Democracy | Planning Committee

Planning Committee – 14 July 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 9 June, 2004 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.

PLANNING MATTERS

4. Applications deferred from previous meeting for site visit –

(i) 04/0465 by Mr and Mrs Palmer for the erection of a single-storey dwelling at Mount Royale, Front Street, Ulceby.

(ii) 04/0040 by Marishal Thompson and Co. for the felling of two Horse Chestnut trees (Group A1) covered by Tree Preservation (Messingham) Order 1955.

(iii) 04/0357 by OCA Ltd for the felling of a Lime tree in group A1 of Tree Preservation (Messingham) Order 1955.

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

6. Appeals.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY MATTER

7. Public Footpath 229 Broughton – Modification of definitive map and statement.

8. Any other items, which the chairman 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, Fordham, Grant, Holgate, Kirk, Phillips and Whiteley.

Councillors Barkworth, Briggs, Muir and Smith attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b).

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

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

Member	Minute	Item	Nature of Interest
Councillor Grant	583 (ii)	Application 03/1609	Member of Bottesford Town Council
Councillor Wardle	583 (xviii)	Application 04/0728	Former owner of the land
Councillor Wardle	583 (xix)	Application 04/0945	Knew applicant’s husband
Councillor Whiteley	583 (ii)	Application 03/1609	Member of Bottesford Town Council

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Member	Application/ Item	Lobbied By
Councillor England	04/0473	Objector
Councillor Holgate	04/0859	Applicant
Councillor Holgate	04/0950	Applicant
Councillor Long	04/0538	Applicant
Councillor Long	04/0174	Objector
Councillor Wardle	04/0465	Objectors
Councillor Wardle	04/0174	Objectors and Parish Council
Councillor Wardle	04/0473	Objector
Councillor Whiteley	04/0732	Applicant

Councillor Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b), declared that he had a prejudicial personal interest in relation to application 04/0732. Accordingly he would leave the meeting prior to the consideration of that application.

Messrs T Lyman and M Welton declared a non – pecuniary interest in application 04/0945 (Minute 583 (xix) ) as they knew the applicant’s husband.

581 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 9 June, 2004, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

582 (17) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING –- In accordance with the decision at the previous meeting, members had undertaken a site visit the day prior to the meeting. The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted reports and updated them orally.

(i) 04/0465 by Mr and Mrs Palmer for outline permission for the erection of a single – storey dwelling at Mount Royale, Front Street, Ulceby.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e).

She stated that the proposal was contrary to the Ulceby Village Plan. It would lead to a loss of trees on the boundary of the site. The residents of Mount Royale Close would not permit the private access road to be used for access and egress to the proposed dwelling.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration indicated that it was intended to retain the hedgerow. The Highways Team was satisfied that Mount Royale Close could accommodate an additional single access. The issue of obtaining a right of access was not a planning consideration.

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

(i) 04/0040 by Marishal Thompson and Co. for the felling of two Horse Chestnut trees (Group A1) covered by Tree Preservation (Messingham) Order 1955 at Dalson House, 4 Brigg Road, Messingham.

Resolved – That consent be granted.

(Note: Councillor England wished to be recorded as dissenting from the decision contained in Minute 582 (ii) above)

(iii) 04/0357 by OCA Ltd for the felling of a Lime tree in (Group A1) of Tree Preservation (Messingham) Order 1955 at 8 Brigg Road, Messingham.

Resolved – That consent be granted.

(Note: Councillor England wished to be recorded as dissenting from the decision contained in Minute 582 (iii) above)

583 (18) 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.

(i) 2002/1640 by Parkway Entertainment Co. Ltd for the change of use of a cinema (D2) to a public house (A3) at Majestic Cinema, Oswald Road, Scunthorpe.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred on the advice of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services.

(i) 03/1609 by Mr P Tasou for outline permission for residential development at 55 Sunningdale Road, Bottesford.

Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant’s agent addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). She stated that refusal was recommended solely on the grounds of potential noise nuisance. A noise assessment had been undertaken which had recommended measures to overcome this problem.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the committee that the Environmental Protection Unit did not consider that the noise issue had been satisfactorily addressed.

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

(iii) 03/1940 by Wiltshire Rhodes Ltd for outline permission for the erection of a hotel and conference centre (Use Class C1) at 7 Lakes Industrial Estate, A161, Ealand.

Councillor Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37(b), spoke in support of this application.

Resolved – (a) That the committee is mindful to grant permission for the development; (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, and (c) that, in the event of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister deciding not to intervene, the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to grant permission subject to the conditions contained in the report.

(iv) 04/0174 by Mr C Fletcher for the erection of three bungalows with integral garages at The Wishing Well, Top Road, Worlaby.

Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that the public house had been marketed unsuccessfully for a total of three and a half years.

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

(v) 04/0249 by Mrs J Hansen for outline permission for the erection of a dwelling on land to the rear of Spring Garth, Chapel Street, Goxhill.

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

(vi) 04/0400 by Mr and Mrs K R Dewick for the erection of a dwelling at 43 Richdale Avenue, Kirton – in – Lindsey.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector and the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e).

The objector did not object in principle to the development of the site but believed that such development should be single – storey and should be screened from adjacent properties. As the proposed dwelling would be higher than numbers 36 and 34 it would lead to overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of those properties. It would set a precedent for two – storey dwellings in the vicinity.

The applicant stated that the estate was open plan, consisting of chalets and bungalows. The proposed dwelling was a dormer and therefore in keeping with the locality. It would be far enough away not to lead to any overlooking or loss of privacy. It would be some distance away from properties to the north and west.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the amendment of Condition 5 to read “The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended details received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 May 2004 and as further amended on 2 July 2004.

(vii) 04/0437 by Mr R A Northing for the conversion of a dwelling into two flats at 43 Cole Street, Scunthorpe.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that the proposed flats would overlook his property and result in a loss of privacy. He claimed that the applicant had already carried out some of the work on site.

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

(viii) 04/0473 by Mr and Mrs Cook for the erection of extensions to a bungalow to form a detached house and detached garage at Horseshoe Cottage, north End, Goxhill.

Prior to consideration of this application, a representative of an objector and the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e).

The objector ’s representative was concerned that the extension would be too close to the objector’s property.

The applicant stated that the proposal had been amended in accordance with officer advice. His family had lived locally for many years. The site would be convenient for the local school and other facilities.

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

(ix) 04/0481 by Reeds Hotel for the removal of condition 3 of 2003/1628 relating to the months when construction can take place at Reeds Hotel, Far Ings Lane, Barton – upon – Humber.

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

(x) 04/0538 by I & C Staines for Listed Building Consent to replace windows (resubmission of 2003/1048) at Horkstow House, 37 Main Street, Horkstow

Prior to consideration of this application, one of the applicants addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). She stated that the house had been built in the Georgian era. It was proposed to install sash windows appropriate to that era. English Heritage had no objections to the proposal.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration confirmed that English Heritage had indicated that the application was not one on which it would normally expect to be consulted and that it was for the Local Planning Authority to determine it.

Resolved – That consent be granted.

(xi) 04/0544 by Mr R Vincent for outline permission to erect a dwelling and garage on land adjacent to 11 Bracon, Belton.

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

(xii) 04/0567 by Mr I Jickells for the erection of a two – storey extension at 21 Malvern Road, Scunthorpe.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that the proposal would cause a loss of light to his own property and would be too close to it. He made reference to a Building Research Establishment publication indicating that a 25 degree projection should be used in calculating whether the amenity of neighbouring properties would be adversely affected .

The Head of Planning and Regeneration informed the committee that the distance between the proposed extension and the neighbour’s property would be 5.7 metres. He demonstrated the method used to determine whether or not the amenity of neighbouring properties would be affected, based on a 30 degree projection.

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

(xiii) 04/0576 by Miss J Smith for the continued use of land for purposes in connection with the breeding of dogs and the erection of kennel blocks at The Willows, 9 Nethergate, Westwoodside.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector and the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e).

The objector stated that the plan accompanying the report was out of date as there were a number of additional residential properties now in the area. The application was retrospective and the use created a noise nuisance due to barking. The Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England objected. The development was inappropriate in the centre of a village.

The applicant claimed that the noise referred to was caused by dogs at other nearby properties rather than her own. Environmental Health Officers had visited the premises in the past and had not found any evidence of noise nuisance. The use involved only around half a dozen pups 3 or 4 times a year.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration indicated that he was recommending that permission should be temporary and personal to the applicant in order for the use to be monitored.

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

(xiv) 04/0586 by Coggan Brothers for outline permission to erect two dwellings on land between 51 and 57 North Street, West Butterwick.

Prior to consideration of this application, one of the applicants addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that, whilst the land was outside the development limit for the village in the current local plan, it had been inside the limit in the former Boothferry Local Plan. There had been no objection from the parish council or from neighbours. The plot was an infill plot.

Moved by Councillor Holgate and seconded by Councillor Glover –

That permission be granted

At the request of members and in accordance with Procedure Rule 36 (d) the names of members voting for and against the amendment are as follows –

FOR: Councillors Bunyan Glover, Holgate and Long.

AGAINST: Councillors England, Fordham, Grant, Kirk, Phillips, Wardle and Whiteley.

Motion Lost

Moved by Councillor Kirk and seconded by Councillor Whiteley –

That permission be refused in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the deletion of Condition 3.

Motion Carried

(xv) 04/0616 by Mrs C Muscroft for the erection of a detached house and double garage at Battelfields Stud, Woodhouse, Belton.

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

(xvi) 04/0673 by Mr and Mrs P Betts for the erection of a detached dwelling on land at Main Street, Horkstow

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the amendment of condition 1 by the substitution of “one” for “five”.

(xvii) 04/0722 by Mr D Lawson for outline permission for the erection of a bungalow and stables at Salisbury House, Trentside, Amcotts

Councillor Briggs attending the meeting under the provisions of procedure Rule 37 (b) also spoke in support of the application. The Head of Planning and Regeneration explained that the development was contrary to the Local Plan.

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

(xviii) 04/0728 by Mr D A and Mrs A Poppleton for outline planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage (access not reserved for subsequent approval) on land to the south – west of The Stables, Church Street, Goxhill.

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

(xix) 04/0729 by Mrs B Dobson for the erection of buildings to be used as a cattery for a maximum of 16 cats at Pear Tree house, Belton Road, Beltoft.

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

(Note: Councillor Briggs, having declared a prejudicial personal interest in the following application, 04/0732, had left the meeting prior to its consideration.)

(xx) 04/0732 by Mr W Smith for the change of use of a barn to a workshop for repairing touring caravans and 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 35 (e). He stated that sales would be restricted to used caravans until the business had been proved to be viable. The applicant already lived and worked on the site. The proposed use would not be the principal business on the site. Local Authorities had a duty to encourage economic regeneration in rural areas

Moved by Councillor England and seconded by Councillor Holgate –

That permission be granted

At the request of members and in accordance with Procedure Rule 36 (d) the names of members voting for and against the amendment are as follows –

FOR: Councillors England, Glover, Holgate and Long.

AGAINST: Councillors Bunyan, Fordham, Grant, Kirk, Phillips, Wardle and Whiteley.

Motion Lost

Moved by Councillor Kirk and seconded by Councillor Grant –

That permission be refused in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report

Motion Carried

(xxi) 04/0752 by Mr and Mrs C Pearson for the retention of a detached house in the course of construction on Plot A, West Acridge, Barton – upon – Humber.

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

(xxii) 04/0823 by Mr and Mrs Wright for the erection of a house and garage on plot of land adjacent to 191 Westgate Road, Belton

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

(xiii) 04/0830 by Mrs and Mrs S Wright for the change of use of grassland to the residential curtilage of a proposed house on land adjacent to 191 Westgate Lane, Belton

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

(xxiv) 04/0859 by Mr and Mrs N Schofield for the erection of a detached bungalow on land adjacent to 39 & 41 Nethergate, Westwoodside, Haxey.

Prior to consideration of this application, one of the applicants addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that his wife and uncle who lived with them both had serious illnesses. A bungalow would cater for their needs. There were no highways or parish council objections.

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

(xxv) 04/0873 by Mr Amin Mohammed Uddin for the erection of a single – storey and a two – storey extension at 9 Exeter Road, Scunthorpe.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He was concerned that the proposal would lead to a loss of light to his own property. There would only be a gap of 7 metres between the two properties.

Councillor Barkworth, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b), spoke against the application. He believed that the proposal would lead to loss of light to the objector’s property and cause parking problems.

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

(xxvi) 04/0882 by Mr J and Mrs J F Barnard for the erection of a dormer bungalow at Shepherds Farm, Pump Hill, Cadney .

Councillor Muir, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b), spoke in support of the application on the grounds that one of the applicants had had undergone surgery of the spine and needed to live in single – storey accommodation.

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

(xxvii) 04/0894 by Mr P Sembiante for the continued use of a dwelling as a mixed use comprising a dwelling and a motorcycle training business at 69 Caistor Avenue, Bottesford.

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

(xxviii) 04/0905 by Mr R Milburn for the retention of a hipped roof over a previously flat – roofed section of a triple garage at Sycamore Lodge, Lakeside Drive, Scunthorpe.

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

(xix) 04/0945 by Mrs A Redmond for the erection of a first floor extension at St James Road, Brigg.

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

(xxx) 04/0950 by Mr T Astle for the erection of one dwelling on land to the rear of 21 Newbigg, Westwoodside, Haxey.

Prior to consideration of this application, a representative of the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e).

She stated that the land was currently in domestic use as the garden of a public house. It was an infill plot. PPG 7 allowed for the “rounding up” of village and hamlets. The dwelling would be an “affordable home” for the applicant’s son.

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

584(19) APPEALS – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report on the outcome of the following appeals.

(i) Against the refusal to grant permission for three detached dwellings at Moorlands Farm, Beltoft Road, Beltoft, Belton (Application 2003/0727) – Allowed subject to conditions.

(ii) Against the refusal to grant permission for outline permission to remove condition 1 of permission 2001/1622 dated 31/01/2002 ( annex to be used only as ancillary accommodation in connection with the occupation of the main house and not to be severed from the main home by being sold or rented out) at Belton Commercials, 91 High Street, Belton (Application 2003/1311) – Allowed.

(iii) Against the refusal to grant permission for the change of use of an existing café building to a dwelling at Woodcarr Cottage, Sandtoft Road, Belton (application 2003/1355) – Dismissed.

(iv) Against the refusal to grant permission for outline permission for the erection of a detached house and garage on land at the eastern side of Ferneries Lane, Barnetby (application 2003/1377) – Allowed.

(v) Against the refusal to grant consent to fell a Crab Apple tree protected by Tree Preservation (New Brumby No. 3) Order at 123 East Common Lane, Scunthorpe (application 2003/1398) – Allowed.

(vi) Against the refusal to grant permission for outline permission to erect a detached bungalow and garage on land to the rear of 19 & 21 St Helens Road, Brigg (application 2003/1567) – Dismissed.

(vii) Against the refusal to grant permission for the erection of a pair of semi – detached houses with garages (including the demolition of an existing garage ) on land on the east side of 2 Lincoln Gardens, Scunthorpe (application 2003/1619) – Dismissed.

(viii) Appeal against Enforcement Notice (2002/577) requiring removal of timber garage, 14 Rookery Croft, Epworth – Appeal Allowed, Notice quoshed and temporary 3 year permission granted.

(ix) Against two Hedgerow Replacement notices at High Burnham, Haxey (PLANCON/2002/622) – Dismissed and notices upheld with variations.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

585 (20) PUBLIC FOOTPATH 229, BROUGHTON – MODIFICATION OF DEFINITIVE MAP AND STATEMENT – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report seeking approval to make two definitive map modification orders in respect of Public Footpath 229, Broughton.

It had become apparent that there was an anomaly on the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way in that the line of the route depicted on the map was shown to pass through a building known as The Maltkilns at Castlethorpe which had been in existence for a significant amount of time prior to the relevant date of the Definitive Map of 1953.

The existing landowners had been consulted over the issue and had expressed concern that the Map Modification Order would result in the path subsisting over their garden rather than on the route that was actually used They did, however appreciate that this was preferable to the path being mapped through the building as shown on the Definitive Map.

Resolved – (a) That an order be made under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the definitive map and statement by adding a public footpath along the line that corresponds to that which was possible to walk at the relevant date of the Definitive Map in respect of the north section of Public Footpath 229, Broughton; (b )that a further order be made under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the definitive map and statement to delete the existing north section of Public Footpath 229, Broughton that is obstructed by buildings, and (c) that if duly served objections prevent the confirming of either order a further report be submitted.