Planning Committee – 7 February 2003

MINUTES

PRESENT: – Councillor Ellis in the chair.

Councillors Todd (vice-chair), Long, Mrs Redfern, Rocks, Mrs Simpson, Whiteley, Wardle and Wood.

Councillors Appleyard, Briggs, Herring and T Muir attended the meeting under the provisions of Procedure Rule 38(b).

The committee met at the South Killingholme Community Centre.

320 DECLARATIONS OF PREJUDICIAL AND NON-PREJUDICIAL PERSONAL INTERESTS AND DECLARATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) – Councillor Whiteley declared a non-prejudicial personal interest in applications 02/1620 and 02/1841 (Minute 325 (vi and x refers) as a member of Bottesford Town Council.

Councillor Wardle declared that he had been lobbied in relation to application 02/1727 (Minute 325 ix refers) by both the applicant and objectors.

321 REQUESTS TO SPEAK – PROCEDURE RULE 36(e) – It was reported that nineteen 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 items.

322 MINUTESResolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 10 January 2003, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.

323 (62) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – 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.

(i) 02/1597 by Miss H Thornton for the erection of an extension and alterations to an existing barn to form living accommodation and the construction of new stables at Slate House Farm, Crowle Road, Eastoft.

(Note: Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).

She stated that the removal of breezeblock stables from the site would improve the appearance of the area. The proposed extension would match the appearance and character of the existing barn.

Councillor Briggs, attending the meeting under the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b), spoke in support of the application.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection pointed out that the site was in open countryside and therefore permission for development would normally not be granted. Exceptions could occasionally be made for conversions where the existing building was of some architectural merit. In this case, he did not consider that the barn was of sufficient merit to warrant an exception to the policy. Furthermore, the proposal would result in a totally different building to what was currently on site, which would appear as a new house in open countryside. Relatively little of the existing building would remain.

Members considered, however, that because the dwelling ws based on the existing barn, and because the associated equestrian usage needed a countryside location, the proposal was acceptable, subject to certain conditions.

Resolved – That permission be granted subject to conditions requiring the submission and written approval of details of facing and building materials prior to commencement of development; prohibiting commercial use of the premises, and relating to access and car parking arrangements.

324 (63) 02/1439 by SPI NDT Ltd for the erection of a detached house with conservatory and a detached double garage on Plot 3, land off Vicarage Lane, Scawby.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with Procedure Rule 36 (e).

The objector stated that, in his opinion, the dwelling should be located in the north west part of the site and angled more across the corner of the plot. The proposal was contrary to Policy H5 of the local plan. Large windows proposed in the roof would create clear views and would lead to a loss of privacy for the objector. The visibility splays at the junction of the access driveway with the main road were inadequate. There should be a restriction on the hours of working during construction.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection indicated that the main issue was the impact on the objector’s property. Amendments to the original plans had resulted in improvements. There was an extant permission on the plot in the same location and with a similar orientation there were therefore insufficient grounds for refusal.

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

325 (64) 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) 02/1192 by Mrs A Carroll for listed building consent to retain and complete a boundary wall at The Old Hall, Main Street, Althorpe

(Prior to consideration of this application and the following application 02/1389, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). She was concerned with the impact of the development on the appearance of the Old Hall. She questioned the quality of the submitted plans. Whilst she had no objections in principle to a boundary wall, the one being built was too solid. The bricks used in its construction were not in keeping with the Old Hall. A wrought iron fence or hedge would be more appropriate. Cars reversing out of the Hall would have a restricted view at the access.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that it was possible to see from the submitted plans what the completed wall would look like. Proposed condition 2 required an alternative design for wrought iron railings. The application had been assessed by the council’s conservation officer. The highways team had commented but not objected).

(ii) 02/1389 by Mr and Mrs P A Carroll for the retention and completion of a boundary wall to the front of the property at 13 The Old Hall, Main Street, Althorpe.

(iii) 02/1471 by Mr G Stuchbery for the erection of a 2 metre high fence at 1 Fox Terrace, Ealand.

(iv) 02/1500 by Mr and Mrs K Barley for the creation of an access track, erection of a stable block and straw storage building and siting of a storage container on field to the rear of 67 Northlands Road, Winterton.

(Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He assured the committee that the proposal was purely for private rather than business use.)

(v) 02/1620 by Mrs G Hare for the retention of a change of use of a dwelling to a mixed use comprising residential, a dog grooming business, the keeping of 12 dogs and the retention of a conservatory at 121 Moorwell Road, Bottesford.

(subject to the amendment of Condition 2 to define the term “dog”.

(Prior to consideration of this application, a supporter of the application addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).

(vi) 02/1680 by Mr T Singh for the erection of extensions to a house and garage at 33 Glover Road, Scunthorpe.

(subject to an amendment to condition 2 to indicate that the amended details were received on 6 February 2003)

(Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee in accordance with Procedure Rule 36 (e). He objected to the size of the proposed extension and was concerned that it could be used for commercial purposes).

(vii) 02/1683 by Mr Danson for the retention of a garage at 20 Foxhills Road, Scunthorpe.

(subject to the deletion of Conditions 1 and 2)

(Prior to consideration of this application an objector and the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with Procedure Rule 36 (e).

The objector claimed that the garage had been constructed on his own property. The garage had been constructed without any guttering, resulting in flooding of the objector’s garden.

The applicant refuted the objector’s claim. He stated that he had been advised by the council’s building inspectors not to put guttering in place.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection indicated that had understood that the garage had been exempt from Building Regulations approval. If approval had been given for the garage to remain without guttering, there was no need for the proposed conditions)

(viii) 02/1727 by Mr K Conway for the erection of 2 detached 4-bedroom houses on land east of Ferry Road, Goxhill.

(Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with Procedure Rule 36 (e).

The objector stated that in his view the houses were of an excessive scale in relation to the locality. There was a risk of overloading the public sewer. There would be a loss of light to neighbouring properties.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated, that whilst the dwellings immediately opposite the site were bungalows, there were houses on that side of the road a little further away and a variety of dwelling types in the vicinity. Therefore, the proposal was not out of keeping with the area. No objections had been raised by Anglian Water.)

(ix) 02/1841 by Mr A Wright for the erection of a two-storey bedroom extension to side of house at 31 Caistor Avenue, Bottesford.

326 02/0885 by Keith Brown Properties (Hull) Ltd for outline permission to erect a building for use as a health and fitness club and indoor tennis centre, together with outside tennis courts and associated car parking and landscaping areas on land opposite High Ridge School, Doncaster Road, Scunthorpe.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector and a representative of the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).

The objector stated that the residents’ concerns had been dismissed because only eight houses were directly affected by the proposal. In fact over 200 people had objected to the application. This was the wrong site for such a development and was contrary to the development plan. It would lead to a deficiency of playing field provision at the school. The facility would be a private club. The proposed development could not be considered as ancillary to the playing field. Nuisance would be caused to neighbours in the form of floodlighting, fumes and noise. The CCTV surveillance would be intrusive. Overall the benefits to the community did not outweigh the detrimental effect on neighbours.

The applicant’s representative stated that the tennis club would be open to all residents of the area. The applicant would work with the council to deliver a tennis development project. The location was central and accessible from all parts of North Lincolnshire. It would contribute to and enhance the sporting and community facilities in the area. He accepted that the health and fitness club would be private but said that this was necessary to make the project commercially viable. The club would share facilities. He was aware of the concerns of neighbours and the plans had been amended to take into account these concerns.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that the proposed tennis centre would be a public facility. Courts would be available for use by High Ridge and other nearby schools. Sport England had originally objected, however, following discussions with the council, and having examined the proposal in detail, that objection had subsequently been withdrawn. There were no objections from the Highways Team or the Environment Agency. As well as the objections there had been a number of letters of support for the scheme. The development would take up half of the field, the western half would remain unaltered. There was an additional playing field on the northern side of Doncaster Road, meaning that, in total, the school would have considerably more open space than the minimum standard set by the government. Landscaping was proposed to mitigate the effect of the development on neighbouring properties on the eastern side of the site. Any effect on neighbours should be considered against the benefits to the wider community.

Resolved – (a) That the council is mindful to grant outline permission for the development, with design, external appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval; (b) that the application be referred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in accordance with statutory procedures to enable him to consider whether or not he wishes to intervene; (c) that, in the event of the Secretary of State deciding not to intervene, the Assistant Director (Regeneration and Planning) be authorised to grant permission , subject to the conditions contained in the report.

327 02/1575 by Mr J Naylor for outline permission for the demolition of the existing public house and the erection of six detached dwellings and garages with associated access road (design, external appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval) at The Horse and Cart public house, 185 Scawby Road, Scawby Brook.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee.

He stated that the site was “brownfield” and therefore suitable for residential development. The development plan boundary was drawn too tightly and there should be more flexibility. A similar scheme had been approved nearby.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that whilst the site could be considered “brownfield” this did not automatically make it suitable for residential development. A sequential test was applied in these circumstances. The majority of the site was outside the development limit. At least one previous application for the site had been resisted. Permission had been granted on appeal for a site three plots away, however, circumstances there were different. Granting permission in this case would set a precedent as other land nearby had also attracted potential development interest.

Resolved – That permission be refused in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.

328 02/1694 by Fibrogen Ltd. for variation of Condition 2 of permission 7/650/90 and conditions 2, 3 and 4 of permission 1999/0592 at Fibrogen Ltd, Glanford Power Station, Eighth Avenue, Flixborough Industrial Estate, Flixborough

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). She raised concerns on grounds of the risk to health, if meat and bone meal (MBM) from outside the UK was to be burned at the plant.

Councillors Briggs and T Muir, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b) spoke against the application. They stated that the waste should be disposed of at the nearest possible location. The site should be used for the disposal of chicken litter produced locally

The Director of Environment and Public Protection informed the committee of a late representation from a member ofthe Fibrogen Liaison Committee which offered no objection to the application. There was no difference between MBM produced in the UK and that produced by other EU countries.

Resolved –That permission be refused on the ground that, although a variation had been allowed in the past in response to a specific national requirement, to dispose of Over Thirty Months Scheme MBM, to permit the importation now was contrary to the proximity principle.

329 02/1698 by Hutchinson 3G Ltd for the erection of a 17m high monopole and 3 antennas with associated equipment cabins at Heslam Park Club, Ashby Road, Scunthorpe.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector and a representative of the applicants addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).

The objector questioned the need for the mast. He believed that it should be possible to share one of several existing structures nearby. The site was near to a listed building and therefore inappropriate for such a use. He was also concerned at possible health risks.

The applicants’ representative concurred with the content of the report. The terms of the company’s licence required it to provide coverage to over 80% of the country by 2006. There were no existing masts in the coverage area. An extensive search of the area had been undertaken. The proposal would comply with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s guidelines. The mast would be located near existing trees which would provide some screening. The mast could be shrouded to minimise its visual impact.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection indicated that, in his view, the site was acceptable.

Moved by Councillor Ellis and seconded by Councillor Todd –

That consideration of this application be deferred until the next meeting and that members visit the site prior to the meeting.

Motion Lost

Moved by Councillor Rocks and seconded by Councillor Wardle –

That permission be refused on the grounds that there are better, less intrusive sites and pole designs available and the applicant has not fully explored these possibilities.

Motion Carried

330 02/1577 by Mr I Shipley for the erection of a two-storey extension to a dwelling, 4 Warping Way, Gunness.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He was concerned that the extension would block light to his kitchen and affect the ability of a flue in the objector’s wall to safely discharge gases.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection indicated that the issues raised by the objector were dealt with in his report.

Moved by Councillor Ellis and seconded by Councillor Todd –

That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.

Moved by Councillor Mrs Redfern and seconded by Councillor Wardle as an amendment –

That consideration of this application be deferred until the next meeting and that members visit the site prior to the meeting.

Amendment Lost

Motion Carried

331 02/1677 by Mr K Beacroft for the erection of a linked block of 3 dwellings on building plots adjacent to 1 Silver Street, Barnetby.

(Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant and an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).

The applicant stated that the site was a “brownfield” site and therefore suitable for residential development. The proposed development would help to tidy up the area.

The objector stated that the site currently contained nine garages used by local residents. If these were demolished, residents would park their cars on the roadside. There was already a problem with on-street parking on this road and the development would exacerbate this.

Councillor Mrs Herring, attending the meeting under the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b), spoke against the application. She was concerned that an increase in on-street parking resulting from the proposal would create a hazard, especially to young children crossing the road on their way to school.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that, in his opinion the development would be in keeping with the older part of the village. It was not possible to prevent the loss of the garages, whatever the outcome of this application. Any additional car parking space provided would be at the expense of garden/amenity space.

Moved by Councillor Ellis and seconded by Councilllor Todd –

That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.

Moved by Councillor Long and seconded by Councillor Wardle as an amendment –

That consideration of this application be deferred until the next meeting and that members visit the site prior to the meeting.

Amendment Lost

Motion Carried

332(65) APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS FOLLOWING THE GRANT OF OUTLINE PERMISSION – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report informing members about two applications for approval of reserved matters which were ready for determination. Outline planning permission had already been granted and the development had therefore been agreed in principle. Consideration was now required to the details of the siting, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping of the development (excluding any of these matters which were expressly approved at the time outline permission had been granted).

Resolved – That approval be granted for the following applications in accordance with the recommendations contained in the reports.

(i) 02/1125 by Mr R Cryne in respect of outline permission 2001/1418 for the erection of a detached 4-bedroom house with garage on site on north side of Church Lane, opposite St Oswalds Church, Althorpe.

(Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure rule 36 (e).

He stated that the house would be out of place and would overlook a graveyard, war memorial and memorial hall and adjacent properties. Outline conditions relating to an archaeological survey and the provision of a vehicle turning area had not been complied with.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that the matters raised were considered when the outline application was determined. The conditions attached to the outline permission would still apply.)

(ii) 02/1567 by Mr and Mrs Grimshaw in respect of outline permission 2000/0989 for erection of a detached house and garage on Plot 1, land rear of Hawthorn Cottage, Howe Lane, Goxhill.

333 (66) APPEAL – against the refusal of planning permission to erect a detached two-bedroom house and garage (renewal of permission 1996/1829) on land adjacent to Red Roofs, Messingham Lane, Scawby – Application 2001/1552.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report informing members of the outcome of this appeal. The appeal had been allowed, subject to conditions relating to vehicular access, parking and landscaping.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

334(67) STATISTICS OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS – OCTOBER – DECEMBER 2002 – The Director of Environment and Publication Protection submitted a report informing members of the council’s performance in handling planning applications in the final quarter of 2002. Performance had continued to fall in the light of the additional volume of applications being received. Arrangements were in hand to appoint additional; support staff, but recently two senior development control officers had resigned to take up posts elsewhere.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

335(68) PROPOSED DIVERSION OF PUBLIC FOOTPATHS 67 AND 68, EPWORTH AND THE CREATION OF A FURTHER FOOTPATH – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report seeking approval to divert two parts of Footpath 68 and one part of Public Footpath 67, Epworth and to create a new footpath.

Permission had been granted for 103 dwellings on land situated at Studcross, Epworth (Planning application no 2002/0019). A fresh application had been made to amend the house types but this would not affect the route of the footpaths. Members were informed that, under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, footpaths and bridleways could be diverted or stopped up in order to enable development granted under Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to be carried out. Under section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 a local authority could enter into an agreement with any person having the necessary power in that behalf for the dedication by that person of a footpath or bridleway over land in their area.

Four orders would be required to facilitate the planning permission.

Recommended to Council – (a) That orders be made to (i) divert the existing route of Footpath 68 (east part) as described in the report, (ii) divert the existing route of Footpath 68 (west part) as described in the report, (iii), divert the existing route of Footpath 67 as described in the report, and (iv) create a new section of path as shown on appendix four of the report; (b) that the Director of Environment and Public Protection be authorised to confirm and certify the orders if they are unopposed; (c) that for each of the four orders that takes effect, a further order be made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the County of Lincoln – Parts of Lindsey (Isle of Axholme) Definitive Map and Statement to reflect the ensuing changes, and (d) that a further report be submitted to the committee if any of the Orders are opposed.

336 (69) WOLD ROAD TO SIMPSON CLOSE, BARROW-UPON-HUMBER – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report seeking approval to decline an application to add a public footpath to the County of Lincoln – Parts of Lindsey (Glanford Brigg) Definitive Map and Statement.

The council as surveying authority, had a statutory duty to hold registers known as definitive maps, together with accompanying written statements known as definitive statements, that showed and described all the public rights of way of which it was aware. Furthermore, the definitive maps and statements must be continually modified to keep them up to date.

In 1998, Barrow-upon-Humber Parish Council had made an application under section 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add an approximately 60-metre-long route to the County of Lincoln – Parts of Lindsey (Glanford Brigg) Definitive Map and Statement as a public footpath. The application had been based on use on foot by 15 members of the public at various periods between 1962 and 1997.

The evidence submitted had been considered and was considered to be insufficient.

Resolved – That the application be declined.

337 (70) END OF MORATORIUM ON PUBLIC PATH DIVERSION ORDERS UNDER THE HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report informing the committee that the moratorium on public path diversion orders under the Highways Act 1980 had ended. He sought approval not to extend the moratorium in view of the provisions of Section 119ZA of the Act which would soon become law

Recommended to Council – (a) That the end of the moratorium be noted, and (b) that the moratorium not be extended.

338 EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – Resolved – That the public be excluded from the meeting for consideration of the following item (minute 338 refers) on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 12 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

339 (71) CROWLE MOORS ENFORCEMENT – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report seeking approval to take further action regarding the peat workings on Crowle Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area for Conservation (SAC).

Resolved – That approval be given to the serving of (i) an additional discontinuance order on the strip of land shown on Appendix 1 to the report, and (ii) Enforcement and Stop Notices on the land outlined in Appendix 2 to the report.