northlincs.gov.uk

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

AGENDA

1. Substitutions.
2. Declarations of Personal and Personal and Prejudicial Interests, significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (Lobbying) and Whipping Arrangements (if any).
3. To take the minutes of the meeting held on 28 February 2007 and 9 March (Policy Committee) as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY MATTER

4. Application deferred from previous meeting for site visit

PLANNING MATTERS

5. Applications deferred from previous meeting for site visit
6. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee
7. Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order
8. Enforcement Update

Note:

1. Reports are by the Head of Planning and Regeneration unless otherwise stated.
2. Extracts from the relevant legislation in respect of item 4 are available on request from Colin Wilkinson, Environment Team, Church Square House, Scunthorpe.

Minutes

PRESENT: – Councillor Wardle (Chairman)

Councillors Long (Vice–Chairman), Bunyan, Collinson, Eckhardt, Ellerby, England, Grant, Phillips, Rowson and Whiteley.

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

900 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) AND WHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS (IF ANY)

The following member declared personal and prejudical interests:

The following members declared personal interests:

The following members declared that they had been lobbied:

901 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meetings held on 28 February and 9 March 2007, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

902 (74) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY MATTERS – In accordance with the decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken a site visit on the morning of the meeting. The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report and updated it orally.

(i) Public Footpath 5, Alkborough, seeking to remedy a drafting error in the “County of Lincoln – Parts of Lindsey (Glanford Brigg) Definitive Map and Statement”.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee.

The objector stated that if the footpath were to follow the route proposed by the council the definitive statement would be contradicted. He felt that the path should not be 40 feet, as there was no recorded evidence to suggest such, and no justification given for the decision, and that the legal route was shown on the Definitive Map. If approval were granted, the footpath would traverse his land.

Resolved – That the two modification orders be made in accordance with the recommendations detailed in the report.

903 (75) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – PLANNING MATTERS – In accordance with the decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken site visits on the morning of the meeting. The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted reports and updated them orally.

(i) 06/0744 by Scawby and South Ferriby Estate Company for outline planning permission to erect three dwellings, including the demolition of disused school buildings, at South Ferriby County School, School Lane, South Ferriby.

Councillor Collinson suggested that single storey dwellings might be more appropriate to the surroundings.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the dwellings being restricted to a single storey.

(ii) 06/1935 by Mr and Mrs J Brumby for outline planning permission to erect a two-storey detached dwelling (siting and access not reserved for subsequent approval) (resubmission of 2006/1347), at land west of 16 Church Street, Elsham.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee.

The applicant stated that the plot was actually fifty percent larger than those surrounding it, with its average width being 17 metres. The proposed house style was of a standard design, which would fit comfortably onto the site and would have no impact on the other dwellings in the area.

Councillor Long noted that this was the second application to be submitted and that it showed a smaller footprint than the original application, with no overlooking. He proposed that permission be granted.

Resolved – That permission be granted subject to standard outline, highways and landscaping conditions, for the reasons mentioned above, in particular that the second application was significantly smaller than the original application and it was considered that there would not be any overlooking of neighbouring properties.

(iii) 06/1749 by Mr G Da Costa for planning permission to erect a wind turbine at an existing dwelling, at 23 Ashfield Court, Crowle.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee.

The objector stated that she was concerned about the noise from a turbine of that size and the effect on health.

Councillor Collinson felt that this could be the first of many of this type of application but on this occasion the turbine proposed did seem to be very large for domestic use and caused some concern.

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

904 (76) 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.

(i) 06/1742 by Lesley Ogg for planning permission to retain the use of an agricultural barn for the rearing of livestock (formerly granted under prior notification) and retain a change of use of a former equine centre as a rare breeds visitor centre with play areas and tea room, at Shepherds Place, Akeferry Road, Westwoodside, Haxey.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee.

The objector was concerned that work had begun on site prior to permission being granted, and she had seen an advertisement about the opening of the centre in the local paper. She stated that there had been numerous complaints from neighbours about the application and that it was not an appropriate use of the land, which was sited near to sewage works.

Councillor Eckhardt had received complaints from residents over the development. Concerns included lack of car parking and the inappropriateness of the location, which was situated on a narrow, busy road in a residential area.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred and that members undertake a site visit.

(ii) 06/1782 by Mr R Raynor for planning permission to part demolish an existing property, change its use to a dwelling, and erect a detached garage, and erect two detached houses and one detached bungalow with detached garages, at The Gables Rest Home, 195 Ashby Road, Scunthorpe.

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

(iii) 06/1904 by Mr R Raynor for planning permission to change the use of a rest home and carry out alterations to convert to a boarding house, and erect a detached garage and detached bungalow with associated garages, at The Gables Rest Home, 195 Ashby Road, Scunthorpe.

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

(iv) 07/0048 by Mr and Mrs G A Cochrane for planning permission to erect five new dwellings, including the demolition of an existing property, at 39 South Cliff Road, Kirton in Lindsey.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant’s agent addressed the committee.

The agent stated that the site was currently in a dilapidated state. It contained reasonably sized gardens and landscaping would be retained if permission were granted. There would be no overlooking of surrounding properties and there had been no objectors other than the parish council.

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

(v) 07/0108 by Mr P Trevethan for outline planning permission to erect two houses and one bungalow, with layout, scale and access not reserved for subsequent approval, at rear of 66 High Street, Messingham.

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

(vi) 07/0110 by K Spavin for outline planning permission to erect dwellings, at land off Crowberry Drive, Scunthorpe.

Councillor Collinson expressed concern over access to the site if the Brathills development were not completed.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the site must be accessed from the eastern boundary; therefore construction would not commence before access can be provided from the Brathills site to the east.

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

(vii) 07/0137 by Mr J Chatterton for outline planning permission to erect eight two-bedroom residential apartments with associated parking and gardens (including the demolition of 81 and 83 Brooklands Avenue), at 81 and 83 Brooklands Avenue, Broughton.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant and an objector addressed the committee.

The applicant stated that it would not be a problem meeting the conditions that been suggested by highways and he that intended to donate a 2 x 40 metre strip of land for footpath which he presumed would be adopted by the council in due course. With reference to complaints about overlooking, the buildings would be consistently set back 5 metres from the new footpath. He also did not feel that there would be any problems with communal areas.

The objector had concerns that the site was set between two very busy junctions with huge volume and speed of traffic and that car parking was inadequate, and regarding privacy to his own property and problems with communal areas.

Councillor Bunyan had concerns that the proposed development was sited on the second busiest thoroughfare in the village and sympathised with the objector’s views on volume and speed of traffic.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred and that members undertake a site visit.

(viii) 07/0144 by Mr M Steele for planning permission to erect a detached dwelling and demolish existing, at 34 Chapel Lane, Keadby.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee.

The applicant stated that he had attempted to make his application in keeping with dwellings in the surrounding area. Concern had been raised over neighbouring properties being overlooked by the bathroom of the building; the windows would be frosted glass, which would alleviate the problem. The property currently had a six-foot perimeter fence surrounding it, which would remain with the new development.

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

Councillor Rowson, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest left the meeting for consideration of the following item.

(ix) 07/0155 by Mr N Harland for planning permission to construct a new sheep shed, at Sandy Cottage, Walcot, Alkborough.

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

Councillor Rowson returned to the meeting.

(x) 07/0164 by Mr and Mrs D Brydon for outline planning permission to erect two detached dwellings with detached domestic garages (access and siting not reserved for subsequent approval) to replace existing dwelling to be demolished, at 85 High Street, Belton.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector and the applicant addressed the committee.

The objector stated that the proposed dwellings lay outside the development boundary. He also had concerns over privacy to his own property and problems with drainage.

The applicant made reference to a previously approved application, which she thought lay outside the development boundary. She stated that her proposal was no further back and felt that there would be road safety issues if approval were not granted.

Councillor Eckhardt felt that it would be advantageous to remove the existing building and suggested that permission be granted.

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

(xi) 07/0255 by North Lincolnshire Council for planning permission to construct an extension to a car park, including the erection of light and CCTV columns, at Cambridge House, Cambridge Avenue, Bottesford.

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

905 (77) CONFIRMATION OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDER – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report inviting the committee to decide whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order or whether to vary the order.

(i) The Old Vicarage, Church Street, Crowle – This order had been made on three trees after an application was made in July 2006 (PA 2006/1184) to fell a pear tree within the gardens of the property.

An objection had been made to the application as it was considered that the tree was merely overgrown and grew too much fruit. The objector felt that the tree only needed formative pruning and could be cut back.

The tree had been assessed to see if it contributed to the visual amenity of the area, and a Tree Preservation Order was placed on the pear and also two mature Beech trees situated within the land owned by the Old Vicarage, Church Street, Crowle.

A report had also been submitted by an arboricultural consultant, with concerns over the condition of the tree, being of four equal stems and the potential for failure at this point in the future. The weight of the branches bearing fruit was also mentioned.

Prior to consideration of this item an objector addressed the committee.

The objector described the tree as being very large and of little intrinsic value. The tree had been neglected by its former owners, was too big and produced too much fruit and caused problems of windfall, smell and insects.

Resolved – That the tree preservation order for the pear tree not be confirmed.

906 (78) 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.