Planning Committee – 14 September 2001
PRESENT: – Councillor Ellis in the chair.
Councillors Fordham (vice-chair), Holgate, Rocks, Sherwood, Swift, Vickers, Wardle and Whiteley.
Councillor England attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38(b).
62 DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY OR NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND DECLARATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES – There were no declarations of pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest.
Councillor Holgate declared that he had been lobbied in respect of applications 01/0656 and 01/0763.
63 REQUESTS TO SPEAK – PROCEDURE RULE 36(e) – It was reported that three requests to speak had been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 36(e). The chair stated that the speakers would be able to address the committee prior to consideration of the respective applications.
64 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 17 August 2001, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.
65 APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING (minute 54 refers) – In accordance with the decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken site visits earlier in the day. The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted reports and updated them orally where appropriate.
(35) 01/0196 by J & A Sargent for erection of one dwelling at rear of 28 High Street, Kirton-in-Lindsey.
Councillor England, attending the meeting under the provisions of Procedure Rule 38(b), spoke against this application.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
66 (36) 01/0351 by Mr J North for outline permission for erection of a detached replacement dwelling (siting not reserved for subsequent approval) at The Old Mill, Hibaldstow.
Prior to consideration of this application a member of the public spoke in support of it in accordance with Procedure Rule 36 (e). He stated that the applicant, who was currently living in temporary accommodation on the site, had undertaken significant restoration work on the building, improved security and ended problems of vandalism, drinking and drug taking on the site. Permission should therefore be granted for a permanent dwelling.
The Director of Environment and Public Protection reminded members that the site was located within a Scheduled Ancient Monument site and would require Scheduled Monument Consent should planning permission be granted. He pointed out that there were significant planning reasons for refusal. In addition to the reasons set out in the report, there was an additional policy reason since the site had now been proposed as part of an Area of Amenity Importance in one of the pre-inquiry changes to the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
Resolved – That permission be refused in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
67 (37) PLANNING APPLICATIONS – The Director of Environment and Public Protection 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. Officers updated the schedule orally in respect of late representations and other significant developments since its preparation.
Resolved – That the following applications be approved in accordance with the recommendations contained in the reports.
(i) 01/0095 by Lakeside Partnership for outline permission to erect a fast food restaurant on Land South of Brewers Fayre, Lakeside Parkway, Scunthorpe.
(Note: The Director of Environment and Public Protection clarified the position with regard to the status of the Lakeside Parkway site. Independent consultants engaged by the applicant company had argued that there should be no policy objections to the application as the site should be regarded as part of a District Centre. Contrary to what was stated in the report on this application, he did not accept that this was the case. There was considerable development there but not of a scale to justify designation as a District Centre and this view was shared by the Policy Team producing the North Lincolnshire Local Plan. Nevertheless the proposal was considered acceptable on its merits, especially as it was considered that much of the customer base would already be visiting Lakeside for other shopping purposes and the development would not in itself be a major traffic attractor. This advice applied also to applications 01/0810 and 01/0811 (Minutes 67 (ii) and 67(iii))).
(ii) 01/0810 by McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd for erection of a restaurant and associated car parking facilities at Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC, Lakeside Parkway, Scunthorpe.
(iii) 01/0811 by McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd for erection of a restaurant and associated car parking facilities at Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC, Lakeside Parkway, Scunthorpe.
(iv) 01/0849 by Brocklesby Ox Caravan Site for erection of a detached bungalow on land at Brocklesby Ox Caravan Site, Bridge Street, Brigg.
(v) 01/0919 by Mr and Mrs Porter for erection of a detached 4-bedroomed house with detached garages on Plot 6, Manor Farm School Lane, Appleby.
68 01/0781 by Mr TW Cook for modification of planning obligations attached to permission 7/572/90 regarding the spreading of slurry and manure.
Resolved – That the existing planning obligation relating to the spreading of slurry and manure completed as part of planning permission 7/572/90, be modified in accordance with the terms of the application subject to the following additional proviso, supplementary to those imposed within the original obligation, namely that no slurry or manure spreading shall be undertaken within 800 m of the medium growth settlement of Winterton, or with 400 m of the minimum growth settlements of Appleby, Roxby and Winteringham, nor within 200 m of any individual dwelling, excluding any connected with the livestock operation.
69 Resolved – That the following applications be refused in accordance with the recommendations contained in the reports.
(i) 01/0637 by Mr and Mrs Frear for retention of a conservatory at 34 North Street, Winterton.
(ii) 01/0763 by Ms N Sultana for variation of Condition 3 of 99/0220 to allow Sunday opening hours and to close on Mondays (except Bank Holidays).
(iii) 01/0855 by Mr R I Smith for change of use to caravan and camping site and to erect an amenity block at Sunnyside , Barrow Road, Goxhill
70 01/0656 by Mr A Lindley for erection of 6 flats and construction of associated access at 15/17 Queen Street, Epworth.
Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).
The objector claimed that there had been a number of inaccuracies in both the original plans and subsequent amendments. He outlined the nature of these discrepancies and also reiterated concerns regarding overlooking of neighbouring properties, increased traffic, inadequate car parking provision and that the proposal would be out of keeping with the surrounding area, all of which were summarised in the report.
The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that, in his view, whilst there would be an impact on Penrose Villa, this would be restricted to early in the morning. The design of the frontage on Queen Street was typical of the conservation area. The car parking arrangements had been reassessed and whilst 3 car parking spaces had been compressed there was still considered to be adequate provision as only one of the flats had two bedrooms and there was off street car parking available nearby. Whilst the site could not technically be described as “brownfield” it was nevertheless an urban site.
Resolved – That the application be refused for reasons relating to over-development of the site, inadequate parking provision and the impact on the neighbouring residential and commercial properties.
71 01/0905 by D Gregory for erection of a detached house at 106 Burnham Road, Epworth.
Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred until the next meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting.
72 01/0906 by Keigar Homes Ltd for outline permission for residential development on land west of Falkland Way, Barton-upon-Humber
Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to enable officers to hold further discussions with the applicants.
73 (38) TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT – REVISED PROCEDURES AND GUIDANCE – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report informing members about recent procedural changes for handling telecommunications proposals and revised guidance from Government.
In May 2000, the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, chaired by Sir William Stewart, had published its report about health effects from the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters. Among other things, the group had recommended a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies, which the Government accepted. The Government also proposed making changes to improve the planning arrangements for telecommunications development, particularly to strengthen consultation requirements, allow longer to deal with prior approval applications, increase fees to help meet the costs of extra consultation, provide for school governors to be consulted, and maintain in full an authority’s ability to reject applications on amenity grounds.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (Telecommunications) (PPG 8) had been revised in the light of this, and new regulations had come into force on 22 August in relation to the fees and procedural aspects.
The report summarised the changes to the existing procedure and proposed the designation of a Development Control Officer as a co-ordinator for land use planning aspects of telecommunications developments.
Resolved – (a) That the procedural changes and revised policy guidance be noted; (b) that the designation of a Development Control Officer as a co-ordinator for land use planning aspects of telecommunications developments be supported, and (c) that the advice in the revised version of PPG 8 be applied when considering proposals for planning permission or prior approval for telecommunications development.
74 (39) APPEALS – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report informing members of the outcome of the following appeals: –
(i) Against the refusal of planning permission for erection of a dwelling on land adjacent to 70 High Street, Belton (00/0315) – Appeal Dismissed
(ii) Against the refusal of planning permission for change of use of a workshop to a nightclub at Rusty’s Cars, 14-16 Collum Lane, Ashby (00/1238) – Appeal Dismissed
(iii) Against the refusal of approval for the siting and appearance of a telecommunications pole and associated equipment cabinet on land near the Wilkinson’s store, Bottesford Road, Ashby (00/1330) – Appeal allowed.
(iv) Against the refusal to grant outline planning permission to erect a drive-through restaurant with ancillary uses, including new access arrangements,
following the demolition of existing doctor’s surgery (means of access not reserved for subsequent approval), former doctor’s surgery and land, 2 Ashby Road, Scunthorpe (01/0140) – Appeal Dismissed.
(v) Against the refusal to grant outline planning permission to erect a detached house on land at Roxby Old Farm, North Street, Roxby (00/1251) – Appeal allowed.
(vi) Against the refusal to grant outline planning permission to erect a dwelling on a plot east of Keyholme, Ferry Rod East, Barrow-upon-Humber (00/1384) – Appeal Dismissed.
75 (40) ENFORCEMENT UPDATE – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a schedule giving details of progress in respect of matters on which the committee had authorised enforcement action.
Resolved – That the report be noted.
76 GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION DOCUMENT – “TELEPHONE KIOSK GLASS ADVERTISEMENTS” -This item was considered after the chair decided it was urgent as the deadline for responses was prior to the next meeting.
The Director of Environment and Public Protection reported that the council had received a Government Consultation paper on the display of advertisements in telephone boxes. Currently such advertisements were covered by a Code of Practice. The Consultation Document put forward three options namely (i) a continuation of the present system; (ii) introduction of a requirement for Deemed Consent, or (iii) a requirement to obtain Express Consent in each case.
The Director recommended the second option as, whilst there were concerns regarding the possible proliferation of such advertisements, especially in Conservation areas and in the vicinity of Listed Buildings, to require an application in each case could impose a considerable burden on Local Planning Authorities especially those covering large urban areas.
Resolved – That the Secretary of State be informed that this council supports the option of requiring Deemed Consent.