Agenda and minutes

The Senior Planning Lawyer reported that notification has been received of the following substitutions for this meeting only:

• Councillor J Le Sage was replacing Councillor D Ashby
• Councillor R Gibson was replacing Councillor T Sneath

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 7 May 2025 (copy enclosed). 

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 7 May 2025.

• Members noted an omission at minute item 99 and asked for this to be rectified.

AGREED:

That the minutes be signed as a correct record, with the rectification of minute item 99.

(Where a Councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest the Councillor must declare the interest to the meeting and leave the room without participating in any discussion or making a statement on the item, except where a Councillor is permitted to remain as a result of a grant of dispensation.)

Councillor Bingham declared an interest in items 6 and 7 on the agenda due to his role as Portfolio Holder for Assets.

Councillor Bingham also declared an interest in item 8 as the applicant.

There were none.

Full application for Demolition of vacant former public house and erection of 86 bed care home including onsite parking amenity space and associated works at Former Bull and Monkie, Church Gate, Spalding (report of the Lead Development Manager (Interim) – BBC & SHDC enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Lead Development Management Planner (Interim) upon which the above application was to be determined, including their recommendations, copies of which had previously been circulated to all members. 

The case officer noted that a further eight letters of objection had been received from members of the public following the publication of the agenda. These would be recorded in the final report but there were no additional points to objections already received.

Members debated the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance, with the following comments being raised:

• The proposed development had been improved from its previous design. However, some concern was raised as to whether it was enough of an improvement as the height of the building would still dwarf those of the surrounding buildings.
• The proposed development would block the view of St Marys and St Nicholas church a Grade 1 listed building.
• Concern was raised that if the proposed development was not approved the site could remain derelict for another long period of time.
• There appeared to be a shortage of parking spaces for visitors and staff and there was a concern that cars may need to be parked along the riverside.
• There was concern that the entrance to the building would be very close to the nearby traffic lights and would therefore be a danger to vulnerable residents crossing the road.
• Noted that historically, the view of the church had been obscured by a building on the riverside.
• Recognition of that the proposed development would have a positive impact on the current state of the site but this did not outweigh the negatives.
• Concern that deliberate neglect of a site should not be taken into account under Paragraph 209 of the NPPF and a justification for the extent of harm to the conservation area in this application had only been provided based on the issue of viability, but no viability statement had been appended to the application.
  • Officers clarified that this site was not a case of deliberate neglect and therefore this paragraph of the NPPF did not apply here.
• The proposed development was not wholly exceptional for the development of a brownfield site and therefore it needed to be shown that there was significant benefit which outweighed the substantial harm created by the proposed development.
• Concern that there hadn’t been any demonstration within the documentation that the sequential test for flood risk had been met with alternative sites not having been tested to see if they were reasonable for the proposed development.
  • Officers confirmed that they were content with the sequential test that had been conducted.
• There did not appear to be a surface water drainage condition included within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Full application for Proposed single storey side extension at 239 Pennygate, Spalding (report of the Lead Development Management Planner (Interim) – BBC & SHDC enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Lead Development Management Planner (Interim) upon which the above application was to be determined, including their recommendations, copies of which had previously been circulated to all members.

Councillor I Sheard was in attendance as the ward member on this application and stated that while concerns had been raised with her by residents, these had been allayed by officer’s presentation.

Members debated the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance, with the following comments being raised:

• Concern was raised that the highways authority had stated in their comments that an increase of bedrooms would require three car parking space. The proposed extension would cover two current parking spaces, resulting in a total loss of parking, but this had not been addressed within the report.
  • Officers clarify that there were no concerns regarding significant harm to highway safety, but the loss of parking spaces was not ideal.
• There were trees on site that could be within influencing distance of the proposed extension, but this had not been addressed within the report.
  • Officers confirmed that these were not protected trees and therefore could be felled.
• Queried whether right to buy would be available for the tenant where the Council had funded the extension of the property.
  • Officers confirmed that this was not a planning matter and information regarding this could be obtained by the Housing team.

The full debate was not repeated here as a livestream of this Planning Committee Meeting could be viewed on South Holland District Council’s Facebook page for a limited period of time, in line with the Democratic Services Privacy Notice.

AGREED:

That permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at section 9.0 of the report.

(Moved by Councillor Redgate, Seconded by Councillor Taylor)

Full application for Single storey rear extension at 96 Railway Lane South, Sutton Bridge, Spalding (report of the Lead Development Management Planner (Interim) – BBC & SHDC enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Lead Development Management Planner (Interim) upon which the above application was to be determined, including their recommendations, copies of which had previously been circulated to all members.

Members debated the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance, with the following comments being raised:

• The proposed development would be almost invisible from the highway as it would be located at the rear of the property.
• It was positive that changes were being made to the existing housing stock to accommodate families in the area.
• The bedroom size within the proposed extension, at 5 meters, raised concern that it could be used for multiple occupancy.

The full debate was not repeated here as a livestream of this Planning Committee Meeting could be viewed on South Holland District Council’s Facebook page for a limited period of time, in line with the Democratic Services Privacy Notice.

AGREED:

That permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at section 9.0 of the report.

(Moved by Councillor Brewis, Seconded by Councillor Redgate)

Full application for Proposed Self-Build Detached Dwelling at Land to South of 103 Quadring Road, Donington (report of the Lead Development Management Planner (Interim) – BBC & SHDC enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Lead Development Management Planner (Interim) upon which the above application was to be determined, including their recommendations, copies of which had previously been circulated to all members.

Members debated the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance, with the following comments being raised:

• Given that the applicant was a District Councillor, further scrutiny was required to ensure that public perception did not perceive this being approved without a robust discussion.
• The report was excellent with detailed references to the policies and legislation for self-build included.
• Similar applications within the open countryside had been refused for their location but all applications needed to be heard on their own merit.
• Whether the proposed development was of exemplar design and would improve the surrounding area.
• There was no suitable area for a property of this size to be situated within the red boundary line set out in the Local Plan.
• Concern that the proposed development was too far outside of the red boundary line and that it would harm the open countryside.
• That there were surrounding properties in close proximity to the proposed development and therefore lessened its impact on the open countryside.
• The proposed development was substantial and unsympathetic to the surrounding area, harming its character and view.
• Concern was raised that as part of the sequential test there was no justification provided by the applicant to demonstrate why the development could not be built in a lower flood risk area or within the red line boundary.
• The proposed development conflicted with the development plan and while the self-build element carried some weight, this was limited given the scale of the development.

The full debate was not repeated here as a livestream of this Planning Committee Meeting could be viewed on South Holland District Council’s Facebook page for a limited period of time, in line with the Democratic Services Privacy Notice.

AGREED:

That permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at section 9.0 of the report, along with a Unilateral Undertaking to secure the self build nature of the development.

(Moved by Councillor Casson, Seconded by Councillor Redgate)

To provide an update on recent appeal decisions (report of the Development Manager enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Lead Development Management Planner (Interim) which provided an update on recent appeal decisions.

Members were advised to contact the relevant case officer should there be any queries or points of clarity required on any of the appeal decisions included within the report.

AGREED:

That the report be noted.

There were none.

There were none.