94

______

MINUTES OF THE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON

MONDAY 9th JUNE 2014 AT LEGBOURNE COMMUNITY CENTRE

PRESENT Cllrs: J Green (Chairman), P King, E Collins, P Maw, K York, M Chapman, D Harrison the Clerk Mrs J Brown. Craig Leyland, Portfolio Holder ELDC, David Loveday, Planning Officer ELDC, District Cllr A Grist & two members of the public

0727  CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS – The Chairman welcomed everybody

PUBLIC COMMENTS: Residents raised the planning application outside of the village boundary on Station Road that had been granted under delegated powers although it was in open countryside & another application outside of the boundary on Mill Lane which was a narrow road & the lorries that would be required to deliver the associated building materials would cause serious problems & expressed concern at the potential for extending & altering the structure of the village from such applications; they also expressed concern over planning applications for wind turbines that were near to the village boundaries but in open countryside.

0728  APOLOGIES – None

0729  MINUTES – The notes of the Annual Council Meeting & Parish Council Meeting held on Monday 12th May 2014 were approved as Minutes and the Chairman signed them p MC s PM. There were no matters arising.

The Chairman moved the item regarding N/100/00276/14 up the agenda to enable the visitors to leave following discussions.

0730  LETTER & RESPONSE REGARDING N/100/00276/14 – Mrs J Casswell

The Council noted the letter & supporting information forwarded to Mr Panton regarding Application N/100/00276/14 – Mrs J Casswell, that requested the decision to grant planning permission be rescinded following the failure of the Planning Officer to respond to requests from the Clerk to check the web site due to difficulties with inputting the Parish Council’s objection which ultimately was not retained in full & the permission being granted under delegation & the acknowledgement of an investigation into the issue & the reply from Mr Panton.

Cllr Leyland & Loveday had attended following receipt of the Councils letter; Cllr King put forward some initial questions on the reply from Mr Panton:

a.  The application was on ‘Discounted Land’ but had been allowed because it was on the frontage of that land – why would building be allowed on the frontage and not the rest of the land? Mr Loveday promised to forward a copy of the Planning Officers Report; Mr Loveday read out the Officers Report which noted the need to supply five years need of housing supply. The National Planning Policy Framework moved away from boundary lines around villages for building which opens up sites outside of settlement boundaries to fulfil the housing numbers required as there was a shortage of land available. Mr Loveday stressed that the numbers of houses required in East Lindsey needed to be fulfilled & there were a number of applications already passed that would never be built & increased the pressure to build elsewhere. He noted the larger applications that had been turned down, one in Louth & one in Horncastle especially by the Planning Committee against Officers advice & agreed that the small number of houses granted in the villages would not help the numbers required dramatically but stressed that in this case the need for housing trumped anything else. Mr Loveday’s strong advice to the Council was that for any similar applications they request that they are ‘called in’ which would ensure they would go to Committee.

Cllr Chapman commented as Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning Committee that they had been advised that it was a disallowed site; how could Plans or Policies be made if it was receiving ineffectual information? Cllr Grist asked if it was worth Parish Councils creating Neighbourhood Plans & Cllr Leyland said yes it was as the position would be different when the Council had a Core Strategy & it would be worth the effort.

Cllr Leyland noted that there were communication issues & outlined things that ELDC had introduced to improve communications & promised to look at the Council’s concerns over their website not retaining the objection & the officer not responding to the Clerk’s email requesting confirmation that the comments had been retained as she had input them twice due to an apparent problem; Mr Loveday advised that this email had apparently gone into the Deleted folder of his computer. Mr Loveday could offer no explanation for this. He also commented that he would like to see larger applications being received which would take some of the pressure for housing numbers off.

b.  The inaccuracies in the application in terms of them appearing to be based on another village, wrong information on the number of schools in the village, no public house etc. was raised & Mr Loveday was asked if the Planning Office would have read the application, discovered abnormalities and should these not have been picked up on? Mr Loveday noted that he would have read the application & that those items would not have made any difference to the decision made. Cllr Grist commented that surely the inaccuracies should be contained within the file/report so that they were visibly noted for reference? Mr Loveday believed that would be too time consuming.

c.  Cllr King noted that current Planning Policies tried to protect settlement from sprawl & feared that the granting of the application set a precedent for further applications. Mr Loveday stated that it did not set a precedent as far as the planning department was concerned and wished to allay the Councils fears on that. He outlined the issues caused by the Government’s growth agenda & the Localism Act & added that ELDC were constantly looking for ways to work within these parameters. The Chairman strongly versed the opinion that there was something wrong with the issue.

Mr Loveday was asked what argument planning would use if an application came in for two more houses. He responded impact, and commented on planning by stealth was impossible to give any guarantees over. He believed that frontage had been considered okay but the areas behind would not be okay when considered & asked for trust & commented that they did not ignore Parish Councils when comments were made to them & that had the Parish Council objected it would probably have been sent to the Planning Committee. Mr Loveday was reminded that the Council had commented but that the ELDC system had lost it The Chairman noted that a drawing had been seen that had more than two houses on it and Council was aware that this had not been seen by Planning. Mr Loveday commented that it was unlikely the decision would be rescinded due to compensation that would have to be paid to the applicant.

Cllr Grist noted that he was quite surprised to see that decisions were being made under delegation now – Mr Loveday confirmed that changes had been made to allow that & to free up the number of applications that went to Planning Committee.

d.  The Council commented that it found it extraordinary that Highways had not raised concerns over the entry to the proposed houses; Mr Loveday explained that Highways used a programme to agree or disagree & evidently had found it okay. The site was near a bend and visibility of vehicles coming from the village was extremely poor & the Council confirmed that it found the decision wrong.

Mr Loveday said that the Council’s comments were well made and they would go away and talk about them and he urged the Council to call in any applications that concerned them in future. When asked if the National Framework overruled the Local Plan & whether the consent had been given for purely numbers, Mr Loveday responded yes.

A discussion was carried out on the procedure for inputting comments & the mishap that had occurred & Cllr Leyland promised it would be looked into further.

Cllr Leyland and Mr Loveday left the meeting.

Following debate it was resolved to write further to Cllr Leyland and Mr Loveday raising unsolved issues.

0731  DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST – Cllr Harrison declared his interest in Planning Application N/100/00926/14.

0732  CLERKS REPORT – Comments forwarded to ELDC regarding the potential sale of the Livestock Market that the Council felt it appropriate that the farming community & market forces should dictate the outcome; budget allocation created for the Neighbourhood Plan funds received by way of grant & street light & pot holes reported.

0733  COMMUNITY EMERGENCY PLAN – The Clerk had written letters to both the PCC & Community Centre requesting permission to use their facilities for the community in the event of any emergency & these were noted. Cllr Chapman was advised of the size of cupboard available at the Church for storage was 13x13x22 – Cllr Chapman to contact the Church.

0734  ANNUAL PARISH MEETING – The notes of the meeting held on Thursday 15th May 2014 had been circulated; a response from County Councillor Hugo Marfleet regarding Broadband supply had also been circulated. The Council considered the points raised at the meeting from residents & it was resolved that the Clerk should agenda Daffodil planting by the village entrance gates for later in the year & include the preparation of a policy with regard to visiting sites of planning applications on the July agenda.

0735  EAST LINDSEY DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED HOUSING TARGET & PREFERRED GROWTH OPTION – The Council was of the opinion that 75 new houses for Legbourne over 15 years was too many; residents appeared to also share this view. Cllr Chapman to put a response together & circulate to Councillors & the Clerk.

0736  NALC DRAFT FINANCIAL REGULATIONS – Clerk to recirculate for July meeting & Council to consider the regulations especially with regard to Internet Banking requirements & in line with the drafted document prepared by the Clerk for payment authorisation & Council to resolve action to be taken

0737  PLANNING APPLICATIONS:

Cllr D Harrison left the meeting.

Requiring Comment:

N/100/00926/14 – Mr D Harrison – Planning Permission – Erection of a house & attached triple garage – Land adjacent The Woodlands, Mill Lane, Legbourne & following extensive debate it was resolved to object to the application on the grounds of it being outside of the building line, issues already within the village with regard to drainage & the pumping station & that the building would create sprawl with the result that Legbourne would creep towards Little Cawthorpe.

Cllr Harrison returned to the meeting.

N/100/00767/14 – Mrs T Hyde – Listed Building Consent – External alterations to provide a replacement roof to original part of bungalow – Colonial Cottage, Watery Lane, Little Cawthorpe – following debate it was resolved to offer no comment.

N/100/00850/14 – Mr P Tipper – Planning Permission – Erection of 1 holiday lodge on the site of an existing holiday lodge which is to be removed – Kenwick Park, Kenwick Hill, Kenwick, Louth (also with Legbourne/Tathwell CP) following debate it was resolved to offer no comments.

N/100/00969/14 - HJW Developments – Planning Permission – Erection of a storage building with 2 offices on the site of an existing storage building which is to be demolished – Furze Farm, Manby Road, Legbourne following debate it was resolved to offer no comments.

N/100/01012/14 – Kenwick Park Hotel Ltd – Application to vary condition 10 stating ‘The Holiday lodges must only be occupied & managed in accordance with the details approved under application N/174/01482/07 for the lodges to remain in holiday occupation & as a holiday business managed in connection with, and as part of, the existing hotel on the site with the site remaining as a single planning unit to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority’ to ‘The Holiday Lodges must only be occupied & managed in accordance with the details approved under application no. N/174/01482/07 for the lodges to remain in holiday occupation & as a holiday business managed in connection with & as part of the existing hotel on the site to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority’. Imposed on planning permission ref N/100/00132/11. – Kenwick Park, Kenwick Hill, Kenwick, Louth & following clarification of the wording it was resolved to support the application.

N/101/01680/13 – Grantham Industries Ltd – Planning Permission – Erection of a detached agricultural building to use for the housing of cattle & for the storage of machinery, straw & cattle food – Land at Manby Airfield, Manby Park, Manby, Louth) & N/101/02491/13 – Grantham Brothers Ltd – Planning Permission – Erection of windbreaks (comprising of earth banks with straw bales on top) to a maximum height of 6.3m, formation of 2 surface water drainage lagoons, erection of a feed stock clamp, erection of 6 lighting columns to a max height of approx. 5.7 metres in association with existing cattle rearing operation (already partly constructed) – Land at Manby Airfield, Manby Park, Manby, Louth – the documents were noted.

Decisions Received:

0738  NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN – Cllr Chapman reported that the analysis of the questionnaire responses was almost finished & would then be circulated to everyone; the results would be placed in Yellow Pages and on the web site; some large maps had been requested from ELDC & would be used for residents to put suggestions on. An advert had been placed in Louth Leader regarding the Neighbourhood Plan and asking for opinions and comments. A work plan which would divide out the tasks was being created.