Democracy | Planning Committee

Planning Committee – 2 January 2004

Chairman: Councillor Wardle
Venue: Council Chamber, Pittwood House, Scunthorpe
Time: 2pm

AGENDA

1. Substitutions.

2. Declarations of prejudicial or non-prejudicial personal Interests, and significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (Lobbying), if any.

3. To take the minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2003 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.

4. Applications deferred from previous meeting for site visits.

5. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.

6. Applications for Approval of Reserved Matters following the Grant of Outline Planning Permission.

7. Appeals

8. Enforcement Update.

9. Statistics of Planning Applications: July – September 2003.

10. The Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003.

11. Footpath 101, Haxey.

12. Any other items, which the chair decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances which must be specified.

Note: Reports are by the Head of Planning and Regeneration unless otherwise stated.

Minutes

PRESENT: – Councillor Wardle in the chair.

Councillors Long (vice-chairman), Bunyan, England, Grant, Holgate, Kirk, Rocks, Waldron, Whiteley and Wood.

Councillors Briggs and Smith attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b).

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

489 DECLARATIONS OF PREJUDICIAL AND NON-PREJUDICIAL PERSONAL INTERESTS AND DECLARATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) – The following member declared a non-prejudicial personal interest as follows

Member	Minute	Item	Nature of Interest
Councillor Grant	494 (iv)	Application 03/1604	Former member of Ashby Institute

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Member	Application /Item	Lobbied By
Councillor Bunyan	03/1572	Edwardson Associates
	03/1573	Edwardson Associates
	03/1574	Edwardson Associates
	03/1122	Mr Bates
Councillor England	03/1122	Objector
	03/1572	Edwardson Associates
	03/1573	Edwardson Associates
	03/1574	Edwardson Associates
Councillor Kirk	03/1572	Edwardson Associates
	03/1573	Edwardson Associates
	03/1574	Edwardson Associates
Councillor Rocks	03/1572	Edwardson Associates
	03/1573	Edwardson Associates
	03/1574	Edwardson Associates
Councillor Wardle	03/1122	Objector
	03/1572	Edwardson Associates
	03/1573	Edwardson Associates
	03/1574	Edwardson Associates
	03/1604	Objectors
Councillor Whiteley	03/1572	Edwardson Associates
	03/1573	Edwardson Associates
	03/1574	Edwardson Associates
Councillor Wood	03/1572	Edwardson Associates
	03/1573	Edwardson Associates
	03/1574	Edwardson Associates

490 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 5 December, 2003, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

491 (51) THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2003– The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report advising the committee of changes to planning procedures as a result of the making of this order.

The Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order provided the detailed procedures to be followed by local planning authorities when determining planning applications. It set out the process to be carried out relating to consultations, departures from development plans, time periods for decisions, keeping of planning registers etc.

The new Amendment Order had been made on the 6 August 2003 and most of the Order (including that part relating to the appeal process) had been effective from 5 September 2003. Other provisions relating to the written notice of determination of planning applications were effective from 5 December 2003.

The main changes included in the Amendment Order could be summarised as follows: –

(a) The Regional Development Agency (RDA) could give notice to local planning authorities of the type of planning application upon which it was to be consulted before the grant of planning permission.

(b) The period within which an appeal could be lodged against a planning refusal (or imposition of conditions) had been reduced from 6 months to 3 months.

(c) Where planning permission was granted the Local Planning Authority must in future include a summary of their reasons for the grant of permission and a summary of the policies and proposals in the development plan that were relevant to the decision.

The RDA had not yet indicated which development types would be involved or be likely to affect the provision of existing or proposed strategic infrastructure projects. If and when such a list was received by the Council then the RDA would have to be consulted before any decision was taken.

A statement had now to be included on all approval decision notices indicating the reasons and policies behind the decision.

It was important in the light of these changes that in future all decisions by the Planning Committee to approve development clearly identified the policy justification for the decision, taking into account the policies set out in both the Humberside Structure Plan and North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Resolved -That the procedural changes identified in The Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003 be noted.

492 (52) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken a site visits earlier in the day. The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted reports and updated them orally.

(i) 02/1253 by European Vehicle Sales Ltd. for the change of use from vacant airfield runway to HGV trailer storage compound (re-submission of 03/0549) at Unit 11, Sandtoft Industrial Estate, Wood Carr Lane, off Sandtoft Road, Belton.

Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant’s agent addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36(e). He indicated that he had nothing to add to what he had said at the last meeting (Minute 483 (i) refers).

The Head of Planning and Regeneration indicated that those members of the committee who had attended the site visit had seen where the site lay in relation to the development limit.

The Head of Service advised members that he had investigated the issue of possible toxic waste on the site as raised by the applicant’s agent at the last meeting. He had investigated this and was satisfied that the land was not contaminated.

The Head of Service reminded members that the application was a resubmission of an application refused in June 2003 for the reasons now recommended. He read an extract from the Inspector’s report on the Local Plan dealing with the issue of a possible extension to the industrial estate at Sandtoft Airfield. The inspector had stated that the council should hold the line against the extension of the industrial estate beyond the development limit.

Members took the view that the proposal was in accordance with Policy E3 of the Humberside Structure Plan which allowed industrial and commercial development on disused airfields which had not been returned to agriculture and where there was existing industrial development providing there were no unacceptable transport or environmental problems.

In response to a question, advice was given to the effect that the policies contained in the Structure Plan were not as up to date as those in the Local Plan, but were nevertheless part of the development plan.

Resolved – That permission be granted for a temporary period of three years. The permission has been granted on the basis that the committee considers that the proposal is in accordance with Policy E3 of the Humberside Structure Plan and that this should be given greater weight than the relevant policies in the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

(Note: Councillors Kirk, Rocks, Waldron and Whiteley wished to be recorded as dissenting from this decision)

(ii) 03/1257 by North Lincs Property Holdings Ltd for the retention of change of use to HGV storage compound on land adjacent to Unit 11, Sandtoft Industrial Estate, Wood Carr Lane, off Sandtoft Road, Belton.

(Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant’s agent addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36(e). He indicated that he had nothing to add to what he had said at the last meeting (Minute 483 (i) refers).

The Head of Planning and Regeneration indicated that the issues were largely the same as the preceding application (02/1253). Members were also advised that the existing use of the site was unlawful and this could affect the weight to be given to the policy.

Members again took the view that the proposal was in accordance with Policy E3 of the Humberside Structure Plan which allowed industrial and commercial development on disused airfields which had not been returned to agriculture and where there was existing industrial development providing there were no unacceptable transport or environmental problems.

(Note: Councillors Kirk, Rocks, Waldron and Whiteley wished to be recorded as dissenting from this decision)

493 (53) PLANNING APPLICATIONS – The Head of Planning and Regeneration 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) 03/0409 by Mr M Hall for the erection of a dwelling (AMENDMENT – increase in roof height of dwelling by 0.2m, installation of 2nd floor, 5 velux rooflights on rear elevation, window at first floor on front elevation, and new patio doors and window in side elevation at ground floor level on Plot 17, Middlegate Close, Barrow-upon–Humber.

(ii) 03/1122 by Meadow Homes for the erection of three detached houses with integral garages and associated access on Plots 2,7 and 8 Burnham Road, Owston Ferry .

(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 was opposed to a two – storey house next to his own property and believed that the proposed dwellings ought to be bungalows.

The applicant stated that the application had been amended in order to take into account the concerns of the objector.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the committee that the parish council had now objected to the application on the grounds that it believed that Plots 7 and 8 should be bungalows and because it was concerned about possible danger to children attending the nearby school from increased traffic. It therefore felt that turning spaces should be provided in the front gardens of the proposed dwellings. With respect to Plot 2, the parish council considered that this should be set back further to enable a turning facility to be provided to the front.

The Head of Service reported that the Highways Team was happy with the application and did not see any need for any turning facilities. The plans had been amended since the last meeting and he was now happy with the proposed layout which had the two – storey element on the part of the site the furthest from the objector’s property. The windows facing the objector’s property had now been deleted).

(iii)03/1409 by Mrs L Humphries for the retention of a stable and storage building on land at Shaw Nook Lane, off Bird Lane, Belton.

(iv) 03/ 1465 by Mr G Wilson for the erection of a garage at The Old Cottage, Sheepdyke Lane, Bonby.

(v) 03/1470 by Tile Agents Yorkshire Ltd for the erection of a steel portal-framed warehouse and office accommodation for the import, storage and wholesale distribution of ceramic tiles on land off Belton Road, Sandtoft, Belton

(vi) 03/1560 by W Graham and Sons Ltd. For the erection of a two –storey extension to offices at The Poplars, Bridge Street, Brigg

(vii) 03/1561 by Hemswell Conracting Ltd for the erection of 3 town houses at 1 St Andrews Street, Kirton –in –Lindsey

(Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He was concerned at the proposal would lead to a loss of his privacy due to overlooking bedroom and living room windows and would exacerbate problems of car parking and passing on March Street.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the committee that the Highways Team had no objection to the application)

(viii) 03/1606 by Mr and Mrs S Catley for the erection of an extension and detached garage at 143 Hilton Avenue, Scunthorpe

(Note: The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the committee that Gunness Parish Council had now indicated that it had no objection to this application)

(ix) 03/1614 by James Turnball Smith for outline permission for a dwelling at Rose Cottage, West End, Garthorpe

494 Resolved – That consideration of the following applications be deferred until the next meeting and that members visit the sites prior to that meeting.

(i) 03/1572 by Clifford Nicholson Trust No. 1 for the variation of condition 3 of permission 1998/1116 dated 18/11/1998 in order to extend the period for the submission of reserved matters on land North of Shepherds Cottage, Main Street, Horkstow.

(ii) 03/1573 by Clifford Nicholson Trust No. 1 for the variation of condition 3 of permission 1998/1113 dated 01/12/1998 in order to extend the period for the submission of reserved matters and condition 6 to allow access onto Chapel Lane at former smithy and joiners shop at the corner of Main Street/Chapel Lane, Horkstow

(iii) 03/1574 by Clifford Nicholson Trust No. 1for the variation of condition 3 of permission 1998/1112 in order to extend the period for the submission of reserved matters on land at Marrows Gardens, Main Street, Horkstow.

(Prior to consideration of the above applications, 03/1572, 03/1573 and 03/1574 a representative of the applicants addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36(e).

The speaker stated that diversification of use of land in rural areas was encouraged. The sites had had the benefit of outline permission. Approval of reserved matters had not been sought as the speaker had had a long-term illness and was the only person equipped to do the work on this. New technology could enable people to work from home thus bringing employment to the rural areas. The sites were all in the centre of the village. )

(iv) 03/1604 by Applytime Ltd for the erection of two, three-storey blocks of flats to create 18 two-bedroom flats on site of Ashby Institute, Collum Avenue, 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 was concerned at potential loss of light and privacy.

The applicant’s representative stated that the working man’s club on the site had been in decline and was no longer viable. Also there had been complaints in the past from neighbours in respect of noise from the club. The scheme had been amended so as too be less obtrusive for neighbouring properties.)

The Head of Planning and Regeneration reported a late objection from a neighbour raising issues in relation to the need for landscaping and planting of trees on the boundary of the site.

495 03/1542 by Mr T E Belton for the erection of a bungalow on land east of The Rectory, Church Street, Amcotts

Prior to consideration of this application of this application the applicant addressed the committee under the provisions of Procedure Rule 36(e).He stated that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the setting of the adjacent Old Rectory.

Councillor Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b), spoke in support of the application. He stated that, compared to the earlier application on the site, the proposed bungalow had been “handed” and set back. The site had been within the development boundary in the former Boothferry Borough Local Plan and there had been a previous permission on the site which had subsequently expired. There had been no objections to the application. The site was a natural infill plot. The proposal would not have an adverse effect on the setting of the adjacent Listed Building and would in fact enhance the street scene.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration reminded members that a similar application had been refused in 2001 and that decision had been upheld at appeal. He drew attention to the Inspector’s reasons for dismissing the appeal as set out in the report. There had been no change of circumstances since then.

Resolved – That permission be granted subject to a condition requiring a flood risk assessment and any conditions requested by the Highways Team. The permission has been granted for the reasons put forward by Councillor Briggs.

496 03/1531 by Mr G Moore for the erection of 10 semi –detached dwellings on land at end of Strickland Road, Eastoft.

Resolved – That it be noted that this application has been withdrawn

497 (54) APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS FOLLOWING THE GRANT OF OUTLINE PERMISSION – 01/1501 relating to Outline Permission 2001/0757 for the erection of five pairs of semi – detached houses on site of Sunshine Fine Arts, Humber Road (west side)/Dam Road (north side), Barton–upon-Humber – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report informing members about this application for approval of reserved matters which was 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 in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report

498 (55) APPEAL – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report informing members of the outcome of the following appeal: –

Against compliance with condition 1 attached to permission 02/1340 to retain a wall and gates to the front of a dwelling and to extend the vehicular access – 98 Station Road, Scunthorpe – Appeal Dismissed.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

499 (56) ENFORCEMENT UPDATE – The Head of Planning and Regeneration 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

500 (57) STATISTICS OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS – JULY –SEPTEMBER 2003 – Resolved – That consideration of this item be deferred to the Special Meeting of the committee to be held on 6 January 2004.

501 (58) HAXEY FOOTPATH 101 – The Head of Legal and Democratic Services and the Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a joint report inviting members to review an earlier decision to reinstate the footpath and if necessary take the necessary enforcement action to ensure the line of the path.

Under Section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 the Council was under a duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of public footpaths.

Since this path had been included on the Definitive Map in 1962 a number of houses had been built adjacent to the path and there were now a number of obstructions of the path.

The former Highways and Transportation Sub Committee had considered a report on this matter in 1999. It resolved “that North Lincolnshire Council in pursuit of its Statutory Duty under Section 130 Highways Act 1980 take steps to reinstate the full route of Footpath 101 between Gollands Lane and Mill Lane”.

Whilst there was no suggestion that local residents were acting improperly progress had been difficult without their co-operation. They continued to challenge the validity of the course of action proposed.

There had also been a change of circumstances inasmuch as the Council ought now to consider any enforcement action in the light of human rights legislation. The human rights implications were summarised in the report An Ordnance Survey report of 23 February 1998 also needed to be re-visited.

When the council commissioned the Ordnance Survey report to identify the precise route of the path the surveyor had found it impossible to state with any confidence whether or not the route passed through the curtilage of 7 or 8 Mill Lane at its eastern end. Aerial photographs recently obtained did little to increase the level of confidence. Either way, there would be a significant diminution of amenity. It was understandable that the occupier of these properties should resist reinstatement until the precise route was established. Also, in terms of fairness the occupier of 21 Westland Road had indicated that when he boug ht the property his local search had stated that no public right of way went over his property or abutted it. Indeed, the problem of precise realignment was likely to be repeated over the whole of the route from Westland Road to Mill Lane. The fact that this problem had occurred suggested that if action to reinstate had been justified it should have been taken many years before the existence of North Lincolnshire Council. As indicated in the 1999 report, there was no realistic prospect of a diversion.

The position relating to the middle section was a little more complex. It would seem appropriate to try and resolve the position regarding the eastern section and then to review the middle section in the light of the outcome.

The Council could therefore consider an application to the Magistrates’ Court for the stopping up of the eastern section on the grounds that it was “unnecessary”. The Parish Council would have an opportunity to “veto” the application. Also, it should be borne in mind that the convenience of landowners was not a relevant factor in deciding whether or not to make an order. Neither was it valid to say that a way was unnecessary “in the public interest”.

Alternatively, the Council could consider making an extinguishment order under section 118 of the Highway Act 1980 because “it is expedient that the path or way should be stopped upon the ground that it is not needed for public use”. In the event of objections, the Secretary of State would need to consider whether he/she could confirm the order. Whoever hadto confirm it, the test was whether the confirming body or person was “satisfied that it is expedient so to do having regard to the extent (if any) to which it appears to [that person or body] that the path or way would apart from the order, be likely to be used by the public, and having regard to the effect which the extinguishment of the right of way would have as respects land served by the path or way”.

Recommended to Council – (a) That, given the problems identified in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 of the report, no further action should be taken to reinstate the eastern section of the path unless and until there is a clearer indication of the precise alignment of the route.;(b)that agreement be given in principle to taking steps to close the eastern section of the route and that the matter be considered further after consultation with interested parties, and (c) that no action be taken in relation to the middle section until an attempt has been made to resolve the future of the eastern section.