Planning Committee – 27 February 2004
Chairman: Councillor Wardle
Venue: Council Chamber, Pittwood House, Scunthorpe
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 30 January 2004 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.
4. Application deferred from previous meeting for site visit: – 03/1820 by North Lincolnshire Council for the construction of a facility to compost green waste (works comprising of paving, drainage, office and storage buildings, fencing, lagoon and weighbridge on land south side of Stather Road, Flixborough Industrial Estate, Flixborough.
5. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
8. Supplementary Planning Guidance: –
(i) Affordable Housing;
(ii) Developer Contributions to Schools;
9. Diversion of part of Public Footpath 312, Winteringham.
Note: Reports are by the Head of Planning and Regeneration unless otherwise stated.
PRESENT: – Councillor Wardle in the chair.
Councillors Long (vice-chairman), Bunyan, England, Grant, Holgate, Kirk, Rocks, Waldron, Whiteley and Wood.
Councillors Briggs, Mrs Bromby, Delaney, Eckhardt, Oldfield, Osborne, Mrs Redfern, Rowson, Smith and Stewart attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b).
The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.
528 DECLARATIONS OF PREJUDICIAL AND NON-PREJUDICIAL PERSONAL INTERESTS AND DECLARATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) – The following members declared non-prejudicial personal interests as follows
|Member||Minute||Item||Nature of Interest|
|Councillor Waldron||531 (vii)||Application 03/1911||Lived nearby|
|Councillor Wardle||Westcote Farm, Barrow–upon- Humber||Member of Barrow Parish Council|
|536||Application 03/1918||Knew Applicant|
|Councillor Whiteley||531 (v)||Application 03/1782||Member of Bottesford Town Council|
|Councillor Wood||532 (i)||Application 03/1493||Daughter occupied neighbouring premises|
The following members declared that they had been lobbied –
|Councillor Bunyan||03/1820||Councillor Regan
|Councillor Grant||03/1820||Councillor Regan|
|Councillor Kirk||03/1820||Councillor Regan|
|Councillor Long||03/1820||Councillor Regan|
|Councillor Rocks||03/1820||Councillor Regan|
|Councillor Waldron||03/1820||Councillor Regan|
|Councillor Wardle||03/1820||Councillor Regan|
|03/1728||Objector & Applicant|
|Councillor Whiteley||03/1820||Councillor Regan|
|Councillor Wood||03/1820||Councillor Regan|
Councillor Eckhardt, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b), declared that he had a prejudicial personal interest in relation to applications 03/1872. Accordingly he would leave the meeting during the consideration of that application.
529 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 30 January, 2004, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.
530 (77) APPLICATION DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – 03/1820 by North Lincolnshire Council for the construction of a facility to compost green waste & works comprising of paving, drainage, office and storage buildings, fencing, lagoon and weighbridge on land south of Stather Road, Flixborough Industrial Estate, Flixborough.
In accordance with the decision at the previous meeting, members had undertaken a site visit earlier in the day.
Prior to consideration of the application an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36(e). He referred to a previous refusal of permission for a similar use, in 1997, and to the reasons for that refusal. One of these reasons related to traffic and highway safety. He suggested that the traffic situation was worse now than in 1997. The other reasons, relating to the proximity of the site to the villages of Flixborough and Amcotts and to nearby businesses were still valid.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report and updated it orally. He referred to a request from the committee for a report on the condition of the
C 105 road forming the access to the site. This had now been received. It indicated that the road was maintained regularly but had been identified as requiring further works which would be carried out subject to the availability of funding. However, the proposal was not expected to create sufficient additional traffic to have a detrimental effect on the condition of the road or highway safety.
A response had now been received from the Environment Agency advising that a flood risk assessment should be undertaken prior to the development taking place and that conditions should be imposed in relation to surface water drainage, bunding of fuel tanks and the provision of interceptors to prevent contamination of watercourses.
A late objection had been received from the Flixborough Estate Company. This did not raise any issues that had not been raised by other objectors.
The Head of Service indicated that condition 9 should be amended to require the retention of the existing substantial hedge on the western boundary of the site.
Councillor Smith, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 38(b) spoke against the application.
In response to a question from a member of the committee, the Head of Service confirmed that there had been two previous refusals on the site but that the reasons for refusal of the previous applications were not appropriate in this case. Neither the pollution unit nor the Highways Team had raised objections to the present application. Whilst previous applications had been refused, each application should be determined on its merits.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to extra conditions relating to the undertaking of a flood risk assessment, surface water drainage, and other matters required by the Environment Agency.
(Note: Councillor Rocks, having declared that he had been lobbied in respect of this application, took no part in the discussion or voting on this application).
531 (78) 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) 03/1167 by Church Commissioners for England for outline permission for the erection of three dwellings on land to the west of Short Lane, West Halton.
(ii) 03/1626 by Mr N J Gouldthorpe for the erection of a two–storey extension at 71 Brigg Road, Messingham.
(iii) 03/1728 by Mrs A Green for the erection of a pair of semi –detached houses and making of alterations to a vehicular entrance (including demolition of existing outbuildings) to the rear of 9–11 High Street, Barton–upon–Humber.
(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 38 (e). He stated that the proposal would be inappropriate in a conservation area and that it would lead to a loss of light and privacy to his own dwelling.
The applicant’s representative stated that the proposed dwellings would be sited so as to respect the siting of the adjacent buildings. They would not be directly in front of the objector’s house and therefore would not lead to any loss of amenity).
(iv) 03/1744 by Mrs K A Robinson for the change of use of land to site a trailer for the sale of hot food and drinks at Ironstone Wharf Inn, Station Road, Gunness.
(Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (e). She stated that she was attempting to build custom and needed a stable site for the business.
Councillor Oldfield, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 38(b) spoke against the application.)
(v) 03/1782 by Mr A Dawes for the erection of an extension to a dwelling at 10 Holme Lane, Bottesford.
(vi) 03/1854 by Mr D Horner for the erection of three detached houses, including the demolition of two workshops at High Burgage, Winteringham.
(vii) 03/1911 by Mr and Mrs Foster for consent to carry out works to two ash trees protected by a tree preservation order at 25 Roman Way, rear of Peacock Street, Scunthorpe.
(subject to an additional condition regarding pruning)
(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 trees had not been inspected from Peacock Street. Leaves were falling on adjacent properties. The trees had been made dangerous by previous pruning. Nevertheless, he withdrew his objection and hoped that the matter would now be rectified).
532 Resolved – That the following applications be refused in accordance with the recommendations contained in the reports.
(i) 03/1493 by the Brigg Travel Centre for listed building consent to retain paintwork at Brigg Travel Centre, 19 Wrawby Street, Brigg.
(Note: Councillor Wood, having previously declared a non –prejudicial personal interest in this application, abstained from voting on the matter).
(ii) 03/1751 by Mr P Torr for outline permission for the erection of two dwellings on land adjacent to 76 Westgate Road, Belton.
(Prior to consideration of this application, a supporter of the application addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (e). She requested that the committee make an exception to its policy. The plot was “infill” and would not cause any harm to the street scene).
(Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (e). She stated that granting permission would not set a precedent as permission had recently been granted outside the development limit half a mile from the present site.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the committee that the Keadby–with–Althorpe Parish Council had drawn attention to a Section 106 Agreement entered into by the former Boothferry Borough Council and the owners of the site in 1995, preventing building on part of the site and requiring landscaping works to be carried out. These works had not been carried out to date. If the committee was to consider granting permission, it would first need to consider whether to release the applicant from the legal agreement.)
(iii) 04/0041 by Mr S J Powell for the change of use of a shop to a hot food takeaway at 10 The Precinct, Westcliff, Scunthorpe.
Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant and an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (e). The applicant stated that he had obtained a petition in support of the development. He was trying to promote healthy living and intended to provide a service to the elderly.
The objector said that he lived in the maisonette above the shop and was fearful that the opening of the takeaway would lead to noise and smells. Anti–social behaviour was already a problem in the neighbourhood.
Councillor Delaney, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b), spoke against the application. She was concerned that the development would encourage anti social behaviour by youths who congregated in the area. The police had objected to the application.
533 03/0441 by Mr M Barnard for outline permission for residential development on land off (former ‘Aline Motors site), North Cliff Road, Kirton–in–Lindsey.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration reported a late representation received from an adjacent business advising that, whilst it had no objection to the development, it was concerned that occupiers of the proposed dwellings would wish to restrict the businesses activities, for example shot blasting. The business asked that potential occupiers should be made aware of the nature of these existing activities.
The Head of Service also advised that the Pollution Control Team had suggested amendments to the proposed conditions 16 and 17. In reply to a question by a member, he advised that the percentage of “affordable housing” that would be required was 15 to 20 per cent.
Resolved – (a) That the committee is mindful to grant permission for the development subject to the completion of a formal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 providing for a financial contribution to educational and public open space facilities, (b) that the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to grant permission upon completion of the obligation; (c) that the permission so granted be subject to the conditions contained in the report, subject to the amendments to conditions 16 and 17 as requested by the Pollution Control unit and the deletion of condition 9 and the consequent renumbering of conditions 10 – 19, and (d) that if the obligation is not completed by 31 August 2004 the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds that the proposals do not adequately address infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the development and therefore would be contrary to North Lincolnshire Local Plan policies.
534 03/0800 by Mr P Whitehead for outline permission for the erection of two detached dwellings at former garage, Sandtoft Road, Belton.
Prior to consideration of this application a representative of the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36(e). He stated that the existing buildings on the site had been unused since a garage business had closed. The site was brownfield and could not be returned to agriculture.
Councillor Mrs Redfern, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b), spoke in support of the application. She suggested that the applicant would be happy to agree to a condition limiting the dwellings to a single–storey. The application was supported by the parish council.
Members took the view that whilst the site was in open countryside, the proposal was acceptable as it constituted infill and the site was incapable of being returned to agriculture.
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the standard outline condition and conditions relating to a flood risk assessment and highways.
(Note: Councillors Kirk, Rocks, Waldron and Whiteley wished to be recorded as dissenting from the above decision (Minute 534).
535 Resolved – That consideration of the following applications be deferred until the next meeting and that members visit the sites prior to that meeting.
(i) 02/1325 by Croftsdun Enterprises Ltd. for the erection of 10 detached 4 – bedroom houses and garages and 4 detached 4-bedroom houses with garages being a substitution of house types approved under planning permission 2/0025/94 dated 02/10/1996 on land south side of King Edward Street, Belton.
(Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (e). She was concerned that the drainage arrangements were inadequate, that the proposal would lead to the ground level being raised and that trees and fences on the site should be protected. The development would lead to an unacceptable increase in vehicular traffic.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration agreed that drainage was a key issue. He suggested that a condition could be imposed prohibiting development from commencing before a scheme for a surface water sewer had been submitted to and approved by the authority. A condition could also be imposed to prevent any change in ground levels. The Highways Team was satisfied that King Edward Street could cope with any additional traffic generated by the proposal.)
(ii) 03/0829 by SYHA for permission to erect 6 bungalows on land south of 2-8 Holm Road, Westwoodside.
(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 38 (e).
The objector claimed that there was no justification for allowing the development in open countryside.
The Severn Trent Water Authority had not objected to the application but would not be aware of permissions granted for an additional 30 dwellings in the village. The surface water drainage system was inadequate to cope with the cumulative effect of all the proposed dwellings and sewage was already backing up.
The applicants’ representative indicated that it was not viable to purchase land within the development limit for affordable housing as prices were prohibitive. Also owners of land just outside the limit were reluctant to sell as they hoped that in time it would be included in the development limit. Therefore the only land available for this purpose was classed as open countryside.
With regard to the drainage issue, the water authority was aware of exactly how much sewage would be going into the system.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration reported a request from the local member of parliament asking for the application to be deferred for members to undertake a site visit. He advised that the main issue was whether or not the proposal met the criteria contained in Policy H13 of the local plan for allowing development in the open countryside in order to provide affordable housing. It did.)
(Note: Councillors Eckhardt and Stewart had left the meeting prior to the following application, 03/1872, being considered)
(iii) 03/1872 by SACSPA for the erection of an extension to provide a fitness centre and changing room at Epworth Leisure Centre, Burnham Road, Epworth.
(The Head of Planning and Regeneration reported a late letter of representation from a nearby property asking for clarification of the distance between the proposed extension and his property and whether any parking facilities were to be provided. The Head of Service advised that the distance was adequate but confirmed that no parking facilities were included in the application.)
(iv) 03/1908 by Mr W Smith for the change of use of a disused barn into a workshop for repairing touring caravans and for caravan sales at Bridge Farm, Butterwick Road, Messingham.
(Prior to consideration of this application, a representative of the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (e). He stated that this would be a small operation which would generate business. The applicant had researched the market and there was a demand in the locality for the facility. The applicant would agree to restricted hours of operation.)
536 03/1918 by Mr A Atkin for the change of use and extensions to building to form houses on plot to the rear of CTS Motor Services, Ferriby Road, Barton-upon-Humber.
Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to a future meeting.
537 (79) APPEALS – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report on the outcome of the following appeals.
(i) Against refusal to grant listed building consent for alterations in connection with the refurbishment of two signal boxes – adjacent to the B1207, Appleby (application 2002/0898) and adjacent to B 1206, Elsham (application 2002/0895) – Appeals allowed subject to conditions including that the crossing gate wheel and associated mechanism within the building be retained.
(ii) Against refusal of three applications by Fibrogen Ltd. to vary the conditions attached to earlier planning permissions (in 1990 and 1999) which sought to restrict the range and sourcing of fuels for the Glanford Power Station, Eighth Avenue, Flixborough Industrial Estate, Flixborough (Applications Nos. 2002/1694, 2003/0682 and 2003/0683 – Appeals Allowed subject to conditions – Application for costs against the council refused.
(iii) Against refusal of permission for the erection and making of alterations to a dwelling – removal of condition 2 relating to obscure glazing at Ancholme, 20 Manley Gardens, Brigg (application no. 2003/1085) – Appeal Allowed subject to conditions.
Resolved – That the report be noted.
538 (80) 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.
539 (81) SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE – AFFORDABLE HOUSING – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report informing members of the issues raised during the consultation on this draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), proposing changes to the draft and seeking the adoption of the SPG for development control purposes when determining planning applications for housing.
The draft SPG had been produced in December 2002 to expand on the affordable housing policies of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan. The SPG would be used when determining planning applications for housing developments.
The draft SPG had been approved for public consultation purposes on 2 January 2003. During the consultation period ten organisations submitted comments.
Affordable housing was housing for people who could not afford to rent or buy houses on the open market. By using planning powers, the SPG explained how to get affordable housing built within large housing sites and around villages. Affordable housing could only be justified where a local need had been identified by a housing survey.
The actual number of affordable homes to be provided would depend on the locality of the housing site. It was considered that the need for affordable housing was greatest in rural areas where house prices were highest. To reflect this, the SPG expected rural housing sites to include 15% to 20% affordable units whereas in the Scunthorpe urban area only 5% to 10% were required. Affordable housing would normally be secured by means of a Section 106 legal agreement tied in with the grant of planning permission for the housing development. Applying the SPG would require close working between planning and housing officers, and the rural housing enabler.
A summary of the comments received during the consultation together with the officer comments from planning and housing was appended to the report along with a copy of the final draft SPG.
Recommended to Council – That the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing be adopted for development control purposes.
540 (82) SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE – DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOLS – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report informing members of the issues raised during the consultation on this draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), proposing changes to the draft and seeking the adoption of the SPG for development control purposes when determining planning applications for major housing sites.
The draft SPG had been produced in December 2002 to expand on the Policy C1: Educational Facilities of the Adopted North Lincolnshire Local Plan (May 2003). It would be used when determining planning applications for major housing developments.
The draft SPG had been approved for public consultation purposes on 2nd January 2003. During the consultation period eight organisations had submitted comments.
A summary of the comments received during the consultation together with the officer comments from planning and education were appended to the report along with a copy of the final draft SPG.
Recommended to Council – That the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Developer Contributions to Schools be adopted for development control purposes.
541 (83) SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE – DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOLS – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report seeking approval of Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on Provision of Open Space in New Housing Developments (SPG) for public consultation purposes and for the adoption of the SPG for development control purposes when determining planning applications for housing.
The SPG expanded on the open space policies in the North Lincolnshire Local Plan. When approved, the SPG would be used for deciding planning applications for housing. It recommended how much recreational open space and children’s play space should be provided in housing layouts. It also advised what kind of arrangements should be made to secure the future maintenance of open space.
The SPG insisted that the Council must provide evidence to the developer that the open space it wished to see provided was actually needed. It needed to make reference to open space surveys, national standards, and local knowledge of an area.
A draft version of the SPG was appended to the report. Comments would be invited from the public over a six week period. It would be revised in the light of comments received and then reported for approval to a future meeting.
Resolved – (a) That the Draft SPG be the subject of public consultation in January and February 2004; (b) that the Draft be used for development control purposes when determining planning applications, and (c) that the results of the public consultation exercise be reported to a future meeting.
542 (84) SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE – TREES AND DEVELOPMENT – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report informing members of the issues raised during the consultation on this draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), proposing changes to the draft and seeking the adoption of the SPG for use in informing the land development process in the area and as a guidance document for town planning purposes.
The basis of the Council’s regulation and control of the development and other uses of land within its area was set out in its local plan. This aimed to secure more sustainable forms of development.
Policies in the plan recognised the role, which trees and other landscape features could play in achieving more sustainable forms of development and in retaining local distinctiveness. Policy LC12 sought to ensure that the needs of trees were taken into account when land development was proposed.
Currently the Council had no guidance to which it could direct people when considering the role of trees as part of the land development process. In September 2001 it had authorised the preparation of Supplementary Planning Guidance to redress this situation. The document emphasised the need for would be developers to obtain quality information through land and tree survey work prior to making critical decisions about how a site should be developed. Such information could then be used to inform the planning process.
Underlying the guidance was the proposition that it was possible to retain existing trees on development sites provided that their needs were planned for at an early stage.
The majority of consultation responses received had not only supported the need for the document but had also commented upon the quality of the product.
A summary of the comments received during the consultation together with the officer comments from planning and education were appended to the report along with a copy of the final draft SPG.
Recommended to Council – That the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Trees and Development be adopted for development control purposes.
543 (85) DIVERSION OF PART OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH 312, WINTERINGHAM – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report seeking approval to divert part of Public Footpath 312, Winteringham, under the provisions of Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980.
The diversion would be in the interest of the landowner. The applicant had recently purchased the field to the rear of his property. The proposed diversion would help secure the safe use of the former agricultural field and facilitate its transformation into an extension of the applicant’s garden.
Both the present line and the proposed diversion were within land owned by the applicant.
The relevant organisations had been consulted and none had indicated that they would object to an order.
Resolved – (a) That an order be made under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert a section of Public Footpath 312 Winteringham; (b) that the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to confirm the order if it is unopposed; (c) that if the order attracts irreconcilable objections or representations the matter be referred to this committee, and (d) that if the order is confirmed, a further order be made under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the County of Lincoln – Parts of Lindsey (Glanford Brigg) Definitive Map and Statement.
544 (86) WESTCOTE FARM, WOLD ROAD, BARROW UPON HUMBER – The Head of Planning and Regeneration 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.
In September 2000, Barrow-upon-Humber Parish Council had made an application under section 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add an approximately 600-metre-long route to the Definitive Map and Statement as a public footpath.
Shortly after the application, the Parish Council had written to say that, due to the lack of evidence as to the use of part of the path, it wished only to claim part of the path as a public right of way. This proposition then resulted in the path becoming a cul-de-sac. The Parish Council had been advised that this might negate the claim and the Parish Council accepted that the claim might fail due to this.
Subsequently a site visit and meeting had revealed that the majority of the original claimants were no longer interested in pursuing the application. This was apparently due to the agricultural buildings at Westcote Farm now been converted and sold as residential properties, which might have consequently enabled some access for the local residents.
Resolved -That the application to modify the definitive map and statement be declined.
545 (87) RECENT DECISIONS OF THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE (PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY ORDERS) – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report inform members of the outcome of the following decisions by The Planning Inspectorate.
(i) Order to add a public footpath to the definitive map along the western bank of the River Trent between Three Rivers and the King George V Bridge, Keadby,
(Footpath 149)– order Not Confirmed – Application for costs against the council refused.
(ii) Order to add a 120-metre-long footpath to the definitive map between Worcester Close and Valley View Drive, Bottesford (Footpath 196) – Order Confirmed
Resolved – That the report be noted.