Democracy | Planning Committee

Planning Committee – 6 June 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. To take the minutes of the meeting held on 18 April 2018 and 9 May 2018 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.
4. Applications deferred from previous meeting for a site visit.
5. Major Planning Applications.
6. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
7. Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order (14 West End Road, Epworth) Order 2017
8. Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order (37 School Lane, Appleby) Order 2017
9. Any other items, which the chairman decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances, which must be specified.

Note: All reports are by the Director: Operations unless otherwise stated.

MINUTES

PRESENT: – Councillor N Sherwood (chairman).

Councillors Allcock, Bainbridge, Collinson, J Davison, Glover, Grant, Longcake, Oldfield and Wells

Councillor(s) Gosling, Hannigan, Mumby-Croft, Ogg, Robinson, C Sherwood, Waltham MBE and Wilson attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 37(b).

The committee met at Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.

1882 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) AND WHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS (IF ANY) – The following member declared a personal and prejudicial interest –

Member(s)	Minute	Application(s)	Nature of Interest
Councillor N Sherwood	1889	PA/2018/22	Lived near the site.

The following member declared a disclosable pecuniary interest –

Member(s)	Minute	Application(s)	Nature of Interest
Councillor Wells	1891 (ii)	PA/2017/1989	Property situated close to site.

The following members declared a personal interest:-

Member(s)	Minute	Application(s)	Nature of Interest
Councillor Allcock	–	General	Member of the Isle of Axholme and North Nottinghamshire Water Level Management Board.
Councillor Oldfield	– –	General General	Member of Gunness Parish Council. Member of Burringham Parish Council.
Councillor Oldfield	–	General	Member of the Scunthorpe and Gainsborough Water Management Board.
Councillor Robinson	1887	PA/2018/9	Member of Epworth Town Council.
Councillor Wells	1891 (ii)	PA/2017/1989	Member of Barnetby-le-Wold Parish Council.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied:-

Member(s)	Application(s)	Minute
Councillor Allcock	PA/2018/413	1891 (viii)
Councillor Bainbridge	PA/2018/22	1889
Councillor Collinson	PA/2018/22	1889
Councillor J Davison	PA/2018/22	1889
Councillor Glover	PA/2018/9, and PA/2018/503	1897 1890 (i)
Councillor Grant	PA/2018/22	1889
Councillor Hannigan	PA/2018/77	1891 (iv)
Councillor Longcake	PA/2018/22	1889
Councillor Oldfield	PA/2018/22	1889
Councillor Mumby-Croft	PA/2018/22 Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order (37 School Lane Appleby) Order 2017.	1889 1886
Councillor Robinson	PA/2018/9 Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order (14 West End Road, Epworth) Order 2017.	1887 1885
Councillor W altham MBE	PA/2018/9	1887
Councillor Wells	PA/2018/22 PA/2018/77	1889 1891 (iv)

1883 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 18 April and 9 May 2018, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Chairman.

1884 PLANNING APPLICATION PA/2017/181 – In accordance with a decision taken at the previous meeting of the committee, members had undertaken a site visit on the morning of the meeting to view the site that related to planning application PA/2017/181.

The application was by Mr and Mrs Stuart Stafford, Tyrerite Scunthorpe Ltd for outline planning permission for five residential plots with appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for subsequent approval at land read of 14 West End Road, Epworth, DN9 1LB.

An objector, speaking on behalf of a number of concerned local residents, addressed the committee. The objector stated that the site had not been developed previously and, according to the council’s Local Plan, did not meet the criteria for an exception to allow it to be developed. The site was currently being used to store tyres. The site was in need of a change of use, but five dwellings would result in an over development of the site. The application was clearly outside the development boundary. Were the application to be approved, it would result in a detrimental impact on the landscape. This was contrary to Policy LC14 of the Local Plan. The current housing market in Epworth had stagnated, there was therefore no need for an additional five dwellings in the town. Local infrastructure could not support any more properties accessing its services.

The applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He stated that the application was for a brownfield site. Contrary to the observations of the objector, there were no strip fields near to the site. There was also no historical landscape in place, which negated the need for Policy LC14. The application was outside of the development boundary. However, a precedent had been set in Epworth when a similar sized development was approved in the year 2000. Epworth was a sustainable town, with many amenities in place. Building the development and removing the tyres from the site would dramatically improve the appearance of the site. There was therefore no adverse impact of allowing the development. The Planning Officer had recommended the application be approved.

Councillor Robinson, local ward member addressed the committee and informed Members that the application had generated a number of concerns from local residents. Epworth Town Council had objected to the application. The site was outside of the development boundary and did not meet the criteria for exceptions within the policy. The Historic Environment Record was an important document. The planning permission should be refused, as the development would adversely affect the character, appearance and setting on of the historic landscape contrary to LC14 and Core Strategy CS6.

Councillor J Davison explained that the site visit was extremely useful. The derelict house on the site, which was not part of the application, was an eyesore. The development was outside of the development boundary and therefore in the open countryside. The site was not, in his opinion, a brownfield site.

Councillor Grant commented that the supply of housing was a key consideration. The site was outside of the development boundary. However, recent judgements from the Planning Inspectorate demonstrated that this was not an essential requirement.

Councillor Collinson expressed his sympathy with the objectors and confirmed that a number of planning policies supported their viewpoint.

Councillor Oldfield also agreed that the site visit was useful. The current site was in a state of disrepair, which the planning application would address.

It was moved by Councillor J Davison and seconded by Councillor Wells –

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons –

The proposed development, by virtue of its siting outside the defined settlement boundary for Epworth, was considered to represent an uncharacteristic form of development which was at odds with the defined settlement pattern and which represented unnecessary and inappropriate encroachment into the area designated as the Isle of Axholme Area of Special Historic Landscape, thereby adversely affecting its historic character, appearance and setting. Accordingly, the proposal was considered contrary to policies RD2, DS1 and LC14 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and CS2, CS3 and CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.

Motion Carried

1885 CONFIRMATION OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (14 WEST END ROAD, EPWORTH) ORDER 2017 – The Director: Operations submitted a report asking the committee to consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at 14 West End Road, Epworth. The confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) related to an application to develop the site in 2017 for outline planning permission for five residential properties (PA/2017/181 refers).

The applicant’s agent for planning application PA/2017/181 addressed the committee. The agent informed members that his client was in receipt of a Horticultural Report on the type and quality of the trees on the site. The Report confirmed that there were only eight trees that may require protection. The planning application on the site had been amended to ensure that no trees were at risk. The TPO would protect all the trees on the site, which was unnecessary, as the majority of the trees would have died within ten years.

Councillor Robinson, local ward member spoke on the item. He referred to the heritage report and its accuracy. Confirmation of the TPO would protect the site.

Resolved – That the Tree Preservation Order at 14 West End Road, Epworth be confirmed.

1886 CONFIRMATION OF TREE PRESERVATION (37 SCHOOL LANE, APPLEBY) ORDER 2017 – The Director: Operations submitted a report asking the committee to consider whether to confirm a tree preservation order at 37 School Lane, Appleby.

Prior to consideration of the item, an objector to the confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) addressed the committee. He queried why the TPO was required as, in his opinion, the Ash Trees added no value to the local area. The tree was located on the outskirts of the village, where it cannot be seen. The nearest public footpath was over a mile away. It therefore cannot be seen from the footpath. The tree was hidden by the property and adjoining trees. The tree was a danger to the neighbouring property. The numerous branches had destabilised the tree and the concern was that the trunks could not support its weight. Were they to snap the damage could be catastrophic. There was also a concern that the tree was actually diseased. The local Parish Council had not supported the confirmation of the TPO.

Councillor Mumby-Croft, local ward member agreed with the objector to the confirmation in that the safety of nearby resident’s properties was of paramount importance.

Councillor Glover agreed with Councillor Mumby-Croft in that the tree could cause a health and safety issue for nearby residents. He was also concerned that the tree had a disease, therefore the TPO was not appropriate.

Resolved – That the Tree Preservation Order at 37 School Lane, Appleby shall not be confirmed.

1887 PLANNING APPLICATION PA/2018/9 – In accordance with a decision taken at the previous meeting of the committee, members had undertaken a site visit on the morning of the meeting to view the site that related to planning application PA/2018/9.

The application was by Mr Jake Turner for planning permission for change of use of stables to dwellinghouse at stables adjacent to Wyvern House, Bracon, Belton, DN9 1QP.

Prior to consideration of this item, an objector addressed the committee. He implied that the site visit would have confirmed to Members that the site had inadequate access, would result in the highway becoming unsafe and the site was outside of the development boundary. The objector was concerned about the design of the dwelling. The barn did not have consent for residential development. Were the application to be granted, it would result in the barn becoming a residential property despite it being outside the development boundary. The site had previously had numerous planning applications refused by the council. The Planning Inspector had, following appeals, upheld the decision to refuse permission. It was also likely that the development would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of local residents.

The applicant informed the committee that in the year 2000, outline planning permission was granted to erect stables and a barn on the site. Access to the site was included in the application. The barn was also completely separate to Wyvern House.

Councillor J Davison acknowledged that many of the objections to the application were not planning related. The application was, in his opinion, a modest development and entirely appropriate for the site.

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

1888 APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN – The Chairman informed the meeting that as a result of a personal and prejudicial interest, he would be vacating the Chair and leaving the room for the committee’s consideration of the following item only (minute 1889 refers).

It was then moved by Councillor Collinson and seconded by Councillor Grant –

That Councillor Bainbridge be appointed Chairman for the following item only (Minute 1889 refers).

Motion Lost

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

That Councillor Allcock be appointed Chairman for the following item only (Minute 1889 refers).

Motion Carried

Councillor Allcock thereupon took the Chair.

(Councillor N Sherwood, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest, left the meeting for the following item (minute 1889 refers).

1889 PLANNING APPLICATION PA/2018/22 – In accordance with a decision taken at the previous meeting of the committee, members had undertaken a site visit on the morning of the meeting to view the site that related to planning application PA/2018/22.

The application was by Mr Kettyle for planning permission to erect a replacement dwelling with detached garage (including demolition of existing dwelling) at Park Lea, Barton Road, Wrawby, DN20 8SH.

The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control updated the committee on the status of the trees on the site, and confirmed that council officers had determined that no Tree Preservation Order was necessary.

An objector addressed the committee. She informed members that, in her opinion, the application was contrary to Policy RD10. Allowing the application would result in a lifestyle change for all nearby residents.

The application had been amended by the applicant. However, the development would still overlook nearby properties, which was unacceptable.

There was a long-standing legal dispute over the ownership of various trees and hedges along the boundary. The property, were it to be built, would go over the development boundary. The building would be a dominant feature on the landscape. The application was clearly contrary to Policy CS5. The house, by design would not blend in to the locality.

Councillor Waltham MBE, local ward member agreed with the comments made by the objector. This planning application had caused a great deal of concern to the local residents. Residents’ concerns centred around the size and siting of the development. Wrawby Parish Council had objected to the application. The application was contrary to Policy CS5 and RD10. Local residents acknowledged that development on the site was acceptable, but the plans submitted were unacceptable due to their size, scale and colour. The development site was in a wet area, with many natural springs in attendance. Surface water was an issue, with there being nothing in the application that addressed this issue. The development would have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties and was outside of the development boundary.

Councillor Grant stated that there were already properties built outside of the development boundary.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons –

The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its appearance and scale, was considered to result in a dominant feature that would be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, there was uncertainty over surface water disposal. The proposal was therefore considered to be contrary to policy CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy and policies RD10, H5, H8, DS1 and DS14 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

(At this stage in the proceedings, Councillor N Sherwood returned to the meeting, and resumed the role of Chairman).

1890 MAJOR APPLICATIONS – The Group Manager – Development Management 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/2018/503 by Mr Christopher Paul Morley for outline planning permission with all matters reserved to erect thirteen dwellings including access from Brigg Road and landscaping at land adjacent to The Poplars, Brigg Road, Wressle, Broughton.

An objector addressed the committee. She stated that she had lived in Wressle for fifty years. The site was situated in open countryside. Wressle was a small village, and for 27 letters of objection to be received showed the strength of feeling against the application.

The application would have a detrimental effect on local wildlife. Wressle was blighted by traffic issues. This development would only exacerbate the problem. Any loss of hedgerows because of the application was unacceptable. There was insufficient parking for any of the homeowners. There were no local amenities in Wressle, therefore, the development was not sustainable. A previous application on the site, submitted in 1998, was refused.

A second objector stated his viewpoint to the Members. He too was concerned that were insufficient amenities in the village to support this application. There were no footpaths in the village. There were more suitable sites for such a development in neighbouring villages. Heavy good vehicles currently drive through the village, as they are not allowed to travel through Broughton. This application would only increase the traffic passing through the village. The loss of any hedges as part of the development was unacceptable. The application was not sustainable development.

The applicant addressed the committee. He informed Members that the development of the site had been discussed with local residents and council officers at a public meeting held to discuss housing in Wressle. No objections had been raised at that meeting to this development. The application was outside of the development boundary. However, the development would provide affordable housing and allow first time buyers to purchase properties that they may not otherwise had been able to do so. Any hedgerow removed or damaged by the development would immediately be replaced. The applicant was a resident of Wressle and he too did not want to see the site over developed or cause any undue impact on the open countryside. In his opinion, the site was appropriate and in keeping with other dwellings in Wressle.

Councillor Mumby-Croft, local ward member stated that the applicant had submitted the application in good faith. However, Wressle was a small village and the application would fundamentally change the appearance of the hamlet. The site was clearly in the open countryside. The application had objections from many local residents and the Parish Council. The application was, in her opinion, contrary to Policy RD2, CS2, CS3 and CS8.

Councillor Glover stated that Wressle was a single street. It was clearly in the open countryside. The Planning Officers report provided a balanced assessment of the application.

Councillor Collinson stated that he understood the concerns of the local residents. Therefore, he would be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Grant added that Wressle was located in a beautiful part of North Lincolnshire. This application was not in keeping with the village nor its surroundings.

Resolved – That the planning application be refused in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

1891 PLANNING AND OTHER APPLICATIONS – The Group Manager – Development Management 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 updated the reports orally where appropriate. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

(i) PA/2017/1169 by Mr Gwen Batstra, Lifestyle for advertisement consent to display a non-illuminated fascia sign at 4 Market Place, Brigg, DN20 8HA.

Resolved – That it be noted the applicant had withdrawn this application.

(Councillor Wells, having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest, left the meeting for the following item (minute 1891 ii refers).

(ii) PA/2017/1989 by Mr Lewis Dillon for planning permission to erect three pairs of semi-detached houses at site of the former Railway Inn, Kings Road, Barnetby le Wold, DN38 6HJ.

The applicant addressed the committee. He apologised to the committee for his builders commencing work on the development without permission. He had commissioned an archaeology report to be undertaken to ensure that the footings at the development would be protected. Barnetby was a sustainable village, with many local amenities in the locality.

Councillor J Davison stated that the development was on the site of the former Railway Inn. The application was a good use of the site and was clearly sustainable development.

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

(At this stage in the proceedings, Councillor Wells returned to the meeting).

(iii) PA/2017/2051 by Mr Keith Wilson, International Energy Crops Ltd for planning permission to retain a biomass heating system, including ash hopper, four chimneys, pipework and a steel container at Hall Farm, Middlegate Lane, Bonby.

The applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He informed Members that the business was established in 2009. It was a thriving business, but needed to expand in order to continue its growth. The business operation saw it grow crops and then convert the crop in to energy. The council’s Environmental Health department had assessed the environmental impact of the site and deemed that it was appropriate. The council’s Planning Officer believed that the application was appropriate and had recommended that the application be granted.

Councillor Waltham MBE, local ward member, commended the company on the sustainable way it converted crops into energy. However, local residents were concerned that the chimney pots could be seen from miles around. Therefore, it may be appropriate to screen the pots from public viewing.

Councillor Wells applauded the company for its green initiative. However, he agreed with Councillor Waltham MBE in that the chimney pots should be screened from public view.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report, with the inclusion of the additional condition –

“That within six months of the date of this permission the applicant shall paint the flues in a dark green colour.

Reason
In the interests of character and appearance, and to align with policy RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan”.

(iv) PA/2018/77 by Mr and Mrs Logan, T Logan T/A Willow View Farm for planning permission to site a temporary dwelling for a key agricultural worker, and retain existing barn and borehole at Willow View Farm, Ruard Road, Goxhill, DN19 7NW.

An objector to the application addressed the committee. He stated that there was no substantial change to this application than applications submitted previously, all of which were refused. The Planning Inspector had dismissed all appeals submitted by the applicant against the refusals. The temporary accommodation was not required as other accommodation was available. The applicant lived close by. They therefore did not need to live on site. The land nor business required an agricultural dwelling. Whilst animal welfare was important, the pigs did not need 24-hour care. The breed of pigs farmed on site were proven to be excellent mothers, they did not need 24-hour supervision. The site was unlikely to grow in the future, as the pig stock had not increased in size over the past two years. Allowing this application would set a precedent.

The applicant’s agent addressed the committee. She confirmed that the application was to retain a temporary dwelling. The business was started in 2014, and had grown year on year. Local and national policy supported the growth of businesses like Mr and Mrs Logan’s. It appeared as if the recommendation contained in the report was based purely on the decision of the Planning Inspectorate previously. Pig breeding required constant care and attention from business owners, hence the temporary dwelling was necessary.

The applicant was being forced to sell their stock, as they could not provide round the clock care for the pigs. When the pigs were in labour, the business owners were on site 24-hours a day. The temporary dwelling would therefore assist them during this stressful time. Following the birth, heat lamps were used to care for the piglets. However, they could not be used round the clock as there was no worker on site to ensure the health and safety of the livestock. A nearby pig farm unfortunately had a fire in one of its buildings because of a heat lamp. Fortunately, due to the presence of a worker living on site, he was able to save many pigs from death due to the heat and smoke.

Councillor Hannigan, local ward member, explained why he had called in the application. He understood the concerns of local residents, particularly the potential for contamination of the land and over development of the site. However, assurances had been given from the appropriate authorities that the water supply was properly protected. There had been no objection from any statutory consultee. Were an individual to apply the reasonable person test, they would support this application. The temporary dwelling was necessary to allow the applicants to fulfil their dream of running a successful pig business. The business was sustainable. The family had sold their family home in order to finance the expansion of the business. Planning permission had already been granted for a new agricultural shed. The temporary dwelling would allow the applicants to provide a safe and secure environment in which to allow their business to grow. Were the committee minded to grant the application, a condition could be added to any dwelling had to be for agricultural use only.

Councillor Wells stated that he was an advocate of protecting the countryside, and was unsure of the enforcement of conditions were the application to be granted.

Councillor J Davison believed that the committee should give the applicant a chance. The application was only for a temporary dwelling. The business did appear to be sustainable and, to protect nearby residents, a condition should be included to ensure that the dwelling could only be for agricultural use.

It was moved by Councillor J Davison and seconded by Councillor Longcake –

That planning permission be granted, subject to the inclusion of the following conditions –

The occupation of the caravan hereby permitted shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working, or last working, in connection with the agricultural business at Willow View Farm, or a widow or widower of such a person, and any resident dependants.

Reason
To ensure the caravan remained available to meet the needs of the business, as permission was granted only in the light of the special justification for the accommodation, in accordance with policy RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

The caravan hereby permitted shall be removed and the land reinstated to its former condition on or before three years from the date of this decision.

Reason
Permission had only been given for a temporary period in order for the applicant to demonstrate an essential need in relation to agriculture in accordance with policy RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

The development hereby permitted shall be retained and carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: ‘Site Location Plan’, ‘Block Plan’, ‘Barn Photographs’, ‘Site Plan for Mobile Home’ and ‘Mobile Home Specification’.

Reason
For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Motion Carried

(v) PA/2018/210 by Mr Anthony Hubbard, Overhall Contractors Ltd for planning permission to remove condition 4 of planning permission PA/2009/0681 relating to restriction of parking at land to the rear of 16 Carr Lane, Thealby, Burton upon Stather, DN15 9AE.

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

(vi) PA/2018/377 by Mr and Mrs Seth Whall for planning permission to erect a detached dwelling with integral garage at land adjacent to St David’s, Chapel Street, Goxhill, DN19 7JJ.

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

(vii) PA/2018/393 by Mr Christopher Betts, Total Lindsey Oil Refinery Ltd for planning permission to retain car park and allow HGV parking at Total Oil GB Ltd Pipeline, Eastfield Road, North Killingholme, DN40 3LJ.

The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control informed the committee that, were the members minded to grant the application, then the recommendation would need to be amended to include an appropriate traffic management system.

A representative of the applicant addressed the committee. In 2007, the council granted temporary permission for the car park. The car park was still in use today. The application was to allow heavy goods vehicles to continue to access the site. The parish council had objected to the site. However, the applicant was able to demonstrate that there was a need for a site that was safe, secure and off the public highway.

There would be no increase in vehicle movements because of the application. The council’s Highways department had not objected to the application. The application would assist Total Lindsey Oil Refinery Ltd in continuing to operate effectively and efficiently.

Councillor Wells commented that North Killingholme used to be a farming hamlet. However, that was not the case anymore. The village was surrounded by heavy industry. A recent request for a bus stop close to the application site was refused due to the dangerous nature of the road.

Councillor J Davison stated that the area contained heavy industry, including oil refineries. The road was busy, hence granting the application was necessary to ensure heavy goods vehicles were not parked on the highway.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the conditions contained within the report subject to the following amendment to the recommendation –

“Recommendation
Subject to the completion of a formal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure an appropriate traffic management system, the committee resolved:”

(viii) PA/2018/413 by Mr and Mrs M White for planning permission to retain a static caravan for residential use at Rose Cottage, Turbary Road, Haxey, DN9 2JN.

Councillor Allcock stated that the application was for a large, static caravan. It had been on the site for eighteen months. However, the site was outside of the curtilage. There had been a number of objections to the application. Flooding on the site was a concern, as was the objections from Environmental Health and Historic Environment Record. The council was currently taking enforcement action against the applicant. Were the application to be granted, it would not be temporary, but permanent. The application was, in his opinion, contrary to Policies LC14 of the Local Plan and CS6 of the Core Strategy.

It was moved by Councillor Allcock and seconded by Councillor Glover –

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons –

1.
The proposal was located outside the development limits of Haxey within the open countryside and the proposal to erect self-sufficient accommodation outside the residential curtilage of Rose Cottage would be detrimental to the open character of the countryside as well as not being essential to, or appropriate to, the functioning of the countryside. The proposal was therefore contrary to policy RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

2.
The area of land within which the static home was located was within an Area of Special Historic Landscape Interest. The proposal would adversely affect the character, appearance and setting of the historic landscape by introducing residential development. The proposal was therefore contrary to policies LC14 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and CS6 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.

The proposal was located within flood zone 2/3a and would be at an AOD that was below the Environment Agency’s requirement for safety in this area. The proposal was therefore at risk of flooding and would be contrary to policy CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.
Motion Carried

(ix) PA/2018/451 by Mr Paul Potter for planning permission to change the use of meeting and training room to auction house at British Red Cross Society, Brumby Wood Lane, Scunthorpe, DN17 1AB.

An objector informed the committee that there was an 88-name petition signed by local residents objecting to the application. The primary objection centred on the lack of available parking. The nearest public car park was over half a mile away. The Section 106 agreement was a positive step forward, but local residents still had reservations over the parking issues that would be generated when the church was holding an event on the same day as the auction was being held. The site was situated in a predominantly residential area, yet the parking agreement was very non-specific. Were the application to be granted, it was imperative that the conditions were enforced.

Councillor Gosling, local ward member, informed the committee that the local residents were not against the application in principle. However, they had legitimate concern over the parking and traffic issues that the application would inevitably generate. There was already an abundance of cars parked on the highway during the day, with road users parking to avoid paying car parking charges. Brumby Wood Lane was ranked 102^nd on North Lincolnshire’s list of roads worst for speeding motorists. A traffic survey had also been undertaken recently due to speeding motorists. There was real concern locally that on days when the auction house clashed with the church, the road had the potential to become gridlocked. The Section 106 agreement was essential, however, it should be completed by 6 September 2018 and not as stated in the recommendation.

Councillor Wilson, local ward member also expressed his concern over the application. The church currently allowed many other groups to use its building for their events. This was in addition to the auction house. Parking was a real concern along Brumby Wood Lane, and this application may exacerbate the problem. The site was very close to one of the primary routes into Scunthorpe, as well as a very busy roundabout.

Councillor Allcock said that he shared the concerns of the local ward councillors. The Section 106 agreement was integral to the application and he agreed with the Councillor Gosling that it should be completed by 6 September 2018.

Councillor Collinson was also concerned about the auction house events potentially clashing with other activities being undertaken at the church. The Section 106 agreement was, in his opinion, too non-specific and should be completed by 6 September 2018. The permission should also only be for one year.

It was moved by Councillor Collinson and seconded by Councillor Allcock –

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report, subject to the following amendments –

Recommendation (iii)
If the obligation was not completed by 6 September 2018 the Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds of impact on highway and pedestrian safety.

Condition 1
The auction house hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mr Paul Potter and shall be for a limited period, being the period of one year from the date of this decision, or the period during which the premises are occupied by Mr Potter, whichever was the shorter.

Motion Carried

(x) PA/2018/487 by Mr Tronn Bramhill for planning permission to retain a 1.83 metre high fence to the right side border of property at Dale Lodge, Maltkiln Road, Barton upon Humber, DN18 5JT.

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