Planning Committee – 10 September 2008
Chair: Councillor Collinson
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 13 August 2008 as a correct record and authorise the chair to sign.
PLANNING MATTERS
4. Application deferred from previous meeting for site visit.
5. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
6. Enforcement Update.
PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY MATTERS
7. Proposed Diversion of part of Public Footpath 42, Belton.
8. Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath 256, Barnetby–le-Wold
9. Public Footpath 74, Epworth and Haxey.
10. Green Lane, Killingholme.
11. Claimed Public Bridleway, River Idle, Haxey.
12. Claimed Byway open to all traffic, Misson Bank and Thatch Carr Bank, Wroot.
13. Public Footpath 93, Haxey.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
14. Changes to the procedure followed at Planning Committee meetings.(Report of the Service Director – Legal and Democratic)
15. Public Path Orders – Proposed delegation of authority. (Report of the Service Director – Planning and Highways)
16 Any other items, which the chairman decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances which must be specified.
Notes: (i) Reports 4 to 6 are by the Head of Planning. Reports 7 – 13 are by the Service Director – Planning and Highways.
(ii) Extracts from the relevant legislation in respect of items 7 – 13 are attached as an appendix
Minutes
PRESENT: Councillor Collinson (Chair).
Councillors Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, B Briggs, Bunyan, Carlile, Eckhardt, England, Grant, N Sherwood, Wardle and Whiteley.
Councillors J Briggs, T Foster and Poole attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 37(b).
The committee met at Pittwood House Scunthorpe.
1065 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) AND WHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS (IF ANY)
The following members declared personal interests : –
| Members | Minute | Applications | Nature of Interest |
| Cllr B Briggs | 1068 (vii) | 08/0882 | Ward Member |
| Cllr B Briggs | 1072 | n/a | Member of Epworth Town Council |
| Cllr Barker | 1067 (ii) | 08/0816 | Member of Crowle Town Council |
| Cllr Eckhardt | 1068 (i) | 08/0608 | Knew applicant |
| Cllr England | 1067 (iii) | 08/0904 | Ward Member |
| Cllr England | 1068 (iv) | 08/0785 | Member of Parish Council and ward member |
| Cllr England | 1068 (x) | 08/0935 | Member of Parish Council which owned the site and ward member |
| Cllr Wardle | 1068 (ix) | 98/0928 | Member of Barrow Parish Council |
The following members declared a personal and prejudicial interest: –
| Member | Minute | Applications | Nature of Interest |
| Cllr B Briggs | 1068 (i) | 08/0608 | Ward member
Knew applicant Business interest as worked for Sandtoft Roof Tiles who contracted work to the applicants |
| Cllr Collinson | 1067 (ii) | 08/0816 | Objector was work colleague |
The following members, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b) declared personal interests
| Members | Minute | Applications | Nature of Interest |
| Cllr J Briggs | 1067 (ii) | 08/0816 | Ward member |
| Cllr T Foster | 1068 (iv) | 08/0785 | Knew developer
Lived next to site |
| Cllr Poole | 1067 (iii) | 08/0904 | Ward Member |
| Cllr Poole | 1068 (iv) | 08/0785 | Member of Messingham Parish Council |
| Cllr Poole | 1068 (x) | 08/0935 | Resident of Well Street |
The following member, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b) declared a personal and prejudicial interest.
| Members | Minute | Applications | Nature of Interest |
| Cllr J Briggs | 1067 (iii) | 08/0904 | Member of Board of North Lincolnshire Homes Ltd |
The following members declared that they had been lobbied: –
| Members | Minute | Application |
| Cllr B Briggs | 1068 (i) | 08/0608 |
| Cllr Eckhardt | 1067 (i) | 08/0823 |
| Cllr N Sherwood | 1068 (ii) | 09/0719 |
The following members attending under the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b) declared that they had been lobbied: –
| Members | Minute | Application |
| Cllr J Briggs | 1067 (iii) | 08/0904 |
| Cllr T Foster | 1068 (iv) | 08/0785 |
| Cllr Poole | 1067 (iii) | 08/0904 |
| Cllr Poole | 1068 (iv) | 08/0785 |
| Cllr Poole | 1068 (x) | 08/0935 |
1066 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 13 August 2008 having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.
1067 (22 ) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken site visits on the morning of the meeting. The Head of Planning submitted reports and updated them orally.
(i) 08/0823 by Mr S Rickett for the erection of a single-storey rear extension at 1 Lowcroft Avenue, Haxey.
Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee. His mother lived at 3 Lowcroft Avenue. She was partially sighted and needed good light in order to see. She spent most of her time in the kitchen. The proposed extension would block light to the kitchen. He was also concerned that the area was overdeveloped and there had been a land slippage nearby. The proposal could result in the movement of existing buildings.
Members shared the concerns of the objectors.
Resolved – That permission be refused for reasons relating to over-development of the site, the potential for an adverse impact on the foundations and structural integrity of the adjacent property, and the loss of daylight to the adjacent property.
Prior to consideration of the following application, 08/0816, the chair Councillor Collinson, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, left the meeting during consideration thereof. Councillor Whiteley took the chair.
(ii) 08/0816 by Mr C Burke for the erection of a detached house and garage on land adjacent to 4 Commonside, Crowle.
Prior to consideration of this application the applicant’s partner addressed the committee. She stated that the house would be positioned on the plot in line with existing buildings. It would not overshadow adjacent properties. Changes had been made to the plans following the refusal of an earlier application. The sequential test had been applied to that application and the outcome had been positive. She queried why a different result had been achieved so soon afterwards. There had been no flooding in Crowle since the 17th Century. Appropriate flood mitigation measures would however be incorporated in the development.
Councillor Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 37 (b) spoke on the application.
Members considered that the site was a good building plot and that there was no significant flood risk. They were satisfied with the applicant’s assurances that flood mitigation measures would be put in place.
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the standard time limit condition and conditions relating to highways, drainage and materials.
Councillor Collinson returned to the meeting and took the chair.
Councillor J Briggs left the meeting.
(iii) 08/0904 by North Lincolnshire Homes Ltd for the erection of five houses comprising one four-bedroom and four three-bedroom houses on land adjacent to 13 Nookings Drive and 1 Greenfield Drive, Hibaldstow.
Prior to consideration of this application a representative of the applicants and an objector addressed the committee.
The applicant’s representative stated that when the council’s housing stock had been transferred to the applicants there had been a commitment to provide more affordable housing. The development would meet a need for affordable housing in the area and would result in the provision of an additional 20 car parking spaces.
The objector stated that the proposal would take up much needed car parking space. The access into Greenfield Drive was a dangerous junction. The proposal would result in the loss of gardens. The grassed area acted as a soak away and therefore the development proposed could cause drainage problems.
Councillor Poole attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b) spoke on this item.
Moved by Councillor England and seconded by Councillor Wardle –
That permission be refused
Motion Lost
Moved by Councillor Grant and seconded by Councillor Whiteley –
That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
Motion Carried
1068 (23) PLANNING APPLICATIONS – The Head of Planning 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) 08/0608 by Addlesee Timber and Haulage Ltd. for outline permission to erect three dwellings at rear of Luckies Lodge, 2 Sandtoft Road, Westgate, Belton.
Prior to consideration of this application, Councillor B Briggs, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, spoke on the application, in accordance with Procedure Rule 35 (f) and the Code of Conduct 2007, and then left the meeting. He stated that the proposal would remove a use that was a nuisance to nearby residents. The site was brownfield. There were a large number of letters of support for the application which would retain local jobs whilst relocating the current use to a more suitable location.
Resolved – That permission be refused in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report
Councillor B Briggs returned to the meeting
(ii) 08/0719 by Mr S Cook for the retention of a single-storey extension to rear of property at 14 Railway Street, Barnetby-le-Wold.
Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred until the next meeting and that members undertake a site visit prior to that meeting.
(iii) 08/0741 by N Prescott Developments for the erection of 4 houses with garages and the demolition of the existing house at 2 Church Lane, Bonby
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(iv) 08/0785 by Alaway Construction for the retention of raised ground levels as part of a newly constructed development of 2 bungalows at 16 and 18 Wells Street, Messingham.
Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee. She stated that her garden had been severely flooded on several occasions as a result of this development taking place. The water table had been altered by the development.
Councillor Poole attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b) spoke on this item.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report subject to an additional condition requiring a drain to be installed to take water to the parish drain.
(v) 08/0817 by Mr M Shaffi for the erection of a single-storey rear extension at 51 Smith Street, Scunthorpe.
Resolved – That permission be refused in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(vi) 08/0864 by Mr T Binks for the erection of a detached house with integral garage including access to highway on plot adjacent to Winthorne Town Street, South Killingholme.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(vii) 08/0882 by Mr P Mears for the erection of two detached dwellings with integral garages and associated access at 91 High Street, Belton.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(viii) 08/0898 by Mr and Mrs Jodko for the erection of a double garage with associated access at 47 St Barnabas Road, Barnetby-le-Wold.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(ix) 08/0928 by North Lincolnshire Homes Ltd for the retention of windows, doors and roofline with UPVC (re-submission of 08/0251) at 1-6 Cross Hill View, High Street, Barrow-upon-Humber.
Resolved – That permission be refused on the grounds that the proposal is not in keeping with the conservation area.
(x) 08/0935 by Mr D Sweeting for siting of a steel container on land adjacent to West View, Messingham.
Councillor Poole attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b) spoke on this item.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(xi) 08/0960 by Mr G Blair for the retention of a single detached garage with gas tank to the rear and erection of a single detached garage and siting of a gas tank to the rear at 40/42 Main Avenue, Charnwood Homes, Scunthorpe.
Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(xii )08/1050 by Mrs J Parker for the erection of a single-storey extension (re-submission of PA/2008/0766)
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
1069 (24) ENFORCEMENT UPDATE – The Head of Planning 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.
1070 (25) PROPOSED DIVERSION OF PART OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH 42, BELTON – The Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report seeking approval to divert part of Public Footpath 42, Belton.
The section of path to be diverted was shown on a plan accompanying the report and had a length of 500 metres. A council could make a diversion order on its own initiative where the diversion was considered to be in the public interest.
Although the route of the proposed alternative was signposted by Humberside County Council there was no record of a diversion having been carried out legally. The status quo was unsatisfactory and possibly a breach of North Lincolnshire Council’s statutory duty as highway authority.
Members considered that the diversion of the subject route would remove a long-term problem in accordance with the Rights of Way Improvement Plan.
Resolved – (a) That an order be made under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 and sections 53A and 56(3A) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 at North Lincolnshire Council’s expense; (b) that if the order attracts irreconcilable duly served objections and/or representations, a further report be brought before the Committee to establish the Council’s stance in the light of those objections and/or representations, and (c) that if no such objections and/or representations are duly lodged, the order be confirmed.
1071 (26) PROPOSED DIVERSION OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH 256, BARNETBY–LE–WOLD – The Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report asking the committee to determine an application from a landowner to divert a section of Public Footpath 256, Barnetby–le–Wold.
The footpath ran westwards a short distance south of the Grimsby to Scunthorpe railway line from the Melton Ross to Bigby road to its junction on land known as Knab’s Hill with Public Footpath 297 to Victoria Road and Public Footpath 249 to St Barnabas Road, both in Barnetby le Wold village as shown on an appendix to the report.
The application concerned the whole of Public Footpath 256 in the Parish of Barnetby-le-Wold.
The applicant wanted to fence off the proposed route so as to allow walkers a width of between two and six metres throughout. This would be alongside the present perimeter fence adjacent to the railway line and would allow members of the public access without their having to cross land which may contain livestock.
The public should also benefit, as the path would follow the existing walked route which is clearly defined on the ground.
Resolved – (a) That a combined order be made under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 and section 53A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in the interests of the owner of the land over which the footpath passes; (b) that the Service Director Highways and Planning be authorised to confirm the order if it is unopposed; and(c) that a further report be submitted to this committee should the diversion order be duly opposed.
1072 (27) PUBLIC FOOTPATH 74, EPWORTH AND HAXEY – The Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report updating members on the outcome of a public inquiry held by the Secretary of State into whether the order to divert this path at Starcross should be confirmed.
On 10 May 2006 the council had made an order to divert 110 metres of Public Footpath 74 at Starcross, the end property on Epworth Little Turbary. The order sought to divert the footpath from one side of Old Turbary Drain to the other. It was thought expedient to make the order in the interests of the owners of the land crossed by the path on the grounds that this would improve their privacy and security. They also owned the land onto which it would be diverted.
Twenty seven objections had been duly lodged after the making of the order had been advertised on 26 May 2006. The order and the objections had been referred to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who had held an inquiry at The Pavilion, Belton, over three days on 5-6 December 2007 and 4 February 2008.
The Secretary of State had issued an interim decision letter on 10 July 2008. A copy of the interim decision had been placed in the political group offices.
A copy of the order and map as proposed to be modified by the Secretary of State was appended to the report. The Secretary of State had advertised the modifications in the Scunthorpe Telegraph on 3 September 2008.
Resolved – That the report be noted.
1073 (28 ) GREEN LANE, NORTH KILLINGHOLME – The Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report asking members to decide whether the route at North Killingholme known as Green Lane should be added to the County of Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey, Glanford Brigg definitive map and statement and, if so to establish what status of right of way it is and what course of action, if any, should be taken with respect to it.
The section of Green Lane mentioned in the report ran roughly north and east of St Crispin’s Close, North Killingholme, as shown in Appendix 1 to the report. It had a length of 240 metres: 150 metres run west to east and 90 metres run north to south. It connected at either end with a publicly maintainable highway.
The Lane did not appear on the “County of Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey, Glanford Brigg” definitive map (the definitive map that covered North Killingholme nor the “County of Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey, Glanford Brigg” definitive statement (the definitive map’s accompanying written schedule). It did however appear on the list of streets. The list of streets was the schedule of highways maintainable at public expense; whereas the definitive map was the record of a particular category of minor highways, known collectively as public rights of way, comprising footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic.
Having considered all the evidence members were of the view that Green Lane was a public right of way, and by a process of elimination byway open to all traffic was the likeliest status by virtue of the character of the north to south section that survived on the groundtogether with the evidence submitted with the report.
Resolved – (a) That an order be made under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add the line of Green Lane, North Killingholme, as shown on the list of streets between Ordnance Survey grid references TA14511738 and TA14671730 via TA14661739, as a byway open to all traffic of a width of between four metres and 10.5 metres on the basis of the discovery of evidence under subsection (3)(c)(i); (b) that the order be confirmed if no objections are duly lodged in respect of it during the requisite six-week period following advertisement, and (c) that if objections to the order are duly lodged and not subsequently withdrawn in writing, a further report be submitted to the committee to establish what stance should be taken in the light of those objections prior to submission of the order and objections to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
1074 (29) CLAIMED BRIDLEWAY, RIVER IDLE, HAXEY – The Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report inviting the committee to determine an application made under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to show as a bridleway the part of Public Footpath 116 in the Parish of Haxey that ran alongside the River Idle.
Tim Hart of Nottinghamshire County Council had served an application in respect of the floodbank along the northern side of the River Idle between Idle Stop and the Nottinghamshire county boundary. The application was dated 8 July 2005. It contended that the route, all within the Parish of Haxey, was a bridleway and that the definitive map and statement should be modified accordingly. The application could be broken down into two discrete lengths: the first 2,620 metres (2,866 yards) between Idle Stop and the southern end of a track extending from Tindle Bank called Cornley Lane and the second 215 metres (235 yards) from Cornley Lane to the Nottinghamshire county boundary. The latter hasd already been upheld by members (Minute 1031 refers) and the Council had made an order adding this previously unrecorded length to the definitive map and statement as a bridleway on 22 May 2008. No objections had been received and this order would therefore be confirmed. The former section was the subject of the report.
So far, no evidence had come to light to counter the proposition that the definitive map and statement should be modified in accordance with the applicant’s wishes despite consultation with the sole landowner, adjacent landowners and the parish council. A definitive map was conclusive evidence in law of the particulars shown therein (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, section 56). But it was not irrefutable proof of that fact and if evidence is discovered that the definitive map was wrong in any respect, the law required that the necessary changes be made “as soon as reasonably practicable”.
Members having evaluated the evidence and made their decision on the balance of probability agreed that bridleway status was more probable than footpath, an order changing the definitive map to this should must be made.
Resolved – (a) That Mr Hart’s application to modify the definitive map and statement be upheld so that (i) the route currently depicted on the definitive map as Public Footpath 116 is instead depicted as a public bridleway where this follows the northern bank of the River Idle from Idle Stop to the point at which Public Footpath 116 turns away from the River Idle to head northwards along Cornley Lane and (ii) the definitive statement is modified in kind so as to record length, width and route description, and (b) that a further report be submitted should irreconcilable duly served objections and/or representations be lodged following the making of the order.
1075 (30) CLAIMED BYWAY OPEN TO ALL TRAFFIC, MISSON BANK AND THATCH CARR BANK, WROOT – The Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report inviting members to determine an application made under section 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 that sought to modify the “County of Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey, Isle of Axholme” definitive map and statement by altering the status of a right of way in the Parish of Wroot over adjoining lanes known as Thatch Carr Bank and Misson Bank from bridleway to byway open to all traffic.
The application was dated 6 July 2005 and had been served by Tim Hart of Nottinghamshire County Council. The application route had a length of 1,960 metres within North Lincolnshire, but might be part of a longer route that continues within Nottinghamshire as shown on Appendices 1 and 2 to the report.
The application was accompanied by solid evidence of public status. However, the definitive map was already evidence of that but the route was shown on the definitive map to bridleway status only. Members considered that, having considered the evidence as a whole, the case for the subsistence of higher rights was more compelling.However, the commencement of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 since the application had been lodged had extinguished the right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles, so restricted byway would appertain instead.
Resolved – (a) That the application be upheld to the extent that: (i) an order is made under section 53(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in consequence of the occurrence of an event under section 53(3)(c)(ii) of the 1981 Act to modify the “County of Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey, Isle of Axholme” definitive map so that the right of way currently shown as Public Bridleway 150 in the Parish of Wroot henceforth be shown as a restricted byway; and (ii) by virtue of the same order, the “County of Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey, Isle of Axholme” definitive statement be modified to include a written description, including width (between 3.5 metres and 10.5 metres) and length, of a restricted byway over the course of what is currently shown on the definitive map as Public Bridleway 150 in the Parish of Wroot; (b) that Thatch Carr Bank and Misson Bank be added to the list of streets, and (c) that if the modification order attracts irreconcilable duly served objections and/or representations that are not subsequently withdrawn unequivocally in writing, a further report be brought before Planning Committee to establish North Lincolnshire Council’s stance in the light of those objections and/or representations prior to referral of the order to the Secretary of State.
1076 (31) PUBLIC FOOTPATH 93, HAXEY – The Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report seeking members’ approval to divert part of Public Footpath 93, Haxey under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 and section 53A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
The path ran north easterly from the A161, Epworth Road, to High Burnham Farm as shown on appendix one to the report. It had a total length of 1,280 metres, of which 560 metres were being considered for diversion, as shown on appendix 2 to the report. The whole of the route was in the parish of Haxey.
Although the route of the proposed alternative had been signposted by Humberside County Council there was no record of a diversion having been carried out legally. However, the public had used and continued to use the proposed route. The status quo was unsatisfactory. The current owner had been made aware of the definitive route and had agreed to pay all the costs in the raising and advertising of the order. The applicant believed the proposed diversion would be in his interest because having the footpath run wholly along the headland would enable him to farm his field more efficiently and if the diversion was agreed he intended to fence the path off from the field, to a minimum width of two metres to allow livestock to graze in the field.
Members considered that the diversion of the section of path would remove a “long-term” problem, and this was in line with the Rights of Way Improvement Plan.
Resolved – (a) That a combined order be made under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 and section 53A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in the interest of the owner of the land over which the footpath runs; (b) that the Service Director Highways and Planning be authorised to confirm the order if it is unopposed, and (c) that a further report be submitted to the committee should the order be duly opposed.
1077 (32) CHANGES TO THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED AT PLANNING COMMITTEE MEEETINGS – The Service Director Legal and Democratic submitted a report asking members to consider (i) amendments to Procedure Rule D1.35 (f), and (ii) the incorporation of a procedure for site visits into the constitution.
Although Procedure Rule D1.35 (f) relating to the rights of members of the public to speak at the committee had worked well on the whole, it was considered that further amendments could be made to clarify certain areas where difficulty has been experienced in the past.
The procedure governing site visits was at present governed by the Good Practice Guide. Following the threat of judicial review, and having regard to the procedure adopted by neighbouring authorities, it was felt that the procedure should be formalised and incorporated into the constitution.
The proposed changes to Procedure Rule D1.35 f) were shown in bold type in Appendix 1 to the report. The changes were mainly to clarify areas where difficulty had been experienced in the past. The committee had extended its terms of reference since the rule was first drawn up and it was felt that, rather than having to list each new item on which the public may speak, the rule should be simplified to include all items for which the committee had delegated powers. The committee had other advisory powers relating to Strategic Development but the relevant process contained ample opportunity for public participation. The other changes were to increase the number of persons allowed to speak on major applications, to clarify speaking rights if any item was deferred more than once and to tighten up the procedure relating to handing out of documents.
The procedure governing site visits was at present contained in the Good Practice Guide. Since a site visit might be a material consideration in the determination of a planning application (recommendations by officers were sometimes over-turned after members have visited the site) it was felt that the procedure should be placed on a more formal basis.
At present, there was no requirement that members must attend the site visit before voting on the determination of the application. This left the determination of the application open to challenge: it could be argued that the members making the decision did not have regard to all material considerations before casting their vote. The Good Practice Guide stated that a site visit should not be held unless the benefit was substantial since site visits were expensive and time-consuming and delayed the determination of the application. The Guide went on to say that site visits should be viewed as an exception to the usual process, which can only be justified by the importance or complexity of the application. It followed that if the sub-committee had decided that a site visit was essential to determine the application it was just as essential that members attended the site visit before voting on the application.
The council had recently received complaints about two separate meetings where members of the sub-committee who did not attend the site visit had voted on the application. It had been threatened with judicial review on this very point.
Some authorities insisted that not only must members visit the site, they must also attend each meeting at which the application was discussed. This was not proposed because it would preclude substitute members from voting on applications the subject of a site visit if they did not attend the meeting at which the application was first considered.
Members considered that the proposals in relation to site visits were too onerous in terms of demands on the time of members, some of whom had full time jobs.
Recommended to Council – (a) That the changes to procedure outlined in Appendices 1 & 2 to the report be approved subject to the deletion of Paragraph 3 of Appendix 2, and (b) that officers look at the issue of attendance at site visits again and submit a further report to a future meeting.
1078 (33 ) DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO (1) MAKE PUBLIC PATH AND DEFINITIVE MAP MODIFICATION ORDERS, (2) DETERMINE APPLICATIONS TO DIVERT OR EXTINGUISH PUBLIC PATHS AND (3) DETERMINE FORMAL APPLICATIONS TO MODIFY THE DEFINITIVE MAP AND/OR STATEMENT – Further to Minute 1059 The Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report inviting the committee to consider delegating the Service Director Highways and Planning authority to make public path and definitive map modification orders; to determine formal and statutory applications to divert or extinguish public paths; and to determine applications to modify the definitive map and/or statement.
At present the committee’s approval was needed to: (1) make a public path or definitive map modification order; (2) determine formal and statutory applications to divert or extinguish a public path; and (3) determine a statutory application to modify the definitive map and/or statement.
Currently, if the Service Director Highways and Planning wished to make either a public path or definitive map modification order the Planning Committee’s approval must first be obtained. The order must then be advertised on site and in a local newspaper. If no objections and/or representations were duly lodged, the council could confirm the order. Otherwise the order had to be returned to Planning Committee for subsequent direction. The usual outcome of the latter was referral of the order to the Secretary of State.
In effect, objectors had four opportunities to comment on the order-making process: twice in committee and during advertisement (following the order’s making and confirmation). It was crucial that the public could subject orders to proper scrutiny.
However, if the Service Director Highways and Planning was given power to decide whether to make orders, those orders that attracted no objections would be confirmed without Planning Committee having to consider them at all. The majority of orders were not contested because either the order was uncontentious or officers had allayed would-be objectors’ fears beforehand. The number of public rights of way reports considered by Planning Committee would therefore be substantially reduced to no one’s detriment.
The Service Director updated the report indicating that it might be appropriate for the committee to retain the authority to make orders under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Recommended to Council – That the Service Director Highways and Planning be granted delegated authority to: (i) make public path orders (creation, diversion and extinguishment) under sections 26, 118, 118A, 118B, 119, 119A and 119B of the Highways Act 1980; (ii) determine formal and statutory applications to make extinguishment and diversion orders (under sections 118, 118ZA, 118C, 119, 119ZA, 119C and 119D of the Highways Act 1980); and (iii) determine applications to modify the definitive map and/or statement, including applications served under section 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.