Planning Committee – 2 March 2005

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

AGENDA

1. Substitutions.

2. Declarations of Personal and Personal and Prejudicial Interests, and significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (Lobbying).

3. To take the minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2005 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.

4. Application deferred from previous meeting for site visit – 2004/2169 by Mr & Mrs W Fox for the erection of a two-storey extension at 8 Langley Drive, Bottesford.

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

6. Applications for Approval of Reserved Matters.

7. Appeals.

8. Enforcement Update.

 9. 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 (Chairman).

Councillors Long (Vice – Chairman), Barkworth, Bunyan, Eckhardt, England, Fordham, Grant, Kirk, Whiteley and Wood .

Councillors Appleyard, Mrs Bromby, Osborne, Smith and Vickers attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b).

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

665 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL AND PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AND DECLARATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) –The following members declared personal interests as follows: –

Member
Minute / Application
Nature of Interest
Councillors Grant and Kirk 04/2169 Knew applicant and objector
Councillor Fordham 04/2169 Knew objector
Councillor Whiteley 04/2169 Member of Bottesford Town Council

Councillors Appleyard and Vickers, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b) declared a personal interest in application 04/04/0044 as members of Barton – upon – Humber Town Council.

The following member declared that he had been lobbied –

Member
Application
Lobbied By
Councillor Wardle 05/0004 Objectors

666 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 2 February, 2005, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

667 (82) APPLICATION DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – 04/2169 by Mr and Mrs W Fox for the erection of a two-storey extension at 8 Langley Drive, Bottesford – In accordance with the decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken a site visit earlier in the day. The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report and updated it orally.

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 proposed extension would have an overbearing effect on his own property, would be too close to his main entrance and would block light to his property.

Councillor Mrs Bromby, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b), spoke against the application on the same basis as the objector.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that, whilst it was difficult to accurately predict the effect of a building on light to other properties, on balance he did not believe that the proposal would have a significant effect on the neighbouring property.

The committee, however, having visited the site, agreed with the objector.

Resolved – That permission be refused as the proposal would not be in keeping with the street scene and would have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property.

668 (83) 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) 03/1901 by Redemore Estates (Crowle) Ltd for outline permission for mixed use of retail (neighbourhood centre) and residential development on land at the junction of High Street and Godnow Road, Crowle

Prior to consideration of this application, a representative of the applicants addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e).He stated that he was happy with the content of the report.

Resolved – (a) That the committee wishes to grant outline planning permission subject to the submission of further information and a mitigation strategy for the removal and/or treatment of the contamination within the site, and (b) that providing there are no identified adverse environmental impacts following consideration of the above-mentioned reports and mitigation strategy, the decision to grant outline planning permission be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration and that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report and on completion of a formal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 providing for (i) a commuted sum in accordance with the SPG on Education for contributions towards the cost of both primary and secondary education school places created by this development; and (ii) a contribution towards the maintenance of existing public open space and play areas within Crowle.

(ii) 04/2153 by Alison Tinsley for outline permission to erect a detached building to provide a double bedroom for use by disabled bed and breakfast guests at Wisteria Cottage, 10 Belton Road, Epworth

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

(iii) 04/2249 by Mrs J Harrison for the erection of a single – storey extension and ramped access to the front and rear of property at 15 Brigg Road, Hibaldstow

The Head of Planning and Regeneration updated his report advising that Hibaldstow Parish Council had now indicated that it did not object to the application in principle but was not entirely happy with the potential loss of light and amenity of neighbouring properties. He also reported that an amended plan had been submitted to attempt to overcome the objections. This had been examined but there was no reason to change the recommendation.

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

(iv) 05/0015 by Mr M Joyce, MSM Vehicle Refinishers Ltd for the erection of a new preparation bay and water-based paint spray booth at 50 Park Street, Winterton

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

(v) 05/0061 by Mills Group Limited for the installation of an ATM cash machine at 11 High Street, Kirton – in – Lindsey

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

669 (84) APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS FOLLOWING THE GRANT OF OUTLINE PERMISSION –- The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report informing members about 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).

(i) 05/0004 by Mr A Urry in relation to outline permission 04/0465 for the erection of a detached bungalow with integral garage and associated access on land off mount Royale Close, Ulceby

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 development would constitute over development of the site. He was concerned that it would lead to the loss of a hedge and that the arrangements for parking were inadequate. The parish council objected to the application

The Head of Planning and Regeneration informed the committee that, whilst the parish council had objected to the outline application, it had not objected to the present one. The hedge would be retained, this matter to be controlled by condition 2.

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

(ii) 05/0044 by Keigar Homes Ltd in relation to outline permission 2002/0454 granted on 10/12/2002 for the erection of 110 dwellings, including 12 dwellings for social housing needs, on land South of Dam Road, Barton – upon – Humber

Prior to consideration of this application, one of the applicants and an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). The applicant stated that the site had been allocated for residential development for a number of years. The site had been designed in accordance with the policies in the local plan. The site included a large amount of public open space. The development would help meet a local need for affordable housing.

The objector stated that the development would be contrary to Policy LC15 of the local plan. It would lead to the filling in of a dyke which was the habitat of water voles. She questioned whether a wildlife survey had been carried out. West Acridge and Dam Road would not be able to cope with the additional traffic.

Councillors Appleyard and Vickers attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b) spoke against this application.

Councillor Vickers stated that the application did not address the relevant policies in the local plan. The density was too high as was the amount of traffic that would be generated. The number of houses should be reduced.

Councillor Appleyard was also concerned that emergency vehicles would not be able to get through West Acridge if the development went ahead as there was a lack of off-street car parking.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration reminded the committee that the principle of the development was not at issue, only the reserved matters. Most of the concerns raised by the objector and by the two councillors were matters that should have been addressed when the outline permission was granted. There were no reasons to withhold consent The proposal complied with all relevant national guidance on density.

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

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

2003/1007 Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission to change the use of an existing warehouse and offices into a karting centre at The Mill and premises, Mill Lane, Brigg Allowed subject to conditions re opening hours and noise insulation
2003/1319 Appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning permission to erect a dwelling on land on the West side of Carrhouse Road, Belton Appeal dismissed
2003/1711 Appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning permission to erect a replacement dwelling at Elmfield Farm, Brethergate, Westwoodside Allowed subject to a condition re access and parking
2004/0009 Appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning permission to erect two detached dwellings on land to the rear of 11 Main Street, Worlaby Appeal dismissed
2004/0067 Appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning permission to erect 9 dwellings, including the demolition of existing works (re-submission of 2003/1336) on land between 23-37 Cherry Lane, Wootton Appeal dismissed
2004/0270 Appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning permission for 2 residential units including demolition of existing workshop/showroom at Laburnum House, Townside, East Halton Appeal dismissed
2004/0296 Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission to erect 12 detached houses and garages (resubmission of 2003/1202) on Plots 24 to 33, 36 & 37, Althorpe Park, off Kelsey Lane, Althorpe Appeal dismissed
2004/0451 Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for change of use to hot food takeaway at 20 Westerdale Road, Scunthorpe Allowed subject to conditions re fume extraction, provision of a litter bin, and opening hours
2004/0464 Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission to erect an extension at 1 Alba Close, Scunthorpe Allowed (unconditional)
2004/0668 Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission to demolish an existing bungalow and erect 3 dwellings at Barnsdale, 11 Nethergate, Westwoodside Appeal dismissed
2004/0709 Appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning permission to erect a detached dwelling with detached garage and workshop (re-submission of 2003/0719 adjacent to 44 Holme Lane, Messingham Appeal dismissed
2004/0921 Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission to demolish an existing single-storey cottage and erect a chalet bungalow with integral double garage – formerly The Cottage, Beck Lane, Redbourne Appeal dismissed
2004/0952 Appeal against the refusal of conservation area consent to demolish an existing bungalow – formerly The Cottage, Beck Lane, Redbourne Appeal dismissed
2004/0948 Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission to erect a detached dwelling on a site to the rear of 2 Manor Court Road, Epworth Appeal dismissed

Resolved – That the report be noted.

671 (86) ENFORCEMENT UPDATE – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a schedule giving details of progress in respect of matters on which he had taken enforcement action under delegated authority.

Resolved – That the report be noted.