Planning Committee – 6 October 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 8 September 2004 and minutes of the meeting on 17 September 2004 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.

PLANNING MATTERS

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

5. Appeals.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY MATTER

6. Public Footpath 210, Manton.

7. 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) Bunyan, England, Fordham, Gosling, Grant, Holgate, Kirk, Whiteley and Wood.

Councillors Rowson, Smith and Swift attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b).

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

614 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
Councillors Bunyan, England, Holgate, Long, Wardle and Wood 616 (ii) Application 04/0785 Knew Applicant
Councillor Grant 616 (viii) Application 04/1397 Member of Bottesford Town Council
Councillor Whiteley 616 (viii) Application 04/1397 Member of Bottesford Town Council
Councillor Wardle 616 (ix) Application 04/1316 Had met the applicant following determination of earlier application
Councillor Wardle 616 (xii) Application 04/1353 Knew Applicant
Councillor Wardle 616 (xv) Application 04/1499 Knew Applicant

Councillor Gosling declared a prejudicial interest in application 04/0785 (Minute 616 (ii) refers) in view of comments ha had made to the local press in connection with the application/applicant.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Member
Application
Lobbied By
Councillors Holgate 04/0399 Applicant’s Agent
Councillors Holgate 04/1208 Applicant’s Agent
Councillor Kirk 04/1353 Fellow Councillor
Councillor Wardle 04/1316 Applicant
Councillor Wood 04/0399 Applicant

615 MINUTESResolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 8 September, 2004, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

616 (43) 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) 04/0399 by W H Strawson Farm Ltd for the conversion of barns to 6 dwellings at Lodge Farm, Clapp Gate, Appleby.

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 continued use of the buildings for agricultural purposes was not viable and their use for business would be unacceptable. If the application was considered against Policy RD9 of the Local Plan, it compled with the criteria. There were already 12 domestic properties on the site and therefore the proposal would not create a new hamlet. The applicant had prepared the scheme in consultation with the Council’s Conservation Team. The dwellings would be of a similar appearance to nearby buildings.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the proposal did not meet the criteria for conversions set out in the Local Plan. If the site had been in a minimum growth settlement, a maximum of three dwellings might be acceptable, but the application was for six.

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

(Prior to the consideration of the following item (Minute 616 (ii), Councillor Gosling, having declared a prejudicial interest in the matter left the meeting.)

(ii) 04/0785 by Mr G Redfern for the removal of condition 4 of permission 2/94/0254 granted on 24/03/1995 restricting the occupation of the dwelling to persons responsible for the day to day running of the associated commercial use of the site.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration updated the report by advising that Crowle Town Council had been consulted on the application in error. Whilst that council had objected and its objection was summarised in the report, this should be disregarded since it was not a material planning consideration.

In answer to a question from a member, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services gave advice on declarations of interest. Written advice had also been given to members prior to the meeting.

Moved by Councillor Grant and seconded by Councillor Kirk –

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

At the request of members a recorded vote was taken. The names of members voting for and against the motion and abstaining from voting are as follows –

FOR: Councillors Fordham, Grant, Kirk and Whiteley

AGAINST: None

ABSTAINING: Councillors Bunyan, England, Holgate, Long, Wardle and Wood

Motion Carried

(Councillor Gosling returned to the meeting at this point)

(iii) 04/0890 by Mrs P Colakovic for the conversion of a barn to a dwelling including associated extensions and alterations at barn adjacent to 31 North Street, Crowle.

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

(iv) 04/1030 by Mr and Mrs D Wolstenholme for the erection of one pair ofsemi-detached houses on land adjacent to 1 Birchfield Road, Epworth

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

The objector stated that the proposal would lead to traffic congestion and problems with off-street parking.

The applicant stated that the proposed dwellings would be smaller than the detached house for which permission had already granted on the site. With reference to the objection by the town council, the dwelling would be no closer to the bend than the dwelling previously approved, there were no objections from the Highways Team and the proposed houses would be some 7 metres from the nearest trees.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that there was an extant permission for a four – bedroom detached house on the site, therefore the principle of residential development had already been established. He was satisfied that there was adequate off-street car parking provision and that the proposal was acceptable in this location.

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

(v) 04/1069 by Mr M Leeming for the change of use of a barn to a dwelling (resubmission of 2003/1698) at Don Farm, Newbigg, Crowle

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 was concerned that the proposal would lead to an increase in traffic on a narrow lane which would create dust and dirt and could damage the objector’s property. It would also exacerbate an existing problem with the discharge of waste to a septic tank.

The applicant stated that the Highways Team had indicated that the track could accommodate up to five dwellings. There was an existing permission for a distribution business on the site, which would cease if the application was granted, resulting in less traffic. The water supply to the dwelling would be independent and it would have its own “mini sewerage system”.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that the application had been considered against the provisions of Policy RD9 of the Local Plan regarding the reuse and/or adaptation of rural buildings and was considered acceptable. There had been no response from the Environment Agency but he suggested that an additional condition, requiring a flood risk assessment, could be imposed.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report subject to an additional condition, requiring a flood risk assessment.

(vi) 04/1193 by Mr P Tasou for the erection of a detached house including the removal of an existing outbuilding at White House Farm, White House Lane, West Halton

Councillor Smith, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule
37 (e), addressed the committee and suggested that it should undertake a site visit.

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

(vii) 04/1208 by Mr P Bell for outline permission for the erection of a dwelling at Rose Cottage, 2 Northside, Haxey

Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that until 1969 the site was in domestic use. The dwelling on the site had been the subject of a demolition order. The footings were still in place. The site was close to the centre of Haxey. The government encouraged such development.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that a similar application had been refused in 2003.There had been no change of circumstances. There was nothing left of the former dwelling apart from foundations. The site was outside the development limit and was not an infill plot.

(viii) 04/1311 by Mr S Roberts for the demolition of a derelict cottage and construction of a four-bedroomed detached house at 3 West Street, West Butterwick

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

(ix) 04/1316 by Mr Ting Ka Wong for the variation of condition 2 of planning permission 2003/0987 to allow opening on Sundays and Bank Holidays at The Village Take Away, Town Street, South Killingholme

Resolved – That consideration of this application been deferred to enable officers to hold further discussions with the applicant.

(x) 04/1319 by Tesco Stores Ltd for the installation of an ATM cash machine at One Stop, 24 Victoria Road, Barnetby

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

(xi) 04/1347 by Robert C Kilner for the erection of a two-storey extension with dormer window to serve additional accommodation in the roof at 1a Hollingsworth Lane, Epworth

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

The objector stated that the proposal would overshadow her property and would lead to further loss of light. Also cars would park on the pavement and obstruct access to the objector’s property.

The applicant’s wife stated that the objectors had constructed a wall on the boundary of their property and this was partly responsible for the lack of light to their property. It was proposed to create a two car garage.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that the proposal had been amended to incorporate a hipped roof on the elevation facing the objector’s property.

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

(Prior to consideration of the following application, 2004/1353,Councillors Bunyan, England, Long and Wood declared a non – prejudicial personal interest in the matter, as they knew the applicant)

(xii) 04/1353 by Mrs E Wilson for the demolition of a cottage and the erection of a replacement dwelling and provision of car parking at The Cottage, Old Mill Lane, Whitton

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 had no objection in principle to a dwelling on the site but was concerned that there would be a very small gap between the proposed dwelling and her own property. This could be a trap for animals, debris and vermin and would make maintenance of her own wall impossible.

The applicant indicated that the plans had been amended in accordance with officers’ requests and she had no objection to moving the dwelling nearer the boundary to reduce the gap.

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

(xiii) 04/1397 by Mr M Masterson for the erection of a two-storey extension (re-submission of 2004/0301) at 28 Holme Lane, Bottesford

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 extension would be large and overbearing and would dominate his own property which was several feet below the application site. The area was sandy and there was a large soakaway next to the objector’s boundary.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that there was a large separation distance between the proposed extension and the objector’s property. There would be no windows facing the objector’s property. The issue of ground conditions was a matter for Building Control.

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

(Prior to consideration of the following application, 2004/1409,Councillors, Long, Wardle and Wood declared a non – prejudicial personal interest in the matter as they served on an Internal Drainage Board with the applicant company’s representative)

(xiv) 04/1409 by Winteringham Properties for the erection of five detached houses and garages (resubmission of 2003/1204 ) on land south of Carr Lane, Saxby – all – Saints

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 had been a farmyard for many generations but was now unused The proposal would improve and enhance the conservation area. The neighbours would prefer residential development to storage and distribution, a use for which permission had been refused earlier in the year.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that the site was within a conservation area. An earlier application for six houses on the site had been recommended for refusal but had been withdrawn by the applicants prior to consideration by this committee. There had been no representations by neighbours on the current application. Saxby was a rural hamlet defined as open countryside in the development plan.

Moved by Councillor Long and seconded by Councillor Bunyan –

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

Motion Lost

Moved by Councillor Kirk and seconded by Councillor Gosling

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

Motion Carried

(xv) 04/1499 by Mr and Mrs Startin for the erection of a single-storey extensions to a dwelling at 8 Southdale Close, Kirton – in -Lindsey

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

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

Reference
Details
Decision
2003/0708 Appeal against conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission to change the use of a clothing manufacturing unit to a wholesale cash and carry warehouse at 26 Hebden Road, Scunthorpe Appeal allowed and varied conditions substituted.
2003/0855 Appeal against refusal of planning permission to retain the use of a former workshop as a hot food takeaway at Pizza Uno, Unit 1F, Station Road Industrial Estate, Kirton Appeal dismissed.
2004/0371 Appeal against the refusal to grant consent to retain static externally illuminated advertisement signs at The Jolly Miller, Brigg Road, Wrawby Allowed in respect of signs C, D and E and dismissed in respect of the three signs A and sign B.

Resolved– That the report be noted.

(Prior to consideration of the following matter (Minute 618) Councillor England declared a non – prejudicial personal interest in the matter as the applicant company made donations to an organisation of which he was the secretary)

618 (45) PUBLIC FOOTPATH 210, MANTON – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report seeking approval to make an order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert temporarily a length of Public Footpath 210 Manton. This was necessary for the implementation of Planning Permission 1999/0169 permission for the extraction of silica sand from land at Messingham Quarry, off Kirton Road, Manton.

Sand was being systematically extracted from a succession of enclosures on a rotational basis.

Public Footpath 210 and 210A Manton presently crossed the land affected. In order for the operation of sand extraction to continue, therefore, it was necessary that these paths be closed. A safe alternative footpath would be provided along the northern perimeter of the site

The period of closure would last for either five years from the date of the order’s confirmation or until the sand extraction was completed (whichever were to be the sooner).

If towards the expiry of five years it remained necessary for one or both footpaths to remain closed, a further report would be submitted to enable consideration of a further consecutive closure order being made.

A restoration programme had agreed with the sand-extraction company before extraction commenced. This was to be implemented by the company on the cessation of works.

Resolved– (a) That an order be made under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert temporarily part of Public Footpath 210 and Public Footpath 210A Manton in accordance with the provisions of section 261, and (b) that a further report be submitted if objections to the order are duly lodged.