northlincs.gov.uk

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 23 April, 2004 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.

PLANNING MATTERS

4. Application deferred from previous meeting for site visit – 2004/0295 by Mr P Coupland for the erection of an extension to a dwelling at 57 Weymouth Crescent, Scunthorpe.

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

6. Applications for approval of reserved matters.

7. Appeals.

8. Enforcement Update.

RIGHTS OF WAY MATTERS

9. Public Footpath No. 101, Haxey.

10. Redcombe Lane, Brigg.

11. 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, Kirk, Rocks, Vickers, , Whiteley and Wood.

Councillors Eckhardt, Osborne, and Sherwood attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b).

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

558 DECLARATIONS OF PREJUDICIAL AND NON-PREJUDICIAL PERSONAL INTERESTS AND DECLARATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) –

The following member declared a prejudicial personal interests as follows

Member	Minute/Item	Nature of Interest
Councillor Rocks	Application 04/0286	Friend of Applicant and family

The following member declared a non–prejudicial personal interest as follows: –

Member	Minute/Item	Nature of Interest
Councillor Wardle	Application 04/0514	Knew applicant

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Member	Application/Item	Lobbied By
Councillor Long	04/0174	Objectors
Councillor Vickers	04/0004	Councillor Appleyard
Councillor Wardle	04/0174	Objectors (parish council)
“	04/0274	Objector

Mr M Welton, Business Manager (Development Control) declared a non–pecuniary interest in application 04/0295 (Minute).

559 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 23 April, 2004, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

(96) APPLICATION DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING –04/0295 by Mr P Coupland for the erection of an extension to a dwelling at 75 Weymouth Crescent, Scunthorpe – In accordance with the decision 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).

The objector stated that the extension would be out of character with the locality. The objector would be unable to carry out any necessary maintenance work to the wall facing the proposed extension. The extension could be used for commercial purposes. The objector stated that the premises were already being used for such purposes with up to 7 vehicles being present at any one time. The proposal would exacerbate the problem. The extension would overlook the objector’s property and lead to a loss of light to the objector’s sitting room.

The Head of Service indicated that some of the issues raised by the objector were not material planning considerations and drew attention to a condition restricting use for residential purposes only.

Resolved – That permission be refused on the grounds that the extension is poorly designed and would be out of keeping with its surroundings.

(97) 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) 03/0860 by Barratt Homes Ltd. and Lakeside Partnership for outline permission for residential development including local centre, open space and ancillary infrastructure including a school at Lakeside, south of Queensway (A18), Scunthorpe.

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

The agent stated that the development included a school and open space. It would utilise the link road for which permission had previously been granted. He acknowledged the need for further survey work to be carried out in relation to reptiles and birds on the site. With regard Environment Agency’s objection relating to air quality this issue had not been raised at the Local Plan Inquiry when the allocation of the site for housing had been discussed in detail. There were people already living nearby.

The objector stated that the proposal would damage wildlife sites. It would place pressure on existing infrastructure including roads and would lead to traffic congestion. The Environment Agency had objected on the basis of poor air quality. The development would attract families with young children who were susceptible to asthma. The proposal would lead to a loss of open space and would increase the risk of flooding from Bottesford Beck.

The Head of Service reminded members that the environmental issues had been considered at the Local Plan Inquiry. In response to a query about the school he stated that the school was shown on the indicative plan submitted with the application and would be covered by the proposed Section 106 Agreement, however to clarify matters the application description could be amended to incorporate reference to this.

Resolved – (a) That the application be supported in principle subject to the receipt of satisfactory survey data with respect to any outstanding nature conservation interests on the site; (b) That providing there are no identified adverse environmental impacts the application be referred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in accordance with statutory procedures to enable him to consider whether to intervene under the provisions of Circular 8/2000 entitled ‘Town and Country Planning (Residential Development on Greenfield Land) (England) Direction 2000’; and (c) that in the event that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not intervene, the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to grant permission subject to the amendment of the description of the application to include reference to a school, to the conditions set out in Appendix 1of the report and to the completion of a formal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 providing for (i) commuted sums relating to off-site highway and signage works; (ii) commuted sum in accordance with the SPG on Education Contributions towards the provision of a new primary school; (iii) any specific off-site mitigation measures required in relation to issues of nature conservation interest which may be identified as a result of surveys, and (iv)a contribution towards any additional air quality monitoring equipment necessitated as a result of the development.

(ii) 04/0004 by St John Ambulance (Humberside) for the installation of replacement windows at 27 Fleetgate, Barton – upon – Humber.

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 the site was not within the Conservation Area. It was impossible to obtain metal window frames and wooden ones would lead to maintenance problems in the future. Therefore UPVC was the only practical option.

The Head of Service advised the committee that although the building was not listed it was within the conservation area

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

(iii) 04/0174 by Mr C Fletcher for the erection of 3 bungalows with integral garages at The Wishing Well, Top Road, Worlaby.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the committee that information had been received regarding the commercial viability of the public house and asked for consideration of the application to be deferred to enable this to be investigated.

Resolved – That consideration of the application be deferred at the request of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

(iv) 04/0262 by Birchwood Developments (Lincs) Ltd for the erection of 9 dwellings on land between Dam Road and West Acridge, Barton – upon – Humber.

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 encroach on his property. The town council objected to the application. The development would be tandem development with access past elderly people’s dwellings. The development would create additional traffic especially if another major application currently submitted to the council was also approved.

The Head of Service advised the committee that the committee could not take into account applications that were not yet before it. Each application should be considered on its merits. The Highways Team had advised that the road was capable of serving the extra dwellings.

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

(Note: Councillor Rocks, having previously declared a prejudicial personal interest in the following application, 04/0286, left the meeting prior to the consideration of the application and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)

(v) 04/0286 by Mr and Mrs Barnett for the extension of a dwelling at 22 Tee Lane, Burton – upon – Stather.

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

The agent said that all relevant issues were set out in the report. He disputed the objector’s claim that the plan submitted with the application contained inaccuracies. The application took into account the reasons for refusal of a previous application for the same purpose on the site.

The objector claimed that there had been no significant change to the earlier application for which permission had been refused. The proposal would be contrary to the Local Plan and would lead to overlooking and loss of light and privacy for the objector’s property. The proposal was out of proportion with its locality. The objector’s property was wrongly depicted on the site plan. The application did not address the reasons for the previous refusal..

The Head of Service accepted that there was an inaccuracy in the site plan, however this was not material to the determination of the application. The windows facing the objector’s property would be obscure glazed and therefore there would be no overlooking. There would not be an unacceptable loss of light to the objector’s property. The application addressed the reasons for the earlier refusal.

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

(Note: Councillor Kirk left the meeting at this point)

(vi) 04/0292 by E Park and Sons Ltd for a water/effluent treatment system at Sandtoft Airfield, Epworth Road, Epworth

Prior to consideration of this application, a representative of an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that his clients ability to object to the application had been prejudiced by not receiving notification of the application. The objector was concerned about water entering the adjacent hangar and claimed that there had been a history of chemicals leaking onto the airstrip.

The Head of Service stated that, whilst the objectors may not have been individually consulted, a site notice had been displayed. The fact that the objector had submitted their representations and had arranged to be represented meant that they had been made aware of the application.

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

(vii) 04/0311 by Mrs J Bray for listed building consent to repaint front windows at 28 High Street, Kirton – in – Lindsey.

Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). She stated that the property had been neglected in the past and had now been rebuilt using traditional materials.

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

(viii) 04/0366 by Mr T Astle for outline permission for the erection of a dwelling at the rear of 21 Newbigg, Westwoodside.

Resolved – Thatit be noted that this application has been withdrawn.

(ix) 04/0381 by Mr J Haigh for the erection of a two-storey extension at 4 Battle Green, Epworth.

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

(x) 04/0386 by Mr P Jackson for erection of extensions and making of alterations to a dwelling at Northfield House, Belton Fields, off Carrhouse Road, Belton.

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

(xi) 04/0394 by A R Howe for the erection of 7 detached dellings (resubmission of 2003/1898 refused 11/02/04) on land off Ings Road, 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 referred to the earlier refusal on the site and stated that the reasons for refusal of that application still applied. Trees and hedges had already been removed from the site. The development would constitute encroachment into open countryside outside the development limit.

The applicant stated that it had been necessary to remove the hedge as it was growing into the road. He already had permission for seven dwellings on the site and therefore the application was in effect for a change of house types.

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

(xii) 04/0422 by Mr M White for the change of use of a workshop/garage to a field study centre at Rose Cottage Farm, Turbary Road, Haxey Carr, Haxey

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

(xiii) 04/0457 by Mr F S Machin for the extension of an existing domestic garage and conversion to a “Chapel of Rest” at 37 Queen Street, Kirton – in – Lindsey.

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 representatives stated that the rear of the objector’s property faced the proposed Chapel of Rest and this would cause distress. It would be an inappropriate and commercial use in a residential area which was possibly prohibited by a restrictive covenant. There were no unique personal circumstances to justify granting permission. There would be an increase in traffic and parking.

The applicant stated that there would be no long-term storage of corpses on the site or cremation. The business would be discrete and small scale and would have no visual impact on neighbouring properties..

The Head of Service reminded members that any restrictive covenant was not a material planning consideration. There was adequate car parking and no traffic highway or planning reasons to refuse permission. He reported a late representation sent by facsimile but which had only been received in part.

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

(xiv) 04/0514 by John Morris Motors Ltd for outline permission for residential development at John Morris Motors Ltd., north of Thornton Lane, Wootton.

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, whilst he accepted that the site was outside the development limit, it was immediately adjacent to that limit. It was a brownfield site and the council was not meeting its targets for development of such sites. The application was supported by neighbours.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the committee that the Environment Agency had now indicated that it had no objection to the application, subject to conditions relating to surface water, piling and contamination. With regard to the speaker’s argument he reminded the committee that whilst the site was “brownfield” that was no reason to grant permission if the site was outside the development limit. The matters put forward were not, in his opinion, sufficient to outweigh the relevant policies in the development plan.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that, if the site was outside the development limit, it would be open to the Secretary of State to call in the application.

Moved by Councillor Rocks and seconded by Councillor Fordham –

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

Motion Lost

(Note: The voting being equal the chairman used his second and casting vote against the motion)

Moved by Councillor Wardle and seconded by Councillor Vickers –

That permission be granted subject to conditions relating to

Motion Carried

(Note: The voting being equal the chairman used his second and casting vote in favour the motion)

In coming to this decision the committee considered that the site was a brownfield site and that it was better used for housing than industry. The development would be a natural extension to the village.

(Note: Councillor Rocks wished to be recorded as dissenting from the above decision, Minute 561 (xiv).)

(xv)04/0538 by Ian and Carol Staines for Listed Building Consent to replace windows (resubmission of 2003/1048) at Horkstow House, Main Street, Horkstow)

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 windows in question were Victorian in style. He wished to replace them with Georgian style windows which would be consistent with other windows in the house which was itself a Georgian house. The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the committee that the Victorian windows were specifically referred to in the description of the listed building.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to enable officers to consult with English Heritage.

(xvi) 04/0551 by Mr and Mrs D Eaton for the replacement of an existing garage at Rose Cottage, Field Road, East Lound.

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

(97) APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS FOLLOWING THE GRANT OF OUTLINE PERMISSION – 04/0274 by Keiger Homes Ltd. relating to Outline Permission 2002/1310 dated 02/12/2002 for the erection of 16 and the formation of an access road on land at Nursery Close, 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).

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 35 (e).

The objector stated that it originally been proposed to build eight houses only. Sixteen houses would represent over development of the site. The proposed block of four link houses presented a particular problem. There would be overlooking of neighbouring properties from some of the proposed gable ends. Part of the site was out of character with the locality. The development would place an additional strain on inadequate surface water drainage.

The applicant stated that the council asked for high density development to enable targets to be met. There would be no windows in the gable ends referred to by the other speaker. The developer would upgrade a pumping station to solve the drainage problems in the area.

Councillor Mrs Sidell, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b) expressed her concern regarding the potential drainage problems that the proposed development could cause.

Resolved – (a) That the application be supported in principle subject to the drainage problems referred to by the objector being adequately resolved; (b) that the Head of Planning and Regeneration investigate whether provision has been made in the outline permission or under any other consent or agreement to resolve the issue; (c) that should the Head of Service be satisfied that such provision has been made he be authorised to grant permission subject to the condition set out in the report; (d) that should no such provision exist the Head of Service be authorised to enter into a formal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 providing for the upgrading of the local pumping station and on completion of the Agreement to grant permission, and (e) that should the Head of Service not be satisfied that the drainage problems can be overcome,, the application be referred back to this committee for determination.

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

556(94) 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 the erection of three detached houses and garages on land adjacent to the primary school, Church Lane, Ulceby – Application 2003/0547 – Appeal Dismissed

(ii) Costs application in relation to the appeal against the refusal to garnt planning permission for the erection of three detached houses and garages on land adjacent to the primary school, Church Lane, Ulceby – 2003/0547 – Partial award of costs made.

(iii) Against the refusal to grant outline planning permission for three dwellings (means of access not reserved for subsequent approval) at S Gregory and Sons., North Street, Crowle – Application 2003/0626 – Appeal allowed subject to conditions

(iv) Against the refusal to grant permission for the retention of use of land as domestic garden at Nightingales, Howe Lane, Goxhill – Application 2003/1098 – Appeal Dismissed

Resolved – That the report be noted.

557 (95) 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.

(96) PUBLIC FOOTPATH 101, HAXEY – Further to Minute 501, the Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report on consultation carried out with Haxey Parish Council, the Ramblers’ Association and the Lincolnshire Fieldpaths Association. All three bodies agreed that, under the circumstances, closure of the eastern section of Public Footpath 101 was the best course of action.

Resolved – (a) an application be made to the magistrates’ court to stop up the eastern third of Public Footpath 101 between Westland Road and Mill Lan, and (b) that following consideration of the application by the magistrates’ court, a further report be submitted to advise members of the situation to date and to seek further direction.

(97) REDCOMBE LANE, BRIGG – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report seeking approval to make an order to add a way in Brigg known as Redcombe Lane to the “County of Lincoln – Parts of Lindsey (Glanford Brigg) Definitive Map and Statement” as a public footpath.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 obliged surveying authorities to record all known public rights of way in a legal register known as a definitive map and its accompanying written schedule known as a definitive statement. These must be kept up to date by the making of legal orders called modification orders. When, for example, evidence came to light to show that a way not presently recorded in a definitive map should be so recorded, an appropriate modification order must be made as soon as practicable thereafter.

An application had been made in 2000 from a member of the public for a length of Redcombe Lane, Brigg, to be added to the definitive map and statement as a public footpath.

The application was supported by 22 user evidence forms. These attested to use of Redcombe Lane as a public footpath from before the 1950’s to around the date the application was made.

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 Redcombe Lane, Brigg between Ash Grove and Atherton Way; (b) that, if no objections are duly served following advertisement of the order, the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to confirm the order, and (c) that if the order results in irreconcilable objections a further report be submitted to this committee.