northlincs.gov.uk

Planning Committee – 12 December 2018

Chairman: Councillor N Sherwood
Venue: The Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Scunthorpe
Time: 2 pm
Email address:    planningcommittee@northlincs.gov.uk

AGENDA

1.  Substitutions.
2.  Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and Personal or Personal and Prejudicial Interests, significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (Lobbying) and Whipping Arrangements (if any).
3.  Applications deferred from previous meetings for a site visit.
4.  Major Planning Applications
5.  Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
6.  Any other items, which the chairman decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances, which must be specified.

Note: All reports are by the Group Manager –Development Management and building Control unless otherwise stated.

MINUTES

PRESENT: – Councillor N Sherwood (Chair)

Councillors Evison (Vice-Chairman), Bainbridge, Collinson, J Davison, Glover, Grant, Longcake, Oldfield and Wells

Councillor(s) Briggs, L Foster, Ogg, Robinson, Rose and Rowson attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 37(b).

The committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.

1922   DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) AND WHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS (IF ANY) – The following members declared a personal interest:-

The following members declared that they had been lobbied:-

1923   APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken site visits on the morning of the meeting. The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control submitted reports and updated them orally.

(i)  PA/2017/1975 by Mr A Carruthers for outline planning permission to erect up to 23 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for subsequent approval off Westgate Road, Westgate, Belton.

Prior to consideration of the item, an objector addressed the committee. He stated that over 100 residents of Belton had objected to this application. Members had visited the site and could clearly see the impact the application would have on the village. There was no policy justification for granting this application. The development would have a detrimental impact on the local heritage and archaeology sites. An Ecological Assessment had been undertaken, the findings of which were questionable. The local primary school was already at its capacity and could not cater for any more children moving in to the village.

The applicant’s agent addressed the members. He confirmed that the site visit was helpful and allowed the committee to consider the application in its entirety. The development would be integrated in to the local surroundings. The lack of a five-year housing supply strategy was not helpful. The development was sustainable. There was ease of access to public transport, footpaths and local schools. The development would not impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties. The heritage issue had now been addressed. There was no ecological hardship and there was capacity in the local schools for new families moving in to the area.

Councillor Robinson, local ward member addressed the committee and spoke against the grant of the application. The development was, in his opinion, inappropriate for Belton. The site was of special historic interest. The site would be saturated by the development, it was not infill. Local schools would not be able to cater for all the families that may move in to the properties once built. The application should be refused due to policies LC14, CS6 and CS2.

The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control provided an update on the Ecological impact at the site and the Biodiversity Management Plan.

Councillor Evison stated that he found the site visit useful. He had reservations about the application, particularly the over development of the site. Access to the site was poor. He agreed with Councillor Robinson that the site was contrary to policy LC14 and LC11.

Councillor Bainbridge stated the application was only for outline permission, therefore, the application could not be refused. The concerns of local residents were understandable, but they had now been addressed.

Councillor Grant agreed that the application should not be refused. The development was in the right place, within a residential area.

Councillor Glover believed that the site would result in overdevelopment. Access to the site was poor and as a result was dangerous.

It was then moved by Councillor Evison and seconded by Councillor Glover –

That planning permission be refused, for the following reasons –

Due to the number of residential units proposed, and their location, the proposal was considered to constitute unsustainable development. The proposed development would also result in unacceptable encroachment into Belton Open Field, an area of historic landscape interest, which would adversely affect its setting. Accordingly, the proposed development was considered to be contrary to policies CS2 and CS6 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and policies LC14 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Motion Carried

1924   MAJOR APPLICATIONS – The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control submitted a report containing details of major applications for determination by the committee, including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications.

(i)       PA/2018/1063 by Mr Paul Batho, St Modwen Properties PLC and Lidl UK GmbH for planning permission to erect a food store (Use Class A1) and a non-food retail unit (Use Class A1) along with servicing, access, car parking, landscaping and other associated works at former site of Yorkshire Electricity Group PLC, Dudley Road, Scunthorpe, DN16 1BA.

 It was moved by Councillor Grant and seconded by Councillor Oldfield –

That consideration of this application be deferred to a future meeting and that member’s visit the site prior to the meeting.

Motion Carried

(ii)  PA/2018/1583 by Mr Mark Snowden, Keigar Homes Ltd for planning permission to erect 14 dwellings with associated driveways and garages and create new access road (including demolition of existing buildings) at 25-35 Cherry Lane, Wootton, DN39 6RL.

Prior to consideration of the item, the applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He stated that the application was a well-designed, spacious development. The application was for a mixture of three to five bedroom houses, which were much needed in the area. The parish council supported the proposal. The development was for a brownfield site. Granting the application would improve the appearance of the site. Development of the site would bring about environmental benefits. The current site was an eyesore and was prone to vandalism. The construction traffic would not go through the village. The application does not sprawl in to the open countryside. All surface water from the development would be collected and stored at the development. A Section 106 agreement was in place.

Councillor Wells confirmed that the proposed conditions were adequate.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.

1925    PLANNING AND OTHER APPLICATIONS – The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control submitted a report incorporating a schedule containing details of applications for determination by the committee including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications. The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control updated the reports orally where appropriate. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

(i)  PA/2018/1292 by Mr Tony Pearson for planning permission to erect a detached dwelling at land between 47 and 51 Akeferry Road, Westwoodside, Haxey.

Prior to consideration of this item, the applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He confirmed that the application was inside the development boundary and was an infill plot. The application adhered to all the council’s planning policies. The application was previously refused. Consequently, it had been significantly changed. The site was in flood zone 1, and not zone two. There were no objections to the application. Flood risk was not at issue at the site. The garden would be outside of the development boundary. However, this applied to all the properties along the street. The application would raise the design standards of the area. The application should be granted in line with the council’s planning policies.

Councillor Rose, local ward member, asked the committee to judge the application on its own merits. The development was too large for the site. It would result in over development at the site. The footprint of the building had been moved, resulting in it overshadowing a neighbouring bungalow. The application was outside the development boundary. The area was a special area of landscape interest. The application would alter the setting and character of the area. The application should be refused in accordance with policies CS1, CS3 and LS14.

Councillor Evison stated that the proposed development was large in size, which was a concern.

It was moved by Councillor Evison and seconded by Councillor Wells –

That the application be refused, for the following reasons –

1.  The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its scale, mass, design and siting, would have an adverse visual impact on the character and setting of the Area of Historic Landscape Interest (LC14). The proposal was therefore contrary to paragraphs 190, 192 and 200 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CS1 and CS6 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and policy LC14 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

2.  The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its scale, mass, design and siting, was considered to be out of character with the area and would have an adverse visual impact on the street scene and the amenity of the locality. The proposal was therefore contrary to paragraphs 124 and 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CS1 and CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and policy DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Motion Carried

(ii)  PA/2018/1396 by the Johnson Family Trust for outline application to erect five dwellings off a private drive and a detached garage to serve No. 5 and demolish part of existing outbuilding at 5 Northlands Road, Winterton, DN15 9PZ.

Councillor Rowson, local ward member, addressed the committee. She stated that access to the site was a particular concern, especially bearing in mind the location of the infant and junior school. A site visit would be beneficial for the committee prior to determining the application.

It was then moved by Councillor Evison and seconded by Councillor Wells –

That consideration of this application be deferred to a future meeting and that member visit the site prior to the meeting.

Motion Carried

(iii)  PA/2018/1859 by Richard Anderson for planning permission to erect single-storey extension to side and rear of dwelling to include garages, store room, swimming pool and gym at Nuddock Wood Fisheries, Brumby Common Lane, Burringham, DN17 1US.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.

(iv)  PA/2018/2016 by Mrs Walters for planning permission to retain a sunroom at 11 Park Avenue, Bottesford, DN17 2PB.

Councillor L Foster addressed the committee. The sunroom had been built without planning permission. The sun room had been added to another extension creating six metres depth of brick wall from the original building. The planning application was submitted after the building was complete. In simple terms the application was for an extension to be added on to an extension, not a sun room. Therefore, the application should be refused.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.