Agenda and minutes

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

·         Councillor Barnes was replacing Councillor Tennant.

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2025 (copy enclosed). 

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2025.

AGREED:

That the minutes be signed as a correct record.

(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.)

There were none.

There were none.

Full application for use of site to construct new primary substation at Land West of Branches Lane, Holbeach, Spalding (report of the Development Manager enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager 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 temporary car park had been shown on the plan but not mentioned on the report. Would this be conditioned to ensure it was restored to agricultural land?
  • Officers responded that if planning consent were granted, temporary access and car parking would generally be covered by permitted development rights so would only require separate consent if it were to become a permanent feature.
• Requested that underground cabling be made a condition to avoid pylons being put in place.
  • Officers confirmed that electrical infrastructure was covered by permitted development rights and pylon construction could not be controlled through planning conditions in this case.
• Disappointed that suggested hedging on the north side was discounted.
• Questioned the need for a substation in Fleet that would service Holbeach and why other sites had not been looked into.
  • Officers confirmed that the applicant had provided a statement that explained the process of choosing the site and how other sites were discounted.
• Queried why the application was referred to Chairman’s Panel first rather than automatically being presented to Planning Committee, given SHDC’s strong support.
  • Officers responded that SHDC was not the applicant or the landowner and therefore constitutionally, the application was correctly presented to Chairman’s Panel first.
  • It was also added that the SHDC had been involved in assessing district-wide energy needs which had shown that current network capacity would be exhausted by 2027 and an upgrade was required in this area, not the choosing of a particular site.
  • The Council’s involvement in this application was strategic, based on energy capacity planning rather than operationally choosing a site. Without a new substation the district would not be able to deliver housing and industry at the levels set out in the Local Plan.
• Would the building itself ensure that noise levels from operation were kept to a minimum?
  • Officers responded that there was a condition included for a construction management plan but in terms of the operation of the substation, the Council’s Environmental Protection team had not raised any concerns.
• The notion that this building was visually similar to agricultural buildings across the district and therefore didn’t need to be screened was incorrect as most agricultural buildings were expected to have some sort of screening.
• Were the conditions relating to any screening and biodiversity actually enforceable?
  • Officers confirmed that they were enforceable, and the screening involved would be a landscaping scheme to soften the visual impact rather than full screening.
• Could the landscaping condition go further to insist that screening was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Section 73 modification application for demolition of existing swimming pool building following the construction of a two storey extension including basement area to existing Castle Sports Complex building to provide new and upgrade indoor leisure and health related facilities including two new swimming pools, plant area and changing rooms. Reconfiguration of exiting building to provide new and upgraded sports facilities and physical activity facilities and related supporting services. Provision of a new 3G artificial turf pitch (ATP), an Informal Outdoor Games Area (IOGA), other outdoor play areas, an informal running trail/track, a health and well being garden and an outdoor splash pad relating to the new swimming pool. The provision of supporting infrastructure including additional car parking and landscaped areas – Approved under H16-0462-24. Modification to Condition 2 to allow amendments to previously approved plans & modification to Conditions 3, 7 & 25 to allow amendment to wording at Castle Sports Complex, Albion Street, Spalding (report of the Development Manager enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager 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:

• Asked for a brief summary of the planning officer’s response to the late letter received from the local MP.
  • Officers responded that the vast majority of the points raised within the letter were not material to the application being considered.
  • Officers were happy to pass the comments made onto the team working on the design of the scheme.

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 Bingham, Seconded by Councillor Beal)

Full application for conversion of existing steel framed building to self build dwelling at Land off High Road, Moulton, Spalding (report of the Development Manager enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager 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:

• Agreed that the application did not meet policy requirements, but the location was screened so you would not see the property from the road and the design would be in keeping with the holiday lodges that were already on site.
  • Officers responded that the screening in place did not make the application location a sustainable site and by the same rationale houses could then be put in woodlands across the district.
  • The approval of a site for holiday use did not make it suitable for residential use.
• Felt it met the statement in paragraph 7.15 that the development led to an enhancement of its immediate surroundings and the design had been done to a very high standard.
• This application had different circumstances to other self-build applications in the open countryside.
• The level of design presented would not have been possible with a barn that was of a higher architectural relevance.
• The site had well established boundaries and the proposal would enhance this site further.
• The conversion of existing buildings was important, and the scale had already been established from the existing building so this was unlikely to cause any harm to the surrounding community.
• Supportive of the officer’s recommendation as the surrounding holiday lodges were not included in the red line boundary of the application and therefore should not be considered.
• There was a danger that approving this application would open the floodgates to more steel barns being converted in the open countryside.
• The design of the proposal was good, but it was not exceptional and therefore did not outweigh the conflict with the Local Plan policies and any approval would undermine our own development plan.
• Design was subjective and down to personal opinion
  • Officers responded that the threshold for design in the NPPF was that of truly innovative and outstanding and they did not feel that this particular design reached that threshold.
• Would this type of building have been classified as Class Q?
  • Officers confirmed that they would not be Class Q as they would extend the footprint of the building and any building works within that class would need to be minimal.
• The policies allowed for self-build proposals to come forward in sustainable locations. The application’s location was not in the middle of the countryside and was only around 200m from the main road so could be seen as a sustainable location.
  • Officers responded that within the local plan, the location of the application was open countryside, and the relevant policies applied.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

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

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager 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.

Officers were thanked for their work on the appeal for an application in Sutton Bridge.

AGREED:

That the report be noted.

To report on the conclusions of the Performance Monitoring Panel and to invite the Committee to submit any comments back to the Panel, following the review/tour undertaken with members (report of the Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure which provided conclusions of the Performance Monitoring Panel and invited the Committee to submit any comments back to the Panel following the review/tour undertaken with members.

Members commented that they were impressed with some developments but unimpressed with others. Electricity boxes continued to be a problem with placement on the front of houses and whole estates in one brick colour were very uninteresting and should be avoided in the future. Furthermore, the parking of cars in front of houses with no front gardens was particularly disliked.

AGREED:

That the Planning Committee considers the conclusions drawn from the Performance Monitoring Panel and notes the report.

There were none.

There were none.