Louth Town Council - Working with the community to make Louth a better place to live and work

Minutes of the Planning Meeting 6th May 2021





Present                                            Councillor D. Hobson (DH), (in the chair).


Councillors:       Mrs. E. Ballard (EB), J Baskett (JB), M. Bellwood (MB), L. Cooney (LMC), A. Cox (AC), S. Crew (SC), H. Filer (HF), D. Ford (DF), J. Garrett (JG), D.J.E. Hall (DJEH), G. Horton (GEH), D. Jackman (DJ), A. Leonard (AL), Mrs. S.E. Locking (SEL), Mrs. J. Makinson-Sanders (JMS), K. Norman (KN), J. Simmons (JS), F.W.P. Treanor (FWPT) and Mrs. P.F. Watson (PFW).


Councillors not present: D.E. Wing (DEW).


The Town Clerk, Mrs. L.M. Phillips and the Town Clerk’s Assistant, Mrs. M.C. Vincent were also present.



P1.            Election of the Planning Committee Chairman
It was RESOLVED that Cllr. SC be elected as Chairman.  Cllr. SC took the Chair.


P2.            Election of the Planning Committee Vice Chairman
It was RESOLVED that Cllr. KN should be elected as Vice Chairman.


P3.            Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor DEW.


P4.            Declarations of Interest / Dispensations
The following declarations of interest were made:

a.      Cllr. Mrs. JMS – items 6, 7 and 10 with regards to membership of ELDC

b.     Cllr. A L- items 6, 7 and 10 with regards to membership of ELDC

c.      Cllr. DJEH – items 6, 7 and 10 with regards to membership of ELDC Planning Committee.

d.     Cllr. GEH – items 6, 7 and 10 with regards to membership of ELDC and Planning application 8 as known to the applicant (Cllr. wont vote).

e.      Cllr. Mrs. EB – Planning application 11 as known to the applicant (Cllr. wont vote).


P5.            Minutes
It was RESOLVED that the notes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 13th April 2021 be approved as the Minutes.


P6.            Applications received by the Local Planning Authority
The Committee considered all planning applications received, including those listed on the schedule (PA/Schedule 05-06-20) and RESOLVED as follows:

a.      N/105/00704/21 – Land off Kenwick Gardens – to continue to object on the grounds previously raised (on 8th October 2019) in regard to the related outline planning permission application reference N/105/01569/19. LTC felt that its objections to the outline application still stood and ask that they be taken into account again here. It would add that frequent flooding nearby on Kenwick Road is not address by the flood assessment. The Council wished to see attenuation ponds fenced to ensure the safety of young children and measures put in place, in advance, to maintain them for the next ten years. The Council felt that the houses lacked detailing to make them harmonious with those already surrounding.

b.     N/105/00722/21 – 73 Eastgate – objected to the form the security gate takes as proposed in this application but might be minded to support if the design were changed.

c.      N/105/00592/21 – The Paddocks, 114 Horncastle Road – supported this application but have general concerns about the aesthetics in an AONB.

d.     N/105/02041/20 – Hallam’s Close – originally objected to this application on 17th November 2020 (reasons immediately below).  After further consultation and discussion on 19th January 2021 it resolved to reiterate previous objections and add to them, see section below marked ‘Additional Comments’ and after consideration again on 6th May 2021 it resolved to continue to object for those reasons given on previous occasions, which while relating to previous applications are still valid in regard to this amendment.  The Council also wished to reiterate that it does not feel that there is a need for a large shed with sleeping area.  Access on this unadopted road is poor and parking, sightseeing and particularly commercial deliveries to site would be impossible with no lorry access and turning circle, there is inadequate servicing to the site.  It would be highly dangerous for lorries to attempt delivery as they would need to reverse out along the entire length of the road to exit.  The inevitable increase in traffic generated by this venture and increased delivery activity would have a negative impact on access and highway safety and would cause noise and disturbance to neighbours.  How could the business and the health of the Llamas be sustained with little or no services to site.  The proposals will have a detrimental effect on the AONB in which the site is located.  If any kind of building is erected it will be a departure from the historical use and layout of the land, no matter where on the site a building is sited it will have a negative impact on the publics visual amenity in the AONB and the noise and disturbance generated by visitors to the site and increased traffic will harm the peaceful surroundings, increase pollution in the area, set a precedent in the AONB and stray from the traditional vernacular of the area.  The Council feel that this site does not lend itself to this use and finally, it is concerned that the objection submitted to ELDC by Mrs. Furlong on 8th April 2021 should be heeded.  Particularly, that part of Mrs. Furlong’s objection which related to wide ridge and furrow ploughing remains which can be seen on the site.  The Council felt that these should be thoroughly investigated and in this regard recommended that an archaeological survey should be undertaken to explore the site.  The Council also has concerns about the nearby public footpath and its users.

i.     Access and Highway Safety / Traffic Generation
The access road leading to the site (Julian Bower) is a narrow, single car, farm track which is unadopted and not suitable for the level of traffic which this venture will generate and which should not be used for commercial purposes.  If a commercial venture, such as this, is to be run from a site along Julian Bower the road should be adopted and made into a proper two lane road.
The junction of Julian Bower with London Road is extremely dangerous being located on the brow of a hill, where vehicles entering the town from the countryside often crest the hill travelling too fast.

ii.     Relevant Previous Planning History / Noise and Disturbance from the Scheme
Louth Town Council are concerned that this business has been running for a number of months without the correct permissions.  It believes that these proposals constitute over intensive use of a site sold 18 months ago for horses which has resulted in the residents of Julian Bower being subjected to constant upset and disruption since commercial activity on the site commenced.  The amount of passing traffic has increased exponentially, this has damaged the surface of the road, cars are using people’s driveways to turn around in, cars are parking down the road, blocking it, endangering lives as emergency vehicles would struggle to pass and causing a nuisance etc.  The amount of pedestrians using the road has also increased significantly too and there is no public footpath.  The Police have also had to be involved because of breaches of the peace.

iii.     Other Concerns
Louth Town Council is concerned that:

1.      Approval of this application will set a dangerous precedent as it is afraid that it is the lead up to other applications for a residential dwelling(s) and other businesses on the site.

2.      This application and any made in the future will both individually and cumulatively have a detrimental effect on the AONB within which the site is located

3.      Health and Safety is being breached by allowing Llamas in the vicinity of people eating picnics.

4.      This application proposes that a gate across Julian Bower itself be installed, which would be wholly unacceptable and surely illegal.

5.      This application would necessitate the use of floodlights which would be a nuisance and source of light pollution.

6.      An emergency sleeping room has been proposed. This is wholly unacceptable, unrequired for such livestock and has not been necessary in the past eighteen months.

iv.     Additional Comments
Louth Town Council discussed the above application on 19th January, following submission by the applicant of additional supporting documents.  Louth Town Council resolved to object again as it felt that these documents do not address all of the concerns raised originally by the Town Council in relation to access and traffic.  They also raised further objections as follows:

1.      Traffic generation/Noise and disturbance/Adequate parking and servicing/Overlooking and loss of privacy
The Council were concerned to note that within the documentation it is mentioned numerously that approval of the proposals will result in a very limited increase in use of the road.  However, the Council questioned these statements, given the proposals to provide additional services such as birthday parties, refreshment facilities for walkers and community events.

2.      Overbearing nature of proposal/Public Visual Amenity/Loss of ecological habitats

a.      The Council were concerned that the building proposed for the site is described as small when it is the equivalent size of a 3 bedroom house and at 6 meters tall it will tower over the landscape and block views of the AONB in which the site is located.

b.     The Council were also concerned that as the site is located in the AONB account should be taken of how such an important area would be protected and how biodiversity would be properly managed across the site by the scheme.  Further comments from other organisations such as The Lincolnshire Wolds Countryside Service and The Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust plus those from the Historical Officer and all pertaining to the site being of scientific interest have not been dealt with.

v.     Other Concerns
The Council were dismayed to hear that a wooden access style on the edge of the field had been damaged and not fixed, hindering the publics use of the public footpath running through the site.  The Council also heard that appropriate fencing had not been installed and consequently the Llamas were escaping on a regular basis.  The Council considered that sleeping quarters were not necessary on site as Llama’s are traditionally ‘left out’ and have no need for human intervention.

e.      All other applications were supported.


P7.            Planning Correspondence
The Committee noted the following planning correspondence:

a.      ELDC Planning Decisions
Approved – N/105/02261/20 – Planning Permission – Former Park Ave Football Ground – LTC supported with condition.

i.     Approved – N/105/02122/20 – Planning Permission – Little Lane – LTC Supported.

ii.     Approved – N/105/00416/21 – Section 73 – Drive through Bolingbroke Road – LTC supported.

iii.     Approved – N/105/00108/21 – Planning Permission – 11 Grosvenor Road – LTC supported.

iv.     Approved – N/105/00340/21 – Planning Permission – Allinson House, Lincoln Way – LTC supported with condition.

v.     Approved – N/105/02056/20 – Listed Building Consent – 78 Westgate – LTC supported.

vi.     Approved – N/105/00350/21 – Planning Permission – 134 Eastgate – LTC supported.

b.     Withdrawn Applications

i.     N/105/00495/21 – Listed Building Consent – 19 Mercer Row

ii.     N/105/00111/21 – Planning Permission – Holly Tree Cottage, 19 Lee Street

c.      Enforcement

i.     Land off Alexander Drive, Louth – Untidy land

d.     Temporary Road Closures

REASON FOR RESTRICTION Scaffold installation
LOCATION & NATURE OF RESTRICTION:  Road Closure Order in place on: Northgate/Cannon Street and Chequergate/Nichol Hill
PERIOD OF RESTRICTION:  2/5/21 – 9/5/21

REASON FOR RESTRICTION To enable social distancing with Pavement Cafe
PERIOD OF RESTRICTION:  Between 29/3/21 and 3/10/2021 Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and SUNDAYS every week.


P8.            Working Group
It was RESOLVED to re-establish the Planning working group which reports directly to the Planning Committee, approve the terms of reference, as circulated with the agenda and that all Councillors be members.


P9.            Street Naming
It was RESOLVED that a request be sent to extend the name Kenwick Gardens to the proposed new builds, but that if this was not possible, to agree to name it Kenwick View.


P10.         Proposed Works to Trees
It was RESOLVED to ratify the following proposed tree work as an extension of time to make the decision could not be obtained.
Location: Byford House, 149A Eastgate.  Proposal: T1 – Cypress – Fell and T2 – Yew – Fell.



The Meeting Closed at 8:48pm.





Signed_______________________ (Chairman)                Dated_________________________