLEN 

12. 

Pages 

148-157 

N/105/00419/13 

MR. P & M. TIPPER 

THE GREYHOUND 

INN, 38 UPGATE, 

LOUTH 

REFUSAL 

MR. A. ALLEN 

13. 

Pages 

158-177 

N/105/02416/12 

MR. A. WALLER 

REVENUE 

BUILDINGS, 

CHEQUERGATE, 

LOUTH 

REFUSAL 

MR. A. ALLEN 

14. 

Pages 

178-191 

N/105/02624/12 

MR. A. WALLER 

REVENUE 

BUILDINGS, 

CHEQUERGATE, 

LOUTH 

APPROVE WITH 

CONDITIONS 

MR. A. ALLEN 

15. 

Pages 

192-213 

N/125/02402/12 

MRS. D. BAXTER 

THE NURSERIES, 

COOTS LANE, 

MUMBY, ALFORD 

REASONS FOR 

REFUSAL 

MR. C. 

PANTON 

16. 

Pages 

214-223 

S/152/00279/13 

BOSTON 

METHODIST 

CIRCUIT 

NORTHLANDS 

METHODIST 

CHURCH, 

NORTHLANDS, 

SIBSEY, BOSTON 

APPROVE WITH 

CONDITIONS 

MR. C. 

PANTON 

17. 

Pages 

224-228 

N/084/00506/13 

MR. W. RICHARDS 

BELMONT COURT, 

THAMES STREET, 

HOGSTHORPE, 

SKEGNESS 

APPROVE MR. C. 

PANTON 

Item 15 was heard on the 18 th April 2013 

Page 34


Page 35

Duck Decoy Holt 

S loothby 

Orby House 

B ank Farm 

Sloothby 

Great Holme Field 

Little Holme Field 

Sout h D rai n 

Catchwater Drain 

Orby Marsh 


N orth Dr ain 

Dairy Farm 

Costard Hill 

Costard Hill 

P oplar 

Farm 


Holme Farm 

Y ewtree House 

S loothby Ings 

Orby Marsh 

Orby Marsh 

Orby Marsh 

W est V iew Farm 

D rai n 



Ings Farm 

Habertoft 

S loothby Ings 

Wyche Drain 

Sl othby High Lane D rain 

Sloothby Ings 

South D rain 

N orth Dr ain 

Orby Marsh 

Wyche 

Orby Marsh 

Orby Marsh 

W yche 

Orby Marsh 

Burgh Common 

Orby Marsh 

B urgh Common 

South Drain 

W yche 

Wyche 

No rth Dr ain 

Sl othby 

Orby Marsh 

High 

Orby Marsh 

Lane Drain 

Orby Marsh 

A shington E nd 

Ashington End 

Burgh Marsh 

W yche 

N orth D rain 

D rain 

N orth 

Orby Marsh 

North Dra in 

Wyche Drai n 

Orby Marsh 

Orby Marsh 

Nettle Hill 

Wyche 

N orth Dr ain 

Wyche 

W yche 

Wyche 

Orby Marsh 

S kegness 

S tadium 

B urgh Marsh 

Wyche D rain 

Wyche Drain 

B rothercrofts 

Gowt 

W yche 

Howlet House 

Wyche 

W yche 

North Dr ain 

South Drain 

Orby Marsh 

S lackholme E nd 

Burgh Marsh 

S lackholme E nd 

Orby Dr ain 

Orby Marsh 

Burgh Marsh 

Orb y Drain 

North D r ain 

N orth Dr ain 

North 

Dra in 

O rby Dr ain 

Orby Dr ain 

Orby Dr ain 

N orth Dr ain 

 

Sl othby High La ne D rai n 

Wyche Drai n 

Wyche Drai n 

Sl othby High Lane Drain 

H ildyke Dr ain 

Wyche Drai n 

Wyche Drain 


Orby Beck 

 

Wyche D rain 


Hil dyk e Dr ain 

D udick Bank D rain 

Hildyke Dr ain 


 

 

 

North Drain 

X Denotes approximate location of objector. If 

there are no X's shown then there are no objectors 

within the area this map shows. 

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Mapping with the Permission of the 

Controller of HMSO. Crown Copyright East Lindsey District Council 100019809. 

Please note this plan is not to scale. 

Sheet Ref: TF5168 

Page 36

Agenda Item 4 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Agenda Item 5 

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED AT THE 


MEETING DATE – 23 rd MAY 2013 

[05] Reserved Matters 

N/110/00320/ 13 

APPLICANT: LB Mablethorpe Limited, 

VALID: 01/03/2013 AGENT: Robert Doughty Consultancy Ltd, 

PROPOSAL: Detailed Particulars relating to the erection of 68no. pairs of 

semi-detached houses, 5no. detached houses with integral single 

garages, 21no. detached houses and 6no. blocks each of 3no. 

houses, (total of 180 dwellings) erection of 119no. sheds, 

erection of 19no. garages, erection of fences 1.8 metres in 

height, erection of a sub-station, construction of estate roads, 

construction of 2no. vehicular accesses and provision of an open 

space (outline planning permission ref no. N110/2547/10 for 

erection of a supermarket Class A1: Shops of the Town and 

Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended, with 

service yard provision, associated parking and petrol filling 

station, a family restaurant/public house with indoor and outdoor 

play areas Class A3: Restaurants and Cafes of the Order and 

Class A4: Drinking Establishments of the Order and associated 

car parking, 180 dwellings Class C3: Dwelling Houses of the 

Order, comprising 120 affordable dwellings and 60 market 

dwellings, 50 extra care apartments Class C3: Dwelling Houses 

of the Order with associated car parking, education facility Class 

D1: Non-Residential Institutions of the Order with associated car 

parking, open space with landscaping and associated works, new 

vehicle and pedestrian access to form safe parent drop off area 

to Mablethorpe Community Primary School, construction of new 

vehicular and pedestrian accesses on to Golf Road and Alford 

Road, construction of internal access roads with incidental open 

space and land profiling of up to 2 metres above existing ground 

level (with means of access to be considered), in accordance with 

the amended plans and documents received by the Local 

Planning Authority on 11th & 12th July 2011, granted on 20th 

December 2012) in accordance with the amended plans received 

by the Local Planning Authority on 15th April, 2013. 

LOCATION: LAND SOUTH OF JACKLIN CRESCENT, GOLF ROAD, 

MABLETHORPE, LINCOLNSHIRE, LN12 1EP 

1.0 REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION 

1.1 The scale of the development and public interest at outline stage. 

2.0 THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 

2.1 The site lies approximately 1.2km to the west of the town centre of 

Mablethorpe. Golf Road forms the western boundary of the town. The site is 

generally flat and open and is bounded on the north, west and south in the 

Page 41

main part by residential development. It forms part of the site granted 

planning permission in outline under reference N/110/02547/10. 

2.2 To the east the land is undeveloped grassland, but allocated for employment 

purposes in the Local Plan. 

2.3 Access to the site is from Alford Road and Golf Road. 

2.4 Levels surrounding the site are generally at 2.3m or thereabouts above 

Ordnance Datum (Newlyn). 

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 

3.1 The development comprises 180 dwellings (Class C3: Dwelling Houses of the 

Order), consisting of 120 affordable dwellings and 60 market dwellings. 

3.2 The layout conforms with the overall masterplan that was approved as part 

of the grant of outline consent. 

4.0 CONSULTATION 

4.1 Set out below are the consultation responses that have been received on this 

application. These responses may be summarised and full copies are 

available for inspection separately. Some of the comments made may not 

constitute material planning considerations. 

Publicity 

4.2 The application has been advertised by means of an advertisement in the 

newspaper, site notices and neighbour notification. 

Consultees 

4.3 The following have been consulted: 

4.4 MABLETHORPE AND SUTTON TOWN COUNCIL - The Town Council ask for any 

decision regarding the housing to be deferred for the following reasons: 

i) General poor design of the proposed housing. 

ii) No guarantee of safe drainage of surface water (possibly affecting 

adjacent properties). 

iii) The Town Council request sight of all plans for the development site. 

iv) The developer should re-dress the general layout of the proposed 

housing to ensure there are no areas of segregation. 

v) The need to address the noise and pollution issues during the 

construction period. 

vi) The potential financial impact on the Town Council in respect of 

future maintenance of the proposed open spaces. 

vii) Detailed clarification regarding the section 106 funding. 

viii) Further clarification pertaining to the 'local criteria' in relation to 

social housing. 

ix) Clarification regarding section 106 funds in relation to the building 

Page 42

and opening of the proposed supermarket. 

x) Consideration to road calming measures through the site (to ensure 

it cannot be used as an ancillary access route). 

xi) To request the establishment of a 'liaison group' during the 

construction period. 

xii) To receive updated information regarding section 106 funding if the 

supermarket is not built/does not open. 

4.5 LCC as HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER - The initial investigation has 

found a saltern which is to be further investigated. 

4.6 LCC as HIGHWAYS and PLANNING - No comment. 

4.7 LCC as HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - No objection - conditions requested. 

4.8 ANGLIAN WATER SERVICES - No objection - cordon sanitaire requested 

around pumping station. 

4.9 LINDSEY MARSH DRAINAGE BOARD - No objection. 

4.10 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - The EA have advised that they are awaiting 

clarification of queries they have raised regarding the surface water 'model'. 

This information and response will be available for the Committee. 

4.11 REGULATORY SERVICES - No Comment. 

Neighbours 

4.12 To date we have received 12 letters of representation, 10 objecting and 2 in 

support. The objectors have raised the following issues; 

a) Drainage and fear of flooding. 

b) Raising of land levels and as a result, height of development. 

c) Design of dwellings. 

d) Stretched services - Doctors and Schools. 

e) Impact upon wildlife. 

f) Numbers of new residents, the tenure of the properties and future 

adherence to local occupation criteria for the social housing. 

g) Lack of employment. 

h) One objection relating exclusively to the physical impact of the 

supermarket (This proposal does not include the supermarket). 

4.13 The 2 letters of support raise the following; 

a) Need for development in the Town. 

b) Jobs. 

c) For too long Mablethorpe has needed a lift. 

4.14 The Ward Councillor is aware of the application via the Weekly List. 

Page 43

5.0 CONSULTATION ON AMENDED PROPOSALS 

5.1 The proposal was amended by the submission of different house types. 

5.2 As these amendments did not change layout etc, only limited reconsultation 

was carried out. To date no comments have been received. 

6.0 RELEVANT SITE HISTORY 

6.1 The most relevant history in relation to this site is the outline consent, the 

decision for which was issued on 22nd December 2012. 

6.2 N/110/00059/05 - Outline application erection of residential development 

including details of the means of access - This application was for open 

market housing and members resolved in 2006 to grant permission subject 

to a S106 agreement relating to social housing. The social housing element 

for the scheme was 15%. Although the scale of development had not been 

agreed, the site was approximately 4 hectares in area and development at a 

density of 30 dwellings per hectare (the then density average requested by 

government) could have accommodated 120 dwellings. In numerical terms 

this would have given 18 affordable housing units. 

6.3 Whilst the discussions were continuing for the S106 agreement, PPS25 was 

published and the Environment Agency objected to the application. 

6.4 The outline consent which underlies this current application for approval of 

reserved matters is as follows. N/110/02547/10 - Outline erection of a 

supermarket, petrol filling station, a family restaurant/public house 180 

dwellings comprising 120 affordable dwellings and 60 market dwellings, 50 

extra care apartments with associated car parking, education facility with 

associated car parking, open space with landscaping and associated works, 

new vehicle and pedestrian access to form safe parent drop off area to 

Mablethorpe Community Primary School, construction of new vehicular and 

pedestrian accesses on to Golf Road and Alford Road, construction of internal 

access roads with incidental open space and land profiling of up to 2 metres 

above existing ground level (with means of access to be considered). 

Permitted 20.12.2012. 

7.0 PLANNING POLICY 

7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires 

that planning applications are determined in accordance with the 

Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The 

Development Plan comprises the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 

1999 (Saved Policies). The Government's National Planning Policy 

Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration. Paragraph 215 of the NPPF 

makes it clear that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing 

plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework (the closer 

the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the 

weight that may be given). 

Page 44

East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 (Saved Policies) 

Policy A4 - Protection of General Amenities. 

Policy A5 - Quality and Design of Development. 

Policy A3 - Location of development. 

Policy ENV3 - Four and Service Water Disposal. 

Policy C6 - Archaeology. 

Policy H12 - Design of New Housing. 

Policy TR3 - Road Design in New Development. 

National Planning Policy Framework 

8.0 OFFICER ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Main Planning Issues 

8.1 The main planning issues in this case are considered to be: 

• Design (Policies A5 and H12); 

• Impact on surroundings (Policy A4) including levels; 

• Highways; 

• Drainage and Flooding; 

• Provision of Affordable Housing; and 

• Other material considerations. 

Design (Policies A5 and H12) 

8.2 The layout conforms with the original masterplan and is considered to be 

acceptable. The original house designs were not satisfactory, a fact that was 

commented on by a number of respondents. Discussions have taken place 

and amended plans have been submitted which are conventional and 

satisfactory. All properties will be 2 storey, which is consistent with the older 

parts of Mablethorpe. The materials will be brick and tile. It is considered 

that this overcomes the concerns expressed regarding design. 

Impact on surroundings (Policy A4) including levels 

8.3 The issue with regard to levels has been of concern to many of those who 

live around the site. It is worth setting out the position in this regard at the 

outline stage first and then move on to this application. 

Application for Outline Planning Permission N/110/02547/10 

8.4 The original application sought planning permission for development 

including land profiling of up to 2m above existing ground level to a 

maximum of 3.7m AOD (above ordnance datum which is a national reference 

for site levels) That is why the description referred to 2m above existing 

ground level to clarify this. 

8.5 Not all of the site is to be raised and the Flood Risk Assessment indicated 

that this is required only for the 'More Vulnerable' residential element of the 

development and both the supermarket and the education land, which are to 

Page 45

the north and south of the housing area, are to remain effectively at the 

existing ground level. 

8.6 The intention shown on the masterplan was to place proposed dwellings 

inside the highest part of any land profiling, and to seek to protect the 

amenity of adjacent property by providing separation distances of between 

15-20m from dwellings with the shortest gardens on the western site 

boundary. 

Application for Approval of Reserved Matters 

8.7 Following the grant of outline planning permission discussions were held 

between the applicant, the Environment Agency and the District Council to 

agree the final proposals. 

8.8 The scheme now uses the 2115 flood levels to determine the finished floor 

levels of the new dwellings. These range between 2.754 and 2.86m AOD, 

with floor levels set 300mm above or between 3.054 and 3.16m AOD. This is 

lower than the original threshold of 3.7m AOD shown at outline stage. 

8.9 Existing site levels where the new dwellings are proposed are in the region of 

1.7m AOD along the western boundary, so the resulting development is 

now approximately 1.3m above the existing ground level. The surface 

water scheme that has been negotiated results in an increase in the distance 

between the boundary with those dwellings with the shortest gardens on the 

western boundary to some 25m. 

8.10 There have, therefore, been two improvements in the relationship between 

the residential development and adjoining dwellings - reduced height and 

increased separation. 

Highways 

8.11 The highway authority offers no objection to the scheme. The road layout is 

satisfactory, and the improvements off-site will assist in the movement of 

traffic generally in the area. 

Drainage and Flooding 

8.12 The drainage system proposed creates a 'ring main' of dykes which surround 

the site. Their size and design and the proposed works to the existing 

drainage system have been agreed with the Drainage Board and they offer 

no objection to the development. 

8.13 The principle of development within Flood Zone 3 was dealt with at the 

outline stage. The Environment Agency requested conditions that have been 

applied and the applicants are in the process of submitting details to satisfy 

them. It is anticipated that these will be acceptable to the EA. Members will 

be updated on the issue at the meeting. Concerns expressed by the Town 

Council regarding drainage have been taken into account during the 

negotiations. 

Page 46

Provision of Housing and Affordable Housing 

8.14 Again it bears emphasis that the principle of housing development within 

Flood Zone 3 was dealt with at the outline stage. The overall development 

comprises 180 dwellings of which 120 will be affordable. Mablethorpe has a 

considerable need for affordable/social housing. If one was to apply the 30% 

minimum guidance, it would generate 54 affordable dwellings. This scheme 

will provide an additional 66 dwellings over and above that requirement. 

Some local people remain concerned regarding what they regard as an influx 

of social tenants from outside East Lindsey. The figures relating to need 

indicate that there are over 300 Mablethorpe households on the register. 

There will be no 'outside' tenants, as the lettings will be subject to strict 

Local Connection criteria which prioritises Mablethorpe and the coastal flood 

hazard area. 

8.15 The arrangement and mix of the social housing has been undertaken to 

ensure that there is no 'segregation' as was referred to by the Town Council. 

In addition, the local selection criteria are enshrined in the Section 106 

agreement attached to the outline consent. 

8.16 Considerable housing gains accrue to the district from the scheme. 

Other material considerations 

8.17 Wildlife and archaeological issues have been dealt with at outline stage. 

8.18 The Town Council raise issues regarding the construction phase and the 

potential for a small group to be formed to enable quick resolution of any 

issues that arise. I have spoken with the applicants and this would not be a 

problem. ELDC do not necessarily need to be involved in this, as it is 

essentially a housekeeping exercise. If permission is granted I will write to 

the developer and Town Council suggesting that such a group be formed. 

8.19 The Town Council further express some concern regarding the payment 

elements of the Section 106 agreement. I am now able to advise members 

that the total sum of money negotiated as part of the outline discussions is 

just over one million pounds. A group has been set up to oversee the 

allocation of monies and the Town Council are represented on that group. 

9.0 CONCLUSION 

9.1 At outline stage there were a considerable number of representations made 

and some ill will was discernible within the Town. At this stage of reserved 

matters, whilst we have notified all those who made earlier representations, 

to date we have received only 12 letters of representation, 10 against and 2 

in favour. 

9.2 The development is considered to be acceptable and in compliance with the 

policies of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 

9.3 This conclusion has been arrived at having taken into account all other 

relevant material considerations, none of which outweigh the reasons for the 

Page 47

officer recommendation made below. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

Approve 

subject to the following conditions: 

1 Prior to the occupation of any dwelling on site, the works to improve the 

public highway by means of improving the junction of Golf Road with Alford 

Road and the provision of the ghost island right turn facility illustrated on 

drawing number 24700/027/004 shall be implemented in full to the 

written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason: The development would cause material harm to highway safety 

and the convenience of users of the highway in the absence of these works. 

This condition is imposed in accordance with Policy TR3 of the East Lindsey 

Local Plan Alteration 1999. 

2 Before each dwelling is first occupied the roads and/or footways providing 

access to that dwelling, for the whole of its frontage, from an existing 

public highway, shall be constructed to a specification to enable them to be 

adopted as Highways Maintainable at the Public Expense, less the 

carriageway and footway surface courses. 

The carriageway and footway surface courses shall be completed within 

three months from the date upon which the construction is commenced of 

the penultimate dwelling. 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy TR3 of 

the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999. 

3 The detailed design of the arrangements for surface water drainage shall 

be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority 

before any dwelling is occupied and no building shall be occupied before it 

is connected to the drainage system so approved. 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that the 

development is adequately drained. This condition is imposed in 

accordance with Policy and to accord with Policy ENV3 of the East Lindsey 


4 Before any dwelling hereby permitted is occupied, all of that part of the 

estate road and associated footways that forms the junction with the main 

road and which will be constructed within the limits of the existing 

highway, shall be laid out and constructed to finished surface levels in 

accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the 

Local Planning Authority. 



5 Within 2 months of the date of this permission, details of materials to be 

used externally shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local 

Page 48

Planning Authority. The development shall be built in the materials 

approved. 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the developments and to 

comply with Policy A4 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999. 

6 The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the 

conditions attached to the outline permission and all subsequently agreed 

details 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in accordance with Policies 

A4 and A5 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999. 

7 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with 

the finished floor slab levels shown on drawing number L5/501/04 Rev G 

received by the Local Planning Authority on 15th April 2013. 

Confirmation and evidence that the floor slab levels have been built at the 

approved level shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing 

within 5 working days of the floor slab being completed. Any variation to 

the approved slab level shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning 

Authority prior to any work on the building being continued. 

Reason: In order to ensure there is compliance with the approved plans at 

an early stage of the development and to ensure that the living conditions 

of adjoining residents are safeguarded from significant overlooking 

and overbearing effects/ and or surface water run off and in order to 

comply with Policies A4 and ENV3 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 

1999. 

Page 49

CD 

CD 

Drain 

Skegness 

 

Drain 

MARSH LANE 

CR 

4608 

Drain 

Track 

5200 6100 

5200 

2.4m 

 

Drain 

Drain 

Stadium 

2.1m 

Terraces 

 

Drain 

Drain 

Drain 







Sheet Ref: TF5267NE 

Page 50

Agenda Item 6 

[06] Full Planning Permission 

N/134/00118/ 13 

APPLICANT: Ms. H. Cooke, 

VALID: 04/02/2013 AGENT: Windcrop Limited, 

PROPOSAL: Planning Permission - Erection of 3 no. micro scale wind turbines 

to a height of 14.97 metres to the hub with a blade span of 5.6 

metres (maximum height of 17.77 metres) with provision of 

underground cabling. 

LOCATION: SKEGNESS STADIUM, ORBY ROAD, ADDLETHORPE, (WITHIN THE 

PARISH OF ORBY),SKEGNESS, PE24 4TS 


1.1 The application was originally referred to the Planning Committee on 18th 

April 2013 at the request of Councillor A. Smith for the following reasons: 

This application will be highly visually dominant in the local area especially in 

views across the open countryside from the Ingoldmells Road and from the 

C541. The three turbines will create additional industrialisation in what is 

essentially an open rural location. Whilst Skegness stadium can be 

considered as an industrial development within the countryside, alongside 

the potential development of Silos for the Grainstore in that area, that does 

not mean that we should make worse the current position. The three 

turbines will merge with turbines offshore and the existing redundant turbine 

at Bridge Farm at Addlethorpe. Visual impact will therefore be cumulative 

and contrary to policy. It will also bring the industrial line that is currently 

offshore into the rural coast onshore and this would fail our coastal 

residents. The application is purely a financial one for the benefit of the 

applicant and is not required to meet any national target for onshore wind as 

contained in the renewable energy road map. 

1.2 However, following consideration of correspondence from Addlethorpe Parish 

Council which raised concerns about the fact that they had not been 

consulted on the application, Members elected to defer the application to 

allow this consultation to take place. Their comments will therefore be 

available at the meeting. 

1.3 This report has been amended to also allow inclusion of the references to 

those responses received on the supplementary agenda at the April Planning 

Committee. 


2.1 The application site is situated to the southern side of Marsh Lane to the rear 

of the Skegness Stadium within an area of open countryside as defined by 

the Proposals Map. The land is flat and fairly open in character but the 

Stadium and Union Grain buildings to the west are sizeable built 

developments in the landscape. Meanwhile, to the north is the site of an 

application for nine wind turbines which is currently being considered at 

appeal (see below). 

Page 51


3.1 The application is for planning permission for three micro scale wind turbines 

to be erected to the south of the Skegness Stadium which is situated 

between Orby and Addlethorpe at Marsh Lane. The turbines are proposed to 

be 14.97 metres in height to the hub but with an overall blade span of 5.6 

metres, there by meaning that the maximum height would be 17.77 metres. 

The turbines would be sited in a linear form east to west within land used by 

the Skegness Stadium for parking of vehicles on event days and remains 

largely open in character compared to the remainder of the site. The 

application also includes underground cabling. 







4.2 The application has been advertised by means of a notice displayed at the 

site and letters to consultees. 

Consultees 

4.3 ADDLETHORPE PARISH COUNCIL - Not received. 

4.4 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - No Objections. 

4.5 GREATER LINCOLNSHIRE NATURE PARTNERSHIP - Not received. 

4.6 LCC as HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - No detriment to safety or capacity. 

4.7 LCC as HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER - Not received. 

4.8 LINDSEY MARSH DRAINAGE BOARD - The proposals will not have 

implications upon boards works or the board’s radio telemetry system. 

4.9 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE - No objection. 

4.10 ORBY PARISH COUNCIL - Object due to the cumulative impact of the wind 

turbines located offshore that are visible from Marsh Lane and the potential 

grant of the turbines at Appeal of the site opposite. The Parish Council does 

not wish to see the landscape blighted with turbines, turning the countryside 

into an industrial landscape. 

4.11 REGULATORY SERVICES (Environmental Protection) - Recommends 

conditions; No comment (Land Drainage and Land Contamination). 

Page 52

Neighbours 

4.12 A letter of objection was received following the original report being compiled 

for Planning Committee. This was received from the occupant of Little Holm 

Farm, Holmfield Lane, Orby and highlights the following concerns: 

• The committee report does not adequately assess the impact of the scale 

and siting of the turbines upon the landscape in this open location, 

particularly from Ingoldmells Road and the C541 from Orby to the coast. 

• The presence of Skegness Stadium and the Union Grain Store do not 

qualify the location as industrial. 

• A micro turbine at Bridge Farm in Addlethorpe has not functioned for over 

3 years and is prominent in the area. 

• The Parish of Addlethorpe has not been consulted on this application and 

there are more properties in Addlethorpe closer to the application site 

than in Orby. 



5.1 No amendments have been received. 


6.1 N/084/00642/10 relates to land to the Northwest of Marsh Lane and the 

application site and was for the erection of nine wind turbines with a 

maximum blade tip height of 81 metres and a blade diameter of 62 metres. 

The application was refused permission on 18th March 2011 and a Planning 

Appeal is currently being considered by the Inspector. 

6.2 N/134/00799/10 relates to a Section 192 application to determine if the 

continued erection of 8 no. 1400 tonne flat bottomed silos and all plant and 

machinery granted planning permission under reference E/134/00958/84 is 

lawful. The application relates to Union Grain to the west of the site and the 

certificate was granted. Consequently, the owners can erect the silos. 

6.3 There have been various applications in the recent past to erect new 

structures in relation to the Skegness Stadium, including a new spectators 

stand and a viewing platform but no developments directly relate to this 

application. 


7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004 requires 




1999 (Saved Policies). The Government’s National Planning Policy 

Page 53

Framework is a material consideration. However, Paragraph 215 goes on to 

state that due weight should be given to relevant policies in pre 2004 

existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework. 


Policy A4 - Protection of General Amenities 

Policy A5 - Quality of Design and Development 

Policy ENV20 - Protection of Habitats 

Policy TR3 - Road Design in New Development 

The National Planning Policy Framework 

Paragraphs 17, 35, 58, 59, 98, 100-103, 109, 118, 123, 128-141. 

Other Policy Guidance 

Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22): Renewable 

Energy 




• The Principle of the Development; 

• The Impact of the Development upon the Landscape; 

• The Impact of the Development upon Residential Amenity; 

• Flood Risk; and 

• Other Matters. 

The Principle of the Development 

8.2 The NPPF provides overarching national guidance. It states at Paragraph 98 

that when determining planning applications, Local Planning Authorities 

(LPAs) should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate 

the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that 

even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting 

greenhouse gas emissions. Paragraph 153 calls for Local Planning Authorities 

to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development to renewable 

and low carbon energy proposals and recognise that even small-scale 

projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions 

(paragraph 153). 

8.3 There is a plethora of national and international legislation, policy documents 

and agreements to reduce our footprint and on the amount of energy to be 

produced in this way. As the proposal would create renewably generated 

electricity it would comply with national and regional policies. This is a major 

consideration in the determination of this application. In this instance I am 

satisfied that the principle of the development is satisfactory. However, LPAs 

can only approve applications for such development if “its impacts are (or 

Page 54

can be made) acceptable” (para 98) and where no material considerations 

indicate that development should not be permitted. The impacts of the 

proposals are outlined below. 

The Impact of the Development upon the Landscape 

8.4 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF introduces the section of the framework 

dedicated to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. 

It requires the planning system to contribute to and enhance the natural and 

local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. The 

further paragraphs indicate that protection should be given to designated 

landscapes. Moreover, Paragraph 5.17 of the Companion Guide to PPS22 

(which still remains a national policy document) indicates that a step-by-step 

approach should be used to assess the impact of individual development 

proposals. Factors to be considered in analysing the landscape and visual 

effect of individual applications are outlined in paragraph 5.19 and include: 

• national designations (presence or absence; nature and justification of 

designation); 

• landscape character areas (where already identified); 

• landscape sensitivity; 

• landscape and visual analysis; and, 

• cumulative effects. 

8.5 Policy A4 of the Local Plan seeks to protect neighbour and public amenity 

and Policy A5 promotes better design. 

8.6 The site is within the Tetney Lock to Skegness Coastal Outmarsh as defined 

by the Council's Landscape Character Assessment (July 2009) - described as 

a mainly flat and drained agricultural coastal plain. It is also identified as 

being a moderate to high landscape sensitivity. 

8.7 The predominant character of this area is one of a vast open rural landscape 

with few large buildings / other structures or planting. However, the 

Skegness Stadium makes a prominent impact within the immediate 

landscape, with the spectator stands, lighting columns and distinctive vehicle 

displayed on a pole to the east of the site. What is more, immediately to the 

west of the application site is the complex of Union Grain buildings. As 

alluded to in Section 6.0, an application for a Certificate of Lawful 

Development was determined in 2010 in relation to a lawful commencement 

being made on an application granted in 1984 for the erection of 8 silos to 

the south of the in situ grain building. Officers determined that a lawful 

commencement had been made on that application and that the 8 silos could 

be erected at any point thereon. The silos as approved by virtue of the 1984 

permission are approved to be 13.8metres tall to the top of the silos and 

17.5metres to the top of the highest part of plant, i.e. conveyors situated 

above. These combined with the in situ buildings represent a significant 

grouping of buildings within the immediate landscape. Lighting columns at 

the Skegness Stadium also extend to 10 metres in height around the 

Stadium. 

Page 55

8.8 Where there are areas of planting, these do help to screen the existing 

grouping of buildings. For example a small wooded area immediately 

adjacent to Marsh Lane succeeds in completely screening views of the 

buildings from the east when travelling along the road. However, beyond 

here there are uninterrupted views of the landscape in and around the site. 

Similarly, when the site is viewed from the south from Ingoldmells Road 

there are fairly uninterrupted views across the agricultural landscape, albeit 

the site is some distance away. 

8.9 The proposed wind turbines would be 14.97metres to their hubs and a 

maximum height of 17.77metres. Whilst they would undoubtedly be visible 

within the landscape, it is my view that their introduction would not be 

harmful to the character of the area particularly as their scale would be 

largely comparable with existing in situ and approved developments a short 

distance to the west of the site at Union Grain. 

8.10 As alluded to above, it is necessary to consider the cumulative impact of 

wind turbines upon the landscape, in this instance although the wind 

turbines off shore and at Croft are much taller than the proposed turbines 

they are a significant distance away and due to their scale they could not be 

read in their context. Similarly, whilst the turbines to the north (the subject 

of the appeal) would be much closer, they are again much taller in height 

(max 81metres). I am also referred to the wind turbine granted permission 

at Bridge Farm, Addlethorpe which is a maximum height of 23metres, due to 

the distance from the turbine and its height, I again consider that the 

turbines would not be read in conjunction with one another so they would 

not cumulatively cause a harmful landscape impact. Consequently, it is my 

view that there would not be a cumulative landscape impacts due to these 

turbines, as the turbines are polarised in their size and individual landscape 

impact. 

8.11 Overall, I am satisfied that the turbine would not become an unacceptably 

dissonant feature in the landscape or be out of keeping with the character of 

the locality. For these reasons it is considered that the proposal is in 

accordance with Policies A4 and A5 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 

1999, and the requirements of Paragraphs 98 and 109 of the NPPF and the 

guidance in the Companion Guide to PPS22. 

The Impact of the Development upon Residential Amenity 

8.12 The NPPF through paragraph 59 requires that “design policies 

should…concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height, 

landscape, layout, materials and access of new development in relation to 

neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally”. I am therefore 

satisfied that the Local Plan policies would be compliant with the NPPF. 

Moreover, Policy A4 (Protection of General Amenities) states that 

“Development which unacceptably harms the general amenities of people 

living or working nearby will not be permitted.” Under the justification for 

this policy paragraphs 2.78-2.82 set out the parameters within which the 

Council examines the impact of development upon neighbouring properties 

and, more specifically, within paragraph 2.79 the Council has outlined the 

main areas of concern which may result from new development. 

Page 56

8.13 Paragraph 123 of the NPPF also requires that decisions should aim to “avoid 

noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of 

life as a result of new development” and “mitigate and reduce to a minimum 

other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from 

new development, including through the use of conditions”. 

8.14 The details of the application have been assessed by the Council’s Regulatory 

Services and I am advised that the proposals would be acceptable in noise 

terms subject to conditions. Moreover, in assessing the proposal it is my 

view that the turbines would be sufficiently separated from and of a small 

enough scale to not result in other amenity issues such as shadow flicker or 

impact on public amenity. 

8.15 For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the proposal is in 

accordance with the aforementioned policies. 

Flood Risk 

8.16 The National Planning Policy Framework includes the Government's response 

to flooding. It is in recognition that the impacts of flooding can be avoided 

and reduced through good planning and management. Its key objectives are 

to appraise the flooding risk, to manage that risk and to then reduce that 

risk. The NPPF advocates a sequential approach to development. Given that 

the development is for renewable energy creation and the turbines will 

provide Skegness Stadium with such energy, their location adjacent to the 

Stadium would be sensible. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed use 

within Flood Zone 3a would not conflict with the fundamental objective of the 

Sequential Test to direct new development to less vulnerable areas. 

8.17 If one can satisfy the Sequential Test then the question of wider sustainable 

development is intended to reduce the carbon footprint of the locality. 

Hence, in line with the requirements of the NPPF in relation to the supply of 

energy from renewable sources, the development would provide 

sustainability benefits to the community to outweigh the harm associated 

with the location of the development partially in an area at risk from 

flooding. It is therefore my conclusion that the development would meet the 

requirements of the first part of the Exception Test in the NPPF (Paragraph 

102). 

8.18 Part two of the Exception Test relates to the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 

which should be submitted in support of development and indicates that 

development should be safe for its lifetime and not increase flood risk 

elsewhere. In this instance, given the nature of the development, I am 

satisfied that the development would not be at unreasonable risk from 

flooding which would enable the development to pass this part of the 

Exceptions Test for development. The Environment Agency also raise no 

objections to the application. 

Page 57

Other Matters 

8.19 A number of policies are relevant to the access to developments. Principally 

at a national level, the NPPF through paragraph 35 requires that 

developments “should be located and designed where practical to create safe 

and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or 

pedestrians”. Whilst at Local Plan level Policy TR3 seeks to provide safe and 

functional access arrangements. It is my and LCC’s view that the 

development would not result in significant harm being caused from a 

capacity point of view and that the access arrangements would be safe. 

8.20 Policy ENV20 of the Local Plan refers to the loss of habitats. The policy 

outlines that where development is to be permitted there must be an 

overriding need and mitigation measures should be employed to ensure that 

these habitats are retained and protected. This should be secured by suitable 

planning conditions, agreements or undertakings where necessary. 

Paragraph 118 of the NPPF requires LPAs to conserve and enhance 

biodiversity by refusing planning permission where significant harm resulting 

from a development cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for. The 

application site is not with 2km of any protected habitat and the D&AS 

submitted with the application concludes that there would be a low risk to 

wildlife nearby, including protected species. I am satisfied that the applicants 

approach in the D&AS is reasonable and that accordingly the development 

would accord with the requirements of the NPPF. 

8.21 Paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that 'in 

determining applications, Local Planning Authorities should require an 

applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, 

including any contribution made by their setting...sufficient to understand 

the potential impact of the proposal on their significance'. It goes on to 

suggest that 'Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has 

the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, Local 

Planning Authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate 

desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation'. No 

consultation responses have been received from the LCC Historic 

Environment Officer but on the basis of the characteristics of the site it is my 

view that no archaeological work would be required. On this basis, I consider 

that the development would be compliant with the NPPF. However, I will 

update Members if this situation changes. 


9.1 As the proposal would create renewably generated electricity it would comply 

with national policies such that the principle of the development is 

acceptable. 

9.2 I am satisfied that there would not be a harmful landscape impact associated 

with the proposals, including cumulatively with other turbines. 

9.3 I consider that planning conditions would mitigate for any adverse effects on 

those living or working in the area and protect their amenities are required 

by the Local Plan and NPPF. 

Page 58

9.4 The development would not be affected by flood risk. 

9.5 I am satisfied that the traffic associated with the development would not 

result in significant harm being caused from a capacity point of view and that 

access arrangements are safe. 

9.6 I am satisfied that the requirements of the NPPF to protect habitats of 

protected species would be adhered to. 

9.7 I consider that the development would be compliant with the requirements of 

the NPPF in that there would be no significant harm to archaeology or other 

heritage assets. 





Approve 


1. Full Permission 

The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three 


Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the 

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 

2 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, the final 

colour of the turbines shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the 

Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance 

with the approved colour and retained as such thereafter. 

Reason: To safeguard the appearance and character of the countryside in 

accordance with Policy A5 of the East Lindsey and Paragraphs 58 and 98 of 

the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 

3 Only the Quiet revolution HY5 AD.6 wind turbine referred to in the 

application shall be operated from the application site (unless otherwise 

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and the rating level of 

noise emissions from the wind turbine including the application of any tonal 

penalty shall not exceed at any time 37dBLAeq, 10min up to wind speeds 

of 10m/s at 10m height at noise sensitive premises, at any time whilst they 

are in operation. 

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority can maintain control 

over the noise associated with the turbine to prevent noise nuisance to 

nearby residents. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policy A4 of 

the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999; and the requirements of 

Paragraphs 17, 59 and 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework 

2012. 

Page 59

4 Within 28 days from the receipt of a written request from the Local 

Planning Authority, following a complaint to it, the applicant / operator of 

the turbine hereby permitted shall, at its own expense, employ an 

independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess 

the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine at the complainant’s 

property and prior to the commencement of any measurements the 

applicant / operator of the turbine shall submit the details of the proposed 

measurement location and measurement methodology to the Local 

Planning Authority for written approval. Only the approved location and 

methodology shall be employed in the assessment. 

Reason: To ensure that there is no noise nuisance to nearby residents. This 

condition is imposed in accordance with Policy A4 of the East Lindsey Local 

Plan Alteration 1999; and the requirements of Paragraphs 17, 59 and 123 

of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 

5 In accordance with Condition No. 4, within 3 months of the date of the 

written request of the Local Planning Authority, unless otherwise extended 

in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the applicant / operator of the 

turbine hereby permitted shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the 

independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise emissions 

and conclusions regarding the said noise complaint, including all raw data 

collected for the purpose of undertaking the compliance measurements and 

certificates of verification and calibration of the instrumentation used to 

undertake the compliance measurements; together with details of 

proposed mitigation measures and timescale for their implementation. The 

proposed mitigation measures shall be carried out as approved, to the 

agreed timescale, and remain in place at all times thereafter. 





6 If the equipment hereby permitted becomes redundant or is no longer used 

or intended to be used for the purpose for which it was designed, then the 

pole and blades must be taken down within 6 months of the cessation of 

the use or redundancy of the equipment. 


accordance with Policies A4 and A5 of the East Lindsey and Paragraphs 58 

and 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 

Page 60

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED AT 

THE PLANNING COMMITTEE 

MEETING DATE – 18 th APRIL 2013 


N/134/00118/ 13 

APPLICANT: Ms. H. Cooke, 

VALID: 04/02/2013 AGENT: Windcrop Limited, 

PROPOSAL: Planning Permission - Erection of 3 no. micro scale wind turbines 

to a height of 14.97 metres to the hub with a blade span of 5.6 

metres (maximum height of 17.77 metres) with provision of 

underground cabling. 

LOCATION: SKEGNESS STADIUM, ORBY ROAD, ADDLETHORPE, (WITHIN THE 

PARISH OF ORBY),SKEGNESS, PE24 4TS 


1.1 The application is referred to the Planning Committee at the 

request of Councillor A. Smith for the following reasons: 

This application will be highly visually dominant in the local area 

especially in views across the open countryside from the 

Ingoldmells Road and from the C541. The three turbines will 

create additional industrialisation in what is essentially an open 

rural location. Whilst Skegness stadium can be considered as an 

industrial development within the countryside, alongside the 

potential development of Silos for the Grainstore in that area, that 

does not mean that we should make worse the current position. 

The three turbines will merge with turbines offshore and the 

existing redundant turbine at Bridge Farm at Addlethorpe. Visual 

impact will therefore be cumulative and contrary to policy. It will 

also bring the industrial line that is currently offshore into the rural 

coast onshore and this would fail our coastal residents. The 

application is purely a financial one for the benefit of the applicant 

and is not required to meet any national target for onshore wind 

as contained in the renewable energy roadmap. 


2.1 The application site is situated to the southern side of Marsh Lane 

to the rear of the Skegness Stadium within an area of open 

countryside as defined by the Proposals Map. The land is flat and 

fairly open in character but the Stadium and Union Grain buildings 

to the west are sizeable built developments in the landscape. 

Meanwhile, to the north is the site of an application for nine wind 

turbines which is currently being considered at appeal (see below). 


3.1 The application is for planning permission for three micro scale 

Page 61

wind turbines to be erected to the south of the Skegness Stadium 

which is situated between Orby and Addlethorpe at Marsh Lane. 

The turbines are proposed to be 14.97 metres in height to the hub 

but with an overall blade span of 5.6 metres, there by meaning 

that the maximum height would be 17.77 metres. The turbines 

would be sited in a linear form east to west within land used by 

the Skegness Stadium for parking of vehicles on event days and 

remains largely open in character compared to the remainder of 

the site. The application also includes underground cabling. 


4.1 Set out below are the consultation responses that have been 

received on this application. These responses may be summarised 

and full copies are available for inspection separately. Some of the 

comments made may not constitute material planning 

considerations. 


4.2 The application has been advertised by means of a notice 

displayed at the site and letters to neighbours and consultees. 

Consultees 

4.3 ORBY PARISH COUNCIL - Object due to the cumulative impact of 

the wind turbines located offshore that are visible from Marsh Lane 

and the potential grant of the turbines at Appeal of the site 

opposite. The Parish Council does not wish to see the landscape 

blighted with turbines, turning the countryside into an industrial 

landscape. 

4.4 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - No Objections. 

4.5 GREATER LINCOLNSHIRE NATURE PARTNERSHIP - Not received. 

4.6 LCC as HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - No detriment to safety or 

capacity. 

4.7 LCC as HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER - Not received. 

4.8 LINDSEY MARSH DRAINAGE BOARD - The proposals will not have 

implications upon boards works or the board’s radio telemetry 

system. 

4.9 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE - No objection. 

4.10 REGULATORY SERVICES (Environmental Protection) - 

Recommends conditions; No comment (Land Drainage and Land 

Contamination). 

Neighbours 

Page 62

4.11 None received. 

4.12 The Ward Councillor is aware of the application via the 

Weekly List. 


5.1 No amendments. 


6.1 N/084/00642/10 relates to land to the Northwest of Marsh Lane 

and the application site and was for the erection of nine wind 

turbines with a maximum blade tip height of 81 metres and a 

blade diameter of 62 metres. The application was refused 

permission on 18 th March 2011 and a Planning Appeal is currently 

being considered by the Inspector. 

6.2 N/134/00799/10 relates to a Section 192 application to determine 

if the continued erection of 8 no. 1400 tonne flat bottom silos and 

all plants and machinery granted Planning Permission under 

reference E/134/00958/84 is lawful. The application relates to 

Union Grain to the west of the site and the certificate was granted. 

Consequently, the owners can erect the silos. 

6.3 There have been various applications in the recent past to erect 

new structures in relation to the Skegness Stadium, including a 

new spectators stand and a viewing platform but no developments 

directly relate to this application. 


7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004 

requires that planning applications are determined in accordance 

with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate 

otherwise. The Development Plan comprises the East Lindsey 

Local Plan Alteration 1999 (Saved Policies). The 

Government’s National Planning Policy Framework is a material 

consideration. However, Paragraph 215 goes on to state that due 

weight should be given to relevant policies in pre 2004 existing 

plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework. 







Paragraphs 17, 35, 58, 59, 98, 100-103, 109, 118, 123, 128-141. 


Page 63

Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22): 

Renewable Energy 




• The Principle of the Development; 

• The Impact of the Development upon the Landscape; 

• The Impact of the Development upon Residential 

Amenity; 

• Flood Risk; and 

• Other Matters. 

The Principle of the Development 

8.2 The NPPF provides overarching national guidance. It states at 

Paragraph 98 that when determining planning applications, Local 

Planning Authorities (LPAs) should not require applicants for 

energy development to demonstrate the overall need for 

renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even 

small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting 

greenhouse gas emissions. Paragraph 153 calls for Local Planning 

Authorities to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable 

development to renewable and low carbon energy proposals and 

recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable 

contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions (paragraph 153). 

8.3 There is a plethora of national and international legislation, policy 

documents and agreements to reduce our footprint and on the 

amount of energy to be produced in this way. As the proposal 

would create renewably generated electricity it would comply with 

national and regional policies. This is a major consideration in the 

determination of this application. In this instance I am satisfied 

that the principle of the development is satisfactory. However, 

LPAs can only approve applications for such development if “its 

impacts are (or can be made) acceptable” (para 98) and where no 

material considerations indicate that development should not be 

permitted. The impacts of the proposals are outlined below. 


8.4 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF introduces the section of the 

framework dedicated to the conservation and enhancement of the 

natural environment. It requires the planning system to contribute 

to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting 

and enhancing valued landscapes. The further paragraphs indicate 

that protection should be given to designated landscapes. 

Moreover, Paragraph 5.17 of the Companion Guide to PPS22 

Page 64

(which still remains a national policy document) indicates that a 

step-by-step approach should be used to assess the impact of 

individual development proposals. Factors to be considered in 

analysing the landscape and visual effect of individual applications 

are outlined in paragraph 5.19 and include: 

• national designations (presence or absence; nature and 

justification of designation); 

• landscape character areas (where already identified); 

• landscape sensitivity; 

• landscape and visual analysis; and, 

• cumulative effects. 

8.5 Policy A4 of the Local Plan seeks to protect neighbour and public 

amenity and Policy A5 promotes better design. 

8.6 The site is within the Tetney Lock to Skegness Coastal Outmarsh 

as defined by the Council's Landscape Character Assessment (July 

2009) - described as a mainly flat and drained agricultural coastal 

plain. It is also identified as being a moderate to high landscape 

sensitivity. 

8.7 The predominant character of this area is one of a vast open rural 

landscape with few large buildings / other structures or planting. 

However, the Skegness Stadium makes a prominent impact within 

the immediate landscape, with the spectator stands, lighting 

columns and distinctive vehicle displayed on a pole to the east of 

the site. What is more, immediately to the west of the application 

site is the complex of Union Grain buildings. As alluded to in 

Section 6.0, an application for a Certificate of Lawful Development 

was determined in 2010 in relation to a lawful commencement 

being made on an application granted in 1984 for the erection of 8 

silos to the south of the in situ grain building. Officers determined 

that a lawful commencement had been made on that application 

and that the 8 silos could be erected at any point thereon. The 

silos as approved by virtue of the 1984 permission are approved 

to be 13.8metres tall to the top of the silos and 17.5metres to the 

top of the highest part of plant, i.e. conveyors situated above. 

These combined with the in situ buildings represent a significant 

grouping of buildings within the immediate landscape. 

8.8 Where there are areas of planting, these do help to screen the 

existing grouping of buildings. For example a small wooded area 

immediately adjacent to Marsh Lane succeeds in completely 

screening views of the buildings from the east when travelling 

along the road. However, beyond here there are uninterrupted 

views of the landscape in and around the site. Similarly, when the 

site is viewed from the south from Ingoldmells Road there are 

fairly uninterrupted views across the agricultural landscape. 

8.9 The proposed wind turbines would be 14.97metres to their hubs 

and a maximum height of 17.77metres. Whilst they would 

Page 65

undoubtedly be visible within the landscape, it is my view that 

their introduction would not be harmful to the character of the 

area particularly as their scale would be largely comparable with 

existing in situ and approved developments a short distance to the 

west of the site at Union Grain. 

8.10 As alluded to above, it is necessary to consider the cumulative 

impact of wind turbines upon the landscape, in this instance 

although the wind turbines off shore and at Croft are much taller 

than the proposed turbines they are a significant distance away 

and due to their scale they could not be read in their context. 

Similarly, whilst the turbines to the north (the subject of the 

appeal) would be much closer, they are again much taller in height 

(max 81metres). I am also referred to the wind turbine granted 

permission at Bridge Farm, Addlethorpe which is a maximum 

height of 23metres, due to the distance from the turbine and its 

height, I again consider that the turbines would not be read in 

conjunction with one another so they would not cumulatively 

cause a harmful landscape impact. Consequently, it is my view 

that there would not be a cumulative landscape impacts due to 

these turbines, as the turbines are polarised in their size and 

individual landscape impact. 

8.11 Overall, I am satisfied that the turbine would not become an 

unacceptably dissonant feature in the landscape or be out of 

keeping with the character of the locality. For these reasons it is 

considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policies A4 and 

A5 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999, and the 

requirements of Paragraphs 98 and 109 of the NPPF and the 

guidance in the Companion Guide to PPS22. 

The Impact of the Development upon Residential Amenity 


should…concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, 

height, landscape, layout, materials and access of new 

development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local 

area more generally”. I am therefore satisfied that the Local Plan 

policies would be compliant with the NPPF. Moreover, Policy A4 

(Protection of General Amenities) states that “Development which 

unacceptably harms the general amenities of people living or 

working nearby will not be permitted.” Under the justification for 

this policy paragraphs 2.78-2.82 set out the parameters within 

which the Council examines the impact of development upon 

neighbouring properties and, more specifically, within paragraph 

2.79 the Council has outlined the main areas of concern which 

may result from new development. 

8.13 Paragraph 123 of the NPPF also requires that decisions should aim 

to “avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on 

health and quality of life as a result of new development” and 

“mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on 

Page 66

health and quality of life arising from noise from new 

development, including through the use of conditions”. 

8.14 The details of the application have been assessed by the Council’s 

Regulatory Services and I am advised that the proposals would be 

acceptable in noise terms subject to conditions. Moreover, in 

assessing the proposal it is my view that the turbines would be 

sufficiently separated from and of a small enough scale to not 

result in other amenity issues such as shadow flicker or impact on 

public amenity. 

8.15 For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the proposal is 

in accordance with the aforementioned policies. 

Flood Risk 

8.16 The National Planning Policy Framework includes the 

Government's response to flooding. It is in recognition that the 

impacts of flooding can be avoided and reduced through good 

planning and management. Its key objectives are to appraise the 

flooding risk, to manage that risk and to then reduce that risk. The 

NPPF advocates a sequential approach to development. Given that 

the development is for renewable energy creation and the turbines 

will provide Skegness Stadium with such energy, their location 

adjacent to the Stadium would be sensible. I am therefore 

satisfied that the proposed use within Flood Zone 3a would not 

conflict with the fundamental objective of the Sequential Test to 

direct new development to less vulnerable areas. 

8.17 If one can satisfy the Sequential Test then the question of wider 

sustainable development is intended to reduce the carbon 

footprint of the locality. Hence, in line with the requirements of 

the NPPF in relation to the supply of energy from renewable 

sources, the development would provide sustainability benefits to 

the community to outweigh the harm associated with the location 

of the development partially in an area at risk from flooding. It is 

therefore my conclusion that the development would meet the 

requirements of the first part of the Exception Test in the NPPF 

(Paragraph 102). 

8.18 Part two of the Exception Test relates to the Flood Risk 

Assessment (FRA) which should be submitted in support of 

development and indicates that development should be safe for its 

lifetime and not increase flood risk elsewhere. In this instance, 

given the nature of the development, I am satisfied that the 

development would not be at unreasonable risk from flooding 

which would enable the development to pass this part of the 

Exceptions Test for development. The Environment Agency also 

raise no objections to the application. 

Other Matters 

Page 67

8.19 A number of policies are relevant to the access to developments. 

Principally at a national level, the NPPF through paragraph 35 

requires that developments “should be located and designed 

where practical to create safe and secure layouts which minimise 

conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians”. Whilst at 

Local Plan level Policy TR3 seeks to provide safe and functional 

access arrangements. It is my and LCC’s view that the 

development would not result in significant harm being caused 

from a capacity point of view and that the access arrangements 

would be safe. 

8.20 Policy ENV20 of the Local Plan refers to the loss of habitats. The 

policy outlines that where development is to be permitted there 

must be an overriding need and mitigation measures should be 

employed to ensure that these habitats are retained and 

protected. This should be secured by suitable planning conditions, 

agreements or undertakings where necessary. Paragraph 118 of 

the NPPF requires LPAs to conserve and enhance biodiversity by 

refusing planning permission where significant harm resulting from 

a development cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for. 

The application site is not with 2km of any protected habitat and 

the D&AS submitted with the application concludes that there 

would be a low risk to wildlife nearby, including protected species. 

I am satisfied that the applicants approach in the D&AS is 

reasonable and that accordingly the development would accord 

with the requirements of the NPPF. 

8.21 Paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework states 

that 'in determining applications, Local Planning Authorities should 

require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage 

assets affected, including any contribution made by their 

setting...sufficient to understand the potential impact of the 

proposal on their significance'. It goes on to suggest that 'Where a 

site on which development is proposed includes or has the 

potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, 

local planning authorities should require developers to submit an 

appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field 

evaluation'. No consultation responses have been received from 

the LCC Historic Environment Officer but on the basis of the 

characteristics of the site it is my view that no archaeological work 

would be required. On this basis, I consider that the development 

would be compliant with the NPPF. However, I will update 

Members if this situation changes. 


9.1 As the proposal would create renewably generated electricity it 

would comply with national policies such that the principle of the 

development is acceptable. 

9.2 I am satisfied that there would not be a harmful landscape impact 

associated with the proposals, including cumulatively with other 

Page 68

turbines. 

9.3 I consider that planning conditions would mitigate for any adverse 

effects on those living or working in the area and protect their 

amenities are required by the Local Plan and NPPF. 

9.4 The development would not be affected by flood risk. 

9.5 I am satisfied that the traffic associated with the development 

would not result in significant harm being caused from a capacity 

point of view and that access arrangements are safe. 

9.6 I am satisfied that the requirements of the NPPF to protect 

habitats of protected species would be adhered to. 

9.7 I consider that the development would be compliant with the 

requirements of the NPPF in that there would be no significant 

harm to archaeology or other heritage assets. 

9.8 This conclusion has been arrived at having taken into account all 

other relevant material considerations, none of which outweigh the 

reasons for the officer recommendation made below. 


Approve 







2 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, the final 

colour of the turbines shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the 

Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance 

with the approved colour and retained as such thereafter. 


accordance with Policy A5 of the East Lindsey and Paragraphs 58 and 98 of 

the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 

3 Only the Quiet revolution HY5 AD.6 wind turbine referred to in the 

application shall be operated from the application site (unless otherwise 

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and the rating level of 

noise imissions from the wind turbine including the application of any tonal 

penalty shall not exceed at any time 37dBLAeq, 10min up to wind speeds 

of 10m/s at 10m height at noise sensitive premises, at any time whilst they 

are in operation. 

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority can maintain control 

Page 69

over the noise associated with the turbine to prevent noise nuisance to 

nearby residents. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policy A4 of 

the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999; and the requirements of 

Paragraphs 17, 59 and 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework 

2012. 

4 Within 28 days from the receipt of a written request from the Local 

Planning Authority, following a complaint to it, the applicant / operator of 

the turbine hereby permitted shall, at its own expense, employ an 

independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess 

the level of noise imissions from the wind turbine at the complainant’s 

property and prior to the commencement of any measurements the 

applicant / operator of the turbine shall submit the details of the proposed 

measurement location and measurement methodology to the Local 

Planning Authority for written approval. Only the approved location and 

methodology shall be employed in the assessment. 





5 In accordance with Condition No.4, within 3 months of the date of the 

written request of the Local Planning Authority, unless otherwise extended 

in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the applicant / operator of the 

turbine hereby permitted shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the 

independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise imissions 

and conclusions regarding the said noise complaint, including all raw data 

collected for the purpose of undertaking the compliance measurements and 

certificates of verification and calibration of the instrumentation used to 

undertake the compliance measurements; together with details of 

proposed mitigation measures and timescale for their implementation. The 

proposed mitigation measures shall be carried out as approved, to the 

agreed timescale, and remains in place at all times thereafter. 





6 If the equipment hereby permitted becomes redundant or is no longer used 

or intended to be used for the purpose for which it was designed, then the 

pole and blades must be taken down within 6 months of the cessation of 

the use or redundancy of the equipment. 


accordance with Policies A4 and A5 of the East Lindsey and Paragraphs 58 


___________________________________________________________ 

Page 70


Page 71

4 

26 

7 

23 

Salbani 

14 

13 

8 

2 

9 

1 

16 

15 

22 

Chartwe l House 

11 

6 

9 

3 

1 

9 

7 

20 

25 

4 

1 

10 

6 

2 

5 

7 

2 

8 

3 

RD 

El 

1 

1 

Cecilia 

6 

17 

New 

House 

12 

15 

6 

1 

7 

6 

31 

7 

1 

19 

22 

2 

25 

3 

22a 

15 

4 

5 

29 

18 

6 

45 

21 

1 

24 

11 

1 

7 

26 

23 

13 

12 

8 

30 

9 

11 

10 

1 

45 

12 

46 

39 

5 

18 

14 

6 

7 

26 

Drain 

 

A 52 

Drain 

CHAPEL RD A 52 

8600 

1500 

Simpsons Court 

A 52 

1500 

The 

Countryman 

Drain 

(PH) 

Drain 

Rectory View 

14 

CHAPEL 

Path 

BM 

2.58m 

Bowling Green 

A 52 

A 52 

Westcotes 

 

FESTIVAL AVENUE 

14 

Car Park 

CHAPEL 

RD 

Windsor House 

A 52 

QUEENSWAY 

The Toby Jug 

(PH) 

 

Sub Sta 

21 

Shelter 

Glebe Park 

CRESCENT 

15 

A 52 

2.4m 

 

School 

House 

DOUGLAS AVENUE 

Evesdene 

HIGH 

STREET 

St Peter & St Paul's Church 

3487 

2.4m 

War Memorial 

BM 3.58m 

Cross 

(restored) 

PO 

 

The Three Tuns 

PH 

Charnwood 

 

11 

LIME 

1 2 

GROVE 

WINDSOR 

 

22 

ELMWOOD DRIVE 

18 

12 

 

 

Sherdan 

 

OAK 

CLOSE 

 

 

TCBs 

GP 

St Peter's Hall 

Car Park 

The 

Rec 

Rec 

CHAPEL RD 

HIGH STREET 

The 

Elms 

ELMWOOD DRIVE 

 

Arksey 

House 

 

Dunromin 

Melita 

2.4m 

Rose 

Marie 

2.7m 

BM 3.16m 

 

 

White Lodge 

 

 

Kirklands 

2.1m 

Westfield 

Ashlea 

A 52 

Micari 

PC 

Inglemere 

HERLYN CRESCENT 

Ingoldsea 

 

Laburnum 

Gas Governor 

11 

The 

Ship 

(PH) 

PC 

Shelter 

Car Park 

Donbery 

Glencove 

14 

TCBs 

Royal Arthur 

Centre 

 

13 

Seabreeze Park 

5 10 

Statesman Homes 

14 

37 

ELIZABETH CRESCENT 

30 

17 

Sunny 

Lodge 







Sheet Ref: TF5668NW 

Page 72

Agenda Item 7 


S/090/00287/ 13 

APPLICANT: George Bateman & Son Limited, 

VALID: 05/03/2013 AGENT: Neil Dowlman Architecture, 

PROPOSAL: Planning permission - Change of use, extensions and alterations 

to existing public house to provide a block of 4 no. houses. 

Erection of a detached garage and alterations to existing 

vehicular access. Erection of 2 no. brick walls to the maximum 

height of 2m on site of part of existing building which is to be 

demolished. 

LOCATION: THE THREE TUNS PUBLIC HOUSE, HIGH STREET, INGOLDMELLS, 

SKEGNESS, LINCOLNSHIRE, PE25 1PW 


1.1 The application is referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Cllr. 

Neil Cooper in order for the application to be judged against the relevant 

policies in relation to the loss of a public house and the flood risk associated 

with the site in the flood plain. 


2.1 The application site is located to the southern side of High Street within the 

settlement limits of Ingoldmells as defined by Inset Map 43.1 of the Local 

Plan. The site is occupied by a public house which incorporates a large rear 

extension with a bar and dining area at ground floor and a function room at 

first floor. Opposite is the Grade I Listed Church of St. Peter and St. Paul and 

to the rear is currently a large car park which has permission for residential 

development (see 6.1 below) as part of a wider scheme for 29 dwellings 

involving buildings also to the east of the public house. 


3.1 The application is for planning permission to change the use, alter and 

extend the public house to provide a block of four dwellings. The existing 

external fabric of the main façade of the public house building will remain 

largely unchanged with most alterations being internal. The large rear 

building extension described above would be removed and replaced by a 

much narrower traditionally scaled wing which will be shared by two of the 

dwellings. Access for only one of the dwellings will be from the front to 

reduce disturbance to the building, with remaining accesses being from the 

rear. 

3.2 The application also includes for the erection of a detached garage block of 

four, two of which have access to the eastern most dwellings within the site. 

The existing vehicular access would also be altered to serve the dwellings. 

Further ancillary development would incorporate the erection of brick walls 

to the maximum height of 2m to the rear garden areas of the dwellings. 

Page 73

Consultation 

4.1 Set out below are the consultation responses that have been received on 

this application. These responses may be summarised and full copies are 




4.2 The application has been advertised in the press as the site is adjacent to 

the Grade I Listed Building the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, by means of 

a notice displayed at the site and by letters to neighbours and consultees. 

Consultees 

4.3 ENGLISH HERITAGE: The application should be determined in accordance 

with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist 

conservation advice. 

4.4 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The proposed development would only meet the 

requirements of the NPPF subject to a planning condition. 

4.5 INGOLDMELLS PARISH COUNCIL: Support - Feelings of Members were one 

of sadness, as the Public House is considered to be the Heart of the Village 

and has many good memories for "born and breed" villagers and returning 

visitors alike. However, following a very emotive and upsetting discussion 

and considering all material factors it was by a small majority agreed to 

support the application in favour of the applicant, Bateman Brewery on the 

proviso that the listed building is sympathetically altered, particularly in 

terms of its external appearance and preserving any internal artefacts in 

conjunction with advice from the District Council's Conservation Team. 

4.6 LCC as HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: No observations. 

4.7 LCC as HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: 

4.8 REGULATORY SERVICES: No comment. 

Neighbours 

4.9 Councillor Graham Archer emailed the office to call the application to 

Planning Committee after Councillor Neil Cooper's request had been 

received. He is concerned that the loss of the public house would be the loss 

of an important facility in the local community. 

4.10 Letters of objection have been received from the following addresses in 

Ingoldmells: 

• 9, Elmwood Drive; 

• 1, 12, 13, 17, Hides Close; 

• 24 Laura Court; 

• 11, Lime Grove; 

• 1, Oak Close; 

Page 74

• Glenkerry, Rymac Crescent; 

• 31 Seabreeze Park, Sea Lane; 

• Dunromin Guest House, White Lodge and Willow Lodge, Skegness Road; 

and Skegness Water Leisure Park, Walls Lane. 

4.11 Letters of objection have been received from the following addresses 

elsewhere: 

• 14 Cavendish Court, Park Road, Bradford; 

• 34 Brook Street, Clay Cross, Derbyshire; 

• 193, The Avenue, Bentley, Doncaster; 

• 39, Belton Avenue, Grantham; 

• 51, Whitehill Road, Blinsworth, Rotherham; 

• 31 Halesworth Road, Handsworth and 6, Ferncroft Avenue, Mosborough, 

Sheffield; 

4.12 Four letters of objection are also unaddressed. 

4.13 The letters highlight the following points of objection: 

• The document supporting the application is based on assumptions about 

the patrons, in terms of age and wealth. 

• The public house is a Grade II Listed Building, one of the oldest in the 

village and therefore part of Ingoldmell's heritage. There are countless 

historic features in the building. 

• When the other properties were passed, residents understood there would 

be no others due to flood risk and housing supply. 

• The public house has been part of the community for many years and its 

loss will impact on the community as it is a meeting place and hub of 

social interaction; 

• Holidaymakers / day-trippers which support the village are attracted by 

the historic charm of the public house; 

• More people are coming to Ingoldmells as caravan sales and B&B use 

were up last year. 

• The public house is the only one that caters for older people (over 50) 

and that they feel safe going to, other pubs are more prone to fighting 

and other trouble. 

• Patrons have saved up to enjoy their retirement and use the pub 

regularly. 

• The landlord of thee public house keeps residents entertained and it is a 

safe place where people can go. 

• There are games nights (dominoes, pool, darts, quizs, bingo and raffles), 

live music / entertainment and the pub serves food. 

• There will be nowhere for Batemans to sell their beer. 

• The development would be out-of-keeping with the area. 

• Concerns have also been expressed regarding the legitimacy of the Parish 

Councils comments based on the fact that the application was not on the 

agenda for their meeting, therefore their comments are considered to be 

invalid. 

Page 75

4.14 A petition (see the attached documents) has been received from 339 

residents and holidaymakers against the application for similar reasons to 

those outlined above but details of the history of the village and public house 

and with the following additional comments: 

• Residents and holidaymakers acknowledge that the original building is to 

remain but they wish for it to remain as a public house, particularly as 

they wish to encourage businesses not for them to close; and 

• The tenants will be out of work. 



5.1 No amendments have been made. 


6.1 S/090/01210/08 was for Detailed Particulars relating to the erection of 1 no. 

detached house, 1 no. block of 3 no. houses, 2 no. blocks of 3 no. dormer 

bungalows, 4 no. pairs of semi detached dormer bungalows, 4 no. pairs of 

semi detached houses, 3 no. dormer bungalows, (total 29 no. dwellings) 

erection of 22 no. garages, provision of parking, erection of fencing to a 

maximum height of 1.8 metres and construction of an estate road (Outline 

planning permission reference no. S/090/821/05 – Outline erection of 29 no. 

dwellings with garages on site of existing shops, sheds, workshops and 

garage to be demolished (with details of siting to be considered) in 

accordance with an amended plan received by the Local Planning Authority 

from the applicant’s agent on the 31 st May, 2005 granted on the 29 th June 

2005, in accordance with amended plans received by the Local Planning 

Authority by applicant’s agent on 13 th August 2008). 





Development Plan comprises the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 

(Saved Policies). The Government's National Planning Policy Framework is a 

material consideration. However, Paragraph 215 goes on to state that due 

weight should be given to relevant policies in pre 2004 existing plans 

according to their degree of consistency with the framework. 


Policy A3 - Local Areas and Settlement Hierarchy 


Policy A5 - Quality and Design of Development 

Policy ENV3 - Foul and Surface Water Disposal 

Policy CF2 - Loss of Key Community and Social Facilities 

Policy H12 - Design of New Housing 


Page 76


Paragraphs 17, 35, 47-49, 58-59, 70, 102-103, 120 and 128-141. 

Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework 

Other Guidance 

PPS25: Practice Guide 




• The Principle of the Development of the Site; 

• The Impacts of the Design of the Development upon the 

Character of the Area and the Setting of the Church of St. Peter 

and St. Paul; 

• The Impacts of the Development upon Residential Amenity; 

• Highway Safety and Access; 

• The Implications of the Development upon Archaeology; and 

• Other Matters 

The Principle of the Development of the Site 

a) Housing Supply and Location 

8.2 There is an onus placed on the Council to make an assessment of the 

desirability of releasing the land in advance of consideration of the matter 

through the Local Development Framework (Local Plan) process. In this 

respect the main thrust of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (the 

NPPF) is to support sustainable development. Indeed, Paragraph 49 states 

that housing applications should be considered in the context of the 

presumption in favour of sustainable development. It places considerable 

emphasis on development being plan led and empowering local people to 

shape their own surroundings through documents such as neighbourhood 

plans. Whilst the document is to be taken as a whole it does contain advice 

on specific issues. 

8.3 In relation to housing generally Councils are expected to have a 5 year 

supply of deliverable sites that provide for a full range of market and 

affordable housing, with an additional buffer of 5%. The buffer should be 

increased to 20% for authorities that have persistently under-delivered 

against their targets and although there is some debate regarding what 

constitutes "persistent under delivery" I take the view that the Council does 

not fall within this category. Sites with planning permission contribute 

towards this supply but Councils must also identify a supply of specific, 

developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6 - 10 and, where 

possible, for years 11 - 15 (para. 47). The supply can contain an allowance 

for windfall sites under certain criteria (para.48). 

Page 77

8.4 In terms of housing supply, it is my view that the change of use of the public 

house to four dwellings would not amount to significant development which 

would undermine the supply of deliverable housing sites as called for by the 

NPPF. In my opinion the issue of the principle of the location of the 

development turns on whether it would be a sustainable location for 

development in conflict with the core planning principles of the NPPF 

(para.17). 

8.5 The NPPF calls for planning to make every effort to objectively identify and 

then meet the housing needs of the area and responding positively to wider 

opportunities for growth (para. 17). The application site is situated within the 

settlement boundary of Ingoldmells as identified in Policy A3 and Inset Map 

43.1 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999. Policy A3 of the Local 

Plan designates Ingoldmells as a main village as it provides a limited but 

valuable range of services for surrounding smaller settlements and acts as 

commuter settlement for Skegness. The village has a wide range of shops, a 

primary school; a doctor's surgery; a number of community facilities 

including churches, a village hall and playing fields. There are also public 

transport services available linking the village to Skegness. 

8.6 Whilst the application would increase the pressures on these services and 

facilities in the village, it is my view that the proposals would not be contrary 

to Policy A3 in that they would not begin to take the village "beyond its 

optimum level of growth" or "add to infrastructure, traffic and environmental 

problems, putting pressure on existing services, open spaces and the 

surrounding countryside." The degree to which it would do so would be very 

limited and I find that it would be difficult to object to this application as 

based on its small scale nature the development would not involve strategic 

decisions in terms of plan-making to be made. Moreover, Policy A3 expects 

new housing in main villages to be of a lesser scale, consistent with their 

more rural character and aimed at consolidating their role as a secondary 

service, employment and commuter centre. I consider that the development 

would meet this requirement. 

8.7 I would therefore advise that the proposal would not undermine the 

principles of the settlement hierarchy within the district as set out in Policy 

A3 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999, or the policy objectives 

within Paragraphs 17, 47, 48 and 49 of the National Planning Policy 

Framework. 

b) The Loss of the Public House 

8.8 Both the development plan in the form of Policy CF2 of the East Lindsey 

Local Plan First Alteration 1999 and national policy set out in Paragraph 70 of 

the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 are important to the 

consideration of this application. Policy CF2 seeks to prevent the loss of key 

community and social facilities where one of the following criteria is met: 

• The continued use of the facility has been shown not to be necessary in 

the long term (part a); or 

• In the case of a business it has been shown not to be viable in the long 

term and that it cannot be sold off as 'a going concern' (part b); or 

• An accessible, replacement facility is provided elsewhere in the facility 

(part c). 

Page 78

8.9 Paragraph 70 of the NPPF also reflects on the important role that social, 

recreational and cultural facilities and services play in the community needs. 

It expects LPAs to plan positively for the provision of community facilities 

(such as public houses) to enhance the sustainability of communities and 

residential environments and "guard against the unnecessary loss of the 

valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the 

community's ability to meet its day-to-day needs". 

8.10 Bearing in mind that the NPPF is less detailed than the Local Plan, I shall give 

Policy CF2 significant weight in considering the merits of this application. 

However, I do not consider that there are any inconsistencies between the 

two documents. 

8.11 Firstly, I have no doubt that the retention of at least one public house in 

Ingoldmells is important in community, social, economic and sustainability 

terms, particularly given the status of the settlement in Policy A3 of the Local 

Plan as a 'Main Village'. It is also clear from the representations that The 

Three Tuns is a popular public house with certain locals and holidaymakers 

whom point to various activities that take place in the public house 

throughout the week. I am also aware that there appear to be reasons that 

those regular patrons chose not to use the other public houses in the village, 

including the use by younger people and possible anti-social behaviour. 

8.12 I also accept that a residential conversion will offer little to the village in 

terms of community, social, economic and sustainability terms. However, it 

is important to acknowledge that at this time there are various other public 

houses located in Ingoldmells including The Ship Inn, The Countryman and 

The Moody Cow more local to The Three Tuns; as well as The Villager Hotel 

and The Cherry Tree more distant. There are also further bars in the 

settlement. In this context, it is clear that the proposals would meet part (c) 

of Policy CF2 of the Local Plan. 

8.13 Industry practice is for rents to be between 10% and 8% of turnover, and I 

am aware through representations received from the applicant that despite 

the best efforts of the landlord I am informed that even if rents are reduced 

to a lower figure of 8% of turnover, based on present turnover it would show 

a loss to a tenant of £7,175, whereas rent at 10% of turnover would equate 

to a loss of £9,500. What is more, based on forecast future turnover it is 

envisaged that the tenant would make a loss of £7,502 (8% rent) and 

£9,748 (10% rent). There have apparently been two tenant bankruptcies at 

The Three Tuns in the recent past. 

8.14 In addition, it is suggested that Batemans would need to invest 

approximately £176,000 to bring up the standard of both the public and 

private elements of the property. The applicant suggests that for the 

company to own a property / business and charge in the region of 2% of its 

asset value as rent and then be expected to maintain and repair the property 

would be 'completely unviable' which has led to the submission of this 

application and the possible closure of the business in the short term. 

8.15 I feel that this is indicative of the currently harsh economic climate, further 

reinforcing the national trend of pub closures and that, in this instance, the 

Page 79

loss of the public house, notwithstanding the objections received, would be 

in compliance with Policy CF2 of the Local Plan and the what the NPPF seeks 

to achieve through Paragraph 70. 

c) Flood Risk 

8.16 The NPPF includes the Government's response to flooding. It is a recognition 

that the impacts of flooding can be avoided and reduced through good 

planning and management. Its key objectives are to appraise the flooding 

risk, to manage that risk and to then reduce that risk. 

8.17 The application site lies within Flood Zone 3a, which is defined on the 

Environment Agency's (EA) Flood Zone Maps (FZM) and in Table 1 of the 

Technical Guide to the NPPF, as an area of `high probability' which, by 

definition, comprises land having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of 

river flooding (>1%) or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding 

from the sea (>0.5%). 

8.18 The Practice Guide to PPS25 (December 2009) is still a material 

consideration and informs discussion on this subject area. It suggests at 

Paragraph 4.42 that an application the subject of a "change of use should 

not be subject to the sequential and exception tests but will still need to 

meet the requirements of a site-specific flood risk assessment". 

8.19 In this instance, the existing public house use within the building is a 'more 

vulnerable' use as outlined in Table 2 of the Technical Guidance to the 

National Planning Policy Framework. A residential use is also 'more 

vulnerable'. With this in mind, and taking into account that the application 

involves an existing building, it is my view that the use would be acceptable 

subject to assessment of the overall risk associated with the site. 

Development would not conflict with the fundamental objective of the 

Sequential Test to direct new development to less vulnerable areas. 

8.20 For development to be appropriate in Flood Zone 3 a Flood Risk Assessment 

(FRA) submitted in support of an application should be able to demonstrate 

that the development would be safe for its lifetime and not increase flood 

risk elsewhere. The most recent information on flood risk for the area is 

contained in the Environment Agency's Coastal Hazard Maps. 

8.21 The Environment Agency have concluded that over the lifetime of the 

development there would not be an unacceptable risk to life from tidal 

inundation. I agree with this stance due to the mitigation associated with the 

development. Moreover, subject to the flood risk protection measures, 

including demountable defences and flood resilient measures to a minimum 

of 800mm above existing ground levels, the proposals would result in 

development which would not increase flood risk elsewhere. As a result I 

conclude that the development would be in accordance with the NPPF. 

8.22 In terms of the drainage of the site, the proposal is to serve the 

development by the existing connection to the mains foul sewerage network 

for which Anglian Water have responsibility over and surface water disposal 

to soakaway. I am satisfied that these arrangements would be appropriate 

and that the development would accord with Policy ENV3 when these have 

Page 80

een provided. 

The Impacts of the Design of the Development upon the Character of 

the Area and the Setting of the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul 

8.23 Paragraph 58 of the NPPF outlines how planning decisions should utilise 

individual elements of design to create better developments. This clear steer 

to ensure that poorly designed developments are not accepted is repeated in 

Policy H12 of the Local Plan which refers to the Design of New Housing. This 

indicates that development will only be permitted where its siting, layout, 

density and design reflects or enhances the locally distinctive character of 

the area. These more broad-ranging design policies are important to the 

consideration of this application but as the site lies immediately opposite the 

Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, which is a Listed Building (and heritage 

asset) and forms part of its setting, Policy C2 of the East Lindsey Local Plan 

Alteration 1999 and the requirements of Section 12 of the NPPF (Conserving 

and enhancing the historic environment) are vitally important. 

8.24 Paragraph 129 also sets out that LPAs should "identify and assess the 

particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a 

proposal taking account of the available evidence and any necessary 

expertise." It goes on to indicate that "they should take this assessment into 

account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to 

avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any 

aspect of the proposal. 

8.25 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF sets out that the greater the significance of an 

asset, accordingly the greater the level of protection. In this instance, the 

church is a Grade I Listed Building and according to the NPPF its "significance 

can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset 

or development within its setting." 

8.26 Having considered the proposals it is my view that they would be very 

sympathetic to the existing public house building, particularly as the changes 

to the exterior of the High Street façade are only to remove the signage 

related to the public house. What is more, the proposals remove the 

existing large extension to the rear of the public house which in my opinion 

is rather cumbersome and does not contribute in a positive manner to the 

character of the area. Conversely, it is detrimental to the character created 

through the housing development approved adjacent to the site and 

suffocates the smaller-scaled, more traditional buildings at the public house. 

The smaller scaled extension proposed is better related to the context of the 

public house building. I also consider that the positioning of internal walls 

and features to be retained are also positive proposals. 

8.27 With the above in mind it is my view that the proposals would not be harmful 

to the character of the area or setting of the Listed Building in accordance 

with the provisions of the aforementioned policies. 

The Impacts of the Development upon Residential Amenity 

8.28 The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) requires through 

paragraph 59 that "design policies should…concentrate on guiding the overall 

Page 81

scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and access of 

new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area 

more generally". This builds upon the principles outlined in Paragraph 17 of 

the document. Taking this into account, I am satisfied that the Local Plan 

policies would be compliant with the NPPF. Moreover, Policy A4 (Protection of 

General Amenities) states that "Development which unacceptably harms the 

general amenities of people living or working nearby will not be permitted." 

Under the justification for this policy paragraphs 2.78-2.82 set out the 

parameters within which the Council examines the impact of development 

upon neighbouring properties and, more specifically, within paragraph 2.79 

the Council has outlined the main areas of concern which may result from 

new development. Policy H12 also calls for the protection of the residential 

amenities of adjoining properties. 

8.29 In considering these impacts it is necessary to address the overlooking and 

loss of privacy that may result from the proposals. Accordingly, it is 

important to observe that the proposed dwellings have been designed in 

order to not intensify overlooking from the situation observed from existing 

buildings. What is more, given the separation distances between the 

existing and proposed dwellings, and their scale and orientation it is my view 

that the resultant development would not lead to an unacceptable loss of 

natural light to habitable rooms or workplaces. Similarly, the scale of the 

buildings and the separation distances involved would ensure that there are 

limited massing impacts to the nearest residential uses. Conversely, the 

removal of the rear extension to the public house and its replacement would 

improve the current situation. The development also incorporates a level of 

amenity space commensurate with the scale of the development. 

8.30 In summary, in this particular circumstance I consider that the development 

proposed subject to the satisfaction of the conditions proposed would comply 

with the provisions of the Local Plan and the aforementioned policies in that 

there would not be harm caused to the amenities of the occupants of 

adjoining residential properties. 

Highway Safety and Access 

8.31 A number of policies are relevant to the access, parking and highway design 

of residential proposals. The NPPF through paragraph 35 requires that 

developments "should be located and designed where practical to create safe 


pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home 

zones". Policy H12 of the Local Plan indicates that new developments of 

housing should include traffic management measures to ensure the safety 

for all classes of road user, including cyclists and pedestrians. 

8.32 The principal vehicular and pedestrian accesses to the site are taken from 

the existing access positions to the street and via the access proposed to 

serve the housing development to the rear of the public house. The Highway 

Authority has not objected to the application and does not request any 

planning conditions. Consequently, I consider that the proposed parking and 

access arrangements for each property would ensure that vehicles can enter 

and leave the site in a safe manner in accordance with the abovementioned 

policies. 

Page 82

The Implications of the Development upon Archaeology 

8.33 Paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (the NPPF) 

states that 'in determining applications, Local Planning Authorities should 

require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets 

affected, including any contribution made by their setting...sufficient to 

understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance'. It goes 

on to suggest that 'Where a site on which development is proposed includes 

or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, 

local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate 

desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation'. 

8.34 The application is in an area of medieval settlement in proximity to the 

medieval church across High Street. Whilst the application does not contain 

information regarding the history of the building or about the potential 

ground impact on any surviving archaeology, it is considered that these 

matters can be satisfactorily addressed by planning conditions. Moreover, I 

recommend that if members are minded to approve the application there be 

a programme of archaeological work and a historic building record. 

Accordingly, I consider that the development would be compliant with the 

NPPF. 

Other Matters 

8.35 A resident has expressed concerns regarding the legitimacy of the 

consultation response by Ingoldmells Parish Council upon the basis that it is 

alleged that the application was not on the agenda for the Parish Councils 

Meeting. Members can only deal with the planning merits of the case and 

how these comments were arrived at is between a complainant and the 

Parish Council. The resident has been informed that they can also discuss 

this matter with the Council's Monitoring Officer. 


9.1 The principle of the development is considered to be acceptable in terms of 

housing supply and location, the loss of the public house and flood risk. 

9.2 The design of the development would not be harmful to the character of the 

area or the setting of the Listed Building the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul. 

9.3 The development would not result in harmful amenity impacts. 

9.4 The safety of the users of the highway would not be put at risk by the 

proposals. 

9.5 The development would be acceptable subject to planning conditions 

controlling the recording of archaeology and the heritage within the public 

house. 

9.6 I am mindful of the significant level of objections to this proposal but these 

conclusions has been arrived at having taken into account all other relevant 

material considerations, none of which outweigh the reasons for the officer 

Page 83

ecommendation made below. 


Approve 







2 No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological 

investigation has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning 

Authority. This scheme should include the following: 

• An assessment of significance and proposed mitigation strategy (i.e. 

preservation by record, preservation in situ or a mix of these elements). 

• A methodology and timetable of site investigation and recording. 

• Provision for site analysis. 

• Provision for publication and dissemination of analysis and records. 

• Provision for archive deposition. 

• Nomination of a competent person/organisation to undertake the work. 

The scheme of archaeological investigation must only be undertaken in 

accordance with the approved details. 

Reason: To ensure the preparation and implementation of an appropriate 

scheme of archaeological mitigation in accordance with this condition is 

imposed in accordance with Paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy 

Framework 2012. 

3 The archaeological site work must be undertaken only in full accordance 

with the approved written scheme referred to in the above Condition. The 

applicant will notify the Local Planning Authority of the intention to 

commence at least fourteen days before the start of archaeological work in 

order to facilitate adequate monitoring arrangements. No variation shall 

take place without prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason: To ensure satisfactory arrangements are made for the recording of 

possible archaeological remains in accordance with Paragraph 128 of the 

National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 

4 A report of the archaeologist's findings shall be submitted to the Local 

Planning Authority and the Historic Environment Record Officer at 

Lincolnshire County Council within 3 months of the works hereby given 

consent being commenced unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority; and the condition shall not be discharged until the 

archive of all archaeological work undertaken hitherto has been deposited 

with the County Museum Service, or another public depository willing to 

receive it. 

Reason: In order to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for 

Page 84

the investigation, retrieval and recording of any possible archaeological 

remains on the site. This Condition is imposed in accordance with 

Paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 

5 No development must take place until, a historic building recording report 

has been undertaken, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority and deposited in the Historic Environment Record, in 

order that any necessary amendments to the report can be undertaken 

before the building is altered. The recording must include a textual history 

of the building and its functions; plan and elevation drawings and detailed 

descriptions of fabric, construction, fittings and fixtures backed by 

annotated photographs; and a full photographic survey cross referenced to 

existing ground plans, the photographs to include all external elevations, 

roof structures and all original or historic internal features. 

Reason: To record the historic fabric prior to alteration in accordance with 

Paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 

6 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a 

schedule of external materials of construction of buildings and hard 

surfaced areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. The schedule shall include the following: 

• The materials to be used for window sills; 

• type of bricks used, the method of bonding, mortar colour and 

pointing style of all new and replacement brickwork; 

• the natural clay pantiles and slates; 

• the final colour and texture of any new or replacement render; 

• design, final colour, materials of construction and method of 

affixment of rainwater goods; and 

• the design and positions of all external boxes for gas and electricity 

supplies and of any gas flues and soil vent pipes. 

Samples shall be provided as may be required by the Local Planning 

Authority of the materials in the schedule and the use of such samples shall 

be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development 

shall be constructed in accordance with the schedule and samples so 

approved. 

Reason: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority retains control over 

the external materials of construction of the development in the interests 

of the character and appearance of the development and the visual 

amenity of the area in which it is set. This condition is imposed in 

accordance with Policies A4, A5 and H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan 

Alteration 1999; and the requirements of Paragraphs 58 and 131 of the 


7 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full 

details of the proposed soakaway system for the disposal of surface water 

from the development hereby permitted, including percolation test results, 


Authority. Should the percolation test results be considered unacceptable 

by the Local Planning Authority details of an alternative means of providing 

for surface water drainage shall be submitted for consideration. The 

approved means of surface water drainage shall be implemented in full 

Page 85

efore the development hereby permitted is first brought into use. 

Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained, to avoid pollution, 

and to prevent increased risk of flooding. This condition is imposed in 

accordance with Policies A4 and ENV3 of the East Lindsey Local Plan 

Alteration 1999; and the requirements of Paragraph 103 of the National 

Planning Policy Framework 2012. 

8 Prior to their installation, details of the design of all external doors to be 

utilised in the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and 

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development 

is commenced and all external doors used in the development shall 

conform to the details so approved. 


these details of the development in the interests of the character and 

appearance of the development and the visual amenity of the area in which 

it is set. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policies A4, A5 and 

H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999; and the requirements 

of Paragraphs 58 and 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 

9 Prior to their installation, details of the window frames to be utilised in the 

development hereby permitted, including samples if so required, shall be 

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such 

details shall indicate, at a scale of not less than 1:20, the longitudinal and 

cross-sectional detailing, cill and lintol detailing, and means of opening. The 

window frames shall be installed in accordance with the approved details 

and thereafter so maintained. 




it is set. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policies A4, A5 and 

H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999; and the requirements 

of Paragraphs 58 and 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 

10 Prior to the dwellings hereby permitted first being brought into use, the 

dwellings shall be constructed in accordance with the flood proofing and 

resilience measures detailed in section 7.1 of the Flood Risk Assessment 

received by the Local Planning Authority on 14th February 2013. The 

applicant / developer shall confirm in writing (with photographic evidence) 

that these measures have been carried out within one month of their 

completion. Thereafter, the dwellings shall be provided with the other 

measures suggested to be implemented in accordance with section 7.1 of 

the Flood Risk Assessment. 

Reason: To reduce the risk and impact of flooding to the proposed 

development and its occupants. This condition is imposed in accordance 

with the requirements of Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy 


Page 86

11 Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted, foul water 

from the development shall be connected to the main foul water sewer, 

unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and to avoid 

pollution. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policies A4 and 

ENV3 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999; and the requirements 

of Paragraphs 17, 59, 103 and 120 of the National Planning Policy 


12 Further to the requirements of Condition No. 6, prior to the occupation of 

any of the dwellings hereby permitted, the boundary walls and fences shall 

be erected in accordance with the details shown on Drawing Reference 

A/2676/05, received by the Local Planning Authority on 14th February 

2013. 

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the 

development and the visual amenity of the area in which it is set. This 

condition is imposed in accordance with Policies A4, A5 and H12 of the East 

Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999; and the requirements of Paragraphs 58 


13 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General 

Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order or Statutory 

Instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order), none of the following 

developments or alterations shall be carried out without the prior written 

approval of the Local Planning Authority: 

i) the erection of house extensions including dormer windows, 

conservatories, garages, car ports, porches or pergolas; 

ii) alterations including the installation of replacement or additional 

windows or doors and the installation of roof windows; 

iii) the installation of satellite dishes to the north elevation of the 

building. 


the future extension and alteration of the development, in the interests of 

its architectural and visual integrity and the visual amenity and character of 

the area within which it is set. This condition is imposed in accordance with 

Policies A4, A5 and H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999; and 

the requirements of Paragraphs 58 and 131 of the National Planning Policy 


Page 87


Page 88

Page 89

Page 90


Page 91

Klondyke Farm 

Drain 

End House Farm 

7681 

Klondyke Farm 

BM 2.20m 

Track 

2.7m 

Drain 

Drain 

8134 

8476 

Dr ain 

Drain 

Drain 

9147 

2.7m 

Drain 

Tra ck 

Sluice 

9400 

Bridge Cottage 

Drain 

Drain 

Drain 

Drain 

0153 

0234 

Drain 

Fern 

Cottage 

BM 3.07m 

2.6m 

GP 

Drain 

Dr ain 

Def 

3.2m 

SD 

Drain 

1774 

Sluice 

5.1m 

Drain 

3.3m 

Dr ain 

Croft House 

CD 

Drain 

Def 

2500 

2553 

BM 3.84m 

Dr ain 

Drain 

4200 

Dr ain 

SD 

Drain 

3.9m 

Well 

S D 

Southfield House 

3500 

Three 

Ways 

3.9m 

GP 

Def 

Drain 

Bratoft Corner 

Pump 

Drain 

FW 

Cowcroft Drain 

4444 

RH 

1. 2m 

RH 

3.3m 

4.4m 

GP 

Def 

CD 

RH 

SD 

5300 

5300 

Sluice 

5545 

Drain 

5.5m 

Country 

Acres 

FF 

Drain 

6014 

BM 5.58m 

Post 

6473 

Croft End 

Def 

Drain 

5.2m 

FB 

7150 

Pond 

Pond 

7880 

Marshlea 

Croft End 

5.5m 

Drain 

CD 

CD 

The 

Hollies 

Dr ain 

Drain 

Drain 

4.5m 

The Hollies 

0088 

0069 

0077 

0058 

0079 

0088 

0079 

0069 

0059 

0077 

Drain 

CD 

Croft End 

Jockhedge Drain 

The Hollies 

3.0m 

Drain 

CD 

Drain 

Drain 

FB 

Pond 

Drain 

Pond 

Pond 

SD 

Pond 

Virley House 

Homelands 

Tank 

Pond 

Def 

Drain 

Drain 

Drain 

BM 2.93m 

INGS LANE 

1.22m RH 

Long Plantation 

 

BM 5.14m 

Co Const Bdy 

1. 2 m RH 

Drain 

LOW LANE 

Jockhedge 

Drain 

Drain 

INGS LANE 

Dr ain 

B RA TOF T E ND 

HIG HLANE 

Dr ain 

Dr ain 

Dr ain 


Path (um) 

Drain 

Drain 

 

Dr ain 

BRA TOFT END 

Drain 

Drain 

Drain 

Drain 

Croft End 

HIG H LANE 

Dr ain 

 

 

Drain 

LOW LANE 

Drain 

Dr ain 

Drain 

Drain 

Drain 

Dr ain 

Drain 

Drain 

Drain 

Co Const Bdy 

Tr ack 


LOW LANE 

BRATOF T END 

 

Drain 

Track 

Drain 

Drain 

Drain 

HIG H LANE 

Drain 

HIG H LANE 

Drain 

Co Const Bdy 

Drain 

Drain 

Drain 

The Hundreds 







Sheet Ref: TF4963 

Page 92

Agenda Item 8 

[08] Remove or Vary a condition 

S/039/00619/ 13 

APPLICANT: Juwi Renewable Energies Ltd, 

VALID: 10/04/2013 AGENT: 

PROPOSAL: Application to vary condition no. 10 which states 'The scheme of 

landscaping and tree planting shown within the High Lane 

Screening Management Plan received by the Local Planning 

Authority on 26th September 2012 shall be carried out in its 

entirety in accordance with the planting schedule contained 

within the report and maintained in accordance with the 

maintenance schedule.' imposed on Planning Permission ref no. 

S/039/00984/12 to read 'The hard and soft landscaping works 

detailed in the following documents shall be undertaken in their 

entirety no later than 31 March 2014: Fences and and cameras 

shown on drawing 'Revised Fence Layout' received by the Local 

Planning Authority on the 10th April 2013; and Landscaping and 

tree planting shown on drawing 'Figure 2.1 Structural 

Landscape', 'Figure 2.2 Structural Landscape Schedules' and 

'High Lane Screening Management Plan' all received by the Local 

Planning Authority on the 5th April 2013'. 

LOCATION: THE HOLLIES, HIGH LANE, CROFT, SKEGNESS, PE24 4SH 


1.1 The application has been referred by officers to the Planning Committee for 

consideration as the previous application to develop this site was considered 

by the Members of the Planning Committee due to the scale of the 

development and the public interest. 


2.1 The application site is located to the western side of High Lane within the 

Parish of Croft. The site was previously agricultural land in two parcels, 

however, the development approved under the previous planning permission 

for a solar park is nearing completion. 

2.2 The solar park is split into two sections by the access road serving this 

development, the two wind turbines and the wider holiday development to 

the southeast. There is also a nearby listed building, The Hollies, which is 

occupied by the landowner who operates the adjoining development. 

2.3 There is also another property called Blands Farmhouse which is also a listed 

building. This lies immediately to the east of the site but is separated by an 

existing tree belt. The centre of the site is also split by a further tree belt and 

there is sporadic planting to other parts of the northwestern boundary and 

northeastern boundary. However, the site largely remains open in character. 

Page 93


3.1 The application is submitted to vary Planning Condition No. 10 imposed on 

Planning Permission ref no. S/039/00984/12 which currently states: 

'The scheme of landscaping and tree planting shown within the High Lane 

Screening Management Plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 

26th September 2012 shall be carried out in its entirety in accordance with 

the planting schedule contained within the report and maintained in 

accordance with the maintenance schedule.' 

In order to read as follows: 

‘The hard and soft landscaping works detailed in the following documents 

shall be undertaken in their entirety no later than 31 March 2014: 

• Fences and cameras shown on drawing 'Revised Fence Layout' received 

by the Local Planning Authority on the 10th April 2013; 

• Landscaping and tree planting shown on drawing 'Figure 2.1 Structural 

Landscape'; 

• 'Figure 2.2 Structural Landscape Schedules'; and 

• 'High Lane Screening Management Plan', all received by the Local 

Planning Authority on the 5th April 2013.’ 

3.2 The purposes of this variation are outlined below in the main body of the text 

in relation to landscape impact but relate to inaccuracies in the survey 

information and presentation on the plans submitted with the previous 

application. This application therefore seeks to correct those matters and 

also provide further alterations to the configuration of landscaping, fences 

and security cameras. 







4.2 The application has been advertised by means of a notice in the press and at 

the site as the site is adjacent to Listed Buildings and a Major Development; 

and by letters to neighbours and consultees. 

Consultees 

4.3 BURGH LE MARSH TOWN COUNCIL: Not received. 

4.4 BRATOFT PARISH COUNCIL: Support. 

4.5 CROFT PARISH COUNCIL: Not received. 

Page 94

4.6 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: Do not wish to make any comments. 

4.7 LCC as HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY: No observations. 

4.8 LCC as HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: Not received. 

4.9 LINCOLNSHIRE TRUST FOR NATURE CONSERVATION: Not received. 

4.10 LINDSEY MARSH DRAINAGE BOARD: Not received. 

4.11 NATURAL ENGLAND: Standing advice issued on ecology. 


4.13 ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS: Not received. 

Neighbours 


4.15 The Ward Councillor is aware of the application via the Weekly List 


5.1 Reconsultation has been undertaken following the receipt of two plans 

showing the revised locations of security cameras and their heights. These 

have been amended from the previous application due to the revised layout 

of the site. 

5.2 The original scheme showed 61 security cameras mounted on poles to a 

maximum height of 2.20 metres. The proposal is now for 60 security 

cameras mounted on poles varying in height from 2.20 metres to 3.0 

metres. The camera heights will not be higher than 2.2 metres along the 

roadside. 

5.3 The consultation responses received on the application will be summarised 

on the Supplementary Agenda for Planning Committee. 

5.4 LCC as HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY: The proposed development will not be 

detrimental to highway safety or traffic capacity. 

5.5 LINDSEY MARSH DRAINAGE BOARD: No objections subject to board 

requirements being met in relation to the location of a fence. 

5.6 LINCOLNSHIRE TRUST FOR NATURE CONSERVATION: Whilst we support the 

use of the area underneath the solar array as permanent pasture, we are 

disappointed with the seed mixture proposed. In line with the ethos of the 

LCGM project and our previous comments on application S/039/00984/12 

dated 24 July 2012, we would recommend that a more species-rich grazing 

mix is used. Potential options should be discussed with Roger Wardle of the 

LCGM project team based at East Lindsey District Council. Creation of a large 

area of species-rich grassland on this site would fit in well with the aims of 

Page 95

the LCGM project as well as contributing towards Lincolnshire Biodiversity 

Action Plan (BAP) targets. 


6.1 The original application that this current application seeks to amend through 

changes to a planning condition was received under reference 

S/039/00984/12 and was for planning permission to construct a solar park, 

the construction and operation of which would be over a 25 year period. This 

was to consist of:- 

• 875 solar PV arrays for the generation of 10MW of renewable energy 

separated across two individual fields, in a total of 48 separate solar 

modules measuring 3.8 metres x 19.8 metres (62 rows in the northwest 

field and 39 rows in the southeast field with 6.2 metres between rows); 

• the solar arrays would be supported by a suspended frame from 6/7 

supporting columns per module, and would be 0.8 metres above ground 

but to an overall maximum height of 2.53 metres; 

• a substation 5.30 metres wide and 8.30 metres long, which would be 

3.92 metres high; 

• together with cabling, access tracks, 5no. inverterstransformer units sat 

on hardstandings, mesh security fencing to a maximum height of 2.40 

metres, and 61no. security cameras mounted on poles to a maximum 

height of 2.20 metres; 

• a temporary compound for during construction; and 

• perimeter planting. 











Policy A3 - Local Areas and Settlement Hierarchy 


Policy A5 - Quality and Design of Development 




Paragraphs 17, 35, 58, 59, 98, 100-103, 109, 118, 123, 128 and 141. 

Page 96


Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22): Renewable 

Energy 




• The Principle of Development and Matters Relevant to the 

Previous Application; and 

• The Impact of the Development upon the Landscape. 

The Principle of the Development and Matters Relevant to the 

Previous Application 

8.2 The principle of the development was agreed under the previous application 

to develop this site as outlined in Paragraph 6.1, I am satisfied that the 

principle of development would still comply with national policies in respect 

of renewable energy generation. 

8.3 Subject to planning conditions controlling the following: 

• a written scheme of archaeological investigation, arrangements for 

monitoring of the investigation and then the submission of a report of 

the findings of the investigation (Condition Nos. 2, 3 and 4); 

• traffic management for the site, detailing all the routes to be used to 

access the site during its construction (Condition No.5); 

• details of improvements to the access to the site and provision of 

parking within the site (Condition Nos. 6 and 7); 

• flood risk mitigation (Condition No. 8); and 

• ecological mitigation, 

the previous application considered that there would not be adverse 

implications of the development upon archaeology and other heritage assets 

(including Listed Buildings), residential amenity, highway safety, flood risk or 

ecology. 

8.4 Moreover, the application was considered to accord with Paragraphs 17, 35, 

59, 102, 118, 123 and 129-132 of the National Planning Policy Framework 

and Policies A4, A5, C2, ENV20 and TR3 of the Local Plan. I maintain that the 

changes to the application as outlined elsewhere would not result in any 

material change in circumstances which would cause harm in relation to any 

of these matters. 

8.5 Since the above application was considered details in relation to Planning 

Condition Nos. 2, 5 and 6 have been received by the Local Planning Authority 

and I understand that the archaeological investigation required by Condition 

No. 3 has been carried out. The details received were considered by officers 

of the LPA and the County Council (Highways and Heritage) to be 

Page 97

satisfactory to meet the requirements of those planning conditions. With this 

in mind, were Members minded to approve this application for the variation 

of Condition No. 10, Condition Nos. 5 and 6 would also need to be amended 

to reflect the approved details and Condition Nos. 2 and 3 would no longer 

be required. The revised list of conditions is included below. 


8.6 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF introduces the section of the framework 

dedicated to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. 

It requires the planning system to contribute to and enhance the natural and 

local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. The 

further paragraphs indicate that protection should be given to designated 

landscapes. 

8.7 Policy A4 of the Local Plan seeks to protect neighbour and public amenity 

and Policy A5 promotes better design. 

8.8 As Members will recall, the impact of the development in the landscape has 

previously been considered and deemed to be acceptable subject to a 

landscaping scheme controlled through Planning Condition No. 10 on the 

approved application S/039/00984/12. 

8.9 The applicant wishes to amend the planning condition to correct drafting 

errors in the landscape and fence plans previously received by the LPA for 

the following reasons: 

• The plans were not based on an accurate site survey; 

• The plans showed landscaping on the inside of the fence for the main part 

in the northern field;and 

• Near the entrance it is intended to reposition the fences and planting so 

that they are splayed at the corners either side of the access road, rather 

than continuing across the frontage up to either side of the access. 

8.10 The applicant has confirmed that the fences will be positioned as far away 

from High Lane as possible to reduce concerns that may be expressed in 

relation to their visual impact. For example, for a small section of the fence 

will be 9-10metres from the road which is closer than the 11metres originally 

approved, elsewhere the distance will be greater. 

8.11 As with the previous application, the applicant has provided details within the 

application of the proposals to landscape the edges of the site to provide 

screening of the development. The details have been supplemented with a 

temporary planting scheme to address the short term impacts of the 

development with longer term planting included as part of the wider scheme. 

8.12 The scheme is consistent with the original such that I am satisfied that the 

landscaping scheme would mitigate for the landscape impact of all the 

elements of the proposals, particularly the fences in their revised positions, 

to ensure that they do not become unacceptably discordant features in the 

landscape or be out of keeping with the character of the locality. As 

previously, the landscaping would be planted in the next available planting 

Page 98

season, which would be between November and March and would be 

maintained for a period of five years. 

8.13 A further consequence of the revisions to the site layout is the requirement 

to increase the height of cameras in certain locations, from 2.2 metres to 3.0 

metres high. However, as alluded to above, the higher cameras will not be 

along the more prominent roadside, these will be at the site perimeters 

along the access road and elsewhere away from High Lane. 

8.14 In this context it is considered that the proposed variations to the Condition 

would be in accordance with Policies A4 and A5 of the East Lindsey Local 

Plan Alteration 1999 and the requirements of Paragraphs 98 and 109 of the 

NPPF. 


9.1 The principle of the development has previously been found to be 

acceptable. 

9.2 There would be no further harm caused by the development to the following: 

• the residential amenities of those living or working in the area; 

• the flood risk associated with the site or flood risk elsewhere; 

• traffic capacity or highway safety; 

• habitats of protected species; and 

• archaeology or other heritage assets. 

9.3 I am satisfied that the landscaping scheme provided would mitigate for the 

landscape impact of the proposals to ensure that they do not become 

unacceptably discordant features in the landscape or be out of keeping with 

the character of the locality. 





Approve the variation of condition. 







4 A report of the archaeologist’s findings shall be submitted to the Local 


Lincolnshire County Council within 28 days of the date of this permission, 

Page 99

unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and the 

condition shall not be discharged until the archive of all archaeological work 

undertaken hitherto has been deposited with the County Museum Service, 

or another public depository willing to receive it. 




Paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

5 The traffic associated with the construction of the development shall only 

access the site in accordance with the 'Construction Management Route 

Selection' document, received by the Local Planning Authority on 20th 

November 2012, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local 


Reason: In the interests of safety of users of the public highway and the 

safety of the users of the site. This condition is imposed in accordance with 

the requirements of Policies A4 and TR3 of the East Lindsey Local Plan 

Alteration 1999 and Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy 


6 The access arrangements within the immediate proximity of the site access 

where it meets High Lane shall be constructed in accordance with the 

details shown within Annex 3 of the 'Construction Management Route 

Selection' document, received by the Local Planning Authority on 20th 

November 2012, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local 







7 Prior to any part of the development being brought into use, there shall be 

space laid out within the site for parking, turning, loading and unloading of 

vehicles within the site. These arrangements shall be kept permanently 

free for such use at all times thereafter. 






8 The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in complete 

conformity with the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) contained within the 

Environmental Report received by the Local Planning Authority on 25th May 

2012. In particular, the following mitigation measures shall be 

implemented, as detailed within the FRA: 

Page 100

• The Solar panels shall be set an a minimum of 0.8 metres above the 

existing ground levels; and 

• All buildings shall be located in Flood Zone 1, in the eastern part of the 

site, in accordance with the recommendation in section 6.4.59 of the 

FRA. 

Reason: To reduce the risk and impact of flooding to the proposed 

development. This condition is imposed in accordance with Paragraph 103 


9 The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in complete 

conformity with the mitigation measures outlined in relation to Ecology and 

Nature Conservation contained within the Environmental Report received 

by the Local Planning Authority on 25th May 2012. 

Reason: In order to reduce the risk and impact of the development to 

protected species. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policy 

ENV20 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 and Paragraphs 109 


10 The hard and soft landscaping works detailed in the following documents 

shall be undertaken in their entirety no later than 31 March 2014: 

• Fences and cameras shown on drawing 'Revised Fence Layout' received 

by the Local Planning Authority on the 10th April 2013; 

• Landscaping and tree planting shown on drawing 'Figure 2.1 Structural 

Landscape'; 

• 'Figure 2.2 Structural Landscape Schedules'; and 

• 'High Lane Screening Management Plan', all received by the Local 

Planning Authority on the 5th April 2013. 

Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately landscaped, in the 

interests of its visual amenity and that of the area in which it is set. This 

condition is imposed in accordance in accordance with Policies A4 and A5 of 

the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999; the requirements of 

Paragraphs 98 and 109 of the NPPF; and the guidance in the Companion 

Guide to PPS22. 

11 All the solar arrays, their supports and any foundations; inverters; 

transformer stations; site substation; access tracks; fencing; and security 

cameras and their supports; must be removed from site within 6 months of 

the solar park ceasing to be operational. 

Reason: The application site lies in the open countryside and it is important 

that once the development has ceased the site is brought back into a 

beneficial agricultural use in order to prevent unacceptable harm to the 

landscape. This condition is imposed in accordance in accordance with 

Policies A4 and A5 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999; the 

requirements of Paragraphs 98 and 109 of the NPPF; and the guidance in 

the Companion Guide to PPS22. 

Page 101

12 The security cameras within the site shall only be erected in accordance 

with the positions and heights shown on the approved plan 4020 1020 - 

68.00, received by the Local Planning Authority on 19th April 2013. 

Reason: The application site lies in the open countryside and it is important 

that the cameras are positioned and kept to heights which would not cause 

unacceptable harm to the landscape. This condition is imposed in 

accordance in accordance with Policies A4 and A5 of the East Lindsey Local 

Plan Alteration 1999; the requirements of Paragraphs 98 and 109 of the 

NPPF; and the guidance in the Companion Guide to PPS22. 

Page 102


Page 103

Track 

W estdale Lodge 

B eacon House 

Ori on 

Track 

Drain 

W illow Dale 

Greenview House 

BM 2.45m 

GLE BE CLOS E 

BEACON WA Y 

2.4m 

Track 

Killeney 

Jasmar 

El C ombrita 

Erehwon 

The Willows 

Pine Lodge 

 

 

 

BEACON WAY 







Sheet Ref: TF5465SE 

Page 104

Agenda Item 9 


S/153/00383/ 13 

APPLICANT: Mr. F. Burbidge, 

VALID: 15/04/2013 AGENT: 

PROPOSAL: Planning Permission - Erection of a detached house with an 

attached triple garage and alterations to existing vehicular 

access, to include raising of land levels, in accordance with 

amended plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 15th 

April 2013. 

LOCATION: LAND ADJACENT AND NORTH OF KILLINEY, BEACON WAY, 

SKEGNESS 


1.1 The application is referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Cllr. 

Neil Cooper in order for the application to be judged against flood risk. 


2.1 The application site is situated in an area of open countryside just to the 

northwest of the settlement boundary of Skegness as defined by Inset Map 

40 of the Local Plan, to the rear of Nos. 97 and 99 Beacon Way. The access 

to the site is between these properties. There is dense planting to the west 

and northern boundaries of the wider site but the southern boundary is open 

to views from the public footpath. 


3.1 The application is for planning permission for a single dwelling to the rear of 

No. 99 Beacon Way. It is designed with two storeys incorporating a number 

of projections incorporating differing roof heights and pitches. The proposals 

also incorporate an attached range of single-storey garages. The 

development is to be served by an existing vehicular access between Nos. 97 

and 99 Beacon Way. 







4.2 The application has been advertised by means of a notice displayed at the 

site and by letters to neighbours and consultees. 

Page 105

Consultees 

4.3 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: Recommend a planning condition in relation to the 

mitigation measures outlined in the FRA supporting the application and an 

informative in relation to the occupants signing up to Floodline Warning 

Direct. 

4.4 LINDSEY MARSH DRAINAGE BOARD: Not received. 

4.5 LCC as HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: Does not wish to restrict the grant of 

planning permission. 

4.6 LCC as HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: Not received. 


4.8 SKEGNESS TOWN COUNCIL: Not received. 

Neighbours 




5.1 The application was invalidated by officers as site levels were not clearly 

shown on the plans. These were provided by the applicant and reconsultation 

undertaken once that information had been received. The following 

responses have been received: 

5.2 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: No objections to amended details and request 

conditions as previously. 

5.3 LINDSEY MARSH DRAINAGE BOARD: No objection subject to board 

conditions being met in relation to culverting and discharge of surface water. 

5.4 LCC as HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: Does not wish to restrict the grant of 

planning permission. 

5.5 LCC HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: Recommends conditions in relation 

to a scheme of archaeological works. 


5.7 SKEGNESS TOWN COUNCIL: Support. 


6.1 An application was considered under reference S/153/01214/12 for a single 

dwelling at this site. The dwelling was designed with a two storeys 

incorporating a variety of pitched roofs with flat-roofed caps and tiled up- 

Page 106

stands to a roof patio. The proposals also incorporated a range of single 

storey garages and ancillary games and other rooms which encircled a 

courtyard area to the dwelling. The development was also to be served by 

the existing vehicular access between Nos. 97 and 99 Beacon Way. The 

application was refused under delegated powers for the following reasons: 

6.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (the NPPF) advocates a 

sequential approach to development and requires that sites are considered in 

order to direct development towards areas at the lowest probability of 

flooding. The application is not supported by any evidence to suggest that 

the Sequential Test as required by Paragraphs 100 and 101 of the NPPF has 

been undertaken and so would fail to accord with the requirements of this 

Policy. Furthermore, the application is also not supported by any evidence to 

suggest how the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to 

the community that outweigh the flood risk of the proposal; and 

demonstrate that it would be safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk 

elsewhere. The application would therefore also fail to accord with the 

requirements of Paragraphs 102 and 103 of the National Policy Planning 


6.1.2 The evidence available to the Council, as Local Planning Authority 

demonstrates that the application site is within an area which is known to 

have archaeology as it is included in the county Historic Environment Record. 

The application does not include any site-specific information regarding the 

archaeology or how it will be impacted by the proposal, contrary to the 

requirements of Paragraph 128 of the National Policy Planning Framework 

2012. 

6.1.3 The locally distinctive character of the area, including wider situations is 

synonymous with a grain of frontage development in a in linear form with 

properties either occupying one side of the road or facing each other. 

Beyond the frontages are large open tracts of undeveloped land such that 

the introduction of the proposed development in a backland position would 

not be akin to the prevailing locally distinctive character. The Council, as 

Local Planning Authority, therefore considers that the proposals would dilute 

the character of the area, detract from the open setting which is readily 

visible through the existing gap within the frontage development and from 

the public footpath. The proposals would therefore significantly harm the 

character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to the 

requirements of Policies A4, A5 and H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan, 



6.1.4 It is the opinion of the Council, as Local Planning Authority, that the design 

of the development would result in visual harm to the character of the area. 

Moreover, the design of the development incorporates a plethora of tiled upstands, 

hipped and flat roofed sections which present an overly complicated 

and contrived form which is overly horizontal in its emphasis. The resultant 

form would be incongruous and not complementary to prevailing locally 

distinctive characteristics of development. Furthermore, the solid to void 

ratios of the proposal also lack order with the result that the proportions and 

dispositions of the windows on the main elevations appear arbitrary and ill 

Page 107

considered. The palette of materials proposed also does little to assist the 

proposal in sensitively reflecting the defining characteristics of the local area. 

The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies A4, A5 and H12 of the 

East Lindsey Local Plan, Alteration 1999; and the requirements of 

Paragraphs 58 and 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 

6.1.5 By virtue of its scale, orientation and relationship with the adjoining 

residential property at No. 99 Beacon Way, the proposed development would 

be unacceptably overbearing upon the rear amenity area of that property 

and would result in loss of light to this area to the detriment of the current 

and future occupiers of that property. This would be contrary to the aims of 

Policies A4 and H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan, Alteration 1999; and 

Paragraphs 17 and 59 of the National Policy Planning Framework 2012. 











Policy A3 – Local Areas and Settlement Hierarchy 

Policy A4 – Protection of General Amenities 

Policy A5 – Quality and Design of Development 

Policy ENV3 – Foul and Surface Water Disposal 

Policy H12 – Design of New Housing 

Policy TR3 – Road Design in New Development 


Paragraphs 17, 35, 47-49, 58-60, 100-103 and 128-141. 




• The Principle of the Development (Housing Supply, The Flood Risk 

of the Proposal, and Archaeology); 

• Design of the Development; 

• The Impacts of the Development upon Residential Amenity; and 

• Highway Safety and Traffic Capacity. 

Page 108

The Principle of the Development (Housing Supply, The Flood Risk of 

the Proposal, and Archaeology) 

i) Housing Supply 

8.2 In the light of the recent changes to the planning policy background the onus 

is on the Council to make an assessment of the desirability of releasing the 

land in advance of consideration of the matter through the Local 

Development Framework (Local Plan) process. In this respect the main 

thrust of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) is to support 

sustainable development. Indeed, Paragraph 49 states that housing 

applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour 

of sustainable development. It places considerable emphasis on 

development being plan led and empowering local people to shape their own 

surroundings through documents such as neighbourhood plans. Whilst the 

document is to be taken as a whole it does contain advice on specific issues. 

In relation to housing generally Councils are expected to have a 5 year 

supply of deliverable sites that provide for a full range of market and 

affordable housing, with an additional buffer of 5%. The buffer should be 

increased to 20% for authorities who have persistently underdelivered 

against their targets and although there is some debate regarding what 

constitutes "persistent under delivery" I take the view that the Council does 

not fall within this category. Sites with planning permission contribute 

towards this supply but Councils must also identify a supply of specific, 

developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6 - 10 and, where 

possible, for years 11 - 15 (para. 47). The supply can contain an allowance 

for windfall sites under certain criteria (para.48). 

8.3 Notwithstanding the Council’s current housing supply, I do not consider that 

the scale of the proposal would be a sufficiently compelling reason to resist 

this proposal as it would be a scale that would be unlikely (cumulatively, with 

other permissions) to affect the ability of the Council to manage the release 

of housing. I would therefore advise that the proposal would not undermine 

the principles of the settlement hierarchy within the district as set out in 

Policy A3 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999, or the policy 

objectives within Paragraphs 47, 48 and 49 of the National Planning Policy 

Framework in relation to the supply of housing. 

ii) The Flood Risk of the Proposal 

8.4 The National Planning Policy Framework includes the Government's response 

to flooding. It is in recognition that the impacts of flooding can be avoided 

and reduced through good planning and management. Its key objectives are 

to appraise the flooding risk, to manage that risk and to then reduce that 

risk. 

8.5 The application site lies within Flood Zone 3a, which is defined on the 

Environment Agency’s (EA) Flood Zone Maps (FZM) and in Table 1 of the 

Technical Guide to the NPPF, as an area of `high probability’ which, by 

definition, comprises land having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of 

river flooding (>1%) or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding 

from the sea (>0.5%). 

Page 109

8.6 Paragraph 100 of the NPPF requires that “inappropriate development in areas 

at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from 

areas at highest risk”. The NPPF therefore advocates a sequential approach 

to development and Paragraph 101 requires that new development should be 

steered to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. It makes it clear 

that “development should not be allocated or permitted if there are 

reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas 

with a lower probability of flooding.” 

8.7 The application draws on the Draft Core Strategy which refers to the location 

of Skegness within Coastal East Lindsey. The applicant incorrectly suggests 

that this document advocates that the sequential test should only be applied 

to the coastal area. This is fundamentally contrary to the aims of the NPPF as 

expressed above and the Council would expect other sites in the Coastal 

South Area of the Local Plan to be considered to give the search area a 

policy basis. 

8.8 The application site is located within Flood Zone 3 and there are a large 

number of plots that have not been developed at Churchill Avenue as part of 

the Manor Crest housing development, which would be reasonably available 

for development. Notwithstanding this, the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk 

Assessment (2012) recommends that if development is to be steered to 

Skegness then this should be to the south and west of the town and not to 

the north of Burgh Road. 

8.9 However, Members will recall that permission was refused for a dwelling at 

Douglas Close, Burgh Le Marsh at the Planning Committee on 17th January 

2013. This was principally because there are outline planning permissions in 

place for several dwellings at Burgh Le Marsh which lies in Flood Zone 1. 

These include: 

• outline planning permission for eight dwellings at Wildshed Lane under 

application reference S/023/02360/12; 

• a total of 5No. dwellings at Wainfleet Road under applications 

S/023/00486/12 and S/023/02211/11 and 2No. dwellings at Skegness 

Road under application S/023/00491/12 (albeit in the flood zone); 

• a full permission at Burgh Hall for the conversion of the Hall and erection 

of 5No. dwellings under application S/023/00433/11. 

8.10 As the search area for this application site includes those same sites and 

they have not been developed I am of the opinion that they should be 

developed in preference to the application site. Moreover, the development 

being in Flood Zone 3a would fail the Sequential Test and be contrary to 

Paragraph 101 of the NPPF. Although in such circumstances the Exception 

Test required by Paragraph 102 should not be applied, for procedural 

purposes and to assist Members in their decision-making I will carry out my 

assessment for the application. 

8.11 If one can satisfy the Sequential Test then development must demonstrate 

that it provides wider community benefit to meet the overall requirements of 

sustainable development. This is evidently intended to include the need to 

Page 110

avoid social and economic blight. The Council has maintained a consistent 

approach that general market housing does not provide wider sustainability 

benefits to an area in its own right in terms of either direct improvement to 

the economic or social well-being of the community. Therefore, whilst the 

general benefits of sustainable development cannot be disputed, they would 

not, in my view, demonstrate sufficient benefit to be essential to the longterm 

economic or social viability of the area to outweigh the flood risk 

implications associated with increasing the number of dwellings and 

therefore persons at risk from flooding. Moreover, I would expect 

development proposals of this nature to offer greater direct benefits to the 

community through the provision of / improvement to community 

infrastructure / services or other community schemes. 

8.12 The application site as outlined is for a single dwelling and the applicant 

proposes to provide a sum of £5000 for community assets and benefits in 

light of the Council's approach to caravan development in the district. 

Members will again recall that the merits of this approach were debated at 

the Planning Committee in January 2013 and this was not considered to be 

an appropriate means of addressing the Exception Test as there is no policy 

basis for this approach which could lead to inconsistency in the 

determination of applications for dwellings. In addition, the figure appears to 

have been arbitrarily arrived at as this has been suggested by the agent who 

prepared the FRA for smaller properties. Moreover, there has been formal 

procedure to ascertain what monetary value should be afforded to a 

particular form of development based on its scale or location. What is more, 

the policy that this approach appears to be based on was developed 

specifically with caravans in mind in order to meet the aim of the Exception 

Test, as the coast of East Lindsey is reliant on holiday tourism and as such 

the provision of caravans aids the long term viability of the area. 

8.13 The second part of the Exception Test relates to the Flood Risk Assessment 

(FRA) which should be submitted in support of development and indicates 

that development should be safe for its lifetime and not increase flood risk 

elsewhere. 

8.14 The Environment Agency have concluded that over the lifetime of the 

development there would not be an unacceptable risk to life from tidal 

inundation. I agree with this stance due to the fact that there would be 

mitigation associated with the development. Moreover, subject to the flood 

risk protection measures, the proposal would result in development that 

would be safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere, or otherwise reduce 

flood risk overall, which would enable the development to pass the 

Exceptions Test for development. As a result I agree with the EA’s view 

regarding this matter and conclude that the development would be in 

accordance with the second part of Paragraph 102 and 103 of the NPPF. 

Notwithstanding this, the application would still be contrary to the NPPF for 

the reasons identified above. 

8.15 From the advice I have received from the Council’s Land Drainage Officer 

and the LMDB I am satisfied that the development would not be adversely 

affected by flood risk from other sources in accordance with Policy ENV3 of 

the Local Plan and the NPPF. 

Page 111

iii) Archaeology 

8.16 The evidence available to me (as shown on a map provided by the HEO at 

the County Council) demonstrates that the application site is within an area 

which is known to have archaeology as it is included in the county Historic 

Environment Record. Moreover, it is a probable medieval earthwork complex 

including ridge and furrow. 

8.17 A Heritage Statement has been submitted in support of this planning 

application, in keeping with the National Planning Policy Framework as the 

site on which development is proposed includes a 'heritage asset with 

archaeological interest' (s128). The conclusions of the statement are that 

the development of the site 'will impact any below ground archaeology and 

potentially destroy some of the existing earthworks. Therefore a 

topographical survey would be desirable as an initial phase of archaeological 

mitigation to record these earthworks and better understand the 

archaeology.' 

8.18 In this context I am advised by the HEO at LCC that if consent is forthcoming 

a programme of archaeological works including an earthwork survey be 

carried out in order to preserve by record the medieval ridge and furrow 

within the proposal area prior to development, and recommend that a 

condition to record the earthworks and put them into their context should be 

attached to any consent. 

Design of the Development 

8.19 Paragraph 58 of the NPPF requires that planning decisions “should aim to 

ensure that developments: 

• will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for 

the short term but over the lifetime of the development; 

• establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to 

create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; 

• optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create 

and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green 

and other public space as part of developments) and support local 

facilities and transport networks; 

• respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local 

surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging 

appropriate innovation; 

• create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and 

the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; 

and 

• are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate 

landscaping. 

8.20 The clear steer presented by NPPF to ensure that poorly designed 

developments are not accepted is repeated in Policy H12 of the Local Plan 

which refers to the Design of New Housing. This indicates that development 

will only be permitted where its siting, layout, density and design reflects or 

Page 112

enhances the locally distinctive character of the area. 

8.21 The locally distinctive character of the area, including wider situations is 

synonymous with a grain of frontage development with properties either 

occupying one side of the road facing open countryside or facing each other, 

primarily in linear form, as evidenced through established development along 

Beacon Way and Everingtons Lane to the north of the site. Beyond these 

frontages are large open areas of countryside and greenfield land. As a 

consequence of this, the introduction of a backland form of development in 

this location would dilute the character of the area, detract from this open 

setting which is readily visible through gaps within the frontage and 

therefore not contribute to the creation of locally distinctive design. The 

proposed residential development would therefore significantly harm the 

character and appearance of the surrounding residential area as it would not 

be akin to the prevailing locally distinctive character, which is dominated by 

more conventional frontage development. 

8.22 Turning to the design of the individual property, initially it is important to 

note that the application site is situated to the north of a public footpath 

which serves the Beacon Park Home Village and is regularly used. There are 

currently open views across the land between the footpath and the proposal 

but I am mindful that the Council has received an application for the 

development of the land between the application site and the footpath under 

reference S/153/00460/13. However, the site is also immediately adjacent to 

the access road which currently serves Nos. 97 and 99 Beacon Way. 

Consequently, it is in a semi-public area and therefore fairly prominent. 

8.23 I appreciate that Paragraphs 58 and 60 of the NPPF allow scope for a 

dwelling to be designed that would not necessarily relate to the prevailing 

locally distinctive style but it is my view that the design of the dwelling would 

fall significantly short of the high standards called for in the NPPF. The overly 

complicated appearance results in the design appearing dated and lacking in 

inspiration. 

8.24 Looking at the design it is my view that there is an uncomfortable balance 

between the vertical and horizontal elements of the dwelling and the 

combination of varying roof heights and forms are overly complicated and 

contrived. Whilst there are large houses at 97 and 99 Beacon Way, these 

remain simple and well-proportioned and whilst they are not locally 

distinctive as such, they are also not designed in the manner proposed with 

this application and I would go far as to say that this design form is not a 

typical feature within the District. Furthermore, the solid to void ratios are 

unbalanced with the result that the main elevations appear overly solid. 

8.25 The application suggests that there would be a 2.0metre high wall around 

the development. I consider that this would not be sufficient to ensure that 

the development would be integrated within the landscape. Conversely, it 

would perpetuate the rather urban form of the existing dwellings to the east 

which would be at odds with the countryside edge position. The otherwise 

open aspect towards the proposal and the scale of the buildings would 

enable it to be seen across the top of the proposed wall and between the 

existing dwellings. 

Page 113

8.26 I would therefore argue that the existing landscaping or that which could be 

proposed through a landscaping scheme would not provide sufficient 

screening in the short to medium term in order to prevent damage which is 

avoidable given that the development would not accord with the other policy 

criteria outlined above. The development would therefore fail to protect the 

character of the area from the introduction of a dwelling in an inappropriate 

location or the visual harm that would result from the quality of the 

development. 

8.27 I have considered the Design and Access Statement submitted but consider 

that there is no justification for the design as proposed or an evidence base 

as to how (if at all) it has been influenced by local vernacular. The proposal 

would therefore be contrary to Policies A4, A5 and H12 of the East Lindsey 

Local Plan, Alteration 1999; and the requirements of Paragraphs 58 and 60 

of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

The Impacts of the Development upon Residential Amenity 


should…concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height, 

landscape, layout, materials and access of new development in relation to 

neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally”. Paragraph 17 of 

the NPPF also refers to amenity and suggests “that Planning should always 

seek to secure…a good standard of amenity for all existing and future 

occupants of land and buildings”. I am therefore satisfied that the Local Plan 

policies would be compliant with the NPPF. Moreover, Policy H12 indicates 

that developments involving new housing should provide amenity and 

recreational open space appropriate to the size and location of the site and 

the type of housing or existing facilities available. Policy A4 (Protection of 

General Amenities) states that “Development which unacceptably harms the 

general amenities of people living or working nearby will not be permitted.” 

Under the justification for this policy paragraphs 2.78-2.82 set out the 

parameters within which the Council examines the impact of development 

upon neighbouring properties and, more specifically, within paragraph 2.79 

the Council has outlined the main areas of concern which may result from 

new development. 

8.29 The proposal would introduce a dwelling and garage block which would 

generally be of a scale and distance from the garden of the dwelling at No.99 

Beacon Way (9m away) to protect the amenities of the occupants of the 

dwelling. I am also satisfied that there would be no other amenity impacts in 

the context of the individual factors expressed in those policies above. 

8.30 In summary, in this particular circumstance I consider that the development 

proposed would comply with the provisions of the Local Plan and the 

aforementioned policies in that there would not be unacceptable harm 

caused to the amenities of the occupants of the adjoining residential 

property at No. 99 Beacon Way. 

Page 114

Highway Safety and Traffic Capacity 






zones”. Policy H12 of the Local Plan indicates that new developments of 


for all classes of road user, including cyclists and pedestrians. Policy TR3 of 

the Local Plan also seeks to provide safe and functional access 

arrangements. 

8.32 The Highway Authority have confirmed that they have no concerns in 

relation to highway safety or traffic capacity issues subject to planning 

condition. I therefore consider that there would not appear to be a 

compelling reason to object to the proposals on such grounds. In such 

circumstances I be satisfied that the proposal would accord with the highway 

access requirements of Policies A4, H12 and TR3 of the Local Plan and 

Paragraph 35 of the NPPF. 


9.1 The principle of the development in terms of housing supply and archaeology 

is acceptable but the development fails to pass the sequential and exception 

tests in relation to flood risk advocated through the NPPF so recommend that 

the application is resisted on such grounds. 

9.2 The design of the development is unacceptable in terms of location having 

regard to a predominant frontage character; and in terms of its individual 

design having regard to the architectural form and detailing of the property. 

I consider that this warrants the application being refused. 

9.3 There would not be harm caused to the residential amenities of the 

occupants of the neighbouring property. 

9.4 There would be no highway safety or traffic capacity issues associated with 






Refuse 

for the following reasons: 

1 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (the NPPF) advocates a 

sequential approach to development and requires that sites are considered 

in order to direct development towards areas at the lowest probability of 

flooding. The Local Planning Authority has undertaken the Sequential Test 

and determined that there are reasonably available sites appropriate for 

Page 115

the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding such 

that this test cannot be satisfied. Furthermore, if the Exception Test were 

to be applied, the development would fail to provide wider sustainability 

benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk. The application is 

therefore considered to be contrary to paragraphs 101 and 102 of the 


2 The locally distinctive character of the area, including wider situations is 

synonymous with a grain of frontage development in a linear form with 

properties either occupying one side of the road or facing each other. 

Beyond the frontages are large open tracts of undeveloped land such that 

the introduction of the proposed development in a backland position would 

not be akin to the prevailing locally distinctive character. The Local 

Planning Authority, therefore considers that the proposals would dilute the 

character of the area, detract from the open setting which is readily visible 

through the existing gap within the frontage development and from the 

public footpath. The proposals would therefore significantly harm the 

character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to the 

requirements of Policies A4, A5 and H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan, 



3 It is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the design of the 

development would result in visual harm to the character of the area. 

Moreover, the design of the development incorporates an overly 

complicated and contrived form characterised by an uncomfortable balance 

between the vertical and horizontal elements of the dwelling and the 

combination of varying roof heights and forms. This resultant form would 

be incongruous and not complementary to prevailing locally distinctive 

characteristics of development. Furthermore, the solid to void ratios of the 

proposal are unbalanced with the result that the main elevations appear 

overly dominated by brickwork. The proposal would therefore be contrary 

to Policies A4, A5 and H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan, Alteration 1999; 

and the requirements of Paragraphs 58 and 60 of the National Planning 


Page 116


Page 117








Page 118

Agenda Item 10 

[10] Outline Planning Permission 

S/013/02254/ 11 

APPLICANT: Mr. J. Boulton, 

VALID: 09/11/2012 AGENT: JHG Planning Consultancy Ltd, 

PROPOSAL: Outline erection of 1 no. pair of semi detached houses, 1 no. pair 

of semi detached houses with detached single garage and 1no. 

detached house with detached garage, erection of fences and 

construction of vehicular accesses in accordance with the 

amended details and plans received by the Local Planning 

Authority on 8th October, 2012, 9th November, 2012 and 3rd 

January, 2013 with access, landscaping, layout and scale to be 

considered. 

LOCATION: LAND OFF NARROW LANE AND, FULLETBY ROAD, BELCHFORD, 

HORNCASTLE, LN9 6LD 


1.1 This application is referred to the Planning Committee as a result of the 

recommendation being in conflict with the objection raised by Lincolnshire 

County Council as Highway Authority. Objections have also been raised by 

local residents. 


2.1 The site extends to 0.74 hectare and is located in the south west corner of a 

square of land bounded by Narrow Lane, Fulletby Road, and Main Road. 

Dwellings front each road but with the site forming gaps in the frontage to 

both Narrow Lane and Fulletby Road then extending to the rear as a 

substantial portion of the agricultural land at the heart of the square. The 

northern boundary is marked by a channel containing the River Waring and 

the eastern boundary by an outgrown hedge. The roadside boundaries are 

marked by post and rail/wire fencing and hedging with the Narrow Lane 

boundary being elevated above the level of the road. The site wraps around 

a bungalow in the south west corner which itself is separated off from the 

land by a post and rail fence. 

2.2 In the wider area the site falls within one of two loops which form the heart 

of Belchford as a nucleated village. Other ribbons of development extend out 

into open countryside along the arterial roads with the village as a whole 

having a strong rural character. It is located in a valley within the 

Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in an area 

dominated by arable agriculture but with increasing amounts of pasture on 

lower ground around the village. 

2.3 Dial Cottage, a Grade II listed building, stands to the north of the site. The 

site is identified as housing 'Site A' and as recreation space on Inset Map 87 

of the Local Plan. 

Page 119


3.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of two 

pairs of semi detached houses and a detached house with the reserved 

matters of access, landscaping, layout and scale to be determined at this 

stage. All but the illustration of appearance, which is indicative only, shown 

on the application plans is therefore to be considered. The scheme envisages 

the semi detached pairs of houses facing out onto Narrow Lane with 

individual accesses but set back approximately 10 metres from the roadside 

boundary. The detached house is to be located with its gable facing the road 

at a higher part of the site. Garages are to be set to the rear of the houses 

to which they relate. The plots have a depth of approximately 70 metres and 

front onto Narrow lane with the remainder of the land left vacant. They are 

to be divided by post and rail fences back planted with native species 

hedgerows. 

The application is accompanied by the following documents: 

• Design and Access Statement; 

• Ecology and Protected Species Survey which concludes that 'there are no 

ecological constraints relating to the development of the site. Some 

precautionary checks are recommended for the presence of water voles 

and badgers. 

• The mature trees on the site require an inspection for the presence of 

bats if there area any proposals to remove or manage them. Site 

clearance and vegetation removal should commence outside the nesting 

season.' 

• Flood Risk Assessment which investigates the flood event of 2007 and 

demonstrates that the amended scheme is on land that is at least 300mm 

above the flood level of that event. 

• Archaeological Evaluation which reveals that pottery was recovered from 

the site ranging from the Saxo-Norman to the early modern period, 

although the majority of the material comprises early medieval to 

medieval fabrics. 







4.2 The application has been advertised by means of press and site notices as a 

'Major' application and as affecting the setting of a listed building. 

Neighbours have also been notified. 

Consultees 

4.3 As originally submitted the application sought outline planning permission for 

the erection of 5 houses served by a cul-de-sac off Fulletby Road in the 

Page 120

northern part of the site. The following consultee responses relate to the 

original scheme which has been the subject of significant amendment as 

detailed above. 

4.4 BELCHFORD PARISH COUNCIL – The Parish Council has submitted a 

comprehensive objection and critique of the proposal on the grounds of the 

adverse impact on the locally distinctive character as part of the AONB with 

the following specific concern being highlighted: 

• Flooding – The Parish Council recognises that the site is not identified as 

at risk of flooding by the Environment Agency but draws attention to the 

2007 flooding event on the site and in the village caused by the 

overtopping of River Waring. 

• Traffic – Attention is drawn to the condition of the road network which it 

is claimed will further deteriorate as a result of the traffic generated by 


• Character – An appraisal of the character of the village and village survey 

has resulted in a desire to maintain the basic two loops of the village with 

a preference for any new development to front onto the existing road 

network as opposed to depth development of the centres of the loops. 

Concerns also expressed regarding the ‘estate’ nature of the proposed 

development. 

• Style of dwellings – Whilst recognising the indicative nature of the plans 

concern is expressed regarding the height of the dwellings and the impact 

this will have on the views of the surrounding hills and open countryside. 

• Release of land for the benefit of the community – Appreciation of the 

applicant’s stated intention to release part of the land for village 

recreation provision as envisaged by the Local Plan but this benefit is 

outweighed by the other concerns of the Parish Council. 

• Other considerations – The offer of the agent to consider an ‘allocation 

swap’ in relation to the areas of land allocated for housing and recreation 

to enable housing to front Narrow Lane is acknowledged as preferable in 

principle. 

4.5 LCC AS HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – Having looked at this application I would 

suggest that the Furlongs Lane between the proposed site entrance and the 

junction with Main Road be widened out to enable two-way traffic. It was 

obvious from my site visit that this area is already being used as an overrun 

area. I would therefore be grateful if you could obtain a revised plan 

showing this. 

4.6 REGULATORY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - Land Drainage - Object - Major 

drainage issues in the area. 

Environmental Protection - Object - Possible issues with odour and noise 

(when operating) from the Anglian Water pumping station. Information 

required to ensure that not an issue. (Note to Committee - The issue of 

noise from the pumping station is no longer relevant as the 

development has been moved away from the pumping station 

concerned). 

Also proposed dwellings in fairly close proximity of existing pig and poultry 

farms so may be issues with odour. However, there are existing properties in 

closer proximity of those farms. 

Page 121

Existing Anglian water sewer and rising main run across the site. 

4.7 NATURAL ENGLAND – Advisory comments only including – 

‘It is not clear from the application what the impact on protected species will 

be. We would encourage the authority to ask the applicant to provide further 

information that clearly describes the impact of the proposal on protected 

species and any proposed mitigation together with evidence to show how the 

concluded what the impacts will be.’ 

The Council is also referred to the Natural England Standing Advice. 

4.8 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTRYSIDE SERVICES – You'll be aware that the 

development proposal is located within an attractive and sensitive village site 

within the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is 

therefore subject to additional Planning Policy C11 in the East Lindsey Local 

Plan. I understand that the site lies within the settlement boundary and 

has been allocated for future residential development within the East Lindsey 

Local Plan 1995 and subsequent Alteration 1999, as detailed in Map 87 - Plot 

A. 

However the design proposed, although in outline, does appear to be very 

formulaic and typical of many modern housing developments. We would 

welcome consideration to a revised scheme that can make greater reference 

in design to the local distinctiveness of the area. The proposed planting of 

non-native laurel is disappointing and if housing were to proceed we would 

recommend a network of hedge and shrub planting using local provenance. 

A missed opportunity is the current lack of enhancements to the drainage 

ditch to the north of the site and a revised scheme that could include flood 

alleviation/biodiversity/landscape gains would be strongly recommended. 

4.9 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER - Not 

received 

4.10 ANGLIAN WATER – Not received. 

Neighbours 

4.11 10 letters of objection received on the following grounds: 

• Flood risk - site subject to past flooding; 

• Drainage of the site would increase rate of run-off thereby increasing the 

risk of future flood events; 

• A village appraisal concluded that only infill sites should be considered for 

development; 

• Lack of local services to support the development; 

• Lack of local need for the houses; 

• Adverse impact on the amenities of neighbours given the height of the 

buildings with particular reference to loss of privacy; 

• Loss of an open area important to the character of the village where an 

Inspector had accepted the importance of such areas in dismissing an 

appeal elsewhere in the village; 

Page 122

• Conflict with the locally distinctive character; 

• Adverse impact on the River Waring as a wildlife corridor and general 

adverse impact on wildlife using the site; 

• Highway Authority call for road widening would adversely affect the 

character of the country lane; 

• Existing roads in poor condition which would be made worse by the 

development; 

• Conflict with the desires of the community as shown by the village 

appraisal consultation; 

• Unsuitable type of housing for this village in the AONB; 

• Additional traffic on Narrow Lane with consequent increase in noise; 



5.1 BELCHFORD PARISH COUNCIL - Belchford and Fulletby Parish Council 

support this application provided that the following conditions are put in 

place: 

a) that the reminder of the site not earmarked for building development be 

designated as a recreational space with restrictions placed on it so no 

housing development can be carried out in the future; 

b) that the hawthorn hedgerow currently in-situ along Narrow Lane be 

preserved; 

c) that each development has sufficient off street parking so that it is not 

necessary for any parking to take place on Narrow Lane; and 

d) that the developer makes improvements to the grass triangle at the 

junction of Furlong Lane, Narrow Land and Fulletby Road. This needs to be 

reduced in size to make it easier to accommodate the additional traffic this 

development will create and have hard edging on it to prevent damage to it. 

This work should be completed prior to any of the properties being occupied. 

5.2 LCC AS HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – The carriageway of Narrow Lane is 

inadequate in terms of width and general physical layout to serve further 

development. There is generally insufficient width to permit vehicles to pass 

one another. The additional traffic likely to be generated by the proposed 

development will result in an increased incidence of manoeuvring of passing 

vehicles which will lead to vehicles overrunning the edge of the narrow 

carriageway and adjoining verge thereby causing an unacceptable level of 

damage to both and possible structural failure of the carriageway edges. 

Such conditions are contrary to the interests of safety and free passage of 

vehicles and pedestrians within the public highway. 

5.3 REGULATORY SERVICES DEPARTMENT – No comment. 

5.4 NATURAL ENGLAND – Not received. 

5.5 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTRYSIDE SERVICES – Not received. 

Page 123

5.6 LCC as HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER - There is currently no 

information regarding the archaeological potential of the site or how it will be 

impacted by the proposals. I recommend the application be withdrawn until 

such time as there is sufficient information to make a recommendation. 

As stated in December 2011, this is within an archaeologically sensitive area, 

in the medieval settlement of Belchford. There are extensive settlement 

remains which survive as earthworks in the whole western section, and 

indications of medieval earthworks to the east of the site. 

There are also Prehistoric cropmarks and finds dotted all around the outside 

of the village, and there are reports of building material and finds coming up 

on this site. 

Currently there is no site specific information, and further information is 

required before an informed recommendation can be made on this 

application. I would request that the developer is required to supply more 

information in the form of an archaeological evaluation to be carried out prior 

to determination. It is recommended that the evaluation should in the first 

instance be comprised of trial trenching in areas of proposed building 

footprints and/or services. 

This is in keeping with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states 

that 'Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the 

potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local 

planning authorities should require developers to submit and appropriate 

desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation' (para 128). 

Note - Following receipt of an archaeological evaluation of the site the 

Historic Environment Officer responded as follows: 

'This application sits within an archaeologically sensitive area, in the 

Medieval settlement of Belchford. There are extensive Medieval settlement 

remains which survive as earthworks nearby, with Prehistoric cropmarks and 

finds dotted all around the outside of the village. 

In keeping with the National Planning Policy Framework, an archaeological 

evaluation was undertaken prior to determination, the fieldwork and the 

report were sufficient to show that there are surviving archaeological 

deposits on the site that will be impacted by the proposed development. 

I therefore recommend that if planning permission is granted that there be a 

programme of archaeological work imposed to record the archaeology on this 

site to be recorded prior to its destruction. The specification for the work 

should be approved by this department prior to commencement and this 

office will require ten days' notice before commencement of groundworks. 

This should be secured by appropriate condition to enable any remaining 

archaeology which currently survives on this site to be recorded prior to its 

destruction; we recommend the following: 

Part 1 

No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological 


Page 124


1. An assessment of significance and proposed mitigation strategy (i.e. 

preservation by record, preservation in situ or a mix of these elements). 

2. A methodology and timetable of site investigation and recording 

3. Provision for site analysis 

4. Provision for publication and dissemination of analysis and records 

5. Provision for archive deposition 

6. Nomination of a competent person/organisation to undertake the work 




scheme of archaeological mitigation in accordance with this Condition is 

imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and to 

accord with guidance contained within Policy 27 of the East Midlands 

Regional Plan 2009. 

Part 2 

The archaeological site work must be undertaken only in full accordance with 

the approved written scheme referred to in the above Condition. The 



order to facilitate adequate monitoring arrangements. No variation shall take 

place without prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. 


possible archaeological remains in accordance with the National Planning 

Policy Framework and to accord with guidance contained within Policy 27 of 

the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009. 

Part 3 

A report of the archaeologist’s findings shall be submitted to the Local 







receive it. 

Reason: In order to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the 

investigation, retrieval and recording of any possible archaeological remains 

on the site. This Condition is imposed in accordance with the National 

Planning Policy Framework. 

NPPF states that local planning authorities should 'require developers to 

record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets 

to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance 

and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) 

publicly accessible' (s141). 

If planning permission is granted with an archaeological condition, please ask 

the developer to contact this office and we will prepare a brief for the works. 

5.7 ANGLIAN WATER – Not received. 

Page 125

Neighbours 

5 letters of objection received in relation to the amended proposal on the 

following grounds: 

• Narrow Lane unsuitable for increased traffic and conflict with HGV lorries 

through the day will create highway danger; 

• Verges to Narrow Lane suffer from overrunning because of its narrow 

nature; 

• Traffic for turkey farm on Narrow Lane arrive or leave throughout the day 

and night; 

• Neighbouring farms create odour which will impact on the amenities of 

the neighbours; 

• Potential highway danger from conflict with pedestrians; 

• New properties will overlook the neighbour on the opposite side of the 

lane; 

• 5 new dwellings too many for the village; 

• Overlooking to neighbour to the east given the two storey nature of the 

adjacent proposed dwelling; 

• Obtrusive on the character of the lane; 

• Flood risk area and open spaces in the village should be preserved; 

• Lack of local need for the dwellings; 

• Buildings and materials potentially out of character; and 

• Houses out of keeping and overbearing on this elevated site given the 

number of bungalows in the vicinity. 

1 letter of representation received recognising the amended proposal as an 

improvement compared to the original scheme. However, raises concerns 

regarding: the outline nature of the application; the proposed house on the 

highest part of the site which should be a bungalow; and overlooking of the 

farmhouse opposite. Recommends that the existing hawthorn hedge should 

be retained, sufficient length of drive to avoid cars protruding onto the lane 

provided and the green triangle in the road reduced in size and kerbed. 

Recommends a S106 agreement to ensure the open space is transferred to 

the community. 


6.1 No relevant planning history. 








makes it clear that due weight should be given to relevant policies in 

existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework 

(the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the 

greater the weight that may be given). 

Page 126


Policy A3: Local Areas and Settlement Hierarchy. 

Policy A4: Protection of General Amenities. 

Policy A5: Quality and Design of Development. 

Policy C2: Development and Demolition affecting a Listed Building. 

Policy C11: Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Areas 

of Great Landscape Value. 

Policy ENV3: Foul and Surface Water Disposal. 

Policy ENV20: Protection of Habitats. 

Policy H12: Design of New Housing. 

Policy REC4: Local Informal Recreation. 

Policy TR3: Road Design in New Development. 

Planning Policy Statements/Guidance 

National Planning Policy Framework with particular reference to paragraphs: 

9, 17, 35, 47, 48, 49, 50, 56, 58, 59, 60, 93 - 125 (inclusive), 115, 118, 126 

- 141 and 215(Annex 1). 



8.1 Given that the site involves land allocated for housing development in a 

'Medium Sized Village' in circumstances where the Council cannot 

demonstrate a 5 year supply of available housing site, the main planning 

issues in this case are considered to be: 

• Whether the proposal is appropriate in principle given that the 

majority of the site on which the proposed houses are located is 

allocated for use as recreation space to serve the village. 

• Whether the design of the development is of the necessary 

quality to meet the requirements of design policy and guidance. 

• Whether the access arrangements are safe and functional. 

• Whether the proposed development will harm the amenities of 

those living and working nearby. 

• Whether the proposal protects the habitat of protected species of 

wildlife. 

• Whether the development is safe in relation to flood risk. 

Whether the proposal is appropriate in principle given that the 

majority of the site on which the proposed houses are located is 

allocated for use as recreation space to serve the village. 

8.2 As stated above the application site is within the confines of the village as 

defined by Inset Map 86 of the Local Plan and is allocated for housing 

development in its northern portion with the southern portion, effectively 

where the dwellings are to be located, allocated for recreational use by virtue 

of Policy REC 4. Policy REC 4 seeks to protect the allocated land for informal 

or local recreational use but does permit the use of the land for other 

Page 127

purposes where an equivalent site in terms of size, safety and accessibility is 

provided elsewhere within the locality. As a result of consultation with the 

Parish Council it became clear that there was a community preference for the 

allocated housing land to be kept open for recreation purposes. Also that any 

built development should respect the existing pattern in the village which is 

one of predominantly frontage development to the historic lanes. Combined 

with the need to address the issue of potential flood risk in the northern part 

of the site the agent has agreed to amend the proposal which, in effect, 

exchanges the location of the two allocations. For these reasons it is 

considered that the aims of Policy REC 4 have been achieved and that the 

proposal accords with the Local Plan in this respect. 

Whether the design of the development is of the necessary quality to 

meet the requirements of design policy and guidance. 

8.3 The NPPF states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development 

and is indivisible from good planning. Design is to contribute positively to 

making places better for people (para. 56). To accomplish this development 

is to establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to 

create attractive and comfortable places to live and responding to local 

character and history (para. 58). It is also proper to seek to promote or 

reinforce local distinctiveness (para. 60). Policy A5 of the Council’s Local Plan 

seeks to achieve good quality design which respects the distinctive character 

of the locality. Furthermore Policy H12 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that 

all new housing development is sustainable, well designed, safe, fits in with 

its surroundings, provides for any low cost housing needs thereby promoting 

diverse and viable communities and includes any necessary open space and 

respects the amenities of people living nearby (para. 8.84). This latter aim is 

reinforced by Policy A4 which seeks to protect the amenities of those living 

and working nearby. 

8.4 As stated above the site affects the setting of a nearby listed building and is 

within the AONB. In such circumstances paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires 

that the significance of the heritage asset is assessed. Paragraph 131 then 

calls for decisions to take into account the desirability of sustaining and 

enhancing that significance and the desirability of new development making 

a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Policy C2 of the 

Local Plan permits new development only where it preserves or enhances the 

special architectural or historic interest of the listed building and its setting. 

In relation to the character of the AONB Policy C11 seeks to protect the 

natural beauty of the locality. 

8.5 In assessing the weight to be given to the development plan policy 

Paragraph 215 (Annex 1) of the NPPF to state that due weight should be 

given to relevant policies in pre 2004 existing plans according to their degree 

of consistency with the framework. In my opinion relevant criteria of Policies 

A4, A5, C2 and H12 of the Local Plan are closely in line with the NPPF and 

should therefore be given full weight. Also the NPPF maintains the 

significance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as landscapes given 

the highest status of protection in paragraph 115. Therefore the issue of 

design within the setting to the listed building and in the AONB should be 

determined in accordance with Policies A4, A5, C2, C11 and H12 of the Local 

Page 128

Plan. 

8.6 The proposal envisages the erection of four dwellings facing out onto Narrow 

Lane with a fifth turned at right angles following the pattern of development 

within the village. The indicative design of the houses are based on examples 

of historic houses in villages and in my opinion they do reflect local building 

traditions. The proportions of the houses also respond to houses in the 

village and work with a gable width of approximately 6 metres which reduces 

the mass of the buildings. New hedge and tree planting is proposed to the 

boundaries which will help assimilate the development into its setting. The 

amended scheme has moved the development away from the listed building 

to a point where I consider its setting to no longer directly affected although 

the maintenance of the distinctive character of the village will protect its 

context. For these reasons I consider the design and layout to respond 

appropriately to the village context which will preserve the setting of the 

listed building in compliance with development plan policy. 

Whether the access arrangements are safe and functional. 










arrangements. In this case the access is to be gained via individual private 

drives from Narrow Lane. The Highway Authority has objected to the 

proposal on the grounds of the potential conflict between road users as a 

result of its narrow and confined nature. It should also be noted that local 

residents have also expressed concerned in relation to highway safety and 

suggested the development should be served by a cul-de-sac. 

8.8 In this case a balance must be struck between achieving a design that is 

appropriate to this sensitive site and the highway safety issue. Whilst it is 

acknowledged that Narrow Lane is of limited width and constrained by banks 

which make passing difficult in sections, I also note that the site is within the 

30 mph zone of the village and the very nature of the lane slows traffic. The 

natural response to the character of the land is one of caution but to improve 

the highway would be detrimental to its character. The access situation is a 

common feature of historic villages and on balance it is considered that 

highway safely will not be compromised to a degree that warrants refusal of 

the application. 

Whether the proposed development will harm the amenities of those 

living and working nearby. 

8.9 Paragraph 59 of the NPPF requires that design policies should "concentrate 

on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, 

materials and access of new development in relation to neighbouring 

Page 129

uildings and the local area more generally”. This is to address the core 

principle of always seeking to secure high quality design and a good 

standards of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and 

buildings as set out in paragraph 17. Policy H12 of the Local Plan calls for 

housing proposals to protect the residential amenities, including privacy, of 

adjoining properties. This is reinforced by Policy A4 which calls for the 

rejection of proposals that unacceptably harm the general amenities of 

people living or working nearby with paragraph 2.79 listing the particular 

matters that will be taken into account. 

8.10 Neighbours have expressed concerns regarding the development proposal as 

noted above but with particular reference to loss of privacy at the houses to 

the east of the site and on the opposite side of Narrow Lane. However, the 

neighbour to the east is located approximately 45 metres from the adjacent 

proposed house which is adequate separation to avoid direct loss of privacy. 

Also, the property has adequate opportunity to maintain privacy to a large 

part of its garden with intervening vegetation reducing opportunities for 

overlooking. In relation to the properties opposite the site Narrow Lane runs 

between the existing and proposed houses. This means the more public side 

of the existing dwelling is affected 21 metres away. In such circumstances I 

am of the opinion that adequate separation distances are achieved; 

particularly given the elevated nature of the existing dwelling and the 

secondary nature of the windows facing the site. For these reasons I 

consider Policies A4 and H12 to be satisfied in relation to the protection of 

residential amenity. 

8.11 As another aspect of the amenity issue neighbours have highlighted the 

proximity of livestock farms, including pig and poultry, which may cause 

odour nuisance to the occupiers of the new dwellings. On this issue I note 

that there are existing properties within similar distances of the farms and no 

complaints have been brought to my attention. I also feel that development 

only brings the dwellings approximately 40 metres closer to the farms than 

the allocated housing land where it must be assumed that this factor was 

taken into account in identifying the land. It is therefore considered that the 

lack of evidence of nuisance points to this issue being outweighed by other 

material considerations as outlined elsewhere in this report. 

Whether the proposal protects the habitat of protected species of 

wildlife. 

8.12 The application involves the development of a significant area of land 

including the banks of the River Waring that may provide habitat for species 

of wildlife protected by legislation. Regulation 3(4) of the Conservation 

(Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 requires all Local Planning Authorities, in 

exercising their functions, to have regard to the provisions of the European 

Habitats Directive in such circumstances. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 

Circular 06/2005 makes it clear that the presence or otherwise of protected 

species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed 

development, is established before the planning permission is granted 

otherwise all material considerations have not been taken into account. Since 

the Regulations require consideration of habitat in all the Council's functions 

I consider the requirements to apply to this application. In this respect the 

Page 130

NPPF aims to move from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains 

(para. 9) and calls for Local Planning Authorities to aim to conserve and 

enhance biodiversity by, in this case, taking opportunities to incorporate 

biodiversity in and around developments (para. 118). This is supported by 

Policy ENV20 of the Local Plan which seeks to protect habitat from harm. 

8.13 In this case an Ecological Assessment has been submitted in support of the 

application which found no evidence of protected species of wildlife on the 

land but recommends habitat enhancement through the incorporation of bird 

boxes, retention of existing hedges and planting using native species of 

trees/shrubs which can be achieved by appropriate condition. In such 

circumstances I consider Policy ENV20 the Local Plan to be satisfied. 

Whether the development is safe in relation to flood risk. 

8.14 The NPPF maintains the previous PPS25 strategy towards dealing with flood 

risk (paras 93 - 108 inc.). The latter strategy involves the application of the 

Sequential Test and the assessment of site specific risks. In this case the site 

is in Flood Zone 1 but the land is known to have been subject to flooding as 

a result of over-topping of the River Waring in 2007. However, the Flood Risk 

Assessment submitted in support of the application demonstrates that the 

amended location for the proposed dwellings is outside the area of risk and 

with a recommended finished floor level of 80 metres above Ordnance 

Datum the development will be safe from any future such events. 


9.1 The site is within the confines of the settlement and although it involves the 

loss of land allocated for recreational uses within the Local Plan this is 

compensated for by the ability to provide open space on the adjacent part of 

the site. The design of the development reflects local distinctiveness and will 

preserve the setting of the nearby listed building. Although there will be an 

increase in activity associated with the development this is no different from 

what would be ordinarily anticipated with the provision of new housing but 

separation distances mean that privacy of neighbours will not be significantly 

harmed. The access arrangements to the development are safe and 

functional. The site is of little ecological significance but offers the 

opportunity to enhance biodiversity and is likely to be safe from the risk of 

flooding. The proposal therefore accords with relevant development plan 

policy as set out above and warrants approval subject to appropriate 

conditions. 





Approve 


1. Outline Permission 

Application for approval of all reserved matters must be made not later 

Page 131

than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this 

permission and the development must be begun no later than: 

The expiration of two years from the final approval of all reserved matters 

or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last 

such matter to be approved. 



2 No development shall take place without the prior written approval of the 

reserved matter of the appearance of the dwellings hereby permitted. 

Reason: The application was submitted in outline only and the above 

details are required to enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the 

appearance of the development. This condition is imposed in accordance 

with Policies A4, A5, C11 and H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 

1999. 

3 No development shall take place on the site until such time as the future 

public access to, and maintenance of, the area of the site shown in white 

on drawing number F2228-01D received by the Local Planning Authority on 

9th November, 2012 has been secured for public recreation purposes in 

accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority and the land shall be made available for public recreation 

purposes thereafter. 

Reason: To ensure that the recreation area allocated within the East 

Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 is secured in perpetuity to meet the 

local need of the community in accordance with Policy REC4 of the East 

Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 and paragraph 58 of the National 


4 Before the commencement of the development hereby permitted details of 

the brick(s) to be used to construct the external walls of the development 

hereby permitted, including samples if so required, shall be submitted to 

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and all the brick(s) 

used in the development shall conform to the details/samples so approved. 


the external materials of construction of the development in the interests 

of the character and appearance of the development and the visual 

amenity of the area in which it is set within Lincolnshire Wolds Area of 

Outstanding Natural Beauty. This condition is imposed in accordance with 

Policies A4, A5, C11 and H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 

1999. 

5 The brick bond to be used in the construction of the dwellings hereby 

permitted shall be English Garden Wall Bond 3-1 (three courses of 

stretcher to one course of headers) or Flemish Bond unless otherwise 

agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

Page 132




it is set which within the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural 

Beauty. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policies A5, C11 and 

H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999. 

6 Before the development is commenced, details of the materials to be used 

to construct the roof of the development hereby permitted, which shall be 

natural slate or natural red clay pantiles, including samples if so required, 


Authority, and all roofing materials used in the development shall conform 

to the details/samples so approved. 




it is set which within the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural 

Beauty. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policies A5, C11 and 

H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999. 

7 The scheme of landscaping and tree planting shown on Drawing Reference 

F2228-01D received by the Local Planning Authority on 9th November 2012 

shall be carried out in its entirety within a period of 6 months beginning 

with the date on which development is commenced, or within such longer 

period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in 

accordance with details of the number, species, height on planting and 

position of all trees and hedge plants, together with post planting 

maintenance to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before 

the development is commenced. All trees, shrubs and bushes shall be 

maintained by the owner or owners of the land on which they are situated 

for the period of five years beginning with the date of completion of the 

scheme and during that period all losses shall be made good as and when 

necessary, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any 

variation. 

Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately landscaped, in the 

interests of its visual amenity and that of the area in which it is set. This 

condition is imposed in accordance with Policies A5 , C11 and H12 of the 

East Lindsey Local Plan 1999. 

8 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with 

the details of finished floor levels and foul and surface water disposal 

contained within Flood Risk Assessment compiled by RM Associates and 

dated September 2012 submitted in support of the application. 

Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained, to avoid pollution, 

and to prevent increased risk of flooding. This condition is imposed in 

accordance with Policy ENV3 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999. 

9 Before any dwelling hereby permitted is first occupied the access and 

turning space to that dwelling shall be completed in accordance with 

Page 133

drawing number F2228-01D received by the Local Planning Authority on 

9th November, 2012 and retained for that use thereafter. 



10 No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological 



1. An assessment of significance and proposed mitigation strategy (i.e. 

preservation by record, preservation in situ or a mix of these elements); 

2. A methodology and timetable of site investigation and recording; 

3. Provision for site analysis; 

4. Provision for publication and dissemination of analysis and records; 

5. Provision for archive deposition; and 

6. Nomination of a competent person/organisation to undertake the work 




scheme of archaeological mitigation. This Condition is imposed in 

accordance with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

11 

The archaeological site work must be undertaken only in full accordance 

with the approved written scheme referred to in Condition 10 above. The 



order to facilitate adequate monitoring arrangements. No variation shall 

take place without prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. 


possible archaeological remains in accordance with paragraph 141 of the 

National Planning Policy Framework. 

12 A report of the archaeologist's findings shall be submitted to the Local 







receive it. 




paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

13 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a wildlife 

enhancement scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the 

Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only in 

Page 134

accordance with the scheme so approved before the dwellings are occupied 

or such longer period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning 

Authority. 

Reason: In the interests of enhancement of bio-diversity in accordance with 

the principles of paragraphs 109 to 125 inclusive of the National Planning 


Page 135

14 

3 

1 

15 

1 

20 

2 

4 

5 

6 

PH 

36 

7 

42 

44 

46 

4a 

30.7m 

Hotel 

 

 

 

 

UPGATE 

Gospelgate 

Mews 

Shaw's Mews 








Page 136



N/105/00418/ 13 

APPLICANT: Mr. P. & M. Tipper, 

VALID: 06/03/2013 AGENT: Lincs Design Consultancy Ltd, 

PROPOSAL: Planning Permission - Extensions and alterations to existing 

public house which is a Listed Building to provide a ground floor 

lobby, first floor dining area, extended balcony, external 

staircase and erection of a timber pergola awning and re-roofing 

of part of public house. 

LOCATION: THE GREYHOUND INN, 38 UPGATE, LOUTH, LN11 9EX 


1.1 This application has been referred to the Planning Committee for 

determination as one of the applicants is a member of the staff of East 

Lindsey District Council. 


2.1 The Greyhound Inn is a Grade II listed building located in the historic core of 

Louth designated as a conservation area. The buildings on the site are used 

as a public house and have undergone substantial refurbishment in the 

recent past. The main buildings are a two storey, 'L' shaped, range of 

buildings that sit on the back of the highway along Upgate and Gospelgate. 

The buildings are red brick in part with the front elevations being rendered 

facing Upgate. The roofs are covered partly with clay pantiles (a small 

section on the rear elevation and the more recent single storey new build 

extensions) and part concrete pantile. To the rear recent extensions to the 

public house include a balcony which sits between a glazed extension to the 

historic building and an original wing projecting to the rear. The balcony is 

raised on steel posts and extends 3.2 metres out from the rear wall of the 

building and is edged in with a glazed balustrade. 

2.2 To the south and west of the site the public house has a number of dwellings 

as neighbours with the boundary being marked by brick walls or walls to 

buildings. The neighbours to the south on Shaw's Mews have a number of 

windows overlooking the site but those to the west have blank walls on the 

boundary. To the north the neighbours are on the opposite of Gospelgate 

and screened from the proposed development by two storey buildings 

forming part of the public house. 


3.1 The proposal has four distinct elements: 

• the re-roofing of the main building in William Blythe Barco pantiles; 

• an extension to the existing balcony out from the building by 

approximately 1.3 metres and the erection of a glazed, flat roof extension 

to the dining room at first floor level. There is also to be a 1.275 metre 

wide walkway across the front of the glazed extension to enable access to 

Page 137

a staircase down from the balcony; 

• the creation of a ground floor glazed lobby below the balcony over an 

entrance to the building on the south side of the coaching arch which 

gives access to the first floor dining room; and 

• the erection of a timber pergola with retractable awning covering an area 

of approximately 45 square metres attached to the eaves of an existing 

outdoor seating area. 

3.2 A design and Access Statement and Justification Statement' (DAS) has been 

submitted with the application which concludes in Section 6 that: 

'6.1 The Greyhound Inn is a successful and popular bar and restaurant. The 

client wishes to undertake the proposed works to enhance the existing 

business and guarantee its future. 

6.1 The existing roof tiles are out of character for the surrounding 

conservation area and are showing clear signs of deterioration. The proposed 

replacement roof tiles will have a positive impact on the aesthetics of the 

listed building and will prevent any long term damage to the structure of the 

building. 

6.2 The client wishes to extend the balcony and install the timber pergola in 

response to the existing popularity of outside drinking and dining. The 

extended balcony will enhance the existing business through increased 

dining/drinking capacity and will also create a contemporary architectural 

feature that will attract customers to use the business. The timber pergola 

awning will provide protection from the rain and sun for the existing outdoor 

seating area. 

6.3 It is therefore submitted that the proposal meets the objectives of Local 

and National planning policies, and can therefore be granted Listed Building 

Consent.' 







4.2 The application has been advertised by means of press and site notices as 

the proposal affects a listed building, the setting of a neighbouring listed 

building and the Louth Conservation Area. Neighbours were also notified. 

Consultees 

4.3 LOUTH TOWN COUNCIL - Not received. 

4.4 LCC as HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - It is considered by the Highway Authority 

that the proposed development will not be detrimental to highway safety or 

traffic capacity. 

Page 138

4.5 LCC as HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER - No further archaeological input 

is required for this application. 

4.6 REGULATORY SERVICES - No comment. 

4.7 CONSERVATION OFFICER - This proposal has not changed significantly from 

the previously refused application. There are some small changes but the 

overall impact on the significance of the listed building remains as before. 

My comments therefore remain as sent before and these are set out below. 

As mentioned already, I have for some time felt uncomfortable about the 

way the carriage arch is slowly being lost by signage and under-drawing of 

the arch on roadside and the balcony, walling, planting etc to the rear. 

It is a significant element of any historic coaching inn in my opinion. 

I don't have a problem with good contemporary design... although I'm not 

sure there is enough detail to establish if the glass box is good contemporary 

design. 

However, it will further erode the impact and significance of the carriage 

arch. 

Notwithstanding the lack of detail, when you add in the visual impact of the 

glass box, and the need to break though from inside, the external staircase 

and allow for the likely impact of lighting, tables, blinds etc. I feel it will 

harm the character of the listed building. 

I do welcome the reroofing in William Blyth Barcos. It will bring the building 

to life and commercially make it more noticeable in views along Upgate. 

I assume it was clay pantiles given what is to the side and rear but have not 

looked for any old photos of the Greyhound. 

The reroofing is something I have been trying to encourage for some time 

even when we still had grants! It was though linked to properly reinstating 

the height of the chimney stacks and the coped parapets. I am not convinced 

though the harm caused to the significance of the arch by the extension is 

out-weighed by the improvement in appearance & character which would be 

achieved by replacing the concrete tiles with clay pantiles. 

How would we ensure the reroofing was carried out 

4.8 LOUTH CIVIC TRUST - Object to all extension proposals. They are 

inappropriate in design and materials and so out of character with the listed 

building. We do support the proposed change of roofing materials to natural 

red clay pantiles. 

4.9 LINCOLNSHIRE HISTORIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE - Object. No objection to 

the re roofing with natural clay pantiles but object strongly to the proposed 

extensions. Their form, materials and appearance are totally alien to the 

Page 139

listed building and do not enhance it in any way. 

Neighbours 

4.10 Two letters of objection received. 

Letter 1. 

'My concerns with alterations proposed are as in the previous application, the 

design does not complement the building. 

My other concern is how will the pergola link up to the existing corrugated 

roof which discharges rain water onto the block paving in Shaws Mews and 

not into a drain. This is dangerous when the water turns to ice making a 

large area difficult to walk over. The block paving has been recently relaid at 

residents expense and my concerns are that more water discharging will 

damage the blocks in time. I am interested in how this can be resolved.' 

Letter 2. 

'My views on the proposed extension to the rear are as follows: 

1. The existing first floor balcony generates a certain amount of noise at 

first floor level. At it's current size this is constrained to a degree but 

clearly the significant extension plans will increase the intensity of 

use at first floor level. It can be argued that this first floor area will 

have a much greater effect on those properties in the locality such as 

my own. The sound of the courtyard noise is tolerable but this 

increased area at a level which is higher than the boundary walls is 

entirely different. 

2. Most critically one could question why does the extension need to be 

added at first floor anyway. The previously added balcony/deck has 

already added a notional extension to the premises at ground floor. It 

seems that the conservation officer is already of the opinion that the 

building has already been extended significantly and I question if this 

latest extension will really add anything positive to the listed 

building. 

3. I fully appreciate that extension to listed buildings can either be 

treated as an honest modern extension or as an imitation of a an 

extension to the original building. However in this case the former 

treatment is really not appropriate and I question if junctions with 

the existing roofscape and walls have really been considered in 

detail. The design proposed offers no longevity of appeal and in 5 

years time will look dated and a carbuncle on the listed building 

which the conservation department should recognise.' 

4.11 One letter of support as follows:- 

'Absolutely wonderful.....an oasis of joy at the heart of Louth. My wine glass 

is half full already. Vibrant, new and exciting..... a real tonic for the town. 

Given that we are in the middle of an economic crisis, it is particularly 

refreshing, that a local business is prepared to make costly improvements to 

Page 140

a building that is one of Louth's main social amenities. It is always easy to 

find reasons to object to things, but this project really deserves to be 

supported.' 



5.1 Previous consents for the extensions to the rear including the existing 

balcony:- 

N/105/707/06 - Listed Building Consent - Alterations to existing public house 

to provide an external canopy and first floor balcony to provide a rear 

external smoking area, erection of 2no. external brickwork storage areas to 

house cellar cooling units and air conditioning units, and alterations and 

refurbishment of existing attached vacant dwelling to provide an additional 

dwelling and erection of timber gates 2.5m in height, in accordance with 

amended plans received by the Local Planning Authority 14th July, 2006. 

Approved May 2007. 

N/105/710/06 - Planning Permission - Alterations to existing public house, 

which is a listed building, to provide an external canopy and first floor 

balcony to provide a rear external smoking area, erection of 2no. external 

brickwork storage areas to house cellar cooling units and air conditioning 

units, and alterations and refurbishment of existing attached vacant 

dwelling, which is a listed building, to provide an additional dwelling and 

erection of timber gates 2.5m in height, in accordance with amended plans 

received by the Local Planning Authority on 14th July, 2006. 


N/105/2340/11 - Listed Building Consent - External extension and 

alterations to existing public house to provide glazed dining area, balcony 

and external staircase to include re-roofing of part of the existing public 

house. This application contained elements of the present proposal and was 

refused in February, 2012 for the following reason:- 

'The proposal seeks consent for the construction of an extension to an 

existing balcony and the provision of a glazed room at first floor level at the 

rear of 'The Greyhound Inn, Louth, a Grade II Listed Building. Policy 27 of 

the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 and Policy C2 of the East Lindsey Local 

Plan Alteration 1999 effectively call for all proposals affecting Listed Buildings 

to preserve or enhance the historic interest of the building. In this case, in 

the opinion of the Council as Local Planning Authority, the proposed works 

will form a discordant element which fails to respect the architectural 

features and simple form of the existing building and is of inappropriate 

proportions, construction and materials given the context of the proposal. 

The proposal therefore fails to preserve or enhance the character or 

appearance of the Listed Building and is contrary to Policy 27 of the East 

Midlands Regional Plan 2009 and Policy C2 of the East Lindsey Local Plan 

Alteration 1999.' 

Page 141






(Saved Policies). The Government's National Planning Policy Framework 

(NPPF) is a material consideration. Paragraph 215 of the NPPF makes it clear 

that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans 

according to their degree of consistency with the framework (the closer the 

policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight 

that may be given). 




Policy C1: Development and Demolition affecting a Conservation Area. 



National Planning Policy Framework with particular reference to paragraphs 

17, 28, 56, 58, 59, 60 and 126 - 141 inclusive. 

PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning 

Practice Guide. 




• Whether the proposal preserves or enhances the appearance or 

character of the listed building and its setting within the Louth 

Conservation Area. 



Whether the proposal preserves or enhances the appearance or 

character of the listed building and its setting within the Louth 








reinforce local distinctiveness (para. 60). Policy A5 of the Council's Local 

Plan seeks to achieve good quality design which respects the distinctive 

Page 142

character of the locality. 

7.3 As stated above the site lies within the Louth Conservation Area and the 

Greyhound Inn itself is a listed building with its grounds affecting its 

immediate setting. In such circumstances paragraph 128 of the NPPF 

requires that the significance of the heritage assets is assessed. Paragraph 

131 then calls for decisions to take into account the desirability of sustaining 

and enhancing that significance and the desirability of new development 

making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. In 

identifying the balance to be made paragraph 132 states that great weight 

should be given to the asset's conservation and the more important the 

asset the greater the weight should be. It goes on to state that significance 

can be harmed or lost through alteration and that substantial harm to a 

Grade II listed building should be exceptional. Where substantial harm would 

result consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that this is 

necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm. 

Policies C1 and C2 of the Local Plan are also consistent with the NPPF and, 

effectively, permit new development only where it preserves or enhances the 

special character of the conservation area and the listed building. 


paragraph 215 of the NPPF (Annex 1) states that due weight should be given 

to relevant policies in pre 2004 existing plans according to their degree of 

consistency with the framework. In my opinion Policies A5, C1 and C2 of the 

Local Plan are closely in line with the NPPF. Therefore the issue of design in 

the conservation area and affecting the listed building should be determined 

in accordance with the relevant development plan policies. 

7.5 In this case the proposal involves a number of elements, including the reroofing 

of historic elements of the building which are currently covered in 

concrete tiles. This element will enhance the listed building and is to be 

commended. 

7.6 The scheme also involves the enlargement of an existing first floor balcony 

and the addition of a glazed extension at first floor level and an external 

staircase. A small glazed entrance lobby is to created below the extended 

balcony. In relation to these aspects of the proposal the DAS states:- 

'The proposed extension to the balcony will not affect the fabric of the 

existing listed building. The proposed works will extend the existing balcony 

that was a contemporary addition to the building. The balcony will obviously 

affect the aesthetic of the rear elevation but the scheme has been designed 

to create an exciting and complementary juxtaposition between the 

traditional and the contemporary. The balcony has not been designed to be a 

historical pastiche but as a contemporary intervention with a simplistic 

materiality and composition forming a some-what non-descript and neutral 

aesthetic. It is this unconfrontational aesthetic that will allow the 

contemporary balcony to sit easily within its historic surroundings.' 

7.7 On the whole I do not agree with these assertions. The DAS does not assess 

the significance of the listed building as called for by the NPPF but 

concentrates on a more descriptive interpretation of the proposed works. The 

Page 143

property has the appearance of a historic coaching inn and has possible 

origins in the 17th Century. The 1889 Ordnance Survey plan shows the 

carriage arch leading through to the yard at the rear which contained a 

number of buildings. William Brown's panorama, first exhibited in 1847, 

shows the original inn with its courtyard containing single storey ancillary 

buildings around the southern boundaries. At some time between 1847 and 

1889 it would appear that a two storey addition was made to the rear of the 

principal building creating an 'M' shaped roof. The original depth of the 

carriage arch may correspond to a change in materials evident in the arch. 

In my opinion the carriage arch and the rear walls to the public house have 

great significance as crucial features recording the historic origins of the 

building and its historical growth. 

7.8 From within the rear yard the rear wall to the historic building is clearly 

visible and marks the extent of the earlier public house through which the 

carriage arch gave access. To the side is a two storey wing to the historic 

building projecting 1.8 metres from the wall mentioned above. The rear of 

the building has been extended adding a number of elements based on the 

traditional lean-to approach. As part of an earlier scheme to extend the 

building the existing balcony was added but in my opinion this has not been 

successfully integrated into the building. However, its limited extent reduces 

the impact somewhat. 

7.9 The Practice Guide to PPS5, which remains extant, states that the main 

issues in proposals for additions to heritage assets are proportion, height, 

massing, bulk, use of materials, use, relationship with adjacent assets, 

alignment and treatment of setting (para. 178). It goes on to say that it 

would not normally be acceptable for new work to dominate the original 

asset or its setting in either scale, material or as a result of siting. 

7.10 In my view the extension of the balcony with the addition of external stairs 

thrusts the balcony more into openness making it a more prominent feature. 

As a result it diminishes the significance of the carriage arch whilst adding a 

discordant element to the elevation which conflicts with the more restrained 

nature of the rear to the public house. Contrary to the agent's assertion that 

the fabric of the listed building will not be affected the plans indicate that the 

level of the roof to the glazed extension will entail works to the eaves of the 

existing roof to achieve a waterproof join. Also, the addition of a glazed, flat 

roofed room projecting out above the arch produces a visual clash with the 

existing building hiding the original rear wall which is a significant element in 

reading the historic building. The glazed extension will appear suspended 

above the ground in contrast to the adjacent lean-to extensions which are 

more grounded because of the way in which the walls dominate at ground 

floor level. Below this the proposed lobby fills a space that defines the 

historic building and completes its masking by more recent additions. This 

has the added effect of lengthening the more modern element of the wall to 

the carriage arch, which is a defining element of the listed building, 

diminishing the appreciation of the historic feature. 

7.11 In relation to the awning the DAS states that:- 

'The proposed pergola awning will be located so that it covers the raised 

Page 144

patio area to the south of the building. The pergola awning will extend from 

the eaves of the existing cart shed seating structure and will be supported by 

timber posts positioned on the existing brick retaining wall. The awning will 

be retractable and will only be extended when needed.' 

7.12 Given the nature of the pergola, which is constructed of timber uprights and 

gently sloping timber awning rails, it is my opinion that a more rustic, 

domestic character will be introduced which is at odds with the character of 

the historic building and its more recent additions. The shallow angle of the 

awning will clash with roof to the building to which it is attached and will 

lessen the degree of openness of the courtyard area. Whilst I note that the 

awning will only be extended when necessary this cannot be controlled and 

could effectively be extended permanently. 

7.13 For these reasons it is considered that the proposal fails to preserve the 

listed building and in so doing it also harms the character or appearance of 

the conservation area. 






buildings and the local area more generally". This is to address the core 



buildings as set out in paragraph 17. Policy A4 of the Local Plan reflects this 

aim and calls for the rejection of proposals that unacceptably harm the 

general amenities of people living or working nearby with paragraph 2.79 

listing the particular matters that will be taken into account. 

7.15 In this case a neighbour has raised concerns about the impact of rain water 

shedding from the proposed awning. The submitted details suggest that the 

existing situation will not be altered because, with no method of catching and 

directing run-off, the awning will simply shed any rain water into the yard to 

the public house. On the matter of noise and disturbance raised by the other 

neighbour, given that the open area to the rear of the building is already 

used for outside seating, in my opinion there will be no significant change to 

the existing situation in relation to the amenities of the neighbours brought 

about by the development. 


8.1 Overall, therefore, it is my opinion that the proposal will have a detrimental 

impact on the appearance and character of the listed building and by 

association the character and appearance of the conservation area. Whilst I 

acknowledge the applicants' desire to enhance the existing business and 

guarantee the future of the public house as stated in the DAS, which chimes 

with the call to support sustainable growth and expansion of all types of 

businesses in rural areas in paragraph 28 of the NPPF, my conclusions that 

significant aspects of the development will be detrimental to the appearance 

Page 145

and character of the building outweigh this consideration which does not 

amount to the 'substantial public benefit' to be demonstrated in paragraph 

133. The proposal therefore warrants refusal on these grounds as contrary to 

Policies C1 and C2 of the Local Plan, relevant paragraphs of the NPPF and the 

Council's statutory duty to ensure that works to the listed building preserve 

or enhance its character or appearance. 

8.2 The proposed development will result in no significant change to the 

amenities currently enjoyed by neighbours and the re-roofing of the existing 

concrete tiled areas of the roof to the building with hand made clay pantiles 

as proposed will enhance the listed building and the character of the 

conservation area. However, these aspects do not outweigh the general 

conclusion drawn above. 





Refuse 


1 'The Greyhound Inn', Louth, is a Grade II Listed Building located within the 

Louth Conservation Area. Policies C1 and C2 of the East Lindsey Local Plan 

Alteration 1999 reflect the aims of paragraphs 126 - 141 of the National 

Planning Policy Framework and effectively call for all proposals affecting 

listed buildings or conservations areas to preserve or enhance the historic 

interest and character or appearance of the building and its setting. In this 

case, in the opinion of the Council as Local Planning Authority, the 

proposed works will form discordant elements which fail to respect the 

architectural features and simple form of the existing buildings and are of 

inappropriate proportions, construction and materials given the context of 

the proposal. The proposal therefore fails to preserve or enhance the 

character or appearance of the listed building and thereby the conservation 

area contrary to Policies C1 and C2 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 

1999 and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Page 146


Page 147

2 

5 

4 

14 

3 

1 

15 

1 

20 

2 

4 

5 

6 

PH 

36 

7 

42 

44 

46 

4a 

Hotel 

 

 

 

 

UPGATE 

Gospelgate 

Mews 

Shaw's Mews 








Page 148


[12] Listed Building Consent - Alterations 

N/105/00419/ 13 

APPLICANT: Mr. P. & M. Tipper, 


PROPOSAL: Listed Building Consent - Extensions and alterations to existing 

public house to provide a ground floor lobby, first floor dining 

area, extended balcony, external staircase and erection of a 

timber pergola awning and re-roofing of part of public house. 

LOCATION: THE GREYHOUND INN, 38 UPGATE, LOUTH, LN11 9EX 


1.1 This application has been referred to the Planning Committee for 

determination as one of the applicants is a member of the staff of East 

Lindsey District Council. 


2.1 The Greyhound Inn is a Grade II listed building located in the historic core of 

Louth designated as a conservation area. The buildings on the site are used 

as a public house and have undergone substantial refurbishment in the 

recent past. The main buildings are a two storey, 'L' shaped, range of 

buildings that sit on the back of the highway along Upgate and Gospelgate. 

The buildings are red brick in part with the front elevations being rendered 

facing Upgate. The roofs are covered partly with clay pantiles (a small 

section on the rear elevation and the more recent single storey new build 

extensions) and part concrete pantile. To the rear recent extensions to the 

public house include a balcony which sits between a glazed extension to the 

historic building and an original wing projecting to the rear. The balcony is 

raised on steel posts and extends 3.2 metres out from the rear wall of the 

building and is edged in with a glazed balustrade. 

2.2 To the south and west of the site the public house has a number of dwellings 

as neighbours with the boundary being marked by brick walls or walls to 

buildings. The neighbours to the south on Shaw's Mews have a number of 

windows overlooking the site but those to the west have blank walls on the 

boundary. To the north the neighbours are on the opposite of Gospelgate 

and screened from the proposed development by two storey buildings 

forming part of the public house. 


3.1 The proposal has four distinct elements: 

• The re-roofing of the main building in William Blythe Barco pantiles; 

• An extension to the existing balcony out from the building by 

approximately 1.3 metres and the erection of a glazed, flat roof 

extension to the dining room at first floor level. There is also to be a 

1.275 metre wide walkway across the front of the glazed extension to 

enable access to a staircase down from the balcony; 

Page 149

• The creation of a ground floor glazed lobby below the balcony over an 

entrance to the building on the south side of the coaching arch which 

gives access to the first floor dining room; and 

• The erection of a timber pergola with retractable awning covering an 

area of approximately 45 square metres attached to the eaves of an 

existing outdoor seating area. 

3.2 On a procedural matter members should note that the pergola awning that 

appears in the proposal description does not require listed building consent 

because it is attached to a relatively modern ancillary building which is not 

itself part of the listed building although standing in its curtilage. 

3.3 A design and Access Statement and Justification Statement' (DAS) has been 

submitted with the application which concludes in Section 6 that: 

• The Greyhound Inn is a successful and popular bar and restaurant. 

The client wishes to undertake the proposed works to enhance the 

existing business and guarantee its future. 

• The existing roof tiles are out of character for the surrounding 

conservation area and are showing clear signs of deterioration. The 

proposed replacement roof tiles will have a positive impact on the 

aesthetics of the listed building and will prevent any long term 

damage to the structure of the building. 

• The client wishes to extend the balcony and install the timber pergola 

in response to the existing popularity of outside drinking and dining. 

The extended balcony will enhance the existing business through 

increased dining/drinking capacity and will also create a contemporary 

architectural feature that will attract customers to use the business. 

The timber pergola awning will provide protection from the rain and 

sun for the existing outdoor seating area. 

• It is therefore submitted that the proposal meets the objectives of 

Local and National planning policies, and can therefore be granted 

Listed Building Consent.' 








the proposal affects a listed building, the setting of a neighbouring listed 

building and the Louth Conservation Area. Neighbours were also notified. 

Consultees 

4.3 LOUTH TOWN COUNCIL - Not received. 

Page 150

4.4 LCC AS HIGHWAY AUTHORITY - It is considered by the Highway Authority 

that the proposed development will not be detrimental to highway safety or 

traffic capacity. 


is required for this application. 

4.6 REGULATORY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - No comment. 

4.7 CONSERVATION OFFICER - This proposal has not changed significantly from 

the previously refused application. There are some small changes but the 

overall impact on the significance of the listed building remains as before. 

My comments therefore remain as sent before and these are set out below. 

As mentioned already, I have for some time felt uncomfortable about the 

way the carriage arch is slowly being lost by signage and under-drawing of 

the arch on roadside and the balcony, walling, planting etc to the rear. 

It is a significant element of any historic coaching inn in my opinion. 

I don't have a problem with good contemporary design although I'm not sure 

there is enough detail to establish if the glass box is good contemporary 

design. 

However, it will further erode the impact and significance of the carriage 

arch. 

Notwithstanding the lack of detail, when you add in the visual impact of the 

glass box, and the need to break though from inside, the external staircase 

and allow for the likely impact of lighting, tables, blinds etc. I feel it will 

harm the character of the listed building. 

I do welcome the reroofing in William Blyth Barcos. It will bring the building 

to life and commercially make it more noticeable in views along Upgate. I 

assume it was clay pantiles given what is to the side and rear but have not 

looked for any old photos of the Greyhound. 

The reroofing is something I have been trying to encourage for some time 

even when we still had grants! It was though linked to properly reinstating 

the height of the chimney stacks and the coped parapets. I am not convinced 

though the harm caused to the significance of the arch by the extension is 

out-weighed by the improvement in appearance & character which would be 

achieved by replacing the concrete tiles with clay pantiles. 

How would we ensure the reroofing was carried out 

4.8 LOUTH CIVIC TRUST - Object to all extension proposals. They are 

inappropriate in design and materials and so out of character with the listed 

building. We do support the proposed change of roofing materials to natural 

red clay pantiles. 

Page 151

4.9 LINCOLNSHIRE HISTORIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE - Object. No objection to 

the re roofing with natural clay pantiles but object strongly to the proposed 

extensions. Their form, materials and appearance are totally alien to the 

listed building and do not enhance it in any way. 

Neighbours 

4.10 One letter of objection received as follows: 

'LHG considers proposed extensions totally unsuitable-this is a listed 

building! Perhaps the Architects did not make themselves aware of this We 

would also like to emphasise that a listed building can only stand so much in 

the way of extensions without losing the qualities that caused it to be listed 

in the first place! We believe there is a case for claiming this point has 

already been exceeded! A rather disturbing situation, all told, we feel. We 

hope very much that planners will give this aspect their attention'. 



5.1 Previous consents for the extensions to the rear including the existing 

balcony - 

N/105/707/06 - Listed Building Consent - Alterations to existing public house 

to provide an external canopy and first floor balcony to provide a rear 

external smoking area, erection of 2no. external brickwork storage areas to 

house cellar cooling units and air conditioning units, and alterations and 

refurbishment of existing attached vacant dwelling to provide an additional 

dwelling and erection of timber gates 2.5m in height, in accordance with 

amended plans received by the Local Planning Authority 14th July, 2006. 


N/105/710/06 - Planning Permission - Alterations to existing public house, 

which is a listed building, to provide an external canopy and first floor 

balcony to provide a rear external smoking area, erection of 2no. external 

brickwork storage areas to house cellar cooling units and air conditioning 

units, and alterations and refurbishment of existing attached vacant 

dwelling, which is a listed building, to provide an additional dwelling and 

erection of timber gates 2.5m in height, in accordance with amended plans 

received by the Local Planning Authority on 14th July, 2006. 


N/105/2340/11 - Listed Building Consent - External extension and 

alterations to existing public house to provide glazed dining area, balcony 

and external staircase to include re-roofing of part of the existing public 

house. This application contained elements of the present proposal and was 

refused in February, 2012 for the following reason: 

'The proposal seeks consent for the construction of an extension to an 

existing balcony and the provision of a glazed room at first floor level at the 

rear of 'The Greyhound Inn, Louth, a Grade II Listed Building. Policy 27 of 

Page 152

the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 and Policy C2 of the East Lindsey Local 

Plan Alteration 1999 effectively call for all proposals affecting Listed 

Buildings to preserve or enhance the historic interest of the building. In this 

case, in the opinion of the Council as Local Planning Authority, the proposed 

works will form a discordant element which fails to respect the architectural 

features and simple form of the existing building and is of inappropriate 

proportions, construction and materials given the context of the proposal. 

The proposal therefore fails to preserve or enhance the character or 

appearance of the Listed Building and is contrary to Policy 27 of the East 

Midlands Regional Plan 2009 and Policy C2 of the East Lindsey Local Plan 

Alteration 1999.' 






(Saved Policies). The Government's National Planning Policy Framework 

(NPPF) is a material consideration. Paragraph 215 of the NPPF makes it clear 

that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans 

according to their degree of consistency with the framework (the closer the 

policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight 

that may be given). 





28 and 126 - 141 inclusive. 




• Whether the Proposal Preserves or Enhances the Appearance or 

Character of the Listed Building and its Setting within the Louth 


Whether the Proposal Preserves or Enhances the Appearance or 

Character of the Listed Building and its Setting within the Louth 


7.2 As stated above the site lies within the Louth Conservation Area and the 

Greyhound Inn itself is a listed building with its grounds affecting its 

immediate setting. In relation to applications for listed building consent the 

judgement is one of meeting the statutory requirement of having special 

regard to the desirability of preserving the building or the desirability of 

Page 153

preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation 

area. In such circumstances paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires that the 

significance of the heritage assets is assessed. Paragraph 131 then calls for 

decisions to take into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing 

that significance and the desirability of new development making a positive 

contribution to local character and distinctiveness. In identifying the balance 

to be made paragraph 132 states that great weight should be given to the 

asset's conservation and the more important the asset the greater the 

weight should be. It goes on to state that significance can be harmed or lost 

through alteration and that substantial harm to a Grade II listed building 

should be exceptional. Where substantial harm would result consent should 

be refused unless it can be demonstrated that this is necessary to achieve 

substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm. Policies C1 and C2 of the 

Local Plan are also consistent with the NPPF and, effectively, permit new 

development only where it preserves or enhances the special character of 

the conservation area and the listed building. Although applications for listed 

building consent are to be judged in relation to the statutory duty the 

development plan chimes with that requirement. 

7.3 In this case the proposal involves a number of elements, including the reroofing 

of historic elements of the building which are currently covered in 

concrete tiles. This element will preserve the special interest of the listed 

building and is to be commended. 

7.4 The scheme also involves the enlargement of an existing first floor balcony 

and the addition of a glazed extension at first floor level and an external 

staircase. A small glazed entrance lobby is to created below the extended 

balcony. In relation to these aspects of the proposal the DAS states: 

'The proposed extension to the balcony will not affect the fabric of the 

existing Listed Building. The proposed works will extend the existing balcony 

that was a contemporary addition to the building. The balcony will obviously 

affect the aesthetic of the rear elevation but the scheme has been designed 

to create an exciting and complementary juxtaposition between the 

traditional and the contemporary. The balcony has not been designed to be a 

historical pastiche but as a contemporary intervention with a simplistic 

materiality and composition forming a some-what non-descript and neutral 

aesthetic. It is this unconfrontational aesthetic that will allow the 

contemporary balcony to sit easily within its historic surroundings.' 

7.5 On the whole I do not agree with these assertions. The DAS does not assess 

the significance of the listed building as called for by the NPPF but 

concentrates on a more descriptive interpretation of the proposed works. The 

property has the appearance of a historic coaching inn and has possible 

origins in the 17th Century. The 1889 Ordnance Survey plan shows the 

carriage arch leading through to the yard at the rear which contained a 

number of buildings. William Brown's panorama, first exhibited in 1847, 

shows the original inn with its courtyard containing single storey ancillary 

buildings around the southern boundaries. At some time between 1847 and 

1889 it would appear that a two storey addition was made to the rear of the 

principal building creating an 'M' shaped roof. The original depth of the 

carriage arch may correspond to a change in materials evident in the arch. 

Page 154

In my opinion the carriage arch and the rear walls to the public house have 

great significance as crucial features recording the historic origins of the 

building and its historical growth. 

7.6 From within the rear yard the rear wall to the historic building is clearly 

visible and marks the extent of the earlier public house through which the 

carriage arch gave access. To the side is a two storey wing to the historic 

building projecting 1.8 metres from the wall mentioned above. The rear of 

the building has been extended adding a number of elements based on the 

traditional lean-to approach. As part of an earlier scheme to extend the 

building the existing balcony was added but in my opinion this has not been 

successfully integrated into the building. However, its limited extent reduces 

the impact somewhat. 

7.7 The Practice Guide to PPS5, which remains extant, states that the main 

issues in proposals for additions to heritage assets are proportion, height, 

massing, bulk, use of materials, use, relationship with adjacent assets, 

alignment and treatment of setting (para. 178). It goes on to say that it 

would not normally be acceptable for new work to dominate the original 

asset or its setting in either scale, material or as a result of siting. 

7.8 In my view the extension of the balcony with the addition of external stairs 

thrusts the balcony more into openness making it a more prominent feature. 

As a result it diminishes the significance of the carriage arch whilst adding a 

discordant element to the elevation which conflicts with the more restrained 

nature of the rear to the public house. Contrary to the agent's assertion that 

the fabric of the listed building will not be affected the plans indicate that the 

level of the roof to the glazed extension will entail works to the eaves of the 

existing roof to achieve a waterproof join. Also, the addition of a glazed, flat 

roofed room projecting out above the arch produces a visual clash with the 

existing building hiding the original rear wall which is a significant element in 

reading the historic building. The glazed extension will appear suspended 

above the ground in contrast to the adjacent lean-to extensions which are 

more grounded because of the way in which the walls dominate at ground 

floor level. Below this the proposed lobby fills a space that defines the 

historic building and completes its masking by more recent additions. This 

has the added effect of lengthening the more modern element of the wall to 

the carriage arch, which is a defining element of the listed building, 

diminishing the appreciation of the historic feature. For these reasons it is 

considered that the proposal fails to preserve the listed building and in so 

doing it also harms the character or appearance of the conservation area. 


8.1 Overall, therefore, it is my opinion that the proposal will have a detrimental 

impact on the appearance and character of the listed building and by 

association the character and appearance of the conservation area. Whilst I 

acknowledge the applicants' desire to enhance the existing business and 

guarantee the future of the public house as stated in the DAS, which chimes 

with the call to support sustainable growth and expansion of all types of 

businesses in rural areas in paragraph 28 of the NPPF, my conclusions that 

significant aspects of the development will be detrimental to the appearance 

Page 155

and character of the building outweigh this consideration which does not 

amount to the 'substantial public benefit' to be demonstrated in paragraph 

133. The proposal therefore warrants refusal on these grounds and is 

contrary to Policies C1 and C2 of the Local Plan, relevant paragraphs of the 

NPPF and the Council's statutory duty to ensure that works to the listed 

building preserve it and preserve or enhance the character or appearance of 






Refuse 


1 'The Greyhound Inn', Louth, is a Grade II Listed Building located within the 

Louth Conservation Area. Policies C1 and C2 of the East Lindsey Local Plan 

Alteration 1999 reflect the aims of paragraphs 126 - 141 of the National 

Planning Policy Framework and effectively call for all proposals affecting 

listed buildings or conservations areas to preserve or enhance the historic 

interest and character or appearance of the building and its setting. In this 


proposed works will form discordant elements which fail to respect the 

architectural features and simple form of the existing buildings and are of 

inappropriate proportions, construction and materials given the context of 

the proposal. The proposal therefore fails to preserve or enhance the 

character or appearance of the listed building and thereby the conservation 

area contrary to Policies C1 and C2 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 

1999 and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Page 156


Page 157

SM 

17 

24.8m 

1 5 

84 

25.31m 

BM 

3 6 

Small Wells 

3 0 

2 8 

Mill House 

B 1520 

1 6 

26.7m 

Builder's 

Yard 

Offices 

25.6m 

Sub Sta 

6 

El 

10 

1 

5 

1 5 

1 

2 

4 

Tel Ex 

5 

7 

9 

Bank 

BM 

1 2 

1 3 

 

 

 

 

BRIDGE STR ET 

1 1 3 

 

CHEQUERGATE 

26.15m 

 








Page 158



N/105/02416/ 12 

APPLICANT: Mr. A. Waller, 


PROPOSAL: Planning Permission - Erection of 2 no. blocks of 4 no. houses 

(total 8 dwellings), with associated vehicular parking and 

boundary walls and fencing to a maximum height 1.8 metres 

which is within the curtilage of a listed building, existing building 

on site to be demolished. 

LOCATION: REVENUE BUILDINGS, CHEQUERGATE, LOUTH, LN11 0LL 


1.1 This application has been referred to the Planning Committee at the request 

of Councillor Mrs. Watson for the following reason: 

"Over intensive, nature of the development, poor access, design, refuse 

disposal issues, concern over parking provision and possible flooding issues." 


2.1 The application site extends to approximately 0.13 hectare forming a 

rectangle of land to the rear of the frontage development to Chequergate to 

the south and served by a 3 metres wide access between two buildings on 

that frontage. The site is currently occupied by a two storey, flat roof office 

block with a large, single storey, pitched roofed addition to the rear. These 

buildings form the vacated former tax office. To the north the boundary is 

formed by the River Lud beyond which are the gardens to properties on the 

opposite side of the river. Mature trees straddle the River Lud at this point. 

To the east is a complex of modern, two storey, flat roofed buildings, the 

former telephone exchange, which are now in business use. To the west is a 

terrace facing onto Bridge Street recently restored to their original 4 town 

houses from their previous use as 10 flats. This terrace is a Grade II* listed 

building. The site is seen from Bridge Street particularly between the listed 

terrace and the terrace of cottages to its south and between it and 'The Old 

Mill', a Grade II listed building, to its north. Also the wider area forms part of 

the Louth Conservation Area. 

2.2 Chequergate House, 13 Chequergate, which forms the frontage of the site 

onto the street, is also a Grade II listed building first listed in 1954. At that 

time the land to the rear in the ownership or control of the applicant formed 

part of that property. The land included an ancillary, two storey, stable block 

and other outbuildings previously converted as part of the tax office. 

Although the land has now been subdivided this does not affect what 

constitutes the listed building. For this reason the other buildings on the 

wider site, including the stable block, remain part of the listed building but 

are excluded from the application site itself. The neighbouring building to the 

east, 15 Chequergate, is also a Grade II listed building. 

Page 159

2.3 The site is within the confines of the settlement as defined by Inset Map 1 of 

the Local Plan but has no specific designation. The adjacent former telephone 

exchange site is within "Site L" on Inset Map 1.1 identified as an "Action 

Area Redevelopment Site" in the Local Plan. The part of the site currently 

occupied by the pitched roof extension to the former tax office is largely 

identified as falling within Flood Zone 2 on the Environment Agency Flood 

Risk Maps. 


3.1 The proposal envisages the demolition of the existing flat roofed building 

with is rear extension within the site which formed the former tax office. In 

its place the proposal is to erect a terrace of 4, 2½ storey houses 

approximately in line with the front wall to the adjacent stable block behind 

which is a second terrace of 4, 2 storey houses. The latter would be located 

between 11 and 14 metres from the River Lud. A courtyard is to be created 

in the area between the 2½ storey terrace and the existing buildings to the 

south with private gardens located to the rear of the terrace divided from the 

rest of the site by a 1.8 metre high wall. Access is to be provided along the 

eastern boundary to a parking court located between the private gardens 

mentioned above and the second terrace to the rear. These have private 

gardens stretching to the River Lud with each separated off by a 1.8 metre 

high close boarded timber fence. Access to the site as a whole is to be 

gained via the existing 3 metre wide drive between the frontage buildings to 

Chequergate. 

3.2 The application is accompanied by a comprehensive Design and Access, 

Listed Building & Conservation Area & Justification Statement in relation to 

Phase One of the development (DAS). This includes a detailed "Townscape 

Appraisal", reference to the initial proposal discussed informally with officers 

of the Council and a discussion of the design of the proposal. The document 

concludes that; 

"Given that the site is currently unoccupied, and has been for some time, 

and the opportunity for a town centre housing development, we feel that the 

scheme should be recommended for approval by the Local Authority. 

We have looked intensively at the buildings within the locality of the site and 

surrounding areas and worked to provide a solution which we feel will be in 

keeping with the area – a scheme which will not only enhance the site itself 

but also that of the setting of the nearby listed buildings. 

Phase One will be defined by the existing site constraints and context of the 

development, whilst Phase Two will focus on the conversion of the existing 

buildings and the Listed Building element of the works (subject to a separate 

planning application). 

Lincs Design Consultancy would like to work with ELDC in the planning 

process of the scheme to ensure we can provide a development that all 

parties involved in are happy with, and more importantly to ensure the 

people locally are happy with. 

A number of conditions would be implemented in a scheme of this nature 

and location, for which the site owner is reminded that these will need to be 

agreed with ELDC prior to any development taking place. 

We feel that the scheme as a whole is sympathetic to the nearby Listed 

Page 160

uildings and although the scheme will not bring the site back to its original 

form in its entirety the scheme offers an enhancement on that of any 

previous development on the site, and an enhancement on the adjacent 

sites. With support of this development it would encourage the development 

of the adjacent / adjoining sites which are in need of redevelopment, in 

which the end result would form a major improvement within a critical 

location in Louth’s Town Centre." 

3.3 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has also been submitted which concludes in 

Section 11: 

"11.1 The following conclusions, in relation to the questions posed at the 

start of this document, are as follows: 

11.2 Identify and address flood risk issues associated with the proposed 

development: 

The potential sources of flood risk have been discussed within this report. It 

has been established that fluvial flooding from the River Lud is the dominant 

source of flood risk for the site. 

11.3 Assess if the project is likely to be affected by flooding from all relevant 

sources both now and in the future: Whilst the flood maps state that the site 

is partly within Flood Zone 2, the topographical survey indicates that most of 

the levels within the site are above the 1 in 1000 year + climate change 

levels. The levels within the site are clearly the reason why the site was not 

flooded during the considerable flooding which occurred in 2007. Therefore, 

whilst there are no formal flood defences protecting this site from the river, 

it is considered unlikely that the site will be affected by flooding from this 

source both now and in the future. 

11.4 Assess whether the project will increase the flood risk elsewhere: The 

existing site is almost completely covered by impermeable surfaces such as 

buildings, paving and tarmac parking areas. The proposed development will 

include a number of private gardens and will therefore reduce the amount of 

impermeable surfaces, reducing surface water runoff. This will ensure that 

the development has no or very little impact on the potential flood plain or 

neighbouring properties. 

11.5 Demonstrate the project is safe and where possible reduces flood risk 

overall and proposes measures to deal with the identified effects and risks: 

All of the properties will be outside the 1 in 1000 year + climate change 

flood level. The northern terrace is closest to this flood level and therefore 

the floor level has been raised over 300mm above this level as a precaution. 

Flooding events are generally predicted, with warnings being given on 

pending events at least two hours in advance. There is a good road network 

in the town which would allow escape in the event of an unpredicted flooding 

event. If flooding did occur occupants could also escape to the first floor 

where they could await rescue if evacuation was not possible. It is 

considered that the risks to occupants and buildings are low and there is an 

adequate standard of protection against flooding for the anticipated life of 


11.6 Part of the site has been identified as being at risk from flooding, 

however national planning policy emphasises the need for a balanced flexible 

approach which addresses the risks of flooding whilst recognising the 

benefits of regeneration and redevelopment of previously developed land. 

Flooding events are generally predicted with a two hour warning being given 

Page 161

on pending events and the road network is adequate to allow escape in the 

event of an unpredicted flooding event. If it was not possible to escape then 

occupants can evacuate to the first floor and await rescue if required. The 

mitigation measures detailed further reduce the impact upon human life. 

11.7 This report demonstrates the proposed development is compliant with 

the sequential and exception tests set out in the National Planning Policy 

Framework, that it will be safe for future occupants and would not increase 

flood risk elsewhere. It is therefore considered that planning permission 

should not be refused on flood risk grounds." 








affecting a listed building and Louth Conservation Area. Neighbours have 

also been notified. 

Consultees 

4.3 LOUTH TOWN COUNCIL – Object to the development on the grounds of overintensification, 

massing of buildings within the site, poor design features on a 

location adjacent to listed buildings, poor access for service and emergency 

vehicles, traffic issues caused by proximity of entrance to traffic lights. 

4.4 LCC as HIGHWAY AUTHORITY - The proposed access which measures 2.9 

metres in width from which this development is to be served is of inadequate 

width to permit the passage of two vehicles and in the absence of any 

pedestrian facilities, is likely to cause pedestrian vehicular conflict as there is 

insufficient room for a vehicle to comfortably pass a pedestrian, and as such 

is likely to result in the additional parking, waiting, turning and manoeuvring 

of vehicles in Chequergate adjacent to the access, which also joins the public 

highway right on top of the traffic lights at the junction with Bridge 

Street/Upgate/Chequergate/Westgate whereby any vehicle wishing to turn 

right would have to wait for the lights to turn green and a suitable gap within 

the flow of traffic enter the highway, thus completely blocking the access 

road for any other traffic wishing to access the site to the detriment of the 

safety of other road users. (To permit this development would make it 

difficult to resist other applications of a similar nature on adjacent land with 

similar access deficiencies, to the detriment of highway safety). 

Visibility in both directions from the proposed point of access to Chequergate 

is substantially below requirements due to the properties adjacent to the 

access being set right on the back edge of the footway. In an easterly 

direction visibility is approximately 6.9 metres and to the west it is around 9 

metres. Also due to the position of the buildings either side of the access 

there is zero pedestrian visibility. It is considered that vehicles emerging 

Page 162

from the access will be in conflict with traffic travelling in both directions due 

to the lack of visibility, in contrary to the interests of highway safety. 


required for this application. 

4.6 REGULATORY SERVICES - Not received at time of writing. 

4.7 LOUTH CIVIC TRUST – Observations – With regard to the 2½ storey block, 

we wish to know what is intended by way of rainwater pipes. Is it intended 

to have a separate downpipe for each length of gutter between dormers (9 

No.) or are the gutters to run in front of the windows It is important that 

this is resolved satisfactorily on what is the front elevation of the building 

within the curtilage of a listed building within the conservation area. 

We also want to know how the bins will be collected. There will be 16 no. 

having to be put out – Can the collection vehicle enter the site, or will all the 

bins be put out onto Chequergate on other buildings’ frontages on the very 

narrow footpath. 

4.8 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – A condition is recommended that the development 

accords with the FRA submitted with the application to ensure that the 

development meets the requirements of the National Planning Policy 

Framework. Advisory comments also included in relation to the need for 

Flood Defence Consent, other sources of flooding and the form of conditions. 

4.9 CONSERVATION OFFICER - "I wish to object to the planning application. I 

am less concerned about the demolition given the site of the C20 buildings 

was once gardens. I assume though we would normally wish demolition and 

redevelopment to be contemporaneous. 

Given the pre-application advice offered on this site it is disappointing to find 

that advice has had little bearing on the submitted scheme. 

Firstly the most important buildings are the surviving stable block and other 

buildings that were once ancillary to the listed 13 Chequergate and which are 

part of the curtilage of the listed building. It is essential that they are 

retained and used/converted thoughtfully. Yet no details have been 

submitted to show how these historic buildings will be conserved and/or 

converted. In my opinion we should not be considering new development of 

whatever layout, form, appearance and density until we judge the 

development as a whole. 

Secondly, the layout, scale, form, bulk, appearance and siting/orientation of 

the development fail to respond to the historic grain and form of the 

conservation area. 

I have no objection to some redevelopment of the site. It was once gardens 

and new houses will require gardens and an appropriate level of amenity. 

However the site currently accommodates too many bulky, poorly sited 

buildings. This may physically have worked for offices but is not appropriate 

to the setting of the nearby listed buildings, nor the conservation area nor its 

Page 163

proposed use for housing. Furthermore, the offices are single and two 

storey. The proposed houses however are two and a half storey and two 

storey buildings are over dominant, too bulky and much too fussy. Overall, 

the development is over-dominated by bulky buildings poorly related to their 

context set in an unimaginative layout over engineered by excessive areas of 

roads & parking. 

Finally, the proposed development does not exploit the potential of the river, 

nor respond to the setting of 13 Chequergate (grade II) and the recently 

restored 30 – 36 Bridge Street (grade II* listed). Furthermore although 

seemingly tucked away, in all likelihood the telephone exchange building and 

site will one day be redeveloped opening up views of the site. Furthermore, 

the added sensitively of this backland site is that is lies almost directly below 

the spire and views from St James Church (grade I listed), an important 

attraction to locals and visitors alike, eager to enjoy the panorama and to 

compare views now with Browns panorama. 

Overall I can find little about the proposal to commend and recommend 

refusal of the development. 

Note what the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 

says about having special regard to preserving the setting of listed buildings 

and preserving and enhancing the appearance and character of conservation 

areas. 

I will leave you to consider local policies. 

In terms of the NPPF though, Historic Environment policies 128, 129, 131, 

132, 133 & 137 apply. On Good Design, policies 56, 58, 60 & 64 apply. 

Remember too the advice given in PPS5 Practice Guide and the English 

Heritage guidance on setting, both of which are still in force." 

4.10 VICTORIAN SOCIETY - Not received at time of writing. 

4.11 GEORGIAN GROUP - Not received at time of writing. 

4.12 ENGLISH HERITAGE – General observations questioning the grain of the 

development. See copy letter attached to this agenda. 

4.13 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANCIENT BUILDINGS - Not received at 

time of writing. 

Neighbours 

4.14 One letter of objection received from occupier of Mill House, Bridge Street as 

follows: 

"The proposed new dwellings will be directly in front of our property and will 

result in loss of privacy for us which may impact on the value of our 

property. At present, we are not directly overlooked by any other property in 

the area and this significantly contributes to the charm of our situation. It 

Page 164

does not appear to be clear from the plans as to whether the wall on the 

river front, which forms one of the boundaries to the area to be developed, 

will be retained. If permission were to be granted for this development, we 

would argue strongly for the wall to be retained, along with existing trees 

and other foliage, not only to protect our privacy, but also to preserve the 

view of the riverside from Bridge Street. We understand that the wall 

adjoining the rear of the properties recently renovated on Bridge Street and 

the site of this proposed development was required to be preserved. We 

would have less objection to a proposal to erect one storey dwellings on the 

site. Eight houses of two and three storeys does seem excessive for the area 

of the site. We have been unable to comment on this application until now as 

we did not receive your letter until 27th March, and have been away since 

then." 



5.1 N/105/311/92 - Circular 18/84 Application - Alterations to existing buildings, 

and extension to provide a ramped corridor link. Approved by Government 

Department April 1992. 

5.2 N/105/2064/94 - Circular 18/84 application for the repairs and alterations to 

existing stable block, last used for storage and which is within the curtilage 

of a listed building, including provision of new and replacement doors and 

new window. Approved by Government Department January, 1995. 

5.3 N/105/2027/94 - Listed Building Consent - Alterations to existing stable 

block, last used for storage purposes, including repairs to roof and windows, 

replacement of existing doors and provision of new door to east elevation, 

provision of new window to replace doors to south elevation and replacement 

of existing gutters and pipes. Approved by Government Department January, 

1995. 

5.4 N/105/1203/08 - Planning Permission – Rebuilding and repairs to brick 

boundary wall at existing revenue offices, which is a curtilage listed structure 

to 30-36, 36B and 36 C Bridge Street. Approved June 2008. 












Page 165


Policy A3: Local Areas and Settlement Hierarchy. 



Policy ENV3: Foul and Surface Water Disposal. 

Policy ENV20: Protection of Habitats. 

Policy ENV 21: River Corridors. 



Policy H12: Design of New Housing. 

Policy TR3: Road Design in New Development. 



17, 35, 56, 58, 60, 99, 100, 101, 128, Section 12 and 215. 

Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. 



PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide. 



7.1 Given that the site is in a sustainable location and the Council is unable to 

demonstrate a 5 year housing supply the principle of residential development 

is not considered to be at issue. The main planning issues in this case are 

therefore considered to be: 

• Given the statutory protection of historic buildings in the 

conservation area, whether the proposed demolition is justified 

and the impact of the proposal on the appearance or character of 


• Whether the development is safe in relation to flood risk. 

• Whether the design of the development is of the necessary quality 

to meet the requirements of design policy and guidance. 

• Highway safety. 



Given the statutory protection of historic buildings in the 

conservation area, whether the proposed demolition is justified and 

the impact of the proposal on the appearance or character of the 


7.2 In this case there is a requirement for conservation area consent to demolish 

the existing former tax office. In exercising conservation area controls, local 

Page 166

planning authorities are required to pay special attention to the desirability 

of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area in 

question and, as with listed building controls, this should be the prime 

consideration in determining a conservation area consent application. The 

associated conservation area consent follows on the agenda but the same 

statutory duty applies to the planning function as a whole therefore this 

consideration is also central to this planning application. The policies in 

Section 12 in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) expect heritage 

assets (eg. listed buildings and buildings in Conservation Areas) to be 

assessed for their significance, importance and the contribution they make to 

the wider area. These policies expect that where an asset makes a positive 

contribution to the area effort should be made to retain it (particularly if the 

asset is designated) with demolition being considered more of a last resort 

and in every case with a full justification. Where the proposal involves the 

total loss of the heritage asset, as in this case, paragraph 133 of the NPPF 

calls for the refusal of consent unless it can be demonstrated that the loss is 

necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the loss. If 

this is not the case then it must be demonstrated that: 

• the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; 

• no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium 

term through appropriate marketing that will enable conservation; 

• conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public 

ownership is demonstrably not possible; and 

• the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefits of bringing the site back 

into use. 

7.3 Where conservation area consent for demolition is granted the policies 

expect the approval to be tied to the implementation of an acceptable 

scheme where reasonable to do so to avoid the formation of unsightly gaps 

in the conservation area and that the historic function, changes and detailing 

of the building are recorded so that the information is not lost forever. 

7.4 This national policy is reflected in Policy C1 of the Local Plan which states 

that demolition will be grated only where: 

• the buildings are of no architectural or historic merit and does not 

contribute to the special character of the conservation area; or 

• the building is of little merit and its redevelopment would enhance the 

conservation area; or 

• it can be shown that there is no suitable alternative to development. 

7.5 Turning to the proposal itself the DAS describes the existing building but in 

my view does not assess its significance. The DAS suggests that the building 

was erected in the 1950's and it appears to have been erected as an office 

block for the tax department. It has been erected in the grounds of a listed 

house of some grandeur and, although it has some significance in showing 

the organic growth of Louth, in my view it is of limited historic importance 

lacking any wider historic associations and detracting from the character of 

this part of the historic core of the town. Although the building could be reused 

in my view its removal would benefit the setting, not only of 13 

Chequergate but also the setting to the listed buildings on Bridge Street. In 

Page 167

such circumstances I consider the demolition of the building to rest on the 

demonstration of "substantial public benefits that outweigh the loss" as 

called for by paragraph 133 of the NPPF. Given that its loss would enhance 

the setting the listed buildings by restoring the former openness, and 

demolition would not form a poor feature in itself, I feel that that 

enhancement amounts to the substantial public benefit mentioned in the 

NPPF. 

Whether the development is safe in relation to flood risk. 

7.6 Section 10 of the NPPF addresses issues relating to climate change with 

paragraph 99 calling for new development to be planned to avoid increased 

vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. As stated 

above part of the site falls within Flood Zone 2 as modelled by the 

Environment Agency Flood Risk Maps. In such circumstances paragraph 100 

of the NPPF goes on to state that inappropriate development should be 

avoided by directing development away from areas at higher risk. However, 

where development is necessary it should be made safe without increasing 

flood risk elsewhere. The overall aim is to steer new development to areas 

with the lowest probability of flooding (para. 101) and this is to be achieved 

through the application of the Sequential Test and if necessary the Exception 

Test (Para. 100). 

7.7 The FRA submitted with the application claims that the Sequential Test has 

been satisfied because all the allocated housing land in Louth has been 

developed and the site is more appropriate than edge of town sites now 

being proffered by developers. However, no robust evidence is provided to 

substantiate these claims so it remains questionable whether the Sequential 

Test has been satisfied. Be that as it may I am mindful of paragraph 4.40 of 

the PPS 25 Practice Guide, which remains extant, which recognises that an 

investigation of alternative sites may not be a realistic option when 

redeveloping an existing property. Where this applies, as in this case, the 

Guide states that opportunities to relocate development to parts of the site 

at lower risk should be considered. In this context it is also significant that 

the proposal involves an increase of use vulnerability from "Less Vulnerable" 

to "More Vulnerable" as defined by Table 2 of the Technical Guidance to the 

NPPF. In my view the proposed development does not achieve this aim in 

that the rear terrace is placed wholly within Flood Zone 2 and this amounts 

to an objection to the proposal. 

Whether the design of the development is of the necessary quality to 

meet the requirements of design policy and guidance. 







reinforce local distinctiveness (para. 60). Policy A5 of the Council’s Local Plan 

seeks to achieve good quality design which respects the distinctive character 

of the locality. Furthermore Policy H12 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that 

Page 168

all new housing development is sustainable, well designed, safe, fits in with 

its surroundings, provides for any low cost housing needs thereby promoting 

diverse and viable communities and includes any necessary open space and 

respects the amenities of people living nearby (para. 8.84). 

7.9 As stated above the site lies within the Louth Conservation Area and within 

the curtilage of a listed building which also affects the setting of 

neighbouring listed buildings. In such circumstances paragraph 128 of the 

NPPF requires that the significance of the heritage assets is assessed. 

Paragraph 131 then calls for decisions to take into account the desirability of 

sustaining and enhancing that significance and the desirability of new 

development making a positive contribution to local character and 

distinctiveness. Importantly in this case paragraph 137 calls for local 

planning authorities to look for opportunities for new development to 

enhance or better reveal the significance of the designated heritage assets. 

It goes on to state that proposals that preserve those elements of the setting 

that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the 

asset should be treated favourably. Policies C1 and C2 of the Local Plan are 

also consistent with the NPPF and, effectively, permit new development only 

where it preserves or enhances the special character of the conservation 

area and the listed building. 


paragraph 215 of the NPPF (Annex 1) states that due weight should be given 

to relevant policies in pre 2004 existing plans according to their degree of 

consistency with the framework. In my opinion Policies A5, C1, C2 and H12 

of the Local Plan are closely in line with the NPPF. Therefore the issue of 

design in the conservation area and affecting the listed buildings and their 

settings should be determined in accordance with the relevant development 

plan policies. 

7.11 Historically the Ordnance Survey plans and William Brown's panorama, first 

exhibited in 1847, identify the grounds to 13 Chequergate as a formal 

garden. A wing extended to the rear of the house, now demolished, which 

then ran as a row of ancillary buildings, including the stables, around the 

south western boundaries of the property. These buildings remain on site. 

The proposal represents the first phase of development and it understood 

that a later phase will involve the redevelopment of the area containing the 

former stable block and ancillary buildings. In my opinion this phasing makes 

assessment of the impact of the overall scheme more problematic. 

7.12 Having said that the proposal involves two terraces, one of which sits within 

the area of ancillary buildings on the site of the existing flat roofed office 

block (Terrace 1). This terrace is 2½ storey giving a height of approximately 

9.8 metres with a gable width of 8 metres. This is to sit adjacent to the 

stable block which has a 6.5 metre wide gable and is approximately 1.4 

metres lower in height. In my opinion this introduces an inappropriate urban 

element which will dominate the space and the listed buildings in 

circumstances where the thrust should be towards better revealing the listed 

building. This is a critical part of the site where, in my opinion, any building 

should be more restrained imparting a more subservient character in keeping 

with the status of this part of the listed building's curtilage. To the north of 

Page 169

Terrace 1 is a second terrace (Terrace 2) reached by an access along the 

eastern boundary of the site. Although only 2 storey Terrace 2 sits at most 

17 metres from Terrace 1. This is an inadequate separation distance to 

protect the privacy of the occupiers of each terrace. Not only that but the 

layout also results in Terrace 1 being surrounded by parking with small back 

gardens with a high brick wall where sunlight will be restricted by the 

buildings to the south offering a poor residential environment for a family 

house of the size proposed. 

7.13 In relation to the design detail shown in the buildings I feel that the 

fenestration, over-use of dormers, chimney positions and proportions, and 

the proportions of the buildings themselves will mark them out from the 

more elegant neighbours and the local building traditions displayed in the 

vicinity. 

7.14 Turning to the site within its wider context the historic character of the area 

is brought about by the dominance of frontage development on the corner of 

Chequergate and Bridge Street with space to the rear. To the east of the site 

historic Ludgate had smaller buildings stretching back into the site with a 

north/south grain, now replaced in the main by the former telephone 

exchange. This is recognised in the English Heritage consultation response. 

As stated above the site is important to the setting of the Grade II* listed 

terrace and "The Old Mill" on Bridge Street and 13 and 15 Chequergate, also 

listed buildings. Whilst I acknowledge that the existing former tax office 

buildings are not particularly sensitive to the historic environment, its 

proportions, height and scale make it less apparent in the views from 

Chequergate and Bridge Street. However, in my opinion the proposed 

development will introduce a dominating urban element which will be more 

obvious in views from Chequergate and from Bridge Street sitting to the rear 

of the listed buildings. Given the quality and character status to these listed 

buildings they are better revealed by development which retains a greater 

sense of space as opposed to development which introduces what will appear 

as an unrelated urban housing development. 

7.15 For the above reasons I am of the opinion that the proposal will have a 

detrimental impact on the stetting to the listed buildings and the character or 

appearance of the conservation area. It will also lead to a poor residential 

environment for the occupiers of the new dwellings. The proposal is 

therefore contrary to Policies A5, C1, C2 and H12 of the Local Plan and 

warrants refusal on this ground. 

Highway safety. 










Page 170

arrangements. 

7.17 In this case the Highway Authority has objected to the proposal as a result of 

the inadequate width of the existing access with resulting potential for 

conflict between vehicles entering and leaving the site and between vehicles 

and pedestrians. Also the substandard visibility brought about by the 

enclosing buildings leading to further danger from emerging traffic as a 

result of lack of visibility. Whilst I acknowledge that the former tax office 

would have generated a certain amount of traffic its character and potential 

frequency will be significantly altered as a result of the proposal. Given the 

fact that there is also to be a further phase of development which will 

increase the level of traffic movements further, on balance I consider these 

issues to amount to a further objection to the proposal. 






buildings and the local area more generally”. This is to address the core 



buildings as set out in paragraph 17. Policy H12 of the Local Plan calls for 

housing proposals to protect the residential amenities, including privacy, of 

adjoining properties. This is reinforced by Policy A4 which calls for the 

rejection of proposals that unacceptably harm the general amenities of 

people living or working nearby with paragraph 2.79 listing the particular 

matters that will be taken into account. 

7.19 A neighbour to the north of the site has objected to the proposal on the 

grounds of loss of privacy. In this case there is in excess of 30 metres of 

separation with mature trees intervening. In such circumstances I consider 

that the privacy of the neighbour will not be unduly harmed. 


8.1 The site is in a sustainable location within the historic core of Louth and the 

development comprises redevelopment of previously developed land in 

circumstances where the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of 

housing. The principle of residential development is therefore acceptable and 

the application falls to be determined on site specific issues. In this case the 

site is within the Louth Conservation Area and involves the total loss of a 

heritage asset through its demolition. Given the enhancement to the 

character of the conservation area and the setting to nearby listed buildings 

that would result it is considered that the substantial public benefit this 

brings justifies the demolition. However, the site lies partly within Flood Zone 

2 and the opportunity has not been taken to locate the new development in 

parts of the site at a lower risk of flooding. Also the design and layout of the 

proposed houses will have a detrimental impact on the character and 

appearance of the conservation area and the setting to the listed buildings 

and fails to take the opportunity to better reveal their significance. The 

Page 171

development will also result in a poor residential environment for the 

occupiers of the new dwellings and increased highway danger. For these 

reasons the proposal is considered to be contrary to the relevant policies of 

the Local Plan and the NPPF as outlined above. The lack of adverse impact 

on neighbour to the north does not outweigh these reasons for refusal. 





Refuse 


1 The site lies within the curtilage of a Grade II Listed Building, 13 

Chequergate, and is located within the Louth Conservation Area whilst 

affecting the setting of other nearby listed buildings. Policies A5, C1, C2 

and H12 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 reflect the aims of 

Sections 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and 

effectively call for good design and for all proposals affecting listed 

buildings or conservations areas to preserve or enhance the historic 

interest and character or appearance of the building, and its setting. In this 


proposed development will form a discordant urbanising feature which will 

harm the setting to the listed buildings and the character of the 

conservation area as result of the location of the proposed buildings, their 

proportions and design detail. The proposal also fails to better reveal the 

significance of 13 Chequergate whose origins were as a substantial house 

with ancillary buildings and formal gardens to its rear. Also the proposal 

will result in a poor residential environment being created for the occupiers 

of the new dwellings as a result of lack of privacy, inadequate amenity 

space and noise and disturbance from vehicles using the site. The proposal 

is therefore contrary to Policies A5, C1, C2 and H12 of the East Lindsey 

Local Plan Alteration 1999 and the aims of the National Planning Policy 

Framework. 

2 The site lies partly within Flood Zone 2 as defined by the Environment 

Agency Flood Risk Maps and the development is classified as "More 

Vulnerable" in Table 2 of the Technical Guidance to the National Planning 

Policy Framework. Paragraph 100 of the National Planning Policy 

Framework requires a sequential approach to be taken in allowing 

development in high flood risk areas. In the opinion of the Council as Local 

Planning Authority the information provided with the application does not 

include robust evidence to support the location of the proposed dwellings in 

sequential terms. Also opportunities exist to locate development within the 

site in a location at lower risk of flooding. In such circumstances the 

development would therefore be contrary to the aims of National Planning 

Policy Framework. 

3 The National Planning Policy Framework, through paragraph 35, requires 

that developments “should be located and designed where practical to 

create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and 

Page 172

cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate 

establishing home zones”. This call for safe and secure layouts is reflected 

in Policies H12 and TR3 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999. The 

proposed access which measures 2.9 metres in width from which this 

development is to be served is of inadequate width to permit the passage 

of two vehicles and in the absence of any pedestrian facilities, is likely to 

cause pedestrian vehicular conflict as there is insufficient room for a vehicle 

to comfortably pass a pedestrian, and as such is likely to result in the 

additional parking, waiting, turning and manoeuvring of vehicles in 

Chequergate adjacent to the access, which also joins the public highway 

right on top of the traffic lights at the junction with Bridge 


right would have to wait for the lights to turn green and a suitable gap 

within the flow of traffic enter the highway, thus completely blocking the 

access road for any other traffic wishing to access the site to the detriment 

of the safety of other road users. Also visibility in both directions from the 

proposed point of access to Chequergate is substantially below 

requirements due to the properties adjacent to the access being set right 

on the back edge of the footway. In an easterly direction visibility is 

approximately 6.9 metres and to the west it is around 9 metres. Also due 

to the position of the buildings either side of the access there is zero 

pedestrian visibility. It is considered that vehicles emerging from the 

access will be in conflict with traffic travelling in both directions due to the 

lack of visibility, contrary to the interests of highway safety. The proposal 

therefore conflicts with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework 

and Policies H12 and TR3 of the Local Plan. 

Page 173


Page 174

Page 175

Page 176


Page 177

SM 

17 

24.8m 

1 5 

84 

25.31m 

BM 

3 6 

Small Wells 

3 0 

2 8 

Mill House 

B 1520 

1 6 

26.7m 

Builder's 

Yard 

Offices 

25.6m 

Sub Sta 

6 

El 

10 

1 

5 

1 5 

1 

2 

4 

Tel Ex 

5 

7 

9 

Bank 

BM 

1 2 

1 3 

 

 

 

BRIDGE STR ET 

1 1 3 

 

CHEQUERGATE 

26.15m 

 








Page 178


[14] Conservation Area Consent 

N/105/02624/ 12 

APPLICANT: Mr. A. Waller, 


PROPOSAL: Conservation Area Consent - Demolition of existing buildings. 

LOCATION: REVENUE BUILDINGS, CHEQUERGATE, LOUTH, LN11 0LL 


1.1 This application has been referred to the Planning Committee at the request 

of Councillor Mrs. Watson for the following reason: 

"Over intensive, nature of the development, poor access, design, refuse 

disposal issues, concern over parking provision and possible flooding issues." 


2.1 The application site extends to approximately 0.13 hectare forming a 

rectangle of land to the rear of the frontage development to Chequergate to 

the south and served by a 3 metres wide access between two buildings on 

that frontage. The site is currently occupied by a two storey, flat roof office 

block with a large, single storey, pitched roofed addition to the rear. These 

buildings form the vacated former tax office. To the north the boundary is 

formed by the River Lud beyond which are the gardens to properties on the 

opposite side of the river. Mature trees straddle the River Lud at this point. 

To the east is a complex of modern, two storey, flat roofed buildings, the 

former telephone exchange, which are now in business use. To the west is a 

terrace facing onto Bridge Street recently restored to their original 4 town 

houses from their previous use as 10 flats. This terrace is a Grade II* listed 

building. The site is seen from Bridge Street particularly between the listed 

terrace and the terrace of cottages to its south and between it and 'The Old 

Mill', a Grade II listed building, to its north. Also the wider area forms part of 

the Louth Conservation Area. 

2.2 Chequergate House, 13 Chequergate, which forms the frontage of the site 

onto the street, is also a Grade II listed building first listed in 1954. At that 

time the land to the rear in the ownership or control of the applicant formed 

part of that property. The land included an ancillary, two storey, stable block 

and other outbuildings previously converted as part of the tax office. 

Although the land has now been subdivided this does not affect what 

constitutes the listed building. For this reason the other buildings on the 

wider site, including the stable block, remain part of the listed building but 

are excluded from the application site itself. The neighbouring building to the 

east, 15 Chequergate, is also a Grade II listed building. 

2.3 The site is within the confines of the settlement as defined by Inset Map 1 of 

the Local Plan but has no specific designation. The adjacent former telephone 

exchange site is within "Site L" on Inset Map 1.1 identified as an "Action 

Area Redevelopment Site" in the Local Plan. The part of the site currently 

occupied by the pitched roof extension to the former tax office is largely 

Page 179

identified as falling within Flood Zone 2 on the Environment Agency Flood 

Risk Maps. 


3.1 The proposal envisages the demolition of the existing flat roofed building 

with its rear extension within the site which formed the former tax office. In 

its place the associated planning application, reference N/105/2416/12, 

proposes the erection of a terrace of 4, 2½ storey houses approximately in 

line with the front wall to the adjacent stable block behind which is a second 

terrace of 4, 2 storey houses. The latter would be located between 11 and 14 

metres from the River Lud. A courtyard is to be created in the area between 

the 2½ storey terrace and the existing buildings to the south with private 

gardens located to the rear of the terrace divided from the rest of the site by 

a 1.8 metre high wall. Access is to be provided along the eastern boundary 

to a parking court located between the private gardens mentioned above and 

the second terrace to the rear. These have private gardens stretching to the 

River Lud with each separated off by a 1.8 metre high close boarded timber 

fence. Access to the site as a whole is to be gained via the existing 3 metre 

wide drive between the frontage buildings to Chequergate. 

3.2 The application is accompanied by a comprehensive Design and Access, 

Listed Building & Conservation Area & Justification Statement in relation to 

Phase One of the development (DAS). This includes a detailed "Townscape 

Appraisal", reference to the initial proposal discussed informally with officers 

of the Council and a discussion of the design of the proposal. The document 

concludes that; 

"Given that the site is currently unoccupied, and has been for some time, 

and the opportunity for a town centre housing development, we feel that the 

scheme should be recommended for approval by the Local Authority. 

We have looked intensively at the buildings within the locality of the site and 

surrounding areas and worked to provide a solution which we feel will be in 

keeping with the area - a scheme which will not only enhance the site itself 

but also that of the setting of the nearby listed buildings. 

Phase One will be defined by the existing site constraints and context of the 

development, whilst Phase Two will focus on the conversion of the existing 

buildings and the Listed Building element of the works (subject to a separate 

planning application). 

Lincs Design Consultancy would like to work with ELDC in the planning 

process of the scheme to ensure we can provide a development that all 

parties involved in are happy with, and more importantly to ensure the 

people locally are happy with. 

A number of conditions would be implemented in a scheme of this nature 

and location, for which the site owner is reminded that these will need to be 

agreed with ELDC prior to any development taking place. 

We feel that the scheme as a whole is sympathetic to the nearby Listed 

buildings and although the scheme will not bring the site back to its original 

form in its entirety the scheme offers an enhancement on that of any 

previous development on the site, and an enhancement on the adjacent 

sites. With support of this development it would encourage the development 

of the adjacent / adjoining sites which are in need of redevelopment, in 

Page 180

which the end result would form a major improvement within a critical 

location in Louth's Town Centre." 

3.3 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has also been submitted which concludes in 

Section 11: 

"11.1 The following conclusions, in relation to the questions posed at the 

start of this document, are as follows: 

11.2 Identify and address flood risk issues associated with the proposed 

development: 

The potential sources of flood risk have been discussed within this report. It 

has been established that fluvial flooding from the River Lud is the dominant 

source of flood risk for the site. 

11.3 Assess if the project is likely to be affected by flooding from all relevant 

sources both now and in the future: Whilst the flood maps state that the site 

is partly within Flood Zone 2, the topographical survey indicates that most of 

the levels within the site are above the 1 in 1000 year + climate change 

levels. The levels within the site are clearly the reason why the site was not 

flooded during the considerable flooding which occurred in 2007. Therefore, 

whilst there are no formal flood defences protecting this site from the river, 

it is considered unlikely that the site will be affected by flooding from this 

source both now and in the future. 

11.4 Assess whether the project will increase the flood risk elsewhere: The 

existing site is almost completely covered by impermeable surfaces such as 

buildings, paving and tarmac parking areas. The proposed development will 

include a number of private gardens and will therefore reduce the amount of 

impermeable surfaces, reducing surface water runoff. This will ensure that 

the development has no or very little impact on the potential flood plain or 

neighbouring properties. 

11.5 Demonstrate the project is safe and where possible reduces flood risk 

overall and proposes measures to deal with the identified effects and risks: 

All of the properties will be outside the 1 in 1000 year + climate change 

flood level. The northern terrace is closest to this flood level and therefore 

the floor level has been raised over 300mm above this level as a precaution. 

Flooding events are generally predicted, with warnings being given on 

pending events at least two hours in advance. There is a good road network 

in the town which would allow escape in the event of an unpredicted flooding 

event. If flooding did occur occupants could also escape to the first floor 

where they could await rescue if evacuation was not possible. It is 

considered that the risks to occupants and buildings are low and there is an 

adequate standard of protection against flooding for the anticipated life of 


11.6 Part of the site has been identified as being at risk from flooding, 

however national planning policy emphasises the need for a balanced flexible 

approach which addresses the risks of flooding whilst recognising the 

benefits of regeneration and redevelopment of previously developed land. 

Flooding events are generally predicted with a two hour warning being given 

on pending events and the road network is adequate to allow escape in the 

event of an unpredicted flooding event. If it was not possible to escape then 

occupants can evacuate to the first floor and await rescue if required. The 

mitigation measures detailed further reduce the impact upon human life. 

11.7 This report demonstrates the proposed development is compliant with 

Page 181

the sequential and exception tests set out in the National Planning Policy 

Framework, that it will be safe for future occupants and would not increase 

flood risk elsewhere. It is therefore considered that planning permission 

should not be refused on flood risk grounds." 








affecting a listed building and Louth Conservation Area. Neighbours have 

also been notified. 

Consultees 

4.3 LOUTH TOWN COUNCIL - Object to demolition until a suitable plan has been 

approved for the site. 

4.4 LCC as HIGHWAY AUTHORITY - The proposed access which measures 2.9 

metres in width from which this development is to be served is of inadequate 

width to permit the passage of two vehicles and in the absence of any 

pedestrian facilities, is likely to cause pedestrian vehicular conflict as there is 

insufficient room for a vehicle to comfortably pass a pedestrian, and as such 

is likely to result in the additional parking, waiting, turning and manoeuvring 

of vehicles in Chequergate adjacent to the access, which also joins the public 

highway right on top of the traffic lights at the junction with Bridge 


right would have to wait for the lights to turn green and a suitable gap within 

the flow of traffic enter the highway, thus completely blocking the access 

road for any other traffic wishing to access the site to the detriment of the 

safety of other road users. (To permit this development would make it 

difficult to resist other applications of a similar nature on adjacent land with 

similar access deficiencies, to the detriment of highway safety). 

Visibility in both directions from the proposed point of access to Chequergate 

is substantially below requirements due to the properties adjacent to the 

access being set right on the back edge of the footway. In an easterly 

direction visibility is approximately 6.9 metres and to the west it is around 9 

metres. Also due to the position of the buildings either side of the access 

there is zero pedestrian visibility It is considered that vehicles emerging from 

the access will be in conflict with traffic travelling in both directions due to 

the lack of visibility, in contrary to the interests of highway safety. 


required for this application. 

4.6 REGULATORY SERVICES - Not received at time of writing. 

Page 182

4.7 LOUTH CIVIC TRUST - No observations. 

4.8 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - No comment. 

4.9 CONSERVATION OFFICER - "I wish to object to the planning application. I 

am less concerned about the demolition given the site of the C20 buildings 

was once gardens. I assume though we would normally wish demolition and 

redevelopment to be contemporaneous. 

Given the pre-application advice offered on this site it is disappointing to find 

that advice has had little bearing on the submitted scheme. 

Firstly the most important buildings are the surviving stable block and other 

buildings that were once ancillary to the listed 13 Chequergate and which are 

part of the curtilage of the listed building. It is essential that they are 

retained and used/converted thoughtfully. Yet no details have been 

submitted to show how these historic buildings will be conserved and/or 

converted. In my opinion we should not be considering new development of 

whatever layout, form, appearance and density until we judge the 

development as a whole. 

Secondly, the layout, scale, form, bulk, appearance and siting/orientation of 

the development fail to respond to the historic grain and form of the 


I have no objection to some redevelopment of the site. It was once gardens 

and new houses will require gardens and an appropriate level of amenity. 

However the site currently accommodates too many bulky, poorly sited 

buildings. This may physically have worked for offices but is not appropriate 

to the setting of the nearby listed buildings, nor the conservation area nor its 

proposed use for housing. Furthermore, the offices are single and two 

storey. The proposed houses however are two and a half storey and two 

storey buildings are over dominant, too bulky and much too fussy. Overall, 

the development is over-dominated by bulky buildings poorly related to their 

context set in an unimaginative layout over engineered by excessive areas of 

roads & parking. 

Finally, the proposed development does not exploit the potential of the river, 

nor respond to the setting of 13 Chequergate (grade II) and the recently 

restored 30 - 36 Bridge Street (grade II* listed). Furthermore although 

seemingly tucked away, in all likelihood the telephone exchange building and 

site will one day be redeveloped opening up views of the site. Furthermore, 

the added sensitively of this backland site is that is lies almost directly below 

the spire and views from St James Church (grade I listed), an important 

attraction to locals and visitors alike, eager to enjoy the panorama and to 

compare views now with Browns panorama. 

Overall I can find little about the proposal to commend and recommend 

refusal of the development. 

Page 183

Note what the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 

says about having special regard to preserving the setting of listed buildings 

and preserving and enhancing the appearance and character of conservation 

areas. 

I will leave you to consider local policies. 

In terms of the NPPF though, Historic Environment policies 128, 129, 131, 

132, 133 & 137 apply. On Good Design, policies 56, 58, 60 & 64 apply. 

Remember too the advice given in PPS5 Practice Guide and the English 

Heritage guidance on setting, both of which are still in force." 

4.10 VICTORIAN SOCIETY - Not received at time of writing. 

4.11 GEORGIAN GROUP - Not received at time of writing. 

4.12 ENGLISH HERITAGE - General observations questioning the grain of the 

development. See copy letter attached to this agenda. 

4.13 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANCIENT BUILDINGS - Not received at 

time of writing. 

Neighbours 

4.14 None received at time of writing. 



5.1 N/105/311/92 - Circular 18/84 Application - Alterations to existing buildings, 

and extension to provide a ramped corridor link. Approved by Government 

Department April 1992. 

5.2 N/105/2064/94 - Circular 18/84 application for the repairs and alterations to 

existing stable block, last used for storage and which is within the curtilage 

of a listed building, including provision of new and replacement doors and 

new window. Approved by Government Department January, 1995. 

5.3 N/105/2027/94 - Listed Building Consent - Alterations to existing stable 

block, last used for storage purposes, including repairs to roof and windows, 

replacement of existing doors and provision of new door to east elevation, 

provision of new window to replace doors to south elevation and replacement 

of existing gutters and pipes. Approved by Government Department January, 

1995. 

5.4 N/105/1203/08 - Planning Permission - Rebuilding and repairs to brick 

boundary wall at existing revenue offices, which is a curtilage listed structure 

to 30-36, 36B and 36 C Bridge Street. Approved June 2008. 

Page 184
















National Planning Policy Framework with particular reference to Section 12. 

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. 





7.1 Given the nature of the application the main planning issue in this case is 

considered to be: 

• Given the statutory protection of historic buildings in the 

conservation area, whether the proposed demolition is justified 

and the impact of the proposal on the appearance or character of 


Given the statutory protection of historic buildings in the 

conservation area, whether the proposed demolition is justified and 

the impact of the proposal on the appearance or character of the 


7.2 In this case there is a requirement for conservation area consent to demolish 

the existing former tax office. In exercising conservation area controls, local 

planning authorities are required to pay special attention to the desirability 

of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area in 

question and, as with listed building controls, this should be the prime 

consideration in determining a conservation area consent application. The 

policies in Section 12 in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 

expect heritage assets (eg. listed buildings and buildings in Conservation 

Areas) to be assessed for their significance, importance and the contribution 

Page 185

they make to the wider area. These policies expect that where an asset 

makes a positive contribution to the area effort should be made to retain it 

(particularly if the asset is designated) with demolition being considered 

more of a last resort and in every case with a full justification. Where the 

proposal involves the total loss of the heritage asset, as in this case, 

paragraph 133 of the NPPF calls for the refusal of consent unless it can be 

demonstrated that the loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits 

that outweigh the loss. If this is not the case then it must be demonstrated 

that: 

• the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; 

and 

• no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term 

through appropriate marketing that will enable conservation; and 

• conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public 

ownership is demonstrably not possible; and 

• the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefits of bringing the site back 

into use. 

7.3 Where conservation area consent for demolition is granted the policies 

expect the approval to be tied to the implementation of an acceptable 

scheme where reasonable to do so to avoid the formation of unsightly gaps 

in the conservation area and that the historic function, changes and detailing 

of the building are recorded so that the information is not lost forever. 

7.4 This national policy is reflected in Policy C1 of the Local Plan which states 

that demolition will be grated only where: 

• the buildings are of no architectural or historic merit and does not 

contribute to the special character of the conservation area; or 

• the building is of little merit and its redevelopment would enhance the 

conservation area; or 

• it can be shown that there is no suitable alternative to development. 

7.5 Turning to the proposal itself the DAS describes the existing building but in 

my view does not assess its significance. The DAS suggests that the building 

was erected in the 1950's and it appears to have been erected as an office 

block for the tax department. It has been erected in the grounds of a listed 

house of some grandeur and, although it has some significance in showing 

the organic growth of Louth, in my view it is of limited historic importance 

lacking any wider historic associations and detracting from the character of 

this part of the historic core of the town. Although the building could be reused 

in my view its removal would benefit the setting, not only of 13 

Chequergate but also the setting to the listed buildings on Bridge Street. In 

such circumstances I consider the demolition of the building to rest on the 

demonstration of "substantial public benefits that outweigh the loss" as 

called for by paragraph 133 of the NPPF. Given that its loss would enhance 

the setting the listed buildings by restoring the former openness, and 

demolition would not form a poor feature in itself, I feel that that 

enhancement amounts to the substantial public benefit mentioned in the 

NPPF and warrants approval. 

Page 186


8.1 In this case the site is within the Louth Conservation Area and involves the 

total loss of a heritage asset through its demolition. Given the enhancement 

to the character of the conservation area and the setting to nearby listed 

buildings that would result it is considered that the substantial public benefit 

this brings justifies the demolition. The proposal therefore accords with the 

NPPF and Policies C1 and C2 of the Local Plan and warrants approval. 





Approve 


1. Conservation Area Consent 

The works must be begun not later than the expiration of three years 

beginning with the date of this permission. 



2 The demolition works hereby given consent shall be limited to the buildings 

identified on drawing number ldc0679-01.05 submitted with the application 

only. 

Reason: For the sake of clarity to ensure that the listed buildings within the 

curtilage of 13 Chequergate are retained to prevent harm to that heritage 

asset. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policies C1 and C2 of 

the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 and paragraphs 132 and 133 of 

the National Planning Policy Framework. 

3 Within 3 months of the demolition hereby permitted taking place all 

materials from the demolition of the buildings hereby permitted shall be 

removed from the site. 

Reason: To ensure that the site is left in an appropriate condition to avoid 

the creation of an unsightly gap within the Louth Conservation Area. This 

condition is imposed in accordance with Policy C1 of the East Lindsey Local 

Plan Alteration 1999 and paragraph 137 of the national Planning Policy 

Framework. 

Page 187


Page 188

Page 189

Page 190


Page 191

Nursery 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 







Sheet Ref: TF5174SW 

Page 192



N/125/02402/ 12 

APPLICANT: Mrs. D. Baxter, 


PROPOSAL: Planning Permission - Change of use of existing land to site 30no. 

touring caravans, erection 2no. amenity blocks (which have 

already been built) erection of a reception building and change of 

use of land to form an extension to the domestic curtilage, in 

accordance with amended site layout plan received by the Local 

Planning Authority on the 25th January 2013. 

LOCATION: THE NURSERIES, COOTS LANE, MUMBY, ALFORD, LN13 9JZ 


1.1 This application was first considered at the Planning Committee meeting held 

on 18th April 2013 where although the application was recommended for 

conditional approval, members considered that the application should be 

refused. This report outlines the reasons for refusal and is brought back to 

Planning Committee for agreement. 

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

2.1 The original Committee report containing the information considered by 

members at the meeting held on the 18th April 2013 is appended to this 

report at Appendix A. 

3.0 PROPOSED REASON FOR REFUSAL 

3.1 As recorded in the minutes of the previous meeting members resolved to 

refuse the application on the grounds relating to the effect on residential 

amenity, effect on the landscape, effect on the rural character of the area 

and the effect on an existing business and as such the proposal was contrary 

to paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework and A4 and T15 

of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999. The following is the suggested 

wording of the reason for refusal. 


Refuse 


1 East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 Policies T15 and A5 seek to ensure 

the surrounding landscape is not harmed and The Good Practice Guide on 

Planning for Tourism, annex A outlines the balance of the need to provide 

adequate facilities and the need to protect landscapes and environmentally 

sensitive sites. National Planning Policy Framework, at paragraphs 17, 28 

and 109 also seek to protect and enhance valued landscapes. In this case, 

the site and surroundings are characterised by a large network of open 

fields with clear views across the landscape. These are only interrupted by 

trees and hedgerows that border the fields and isolated or small cluster of 

Page 193

development. The site’s south east boundary is very exposed to the wider 

countryside including views from Cumberworth Road. Caravans within the 

application site will be clearly visible within the wider landscape and due to 

their size, colour, number and close proximity to viewpoints will be an 

obvious and incongruous feature in the otherwise rural/agricultural setting. 

Landscaping or other conditions cannot overcome the landscape harm. The 

proposal is therefore contrary to the said policies. 

2 East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 Policies T15 and A4 seeks to ensure 

that development does not harm the amenities of people living or working 

nearby due to siting, scale, noise or traffic generation. In this case the 

vehicular access to the site is via Coots Lane which is a narrow ‘no through 

route’ country lane serving these dwellings, a farm yard and the application 

site. All traffic accessing the site will pass through the lane where there are 

13 dwellings spread on both sides to the road and in close proximity to 

each other. The proposal will generate a high level of traffic and pedestrian 

movement to and from the site on a regular basis throughout the holiday 

season. This will intensify the use of the otherwise quiet county lane to a 

degree where the additional activity will harm the quiet residential amenity 

of those properties. This is contrary to the said policies. 

3 National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 123 states that ‘existing 

businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not 

have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby 

land uses since they were established’. It also states that ‘planning 

decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse 

impacts’. In this case the application site is immediately adjacent to a busy 

working farm where there are working practices such as noise from 

mechanical ventilation that potentially conflicts with an immediately 

adjacent holiday site. The proposed development, due to its close proximity 

and noise sensitive nature will impose an unreasonable restriction on the 

operation of the farm business contrary to the said policies. 

Page 194

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED AT 

THE PLANNING COMMITTEE 

MEETING DATE – 18 th APRIL 2013 


N/125/02402/ 12 

APPLICANT: Mrs. D. Baxter, 


PROPOSAL: Planning Permission - Change of use of existing land to site 30no. 

touring caravans, erection 2no. amenity blocks (which have 

already been built) erection of a reception building and change of 

use of land to form an extension to the domestic curtilage, in 

accordance with amended site layout plan received by the Local 

Planning Authority on the 25th January 2013. 

LOCATION: THE NURSERIES, COOTS LANE, MUMBY, ALFORD, LN13 9JZ 


1.1 This application has been called to Committee at the request of 

Cllr Smith for the following reason: 

‘Cllr. A. Smith and Mumby Parish Council are concerned with 

access to the plot which is via a narrow road through a working 

farm. The narrowness of the road means that passing cannot take 

place on it and that includes the length of Coots Lane also. Local 

residents are concerned about the increase in noise and light 

pollution which will adversely affect their enjoyment of their 

amenity areas and homes. There is also no provision for 

sanitation included in the application.’ 

1.2 The Mumby Parish Council and a number of third parties also 

object. Letters of support have also been received. 


2.1 The site is at the western extreme of the village of Mumby, at the 

end of Coots Lane. The east part of Coots Lane has housing 

fronting both sides of the road and is within the settlement 

boundary as defined in the East Lindsey Local Plan Inset Map 38. 

Beyond the housing area is a large working farm with buildings 

straggling both sides of the lane. The lane is not defined through 

the yard and it appears as an open farm yard, rather than a road 

but it does continue through the yard to the application site where 

it terminates. 

2.2 The application site consists of a single dwelling in the north east 

corner and a large field to the south and south east. This is 

currently laid to grass and is used as a certificated 5 van touring 

caravan and 10 tent pitch site. There are mature trees along the 

south boundary, in neighbouring ownership, and a mature hedge 

Page 195

along the north boundary. The south west boundary is fairly open 

with distant views into the site available from Cumberworth Road. 

2.3 Mumby itself is defined in the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration as 

a ‘medium sized village’ and sits on the A52 between Huttoft and 

Hogsthorpe. Village facilities include a Public House, Church, Model 

car museum, regular bus routes to Louth and Skegness/Chapel St. 

Leonards. 


3.1 The proposal is to expand the caravan site to accommodate up to 

30 touring caravans and erect a reception building. The caravans 

will be sited across the whole field. The submitted plan shows an 

intended layout including a small amenity pond fairly central to the 

site, extensive landscaping mainly to the south and west boundary 

but also centrally within the site. It should be noted that caravan 

sites are considered as a change of use of the land where the 

number of caravans are not always a planning consideration. A 

separate caravan licence would normally address caravan 

numbers. It should be noted that the field is fairly large and could, 

in theory accommodate much more than the 30 caravans applied 

for, even with the provision of the landscaping and the pond. 

However the Planning Authority can regulate the number of vans 

where there is specific reason to. These could relate to issues such 

as highway grounds, affect on the landscape, affect on the 

neighbours. 

3.2 The proposal also includes a 5m x 8m timber reception building 

close to the site entrance and an extension to the domestic 

curtilage of the host property. Two small amenity buildings (4.2m 

x 3.5m and 3.5m x 3.5m) have already been erected and this 

permission seeks retrospective permission. These are sited along 

the north boundary, close to the main entrance. 

3.3 The final part of the application relates to a curtilage extension to 

the dwelling at the site entrance. This is at the rear of the 

dwelling, adjacent to the proposed caravan site. 


4.1 Set out below are the summarised consultation responses and full 

copies are available for inspection separately. Some of the 

comments made may not constitute material planning 

considerations. (Officer comments in brackets). 


4.2 The application has been advertised by means of site notice and 

neighbour notification. The application has been included on the 

Weekly List. 

Page 196

Consultees 

4.3 MUMBY PARISH COUNCIL - Object, Coots Lane far too narrow for 

passing Traffic. Also working farm yard with many vehicles 

operating, working all times of the year. Hazard, not only for 

traffic in and out of the site, but pedestrians, some with domestic 

animals. No mention of sanitary arrangements needed to cope 

with 30 holiday homes. Noise and lighting from 30 tourers would 

do little to enhance the tranquillity of the surrounding countryside. 

4.4 CUMBERWORTH PARISH MEETING - No reply. 

4.5 LCC as HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - Support subject to the provision 

of a passing bay between the junction of Coots Lane with 

Washdyke Lane and the site access. The passing bay shall be of 

sufficient size to enable a car and caravan to utilise. 

4.6 REGULATORY SERVICES - Further to your e mail I have visited the 

site and spoken briefly to the farm owner. This is an interesting 

case insofar as there is an existing property and 5 pitch site but 

we have not had any complaints regarding noise, dust or 

odour from the farm. This application seeks a larger number of 

pitches and therefore a potentially greater chance of complaint as 

more people would be visiting the site. 

The current situation is that the owner of the property could 

probably complain about the farm, irrelevant to any planning 

permission. Similarly the current holiday makers could also 

complain. 

In terms of Reg. Services enforcement it is highly unlikely that we 

would take action on behalf of a holiday maker that was staying in 

a caravan for a couple of weeks however the site owner would be 

able to take action for a statutory nuisance that was to the 

detriment of their business. We would also investigate should the 

property owners complain in their own right if they felt the farm 

was affecting them at their property. 

In short the potential for loss of amenity already exists, if you are 

minded to grant planning permission that potential for loss of 

amenity could be increased simply because more people would 

visit the site. 

There is clearly a fine balance to be had between the business 

needs of the farm and the caravan site 

4.7 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - Support subject to seasonal limitation of 

15th March to 31st October (or first Sunday in November if half 

term falls in November) and that mitigation of the submitted FRA 

is implemented. 

4.8 LINDSEY MARSH DRAINAGE BOARD - Object due to planting and 

Page 197

siting proposed along the south west boundary which conflicts with 

a board byelaw. No works or landscaping allowed within 8m of the 

watercourse unless byelaw consent is granted. 

Neighbours 

4.9 7 objection letters from 6 residential properties have been 

received. 5 are from addresses along Coots Lane and one from a 

property to the south on the road between Mumby and 

Cumberworth village. The following issues have been raised:- 

• Coots Lane has no footpath, no street lighting, no kerbs 

and is only single vehicle width. However it does service 

heavy farm vehicles. Holiday makers are already travelling 

far too fast and cut up verges to pass. Accidents waiting to 

happen. Vehicular and pedestrian conflict along this narrow 

lane. Increase in traffic passing the site, not only during 

arrival and departures but day trips etc and pedestrians 

passing residential properties will adversely affect rural, 

quiet nature of the lane. Should consider widening Coots 

Lane to 2 way traffic. Coots Lane is a quiet tranquil place 

to retire. These proposals will harm this. 

1. Proposal would affect property value of house. 

2. Proposal is adjacent to a working farm. Its use will conflict 

with the caravan use. Farm yard has fairly heavy traffic 

movement, especially harvest time, often continuing late 

into the night. Corn dryer is situated adjacent to this 

proposal - as when it was built this was considered the 

most suitable location, next to the countryside. Noise and 

dust generated by dryer could cause conflict between farm 

and caravan site. 

3. Site is very visible from Cumberworth Road, and from all 

directions at winter time. Would need to be well screened 

as a consequence. Also need control over lighting at 

amenity block and the seasonal use. 

4. One letter offers no objection to domestic extension but 

hopes it is not an excuse for an area to store caravans. 

5. Existing landscape views blighted by a caravan site. There 

is no screening at all. When wind in right direction the 

noise from the site affects residential amenity. 

6. Mumby is a quiet village but proposal will change that into 

and extension of Skegness. Often more than the 5 

permitted caravans at the site and therefore familiar with 

proposed impact. 

4.10 1 letter from the neighbouring farm received raised offering the 

following concerns:- 

7. Working Farm in excess of 100 acres. Busy all year 

peaking in July, August and September. Main Yard is Coots 

Lane. 

1. Busiest months coincide with holiday season when 

Page 198

spreading fertilizer, spraying, harvesting and drilling. 

2. In addition to farm traffic generated by above, heavy 

goods vehicle collect harvest produce. Up to 6 a day for 

consecutive days. Also deliveries of fertilizers and sprays. 

3. Harvest period busy from 6am to 2am. Dryer can be very 

noisy. Caravan users will expect rural tranquil setting and 

not realize how busy and noisy the farm can be. Would not 

want restrictions imposed on farm due to complaints. 

4. Already conflict between caravans and cars straying 

through the farm yard. How do 2 vehicles pass with out 

straying into the yard 

5. Caravan site users already trespass onto surrounding farm 

land, straying way beyond the permissive footpaths. Again 

potential conflict where visitors being where they shouldn’t 

be and conflict with farming practices. 

6. Concern about children and pets straying from the site into 

the farm yard. 

7. Site could limit and impact when adjacent fields can be 

sprayed. This has potential to negatively impact on 

livelihood as spraying period is critical. 

8. Site securing (theft) is a concern. 

9. No objection to the 5 van site providing the terms are met 

by the operator, which is not always the case. 

5.0 CONSULTATION ON 1st AMENDED PROPOSALS 

5.1 An amended plan was received on the 25th January 2012 revising 

the landscaping on the south west boundary. This was primarily 

undertaken to address the Drainage maintenance bylaws and 

doesn’t materially affect the overall scheme. No reconsultation or 

notification was undertaken although LMDB has viewed the 

revision and removed their objection. 

6.0 CONSULTATION ON 2nd AMENDED PROPOSALS 

6.1 A new plan was received on the 26th February 2013 showing a 

proposed off-site lay-by along Coots Lane to allow two cars towing 

caravans to pass each other. Full reconsultation and re-notification 

undertaken. 

Consultees 

6.2 MUMBY PARISH COUNCIL - Object. Passing bay is not a solution. 

It would be a inconvenience to residents next to the position 

proposed. Remains a conflict within the yard with heavy 

machinery moving about. All previous comments remain 

applicable. Not convinced by sanitary arrangements. 

6.3 CUMBERWORTH PARISH MEETING - Object. Single track, 

unclassified lanes cannot cope with the increase in size and 

volume of traffic which this will cause. 

Page 199

6.4 LCC as HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - No reply. 

6.5 REGULATORY SERVICES - No reply. 

6.6 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - No reply. 

6.7 LINDSEY MARSH DRAINAGE BOARD - No reply. 

Neighbours 

6.8 9 letters of support, of which: 

• 3 are from people living away who visit the site. Site offers 

peace and quiet. No problems with access. Farm next door 

is not busy. Like wildlife in the area. Adult only site. Good 

local services, often use the bus or walk or cycle. Lovely 

flat field with large pitches. No light pollution. Good site 

facilities. Road not busy and no conflict with the farm. 

Plenty local walks. Do not want to be within the main 

holiday parks closer to the coast. Bigger site would benefit 

the village. 

• 1 from resident of Huttoft. Need for sustainable 

developments in sustainable locations. Small, well 

managed sites have a lesser impact on the beauty of this 

area than large static sites. The site will actively support 

and promote all the local businesses. 

• 1 from resident of Hogsthorpe who is familiar with site and 

uses Coots Lane. No traffic issues on Coots lane, passing 

vehicle currently not a problem. Site currently has 5 van 

pitches and 10 tent pitches under its licence, so application 

increase is only 15 units. Site brings welcome trade into 

the village including pub which residents would not want to 

see close. During these economic times we need to 

support businesses. Financial contribution is welcome. 

• 3 from local residents. Site is well run. Welcome proposal 

to vary age profile of village. Do not want a dying village. 

Site users would not be a nuisance. No village shop but 

with demand from site it could be a viable proposition 

Would bring business to the pub and car museum creating 

growth and job prospects. Ideal location. Jobs for people 

and help secure other businesses. 

• 1 from Model car museum – proposal will be an asset to 

the local economy. Visitors to the museum also visit the 

pub, businesses thrive of each other. Site is adults only 

who tend to respect the locality more. This use is 

important to the local economy 

• 1 from the Red Lion PH in Mumby. Site has blossomed 

from a run down building into a pretty, clean and friendly 

place. PH has plenty of custom from the site. Would be a 

bonus to the village. Owners do a fantastic job. Residents 

who object are being selfish and ignorant too the attempts 

Page 200

to make a good go of a new business. 

6.9 11 letters of objection. Of which: 

• 5 standard, pro-forma letters from 3 households, all on 

Coots Lane. Reiterate previous objection and raise 

following additional comments relating to the proposed 

passing place. By having this passing place, you are 

concentrating the mass of extra traffic to the epicenter of 

the residents homes, making access to and from their 

properties more difficult and dangerous. Trade vehicles 

already block the lane causing gridlock. Additional traffic 

will add to this mayhem and put emergency vehicles at 

risk. Flooding previously on the lane – how will caravans 

negotiate this without causing tidal waves into properties 

Flooding could come again. Need to take into account that 

lane will be used not just for the initial arrival and 

departure but for day trips etc whilst visiting. Need to take 

into account rallies and camping too. Busiest time of 

holiday season coincides with the busiest time for the 

adjacent farm. Proposed passing place not wide enough. 

This is a quiet country, safe lane and should be kept as 

such. Holiday makers being put before residents. Little 

benefit to the area except the PH and the site itself. Who 

will monitor any limitations put onto the site 

• 4 individual letters, all from residents of Coots Lane. Coots 

Lane is single traffic width and already conflict with 

tractors and artic lorries visiting the farm. This is accepted 

as part of country life but additional use by caravans is 

not. Conflict between users with passing and reversing 

problems. 30 extra caravans will be chaos and endanger 

lives. On an already busy lane. Proposed passing place is 

ludicrous. Being in front of someone’s house there are 

privacy issues. Space is only suitable if caravans meet – 

not big enough for farm machinery or artic lorries to use. 

Caravans could still drive off the carriageway limits and 

drift into the farm yard. Farm yard would still be used as a 

passing place. Pedestrians, dogs and horses already walk 

through farm yard, increasing the numbers is an accident 

waiting to happen. Allowing this proposal will potentially 

change the nature and character of the village. Properties 

on Coots Lane would all lose value. 

• 2 anonymous letters. Passing place not big enough. 

Existing licence for 5 vans often breached. Caravan Rallies 

often held at the site. Grain bins are noisy which will lead 

to complaints by users. Proposed use will cause 

disturbance to local residents when users returning to the 

site late at night. Passing place not big enough. 


7.1 N/125/00001/10 - Planning Permission - Extension and 

Page 201

alterations to existing dwelling to provide a bathroom, kitchendining 

room, shower room and a utility room with an en-suite and 

dressing room over on the site of part of the existing dwelling 

which is to be demolished to include the erection of a detached 

single garage and car port. Approved and extension subsequentially 

erected, not the garage. 

7.2 N/125/02422/12 - Environmental Impact Assessment (E.E.C. 

Directive 85/337/E.E.C. as amended by Council Directive 

97/11E.C.) for a screening opinion with respect to the change of 

use of land to site 30no. touring caravans, excavation of an 

amenity pond, erection of a reception building, erection of an 

amenity building (which is already in place) and change of use of 

land to form an extension to the existing domestic curtilage at The 

Nurseries. EIA not required. This screening opinion was 

generated as a result of and relaters to the current application 

being submitted. 


8.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004 

requires that planning applications are determined in accordance 

with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate 

otherwise. The Development Plan currently comprises the East 

Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 (Saved Policies Sept. 

2007) and the Regional Plan (March 2009). Whilst the 

Regional Plan is in place as part of the Development Plan, it should 

be noted that the Government's intention to abolish Regional Plans 

is a material consideration when determining planning 

applications. However, the weight to be given to that consideration 

is for the decision maker. Government’s National Planning Policy 

Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration. The following 

policies are considered most relevant to the consideration of this 

application: 


Policy A4 – Protection of General Amenities 

Policy A5 – Quality and Design of Development 

Policy DC4 – Intensive Livestock Units 

Policy ENV3 – Foul and Surface Water Disposal 

Policy T15 – Touring Caravan or Camping Sites 

Policy TR3 – Road Design in New Development 

East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 

Good Proactive Guide on Planning for Tourism - Paragraphs 20 and 

22. 

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 

Paragraphs 17, 28, 100-104, 109 and 123. 

Page 202


9.1 The main planning issues in this case are considered to be:- 

• The Principle of whether this site is a suitable 

location for a new caravan site. 

• How the sites sits within the wider landscape of the 

area. 

• Whether the proposal meets the criteria of the NPPF 

relating to Flood Risk. 

• Whether the access route along Coots Lane is 

suitable having regard to the relationship with the 

adjacent farm yard, the carriageway width and how 

this affects the residential amenity of the dwellings 

along Coots Lane. 

• Potential conflict between the proposed caravan site 

and neighbouring farm and dwellings. 

• Whether the number of caravan pitches can be 

regulated and other controls over the use. 

• Extension to residential curtilage, amenity buildings, 

reception building and amenity pond. 

The Principle of whether this site is a suitable location for a 

new caravan site. 

9.2 East Lindsey Local Plan is a key consideration when addressing 

this proposal. Policy T15 of the Local Plan is the most applicable as 

it specifically addresses proposed touring caravan sites. It states 

new touring sites in locations such as this will only be permitted if 

it meets at least 1 of the 4 criteria. In my opinion it clearly fails to 

meet all 4 of the criteria as the site is not allocated for this use, it 

is not associated with an existing visitor attraction, is not located 

in or alongside a settlement identified in Policy T1 and it is not an 

extension to an existing site to enable improved landscaping. If 

any of these criteria are met then the policy continues by 

requesting that sites must have access to the strategic road 

network and avoid country lanes, must not harm nearby 

residential amenities, must integrate itself into the landscape, 

must limit associated built development and be subject to 

seasonal occupancy. 

9.3 However, although there is conflict with the Local Plan, more up to 

date national guidance has been issued and needs to taken into 

account. Annex A, para 20 of Good Practice Guide on Planning for 

Tourism, issued May 2006 outlines that ‘planners should carefully 

weigh the objective of providing adequate facilities and sites with 

the need to protect landscapes and environmentally sensitive 

sites’. Para 22 continues by stating ‘new sites (such as the 

proposal) that are close to existing settlements and other services 

will generally be more sustainable as some local services may be 

accessed by means other than by car’. Paragraph 22 also states 

Page 203

that Local Authorities should consider how the proposal will affect 

tourism in the area, particularly in terms of its economic and 

environmental impacts. 

9.4 In addition to the Practice Guide, the most up to date national 

policy is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) issued in 

March 2012. The overarching aim of NPPF is to help achieve 

sustainable development and in doing so it sets out the 

Government’s Planning policies and how these are expected to be 

applied. The NPPF identifies three interrelated dimensions to 

sustainable development, namely an economic role, a social role 

and an environmental role. 

9.5 Paragraph 28 of NPPF, in discussing ‘supporting a prosperous rural 

economy’ directly relates to the proposal. It states; 

‘Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in 

order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach 

to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural 

economy, local and neighbourhood plans should: 

• support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types 

of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through 

conversion of existing buildings and well designed new 

buildings; 

• promote the development and diversification of agricultural 

and other land-based rural businesses; 

• support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments 

that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and 

visitors, and which respect the character of the 

countryside. This should include supporting the provision 

and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate 

locations where identified needs are not met by existing 

facilities in rural service centres; and 

• promote the retention and development of local services 

and community facilities in villages, such as local shops, 

meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public 

houses and places of worship’. 

9.6 Therefore whilst the Local Plan still refers to rigid criteria the more 

up to date Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (para 22) 

and NPPF refers to sustainable location in more general terms. 

9.7 In this case it could be argued that Mumby village is not 

particularly ‘sustainable’ as it has few village facilities. However it 

does have a village Public House and regular bus connections to 

settlements beyond. In addition there is a model car museum in 

the village which is an attraction in its own right. The site itself is 

approximately 70m beyond the village boundary as defined by the 

Local Plan. The limit is defined by the last house along Coots Lane 

but with the farm yard in-between and the short distance involved 

I am satisfied that the site can be deemed as being ‘alongside the 

Page 204

settlement.’ 

How the sites sits within the wider landscape of the area 

9.8 Local Plan Policies T15 and A5 seek to ensure the surrounding 

landscape is not harmed and The Good Practice Guide outlines the 

balance of the need to provide adequate facilities and the need to 

protect landscapes and environmentally sensitive sites. NPPF, at 

paragraphs 17, 28 and 109 seek to protect and enhance valued 

landscapes. 

9.9 In this case, the site is at the end of the metalled part of Coots 

Lane. It consists of the applicant’s dwelling at the site entrance in 

the north east corner and a large grassed field to the south and 

east. Coots Lane continues along the north boundary as a green 

Lane where a mature native hedge borders to the south. Along the 

east boundary to the adjoining farm is also a native hedge. Mature 

trees in the neighbouring land form the southern boundary. The 

boundary to the south west is the most exposed with minimal 

effective landscaping. Activity in the site is therefore visible from 

outside the site and this is principle from the road between Mumby 

and Cumberworth (Cumberworth Lane) at distances ranging from 

200m -350m and with occasional hedgerows and trees inbetween. 

The proposed landscaping along this south west 

boundary will take time to be fully effective but given that the site 

is generally well integrated into the landscape and these exposed 

views are over long distances I do not see harm to the rural 

landscape in the long term. Additional planting has already taken 

place but I recommend a condition is imposed to secure its long 

term retention. 

Whether the proposal meets the criteria of the NPPF 

relating to Flood Risk 

9.10 The site is within Flood Zone 3a as defined on the Environment 

Agency’s Flood Zone Maps. Having regard to Table 1 and 2 of the 

Technical guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework this 

equates to a ‘more vulnerable’ development in a ‘high probability 

risk’ area. 

9.11 Chapter 10 (paras 100-106) of NPPF addresses flood risk and 

there is also an accompanying technical guide. It broadly follows 

the same principle established in PSS25 with the same sequential 

test being necessary and, where appropriate, the exception test. 

The aim of the Sequential Test is to show whether there are 

reasonably available sites for the type and scale of the proposed 

development in a lower flood risk zone or at a lower flood risk than 

the application site. 

9.12 The NPPF states at para 102 that if, following application of the 

Sequential Test, it is not possible, consistent with wider 

sustainability objectives, for the development to be located in 

Page 205

zones with a lower probability of flooding, the Exception Test can 

be applied if appropriate. For the Exception Test to be passed: 

• it must be demonstrated that the development provides 

wider sustainability benefits to the community that 

outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk 

Assessment where one has been prepared; and 

• a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate 

that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking 

account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing 

flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood 

risk overall. 

9.13 Both elements of the test will have to be passed for development 

to be allocated or permitted. 

9.14 To deal with the sequential Test, Local Planning Authorities expect 

other sites within the Main Coastal Holiday Areas to be considered. 

This Area is defined in Part 2 of the Settlement Proposals of the 

current Local Plan. However, the test should still have regard to 

the requirements of the sequential test with respect to the 

consideration of other zones but strongly justify any reasons not 

to locate development there. This approach ensures that the 

search area has a Policy basis in line with the adopted Local Plan. 

In line with previous applications elsewhere the Council has 

accepted that sequential testing has been undertaken by other 

developers along the coast for similar proposals. The LPA has 

previously accepted the findings that there are no reasonable 

available alternative sites along the coastal area and I therefore 

see little point in requiring this applicant to undertake the same 

exercise. I therefore accept the sequential test is passed. 

9.15 If one can satisfy the Sequential Test then the ‘Exception ‘test 

becomes applicable. It questions the issue of wider sustainable 

development and is evidently intended to include the need to 

avoid social and economic blight. Hence, whilst the Council 

considers that the development of land for the siting of caravans 

provides no obvious advantage as a piece of sustainable 

development in its own right, it is accepted that the use of the 

land to bring people to the area provides for some economic 

benefit. However, evidence should be provided as to how the 

development would contribute to social and economic 

improvements to the sustainability of the community i.e. through 

direct improvements to the social and economic well-being of the 

area. The Council expects this to be in a detailed form to support 

such an assessment, including quantifying the economics of 

any benefits and how community benefits would be procured i.e. 

provision of new, or improvements to existing, community 

facilities and services; the visitor trips and spends backed up by 

data; details of job creation etc. 

9.16 The applicant offers that there would be benefit from the proposal. 

Page 206

This includes additional expenditure in various local facilities such 

as in pubs, restaurants, shops and attractions. Whilst these 

benefits are laudable and contribute towards the overall 

justification of the proposal, they would not, in my view, amount 

to sustainable development in their own right or demonstrate 

sufficient benefit to be essential to the long-term economic or 

social viability of the area to outweigh the flood risk implications 

associated with the site. Moreover, one would expect development 

proposals of this nature to offer greater direct benefits to the 

community. Therefore it is my conclusion that the development on 

its own would not sufficiently improve the economic well-being of 

the area or help with regeneration of the area to meet the 

requirements of point (a) of the Exception Test and would be 

contrary to NPPF. 

9.17 However, the applicant is aware of an emerging policy being 

drafted by Officers to address the issue. It evolves around the 

notion of a developer making a financial contribution towards 

wider sustainable community benefits being planned by the 

appropriate Town or Parish Council. The draft policy has been 

subject to consultation and as consequence, whilst the principle 

will remain, the detailing is likely to change and be broadened to 

include reference to static vans. It is not adopted policy at the 

moment and carries limited weight although it has been used by 

Members and Officers during consideration of several applications 

over the past few months. The policy does seem to have some 

momentum and its use is seen as a way off addressing the wider 

sustainable community benefits. Based on the draft policy the 

applicant has offered £30000 over a 10 year period, (£100 per 

pitch x 30 pitches x 10 years). (Note this has recently been 

reduced to £90 per pitch per year for ten years). 

9.18 This approach has been used elsewhere by other operators and it 

is proposed that the contribution is paid to the District Council who 

will then forward it to benefits in the locality. Ideally this would be 

made in co-operation with the Parish Council although it could be 

other organisations such as a Village Hall Committee or a Playing 

Fields Association. 

9.19 Having regard to the above I consider the developer contribution 

is a significant effort towards addressing the wider sustainable 

community benefits required by paragraph 102 of the NPPF. Whilst 

there is no policy to require it, the offer tips the balance of 

consideration in favour and outweighs the flood risk. I am 

therefore satisfied that this part of the exception test is again 

satisfied. However to secure the offer, if the application is 

approved it will need to be subject to a S106 legal agreement. 

9.20 Point (b) of the Exception Test relates to the Flood Risk 

Assessment (FRA) which should be submitted in support of 

development and indicates that development should be safe for its 

lifetime and not increase flood risk elsewhere. The mitigation 

Page 207

measures offered in the FRA suggest restricting occupancy to the 

15th March to 31st October and for a flood Warning and 

evacuation plan to be put into place. In addition the site is to be 

registered with the Environment Agency’s ‘Warnings direct’ flood 

warning system. 

9.21 The Environment Agency has been consulted and is satisfied on 

the basis that the FRA is implemented and the occupancy period is 

limited to 15th March to 31st October. 

Whether the access route along Coots Lane is suitable 

having regard to the relationship with the adjacent farm 

yard, the carriageway width and how this affects the 

residential amenity of the dwellings along Coots Lane. 

9.22 Local Plan Policy TR3 requires the access for a development to be 

safe and functional. Local Plan Policies A4 and T15 applies in this 

respect as it refers to the impacts upon amenities of development 

of this nature. 

9.23 The site is 500m west of the A52 coast road. The first 200m of this 

is along Cumberworth Road which has 9 dwellings fronting the 

road on the north side and one dwelling on the south side. The 

road then meets a crossroads with Washdyke Lane and Coots 

Lane. Access to the site continues via Coots Lane. The first 170m 

of Coots Lane is a residential section whilst the final section of 

130m is effectively through a farm yard. The residential section 

along Coots Lane is a single width lane with wide soft verges. 13 

properties front this road (7 north side, 6 south) and considerable 

objection has been raised from many of those residents. The final 

section through the yard is fairly unusual insofar that the actual 

area of road for maintenance purposes is much wider than a 

normal road although the road itself is standard width. However 

on both sides of the road, there are tarmac or concrete aprons 

extending a considerable depth away from the road and for the full 

length of the road. There are large agricultural buildings on both 

sides. The effect is that whilst the Lane is visible and defined 

through the site it has the appearance of a large, open agricultural 

yard. There is plenty of room for vehicles to pass each other, and 

according to the highway maintainable area, this passing would be 

on highway land although it appears as yard area. The farming 

business states the potential conflict between a working farm and 

through traffic accessing the caravan site. 

9.24 It is clear that Coots Lane is a relatively quiet and short lane 

serving a small number of residential properties but there is 

already some conflict with large vehicles serving the agricultural 

yard. In addition, residents have already experienced conflict with 

the caravan site with its limited number of 5 caravans. No doubt 

the proposal will generate additional traffic but I am not convinced 

that it would cause highway danger or harm the residential 

Page 208

amenity of nearby properties. 

9.25 As the site is already in use, all farm traffic will be aware of this 

and take the necessary caution when manoeuvring onto or across 

the road. Conflict will be more frequent as a result of the proposal 

but the practice will not change. It also needs to be remembered 

that this is a public highway albeit, with the appearance of a yard, 

where normal highway safety considerations need to be adhered 

to. In addition the open nature of the area affords ample passing 

space if opposing vehicles meet each other. 

9.26 Likewise, whilst I note that opposing caravans may meet along the 

residential part of Coots Lane, given the size of the site and 

number of properties this will be infrequent but enough for the 

applicant to propose a passing bay within the residential area. This 

provision is effectively formalising an existing ‘bulge’ in the Lane 

formed by a pair of driveways on the north side of the road. 

Instead of the loose gravel drives this will be tarmaced. This is all 

within the highway verge and will not alter the character of the 

lane. This measure should prevent vehicles passing elsewhere on 

the lane, such as across grass verges. Whilst it will concentrate 

passing into one part of the lane, due to the low expected 

frequency of use and arrangement of dwellings nearby I do not 

consider it will harm their amenity. The provision of the passing 

bay is off-site works and can be secured by a condition. 

Potential conflict between the proposed caravan site and 

neighbouring farm and dwellings. 

9.27 Policies A4 and T15 applies in this respect as it refers to the 

impacts upon amenities of development of this nature. Paragraph 

123 of the NPPF states that ‘planning decisions should aim to 

avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts. This 

applies to both safeguarding the residential amenities of dwellings 

nearby and safeguarding future users of the application site. 

9.28 The adjacent farm premises has understandably raised the 

potential conflict between the noisy operations of the farm, in 

particular the grain dryers and how this may impact visitors who 

may complain about unsociable noise. Para 123 of the NPPF also 

states that ‘existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance 

of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on 

them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were 

established’. 

9.29 I share the sentiment of the farm business concern however there 

is no evidence that the use of the farm is causing any disturbance 

to the users of the existing caravan site. The applicant has 

supplied a copy of its visitor log book completed by numerous 

paying visitors. There is no reference to noise and disturbance 

from the farm yard. This could be seen as a biased log book so I 

have also viewed comments made by visitors on the UK campsite 

Page 209

website. This is an independent website which can attract both 

good and poor reviews. Various complementary comments made 

over past two years, at different times of the year about the site 

and the owners. Many refer to the quite and peaceful surroundings 

and none refer to any noise from the adjacent farm. Various 

comments also outline expenditure in local economy. 

9.30 The Council’s Regulatory Services has been consulted and its 

response is at para 4.3 above. Overall I do not consider there are 

sufficient grounds to refuse on this matter. 

9.31 Residents are also concerned about additional vehicle traffic and 

foot traffic passing their properties and affecting the quiet 

enjoyment of the lane but this does not amount to grounds of 

refusal. 

Whether the number of caravan pitches can be regulated 

and other controls over the use. 

9.32 The application is for a change of use of the land to a touring 

caravan site. Although 30 pitches are proposed and detailed on 

the layout plan the applicant is not bound by this number or layout 

unless specifically required by condition if there is a particular 

reason to do so. In this case I consider that it is necessary to limit 

the number of caravans to 30 due to affect a greater number may 

have on the use of Coots Lane and to relate it to the wider 

community benefits being secured. I see no reason to limit the 

internal layout or where the caravans are sited. 

9.33 Reference has been made of the applicants and the fact that the 

site operates an ‘adults only’ policy. However neither of these 

issues are relevant to the proposed change of use application. 

Both are subject to change and not controlled through the 

planning system. 

Extension to residential curtilage, amenity buildings, 

reception building and amenity pond 

9.34 These elements of the proposal are not considered to be 

contentious. The proposed curtilage extension is proportionate to 

the host dwelling and the buildings well suited to the proposed 

caravan site. The amenity pond is relatively small with minimal 

impact on the site or the surroundings. 


10.1 With regards to the proposal itself I do not consider it complies 

with Policy T15 of the Local Plan Alteration 1999 although it 

relates better to para 28 of the NPPF which supports rural tourism 

and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas. 

However, whether the site is considered ‘sustainable rural tourism’ 

is a balanced decision. It could be argued that Mumby in itself is 

Page 210

not a particularly sustainable village although I note the Public 

House in this village and the bus connections to settlements 

beyond. I am also conscious that the site is not isolated away from 

any village, and that the site is alongside the settlement. This 

carries some weight in consideration. 

10.2 I have some concern about the narrow access route and limited 

passing places although I note the road widens at the farm yard 

where vehicle can pass and the proposal includes an additional 

passing point along Coots Lane. 

10.3 I am also conscious of the landscaping around the site. This is 

reasonable good to the north, east and south although very open 

from the south west. The site is therefore very exposed from 

Cumberworth Road, a short distance to the south. 

10.4 With regards to Flood Risk a financial contribution of £ 30000 goes 

a long way to address the wider sustainable community benefits 

outlined in NPPF. 

10.5 Overall I have mixed views over the suitability of the site for the 

proposal. It is finally balanced due to the competing arguments. 

On one hand it doesn’t meet Policy T15 of the Local Plan, there are 

issues around the sustainability of the location and there are 

concerns over the landscape impact from the south west. On the 

other hand, it relates better to NPPF and the Good Practice Guide 

on Planning for Tourism, it is alongside the village (although 

questionable sustainable), the access is borderline acceptable and 

the views from the south west can be addressed by a landscaping 

condition. 

10.6 In conclusion, giving weight to the general presumption in favour 

of sustainable development and economic growth in the NPPF, I 

am able to support this proposal. However this is on the basis that 

the number of vans being limited to 30. This is necessary to 

minimise access conflict and to relate to the contribution towards 

wider sustainable development. 

10.7 This conclusion has been arrived at having taken into account all 

other relevant material considerations, none of which outweigh the 



Approve subject to a S.106 legal agreement under the Town and Country 

Planning Act 1990 to secure a contribution towards wider sustainable 

community benefits to offset the flood risk, as outlined in paragraphs 9.15-9.19 

of this report with the decision then being issued by the Team Leader Planning 

under delegated powers and subject to the following conditions:- 


Page 211






2 The site must only be used as a touring caravan or camping site and must 

only be used for holiday purposes. Tents and caravans must only be on site 

between the 15th of March and the 31st October in any one year, except 

that, in years when the Autumn half term school holiday falls within 

November then the period is extended to the Sunday at the end of that half 

term holiday. All caravans and tents must be removed from the site outside 

of this period. 

Reason: To minimise the potential impact of flooding having regard to the 

sites location in a coastal flood zone, in accordance with National Planning 

Policy Framework paragraphs 100-104 and to ensure that the development 

is adequately landscaped, in the interests of its visual amenity of the area 

in which it is set in accordance with Policies A5 and DC4 of the East 

Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 paragraphs 17, 28 and 109 of National 


3 Before the caravan site hereby permitted is brought into use a Flood 

Warning and Evacuation Plan must be submitted to and approved in writing 

by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Flood Warning and 

Evacuation Plan must be adhered to at all times whilst the caravan/tent 

site is in use. 

Reason: To minimise the potential impact of flooding having regard to the 

site’s location in a coastal flood zone, in accordance with Paragraphs 100- 

104 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

4 No more than 30 holiday units (combined total of caravans and tents) must 

be positioned on site at any one time. 

Reason: To ensure that the use of the site reflects the wider community 

sustainable benefit assessed under NPPF paragraph 102 and limit the 

impact on the use of Coots Lane having regard to Policies TR3 and A4 of 


5 Notwithstanding the submitted details, written approval of the Local 

Planning Authority is required for a scheme of landscaping and tree 

planting of the site. The submission must be based on the scheme shown 

on drawing LDC0702-02 C received by the Local Planning Authority on the 

25th January 2013 and give the number, species, heights on planting, 

method of protection during growth and positions of all the 

trees/landscaping, together with details of post-planting maintenance. 

Details must also include reference to existing trees and hedges which are 

to be retained as part of the scheme. Such scheme as approved by the 

Local Planning Authority must be carried out in its entirety within a period 

Page 212

of 12 months beginning with the date on which development is 

commenced, or within such longer period as may be agreed in writing with 

the Local Planning Authority. All approved landscaping must be maintained 

by the owner or owners of the land on which they are situated for the 

period of five years beginning with the date of completion of the scheme 

and during that period all losses shall be made good as and when 

necessary, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any 

variation. 

Reason: To protect the landscape from visual harm having regard to Policy 

T15 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 and paragraphs 17 and 

109 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

6 No development regarding the caravan site shall take place until the 

caravan passing place has been resurfaced as shown on Drawing No. 

LDC0702-04 received by the Local Planning Authority on the 26th February 

2013. 

Reason: To improve the safety of pedestrians crossing the road having 

regard to Policy TR3 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999. 

7 All foul waste from the facilities building must be connected to the existing 

septic tank unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning 

Authority. 

Reason: To ensure appropriate drainage having regard to Policy ENV3 of 


___________________________________________________________ 

Page 213

The 

Firs 

18 

TCB 

PW 

Plants 

13 

 

Kaymoe 

Old School 

House 

 

 

3.4m 

Charity 

 

Pantiles 

 

BM 3.52m 








Page 214



S/152/00279/ 13 

APPLICANT: Boston Methodist Circuit, 

VALID: 20/02/2013 AGENT: Terry Sykes (Design & Build), 

PROPOSAL: Planning Permission - Change of use, conversion of, alterations 

to existing redundant chapel to a residential dwelling. 

LOCATION: NORTHLANDS METHODIST CHURCH, NORTHLANDS, SIBSEY, 

BOSTON, PE22 0UA 


1.1 The proposal is referred for committee consideration because it is a 

departure from East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 policy which is 

recommended for approval. 


2.1 The application site, which relates to a now disused Methodist Chapel, is 

in Sibsey Northlands, a small hamlet some 1.5miles north of Sibsey 

village. Although it contains a number of dwellings Sibsey Northlands 

does not appear on the Local Plan proposals maps, and in planning terms 

the site is in open countryside. The use as a chapel ceased some years 

ago and the building has been cleared of its original seating and balcony. 

2.2 The site is on an unclassified road some 400 yards from the junction with 

the main A16 trunk road. There is residential development on either side 

and opposite, but of very different character. Like the vast majority of 

Sibsey Northlands housing, the dwellings opposite are mostly modern, 

dating predominantly from the 1960s and 1970s. By contrast the side 

neighbours (a cottage with an extension and a converted former rural 

school) are of apparently 19th Century origin, and along with the Chapel 

they form an attenuated group of more historic character in the street 

scene. 

2.3 The land to the rear of the site is part of the garden of The Firs, a 

dwelling to the west which wraps around the rear of the chapel and the 

neighbouring cottage. 

2.4 The application site lies within Flood Risk Zone 1. 


3.1 Change of use, conversion of, alterations to existing redundant chapel to 

a residential dwelling. 




available for inspection separately. Some of the comments made may 

Page 215

not constitute material planning considerations. 


4.2 The application has been advertised as a departure by means of press 

advertising, site notices and neighbour notification letters. 

Consultees 

4.3 SIBSEY PARISH COUNCIL - 'if change of use to a residential dwelling is 

permitted the building should retain its original appearance and any 

alterations should be in keeping with the character of the building'. 

4.4 LCC as HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - 'in view of this being an existing 

building which has had some associated vehicle movements to and from 

in the past and the fact that there is on street parking in the vicinity 

highways have no objections to the proposed development' 

4.5 LCC as HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OFFICER - notes that the building is 

interesting historically, and that it is 'extremely unfortunate' that the 

interior has been removed. Notes that the NPPF states that the heritage 

significance of such buildings should be taken into account in 

determining applications. Has no objection, and requests no additional 

archaeological input. 

4.6 REGULATORY SERVICES - 'no comment' 

4.7 WITHAM FOURTH DRAINAGE BOARD - 'no comment' 

Neighbours 

4.8 Occupants of Pantiles, Northlands (western neighbour) - OBJECT citing 

three reasons. 1) The development would cause loss of amenity by 

overlooking - existing windows in the west wall of the chapel directly 

overlook the garden and look into a ground flood bedroom window; the 

proposed new rear windows would also overlook the garden. 2) The only 

access to the west elevation of the chapel is from the objectors' garden 

raising maintenance issues. 3) Parking issues and concerns for the safety 

of occupants of the proposed development given that it fronts directly 

onto the highway. 

4.9 Occupant of The Old School House, Northlands (eastern neighbour) - 

OBJECT citing three reasons. 1) The development would cause loss of 

amenity by overlooking the objector's garden through the existing east 

elevation windows; the proposed rear (north) elevation windows would 

also cause further overlooking. 2) The development is 'unsuitable for the 

site': the gap between the eastern wall and the objector's property is 1m 

which he considers insufficient as a fire exit route. 3) The effective 

density of the development 'being crammed onto a very small site' is out 

of keeping with local character. 

Page 216

5.0 The Ward Member has been made aware previously of this 

application as the information was provided on the Weekly List. 


6.1 S/152/0949/04 granted permission for the replacement of six wooden 

windows with uPVC windows and the installation of an extractor fan. 


7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004 and 

Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 require that 

planning applications are determined in accordance with the 



(Saved Policies). The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) is a 

material consideration, as is the East Lindsey Landscape Character 

Assessment. Other documents may also be material. The following 

policies are considered relevant to the consideration of this application: 


Policy A3 - Settlement Hierarchy 



Policy C5 - Historic Buildings 

Policy DC6 - Re-use of Buildings in the Countryside 

Policy DC7 - Conversion of Buildings into Houses in the Countryside 

Policy ENV3 - Foul and Surface Water Drainage 

Policy H1 - Housing 

Policy TR3 - Road Design in New Housing 


Including but not limited to paragraphs 11, 14, 17, 28, 49, 51, 55, 56, 

57, 58, 60, 61, 128, 129, 130, 131, 135 and 197. 




• Principle of the Development; 

• Impact on the Amenities of Neighbours and the Area; 

• Heritage and Design Issues. 

Principle of the Development 

8.2 The application seeks to convert the now disused Methodist Chapel to a 

dwelling. As general background the National Planning Policy Framework 

(NPPF) emphasises (paragraphs 11, 14, 197 and elsewhere) that 

Page 217

proposals for sustainable development consistent with the development 

plan should be supported. Paragraph 49 states that housing applications 

should be considered 'in the context of the presumption in favour of 

sustainable development'. Paragraph 51 imposes on local authorities a 

duty to 'identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and 

buildings'. 

8.3 The site is not located in a settlement considered appropriate for new 

housing and is technically in open countryside. However Policy DC7 of 

the Local Plan provides for the conversion of buildings in the countryside 

into dwellings provided that 

a) the proposal involves a building of architectural or historic interest 

AND 

b) evidence is provided to show the applicant has made every effort to 

secure a suitable business re-use OR 

c) the proposal would provide agricultural or holiday accommodation or 

affordable housing. 

8.4 The proposed use does not provide agricultural, holiday or affordable 

accommodation. However as discussed elsewhere in this report, the 

building is of significant architectural and historic interest, but the 

applicant has not provided evidence of efforts to secure an alternative 

business use as Policy DC7 requires. This is because in the view of 

officers the location is not one where business use would be encouraged, 

on both sustainability and neighbour impact grounds. Moreover the scale 

and location of the building make it unlikely that a suitable business use 

will be found. Therefore if the scheme is to go ahead it will be a 

departure from that element of Policy DC7, and will require Committee 

approval. In the absence of business use, it is considered that the only 

viable means of securing the future of the building which is a heritage 

asset, is residential use. 

8.5 In broader terms the case presents a choice. On the one hand, the 

building is considered to be a valuable heritage asset which merits 

protection under local and national policy and guidance. Set against this 

are the potential impacts of the scheme on local character and in 

particular on the amenities of neighbours. The National Planning Policy 

Framework (NPPF) and Local Plan policies encourage planning authorities 

to balance these factors in determining applications, and if the principle 

of the scheme is to be considered acceptable members must be satisfied 

that any downside impacts have been mitigated as well as is possible, 

and that any remaining harm is outweighed by the benefit of securing 

the building for the future. 

Impact on the Amenities of Neighbours and the Area 

8.6 Both side neighbours have objected to the scheme. Grounds cited include 

loss of amenity through overlooking, parking and road safety, emergency 

egress and maintenance access. 

Page 218

8.7 Parking and safe pedestrian access are not considered to be a significant 

problem, and in this regard it is noted that LCC Highways has reviewed 

the scheme and does not object. Maintenance access is not a material 

planning issue but a Party Wall Act matter, and technical suitability of the 

side access as an escape route is a Buildings Regulations issue. 

8.8 However overlooking is a serious potential planning concern. There are 

existing side windows on the west and east facing elevations, which 

when the building was used as a place of worship presented no difficulty 

through overlooking. However in the converted building as proposed the 

new floor of the upper storey would bisect these windows which would 

therefore serve both the downstairs living accommodation and the first 

floor. Most seriously affected would be Pantiles (the western neighbour), 

the eastern wall of which is some 4.5m from the west elevation of the 

chapel. In addition to overlooking the garden, the chapel would look 

directly into the east facing ground floor bedroom window of Pantiles, 

and this degree of overlooking is considered unacceptable. 

8.9 Turning to the eastern neighbour (The Old Schoolhouse), the 

neighbouring dwelling itself is some 18m distant, though a number of 

habitable windows face directly toward the chapel. Whilst this distance 

might be acceptable in new urban housing, the nature and scale of the 

change from what this neighbour has been used to cannot be discounted. 

Moreover the chapel side windows would directly overlook the garden of 

The Old School House between the two buildings, and actual overlooking 

and the perceived potential for overlooking would be oppressive and are 

considered unacceptable. 

8.10 The proposal also seeks to install rear facing windows on the ground and 

first floors. There are no dwellings to the immediate rear, and whilst the 

objections of the side neighbours are noted, the degree of overlooking of 

neighbouring gardens these rear windows would cause and the oblique 

angle of view are such that these windows are not considered likely to 

give rise to unacceptable harm to residential amenity. 

8.11 In terms of mitigation, given the presence of extensive new rear glazing, 

the east and west side windows should be obscure glazed. Whilst not 

ideal in terms of appearance the impact on the street scene would be 

limited, and obscure glazing would remove both the actual impact of 

overlooking and the fear of overlooking. It is therefore recommended 

that such obscure glazing is secured by condition if the application is 

recommended for approval. 

8.12 For the reasons outlined above and subject to appropriate conditions it is 

considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policy A4 of the East 

Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999. 

Heritage and Design Issues 

8.13 The chapel is believed to date from 1837. It is a typical example of its 

type, set only 2m back from the highway and initially built with very little 

additional land. Subsequently a rear area (now laid to grass) was added, 

Page 219

giving limited but adequate amenity space. The front porch is an 

apparently Victorian addition, and the front elevation retains 19th 

Century iron railings. The wooden windows were replaced with 

unsympathetic uPVC windows in 2004. The original slate roof has been 

replaced with concrete tiles. 

8.14 The building is believed to be in good condition structurally. However the 

interior has been almost completely stripped out. Nonetheless it is still 

considered to be a significant heritage asset as defined in the NPPF which 

qualifies for protection under local and national policy. Policy DC5 of the 

Local Plan allows alterations to unlisted historic buildings provided the 

appearance, character and setting of the building is respected. Section 

12 of the NPPF sets out national guidance. Attention is in particular 

drawn to paragraph 135 which states that with 'non-designated' heritage 

assets such as this one 'a balanced judgment' will be required which 

takes into account the significance of the asset and weighs any harm or 

loss, and the general prescription of Section 12 requiring planning 

authorities to take into account the future viability of the heritage asset 

in determining applications. 

8.15 Since the interior of the chapel has been largely stripped out, the 

proposal will cause no internal harm. The scheme would replace 

unattractive uPVC windows with wooden framed windows, a distinct 

improvement. The additional rear windows and new side door are 

sympathetic in appearance and materials. The front elevation railings 

would be retained. Overall the proposal would be in keeping with the 

character of the existing building and of the wider locality. 

8.16 In summary, subject to the use of appropriate materials and detailing 

the physical changes proposed would be in keeping with the character of 

the existing building and respect its integrity as a heritage asset, and 

would be in keeping with the distinctive character of the locality. For the 

reasons outlined above it is considered that the proposal is in accordance 

with Policies A5 and C5 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 

and the NPPF including paragraphs 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 128, 129, 130, 

131 and 135. 


9.1 The proposal is finely balanced. The chapel is redundant, and no longer 

serves (nor is physically capable of serving) a role as a place of worship. 

It is not considered suitable for commercial use given its relationship to 

residential properties and location, hence the applicant has not been 

required to go through the marketing procedures normally attached to 

Policy DC7. The only realistic means of assuring the future of the building 

is as a dwelling. 

9.2 Whilst not listed, the building has significant historic value, and must be 

treated as a heritage asset. The proposed physical changes are 

acceptable in this context, and use as a dwelling would secure the future 

of the heritage asset. 

Page 220

9.3 The actual use as a dwelling is not likely to impact unacceptably on 

neighbours. However the overlooking from the side windows would be 

unacceptable. This could be satisfactorily mitigated by a condition 

requiring obscure glazing in the side elevations - significant new clear 

glazed windows in the rear elevation will provide adequate additional 

light and external views. The appearance of such windows would be a 

little less than optimal, but in the side elevations would have limited and 

acceptable impact on the street scene. 

9.4 The decision therefore depends on balancing the requirement to preserve 

this significant historic building with any negative impacts on neighbours 

or the fabric of the chapel itself. It is considered that with the mitigation 

measures outlined above the scheme would not unacceptably harm 

neighbour amenity, and in the interests of securing the future of the 

chapel the proposal is recommended to members for conditioned 

approval. 

9.5 For the reasons discussed in the above report and subject to appropriate 

conditions I consider the development is in accordance with the relevant 

policies and guidance, including Policies A3, A4, A5, C5, ENV3, H1 and 

TR3 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 and the National 

Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) including but not limited to 

paragraphs 11, 14, 17, 28, 49, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 128, 129, 

130, 131, 135 and 197. 


Approve 







2 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, prior to the use 

or occupation of the development hereby permitted the window on the east 

and west elevations shall be glazed in obscure glass and thereafter so 

maintained. 

Reason: To protect the amenity of the occupants of the dwelling and of 

neighbouring properties, and to accord with Policy A4 of the East Lindsey 


3 All doors and windows to be installed in the development hereby permitted 

shall be of wooden framed construction and shall be thereafter so 

maintained. 

Reason: In the interests of the architectural, visual and historic integrity of 

the overall development and the visual amenity of the area in which it is 

set, and to accord with Policies A5 and C5 of the East Lindsey Local Plan 

Page 221

Alteration 1999. 

4 The iron railings attached to the front elevation of the building and the 

plaque set into the wall of the front elevation of the building shall not be 

altered or removed without the prior written permission of the Local 


Reason: In the interests of the architectural, visual and historic integrity of 

the overall development and the visual amenity of the area in which it is 

set, and to accord with Policies A5 and C5 of the East Lindsey Local Plan 

Alteration 1999. 

Page 222


Page 223

Linacre 

1 

Belmont 

Bellmont Court 

Kimon 

4 

Sycamores 

House 

1 

Histon 

Arkona 

Brandon 

2 

The Holding 

Marlow 

Wyvern 

Amerzin 

4.2m 

 

 

 

 

 

THA MES STREET 

Ho neysu ckles 







Sheet Ref: TF5372NE 

Page 224


[17] Remove or Vary a condition 

N/084/00506/ 13 

APPLICANT: Mr. W. Richards, 

VALID: 25/03/2013 AGENT: Mr P. Sparkes, 

PROPOSAL: Application to remove condition no. 2 which states "Each 

bungalow shall only be occupied on a permanent basis by no 

more than two persons, both shall be over the age of 55 years" 

imposed on planning permission ref no. S084/0078/00. 

LOCATION: BELMONT COURT, THAMES STREET, HOGSTHORPE, SKEGNESS, 

LINCOLNSHIRE. 


1.1 This planning application has been called to the Planning Committee by 

Councillor Newcombe as due to the new "bedroom tax" these properties 

provide a vital residence for people within the existing age group who 

may be moving from larger accommodation. There is also an objection 

from the Parish Council and other third parties. 


2.1 The site is situated in the medium sized village of Hogsthorpe within the 

settlement boundary as defined on Inset Map 46 of the East Lindsey 

Local Plan Alteration 1999. To the south-west side is a large two storey 

building which has been converted to flats. To the north-east side is a 

bungalow and opposite are residential properties. On site set back from 

the road is a row of four small bungalows. To the front is a large open 

tarmac area used for parking with two access either side. To the rear of 

the bungalows are small amenity areas. The site falls within Flood Zone 3 

- High Risk. There is a low wall to the front south-east boundary, open to 

the south-west boundary to the adjacent flats and a fence and hedge to 

the side north-east boundary. 


3.1 The proposal is for planning permission to remove an existing condition 

on the bungalows which restricts occupation to persons 55 or over. 

(Condition no. 2 on planning permission reference S/084/00078/00). 




available for inspection separately. Some of the comments made may 

not constitute material planning considerations. 


4.2 The application has been advertised by means of a site notice displayed 

on a telegraph pole to the front of the site and neighbours have been 

Page 225

notified in writing. 

Consultees 

4.3 PARISH COUNCIL - Hogsthorpe Parish Council discussed the application 

to remove the "Over 55" condition at the above premises and 

unanimously resolved to object to the application. It is considered that 

the site, land around the bungalows, and particularly the nature of the 

actual premises themselves do not lend themselves to having mixed 

occupancy on the site, and elderly people would undoubtably find 

themselves in conditions that the original condition sought to prevent. 

Furthermore the Council wished to emphasise that the new dubbed 

"Bedroom tax" highlights the need for elderly people to be able to reside 

in/move to such accommodation to free up larger dwellings. The Council 

further resolved that if the Officer is minded to approve the application it 

has the support of the District Councillors to have it "Called in. 

4.4 LCC as HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - It is considered that the proposed 

development would not be detrimental to highway safety or traffic 

capacity. 

4.5 REGULATORY SERVICES - No comment. 

4.6 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - No comments. 

Neighbours 

4.7 MARLOW - E-mail of objection received on the grounds that the layout of 

the site and land around the bungalows does not lend themselves to 

mixed occupancy and the elderly benefit from the smaller properties if 

the bedroom tax comes into operation. 

4.8 LIME TREE LODGE - Letter of objection received on the grounds that the 

premises do not lend themselves to mixed occUpancy because of the 

nature and layout of the site and land around the bungalows and that 

due to the bedroom tax there will be a need for housing aimed 

exclusively for the older people who have to down size. 

4.9 The Ward Councillor is aware of the application via the Weekly 

List 


5.1 N/084/02971/07 - Planning Permission - Erection of a pair of semidetached 

bungalows, provision of parking and construction of an 

additional vehicular access. Refused 01/02/2008. 

5.2 S/084/00078/00 - Planning Permission - To continue to use 4 no. holiday 

bungalows without complying with conditions no. 5 (no one shall occupy 

the holiday bungalows in excess of a total of three calendar months in 

any year) and no. 6 (in respect of each holiday bungalow it is necessary 

to maintain a daily record of the names of the occupants) to allow the 

Page 226

permanent occupation of the 4 no. bungalows, as imposed on planning 

permission reference S/084/1551/98 in accordance with amended plans 

received by the Local Planning Authority on 23rd March, 2000 and 19th 

May 2000. Approved 13/07/2000. 

5.3 S/084/01551/98 - Planning Permission - Erection of a block of 4 no. 

holiday bungalows on site of existing holiday units which are to be 

demolished. Approved 09/11/1998. 


6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 

requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with 

the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 

The Development Plan comprises the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 


Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration. Paragraph 215 of the 

NPPF makes it clear that due weight should be given to relevant policies 

in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the 

framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the 

Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). 




Paragraphs 6-10, 11-16, 17 and 47-55. 




• Principle of Removing the Occupancy Restriction from the 

Bungalows. 

Principle of Removing the Occupancy Restriction from the 

Bungalows. 

7.2 The block of four bungalows, of brick and tile construction was built 

following planning permission S/084/1551/98 being granted in November 

1998. It replaced a similar timber holiday block approved in 1977 which 

had fallen into a state of disrepair. Holiday occupancy conditions were 

imposed on the 1998 permission as this is what the applicant had applied 

for and was the basis on which the application was considered. 

7.3 In 2000 a planning application was submitted for the removal of the 

holiday occupancy conditions, reference S/084/00078/00. At that time 

concern was raised by the members of Planning Committee regarding 

Page 227

the standard of accommodation including the construction of the 

bungalow and room sizes. A letter at that time from the applicant's agent 

indicated that the bungalows were only being occupied by retired couples 

and the applicant was prepared to accept conditions to be imposed to 

that effect. A condition was included which restricted occupation of each 

bungalow to two persons only being aged 55 or over. 

7.4 The applicant now wishes the condition to be removed so the bungalows 

would be available to a wider market of tenants. The reason stated for 

imposing the condition was to ensure that a satisfactory standard of 

accommodation is provided to its occupants. However it could be argued 

that, in this case, age is not a relevant factor as the standard of 

accommodation is what it is whatever the age of the person living in it. 

The occupation of the flats in the adjacent building to the south-west is 

not age restricted and the occupiers of these flats share the car parking 

area to the from of the bungalows. Also slightly further to the south-west 

is the village hall and primary school thereby providing a mix of ages 

within close proximity to the bungalows. 

7.5 In section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Government 

advises that; "it is important to plan positively for the achievement of 

high quality and inclusive design for all development..." to ensure that 

development can be accessed and used by everyone, thus offering a 

choice of housing. It is not accepted that different types of housing and 

tenures make bad neighbours and it is important to encourage mixed 

and balanced communities thereby securing a better social mix. 


8.1 Whilst other changes in Government legislation are recognised, such as 

the new bedroom tax, having regard to this sites location in the village 

and the unrestricted occupancy of the surrounding properties it would be 

unreasonable not to support the removal of the condition in this case. It 

is considered that the removal of the condition would comply with the 

Government guidance mentioned previously and is recommended for 

approval. This conclusion has been arrived at having taken into account 

all other relevant material considerations, none of which outweigh the 



Approve 

Page 228


EAST LINDSEY DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORT 

COMMITTEE: 


DATE: 23 RD MAY 2013 

SUBJECT: TREE PRESERVATION ORDER: LOUTH 2013 (105.28) 

PORTFOLIO HOLDER 

Ward(s) affected: 

COUNCILLOR A. BRIDGES 

LOUTH ST MARYS 

Brief description of report content and the decision being asked for: 

Summary: 

This report informs committee of the making of a Tree Preservation Order to 

protect a Beech tree in Louth and considers whether the Order should be 

confirmed (made permanent). 

Recommendations: 

That the Louth 2013 (105.28) Tree Preservation Order be confirmed without 

modification. 

REASON: It is expedient in the interests of amenity to protect this tree from 

removal or harmful work. 

This report has been prepared by: 

Robert Taylor - Tel: 01507 601111 – ext 3533 

e-mail: trees@e-lindsey.gov.uk 

This report was prepared after consultation with: 

The Landowner directly affected by the order, the Town Council, Tree 

Wardens, appropriate ELDC ward member(s), Lincolnshire County Council, 

Utility and Network providers. 

This report is number 1 in a series of 1. 

This report has been signed off by: 

Victoria Burgess, Neighbourhoods Manager 

The following policies form a context to this report: 

‘Trees – East Lindsey’ Part One (ELDC Tree Policy document) 

This report is not a key decision included in the Forward Plan. 

Page 229

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW 

(papers relied on to write the report which are published but do not contain 

exempt information) 

1. File: Ezytreev System TPO record 105.28 

OTHER HELPFUL PAPERS 

(papers which the report author considers might be helpful – this might include 

published material) 

1. D.E.T.R., 2000. Tree Preservation Orders: A guide to the Law and Good 

Practice. London: HMSO. 

2. Helliwell, D.R., 2008. Visual Amenity Valuation of Trees and Woodlands – 

The Helliwell System. Romsey: Arboricultural Association. 

3. Town and Country Planning Act 1990. London: HMSO 

4. Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 

2012. London: HMSO. 

5. Roberts, Jackson & Smith (2006), “Tree Roots in the Built Environment”, 

HMSO 

6. N.H.B.C., 2003. “NHBC Standards – 4.2 Buildings Near Trees” 

7. B.R.E., 1995. Assessment of damage in low-rise buildings 

Local Government (Access to Information Act) 1985 

Is the report Exempt – No 

Please contact the person who has written this report or Robert Taylor 

Tel. No. 01507 601111 ext 3533 

e-mail: trees@e-lindsey.gov.uk, if you want more information about 

this report or the background papers. 

1.0. INTRODUCTION 

1.1. This report is to inform the Committee that a provisional Tree 

Preservation Order (TPO) was made on 6 th February 2013 under 

delegated powers. 

1.2. The TPO covers 1no. Beech tree (Fagus sylvatica) at The Beeches Care 

Home, 28 South Street, Louth that is protected as tree T.1, as shown 

on the attached plan. 

2.0. BACKGROUND 

2.1. On 27 th December 2012 the Council received a Conservation Area 

section 211 (s211) Notice from an Arboricultural consultancy acting on 

Page 230

ehalf of the insurer of 28 South Street, Louth. The Notice proposed 

removal of 3no. trees, including tree T.1, with the intention of 

stabilising subsidence damage reported at the property. 

2.2. The s211 notice gave the Council 6 weeks to consider the proposed 

work and to reach a decision as to whether to serve a TPO or 

alternatively to take no action, thereby allowing the work to proceed. 

3.0. SUBJECT INFORMATION AND ISSUES/FACTS AND FIGURES 

3.1. Tree T.1 is a mature Beech (Fagus sylvatica) and is likely to be of 

cultivar ‘Purpurea’ (Copper Beech). It is 13 metres(m) in height with a 

total crownspread of approximately 16m, and is positioned close to the 

boundary wall against South Street, 9.5m from the building at the 

nearest point. 

3.2. Accompanying the s211 Notice, the applicant submitted an 

Arboricultural Survey, a CCTV Report, a Preliminary Report and a Soil 

Investigation Report, each providing information relating to the 

damage reported at the property. 

3.3. From the Council Officer’s site visit it was noted that damage appeared 

to be rotational movement of the flat-roof extension to the Western 

elevation of the property, towards Edward Street, resulting in this 

annex moving away from the main building. The building is on elevated 

ground, with a paved terrace in front of the affected elevation, which 

appears to be on made-up ground. Levels drop quickly away from this 

terrace, towards Edward Street, correlating with the rotational 

movement of the annex. 

3.4. Movement of the building appeared longstanding with evidence of 

repeated previous remedial work to decorate over cracks internally and 

to fill external cracks with mortar and repaint. The more significant 

movement appeared to be to the Northern end with a recent crack of a 

few millimetres (mm) wide and evidence of a previously filled crack. 

Contrary to the above observations, the submitted ‘Preliminary Report’ 

stated that “Damage occurred suddenly over the summer of 2011”. 

3.5. The Arboricultural Report stated that analysis of root samples 

recovered from trial holes dug adjacent to the affected part of the 

building, confirmed the presence of beech roots beneath the 

foundations. In fact, from the 3 trial holes dug, no Beech roots were 

found. The nearest trial hole to the Beech tree provided one root 

sample that was too decayed for positive identification, but on which 

the laboratory commented “Possibly Beech”. No other relevant samples 

were recovered from any of the trial holes. 

3.6. The Arboricultural Report also stated that “Crack monitoring has 

confirmed the presence of soil recovery over the winter/spring and 

Page 231

supports the assertion that the damage is vegetation related”, but no 

monitoring results were submitted to support this. 

3.7. Public Amenity Value: When assessing trees for their amenity, 

preference should primarily be given to the largest and densest tree 

that the available site will conveniently contain. However, the 

suitability, health, age and character of the tree or tree group are also 

taken into consideration. This evaluation is summarised in “The 

Helliwell System” of scoring the amenity value of trees. 

3.8. The Council’s scoring system is based on The Helliwell System and 

gives trees a score out of 10, with a score of 3 currently adopted as 

normally being the minimum score needed to consider a tree or group 

of trees suitable for protection. 

3.9. Tree T.1 scores 5, indicating that it is suitable for protection by a TPO. 

4.0. SUPPLEMENTARY FACTS 

4.1. The other trees affected by the s211 notice (a Cypress and an Apple) 

were also considered for inclusion in this TPO, but were not considered 

to be of sufficient quality or public amenity value. They were not 

therefore included in the Order and as a result their removal has been 

allowed. 

4.2. The Notification proposed replacement planting, but stipulated that this 

must not have an ultimate height exceeding 7m, thereby precluding 

the planting of any species of an ultimate size that could begin to 

replace the amenity currently provided by tree T.1. 

4.3. A wide range of consultees were sent a copy of the Order and asked for 

their comments, but no responses were received (but see 5.1). 

5.0. COUNCILLOR COMMENTS – If no comments are received from 

one or more of the Ward Members consulted state which 

Councillor(s) did not respond 

5.1. Cllr Mrs Makinson-Sanders (Louth St Mary’s): 

Thanks for the information. It is a really important tree, so well done. 

6.0. DISCUSSION / CONSIDERATION – ISSUES / CONCLUSION – 

including reasons for recommendation(s) 

6.1. In determining a proposal to fell the tree, consideration had to be given 

as to whether the work was sufficiently justified, based on a level of 

evidence relevant to the value of the tree. 

6.2. The submitted information presented the case that sudden recent 

subsidence damage had occurred, that this was caused by soil 

Page 232

shrinkage as a result of vegetation, and that the Beech was a principle 

component of the vegetation responsible. 

6.3. It is however considered that each of these assertions was made 

without sufficient supporting evidence and that the link between the 

structural damage and the tree was not adequately demonstrated, 

given the value of the tree. 

6.4. Notwithstanding the above, it was also considered that alternatives to 

felling were not adequately explored. Given the importance of the tree, 

it was not unreasonable to expect all alternative remedies to have been 

explored, including the installation of a root barrier. 

6.5. Tree T.1 is the most prominent tree in this area of Louth and adjacent 

to one of the main roads through the town. Consequently it has 

significant amenity value and is considered suitable for ongoing 

protection by a TPO. 

7.0. OTHER OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION (drawn from previous 

sections) 

7.1. The committee may decide that the tree identified is not worthy 

of/suitable for protection by a TPO, in which case the decision not to 

confirm the TPO would be recorded and interested parties notified 

accordingly. The landowner would then be free to carry out any work to 

the tree, within 2 years of the date of their s211 notice. 

8.0. PERFORMANCE MONITORING 

Subject Deadline Responsible Officer 

8.1. Louth TPO 2013 (105.28) 8/5/13 R Taylor 

9.0. RISK ASSESSMENT 

9.1. N/A 

10.0. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS/IMPLICATIONS. PLEASE ALSO 

INCLUDE NAME OF OFFICER RESPONDING 

10.1. None 

11.0. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/IMPLICATIONS. PLEASE ALSO 

INCLUDE NAME OF OFFICER RESPONDING 

11.1. None 

12.0. INCLUDE IF APPROPRIATE AND ONLY BRIEF EXPLANATION OF 

ISSUE. PLEASE ALSO INCLUDE NAME OF OFFICER RESPONDING 

12.1. Environmental issues - 

Page 233

12.2. Human Resources - 

12.3. Section 17 - 

12.4. FOI/Human Rights/Data Protection - 

12.5. Equality and Diversity - 

13.0. HOW DO THE ACTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN 

THIS REPORT DELIVER OUR COMMUNITY AND CORPORATE 

STRATEGIES 

13.1. Community Strategy 

• The district to be a valued and attractive place to live, work and play 

13.2. Corporate Strategy 

• Developing and nurturing the character and viability of our towns, 

villages and rural areas 

• A high quality and clean local environment 

• Built and natural environments are enjoyed and valued by residents 

and visitors 

Page 234


GROUP II - APPLICATIONS DEFERRED BY COMMITTEE UPON 

WHICH VERBAL REPORTS CAN BE GIVEN AT THE MEETING 

S/153/01563/09 

------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Applicant: Mr. S. & Mrs. A. Grieve, 

Location: 

Proposal: 

TOWER COURT, BURGH ROAD, SKEGNESS, PE25 2RW 

Planning Permission – Erection of housing development 

consisting of 3no. bungalows, 2no. dormer bungalows and 14 

no. flats (total of 19 dwellings) on the site of existing buildings 

which are to be demolished, erection of a cycle store, provision 

of parking and construction of roadway in accordance with 

amended plan number A/1420-21 Rev J received by the Local 

Planning Authority from the applicants agents on 28th 

September 2009. 

Reason: Deferred 

------------------------------------------------------------------- 

N/105/02445/09 Applicant: Hi-Lite Signs Ltd, 

Location: 

Proposal: 

18-20 RAMSGATE ROAD, LOUTH, LN11 0NL 

Planning Permission – Change of use, conversion of, extensions 

and alterations to existing vacant building to provide 8 no. 

apartments, on the site of part of the existing building which is 

to be demolished. Erection of 1no. detached dwelling and 

provision of access and parking (total 9 no. dwellings) in 

accordance with amended plans received by the Local Planning 

Authority on 6th June, 2011. 

Reason: Awaiting S.106 Agreement 

------------------------------------------------------------------- 

N/105/02401/09 Applicant: Hi-Lite Signs Ltd, 

Location: 

18-20 RAMSGATE ROAD, LOUTH, LN11 0NL 

Page 1 of 2 

1 

Page 235

Proposal: 

Detailed Particulars relating to the erection of 6 no. semidetached 

houses, 3 no. detached houses, 3 no. blocks of 5 no. 

houses, 3 no. blocks of 4 no. houses and 1no. block of 3 no. 

houses, (total of 45 houses) erection of boundary walls to 

maximum height of 1.8 metres, provision of car parking, 

construction of estate roads, construction of a pedestrian/cycle 

ramp, and construction of a vehicular access, existing building 

on site to be demolished, (outline planning permission ref. No. 

N/105/1462/06 granted on the 26th September 2006 for the 

erection of a residential development) in accordance with the 


June, 2011, 17th June, 2011 and 4th July, 2011. 


------------------------------------------------------------------- 

N/110/00737/11 Applicant: Tesco Stores Ltd, 

Location: 

Proposal: 

LAND OFF, STATION ROAD, MABLETHORPE 

Planning Permission - Erection of a foodstore (Class A1) and 

associated works, access, parking and landscaping on the site of 

existing leisure centre and toilet block which are to be 

demolished. 


------------------------------------------------------------------- 

S/215/01679/12 Applicant: Manorcrest Homes Ltd., 

Location: 

Proposal: 

BENNETTS MILL DEVELOPMENT, ALBANY ROAD, WOODHALL SPA 

Planning Permission - Erection of 1 no. pair of semi detached 

bungalows, 1 no. detached house with detached double garage, 

4 no. pairs of semi detached houses with the erection of 3 no. 

single garages, 1 no. block of 3 no. terrace houses, 2 no. blocks 

of 4 no. terrace houses (total of 22 no. dwellings) with 

associated parking, access roads, culvert and boundary 

treatments to a maximum height of 2.06m in accordance with 


November, 2012, and 17th and 18th January, 2013. 

Reason: 

Awaiting S.106 Agreement 

Page 2 of 2 

2 

Page 236


Major Applications Protocol 

Monitoring reports on the following applications attached. 

N/084/00642/10 – Land at, Marsh Lane, Orby 

S/039/01184/12 – Land Adjacent Coddingtons Yard, Croft Bank, Croft 

N/178/01969/12 – Land at Bishopthorpe Farm, Bishopthorpe, Tetney 

Page 237


Page 238

Page 239

Page 240

Page 241

Page 242

Page 243


Page 244

Page 245

Page 246

Page 247

Page 248

Page 249


Page 250

Page 251

Page 252

Page 253

Page 254

Page 255


Page 256

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT, 1985 – BACKGROUND PAPERS 

CHECKLIST FOR DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEES AGENDA 

PLANNING APPLICATIONS – MATTERS UPON WHICH REPORTS ARE BASED 

1. Development Control 

a) East Lindsey Local Plan 

b) East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 

c) Other approved local plans 

d) County Structure Plan & Alterations 

e) Other adopted county subject plans 

2. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 

a) Planning Policy Guidance Notes 

b) Circulars 

c) Statutory Instruments 

d) Other relevant legislation 

3. Council Corporate Policies and Statements 

4. Town Council, Parish Council and Parish Meeting views 

5. Internal Consultations 

a) Chief Executive’s Department 

b) Environmental Services (Housing, Health, Pollution) 

c) Departmental – Conservation/ Forward Planning, Planning and Regeneration 

6. External Consultations 

a) Environment Agency 

b) Internal Drainage Boards 

c) LCC – Strategic Planning and Highways 

d) LCC – Archaeological Section 

e) Architectural Liaison Officer – Lincolnshire Police 

f) Countryside Agency 

g) Lincolnshire Trust National Conservation 

h) Ministry of Defence/Civil Aviation Authority 

i) Health and Safety Executive 

j) Lincolnshire Ramblers Association/Lincolnshire Footpaths 

k) Lincolnshire Health 

l) English Nature 

m) Campaign to Protect Rural England 

n) Forestry Commission 

o) Electricity Companies (YE/EME) 

p) British Gas 

q) Sports Council 

r) British Telecom 

s) Highways Agency 

t) Other specialised consultations where matters arise 


Itt-lp.checklist – DPDC10V10*04 

Page 257

7. Listed Building Consultations 

(depending on Grade and work involved) 

a) Lincolnshire Historic Buildings Joint Committee 

b) English Heritage 

c) Georgian Group 

d) Victorian Society 

e) Ancient Monument Society 

f) Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings 

g) Royal Commission of Historic Monuments 

h) Council of British Archaeology 

i) Heritage Lincolnshire 

j) Internal Conservation Team 

8. Consultations in Conservation Areas 

a) Local Amenity Groups 

9. Letters and notes relating to all types of applications 

a) From applicant (either forming part of application or supplementary information from 

NFU, PSA, GP etc) 

b) From members of staff as a result of: 

i. Internal consultation e.g. Forward Planning 

ii. Telephone conversations, meetings and discussions with applicant or 

interested parties 

10. Previous decision on relevant planning applications 

11. Relevant appeal decisions 

12. History of site and planning application’s background 

13. Previous decision of Planning Committee or Joint Planning Committee 

14. Notes made as a result of site inspections 

15. Legal advice 

a) Source used – Act or Statutory Instrument 

b) Interpretation by Chief Executive and Solicitor to the Council 

16. Letters and representations arising from: 

a) Neighbour notifications 

b) Advertisement 

c) Other sources – local knowledge, info from Elected Members or Parish Council 

17. Previous submitted reports to Planning Committees 


Page 258

Policy 

No. 

EAST LINDSEY LOCAL PLAN ALTERATION 1999 

ADOPTED “SAVED” POLICIES 

Short Description 

Policy 

No. 


GENERAL POLICIES FOR 

CONSERVATION AND DESIGN 

DEVELOPMENT 

A3 Local Areas and Settlement Hierarchy C1 Development and Demolition Affecting a 

Conservation Area 

A4 Protection of General Amenities C2 Development and Demolition Affecting a 

Listed Building 

A5 Quality of Design and Development C5 Historic Buildings 

PROTECTING AND IMPROVING C7 Historic Landscapes 

THE ENVIRONMENT 

ENV3 Foul and Surface Water Disposal C8 Planning for Disadvantaged Groups of 

People 

ENV15 Action Area Redevelopment Sites C10 Advance Directional Signs 

ENV16 Sites for Environmental Improvement C11 Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding 

Natural Beauty and Areas of Great 

Landscape Value 

ENV19 Local Sites of Nature Conservation 

Importance 

C12 Protection of Buildings in the AONB and 

AGLV 

ENV20 Protection of Habitats C14 Coastal Conservation Areas – CCA1 and 

CCA4 

ENV21 River Corridors C15 Coastal Conservation Areas – CCA2 and 

CCA3 

ENV24 Protection of Open Spaces and Frontages DEVELOPMENT IN THE 

COUNTRYSIDE 

TOURISM DC4 Intensive Livestock Units 

T1 Tourism Strategy DC5 Replacement Dwellings In The Countryside 

T2 Main Coastal Holiday Areas DC6 Re-use of Old Buildings In The Countryside 

T3 Holiday Service Centres DC7 Conversion of Farm Buildings into Houses 

T4 Mablethorpe and Skegness Foreshores EMPLOYMENT 

T5 Coastal Amusement Centres EMP1 Land Allocated for Industry 

T6 Amusement Centres Elsewhere EMP2 Business Support Facilities 

T7 Main Tourist Attractions EMP3 Other Sites for Industry 

T9 Hotel/Guesthouse/Bed and Breakfast 

EMP4 Business Parks 

Accommodation 

T10 Loss of Hotels EMP9 Telecommunications 

T12 New Visitor Accommodation SPORT AND RECREATION 

T13 Static Holiday Caravans REC1 Sport and Recreation Strategy 

T14 New Static Holiday Caravan Parks REC2 Main Sport and Formal Recreation 

T15 Touring Caravan or Camping Sites REC3 Loss of Sport and Formal Recreation 

Facilities 

T16 Holiday and Seasonal Occupancy REC4 Local and Informal Recreation 

T19 Visitor Transit Services REC6 Local Country Parks 

HOUSING REC9 Countryside Recreation: Outdoor 

H1 Allocated Housing Sites REC10 Countryside Recreation: Indoor 

H6 Low Cost Housing REC11 Noisy Sports 

H9 Creating Extra Accommodation In 

REC13 Golf Courses 

Existing Premises 

H10 Infilling and Subdivision of Gardens REC14 Commercial Horse Riding Facilities 

H12 Design of New Housing COMMUNITY FACILITIES 

H14 Residential Caravan Sites for Gypsies CF2 Loss of Key Community and Social 

Facilities 


Page 259

Policy 

No. 


Policy 

No. 


SHOPPING 

TRANSPORT 

S1 Shopping in Towns TR3 Road Design in New Development 

S4 Loss of Shops TR4 Protection of Existing Car Parking Spaces 

S5 Retailing From Industrial Estates or 

TR8 Tourist Parking Facilities 

Premises 

S6 Neighbourhood Shops TR9 Lorry Parks 

S7 Village Shops 

S8 Shops in the Countryside 

S9 Hot Food Takeaway Premises 


Page 260

Appeals Decided Between 

01/04/2013 and 30/04/2013 

Total 

Allowed with Conditions 2 

Dismissed 1 

Total 3 

Total 

Public Inquiry 1 

Written Representations 2 

Total 3 

Page 261 

Agenda Item 22


Page 262

Public reports pack PDF 4 MB - East Lindsey District Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?