northlincs.gov.uk

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 7 January 2009 as a correct record and authorise the chair to sign.
4. Major Planning Applications for determination by the committee.
5. Planning and Other Applications for determination by the committee.
6. Enforcement Update.
7. Killian Pretty Review of Development Control Practices – November 2008.
8. Yorkshire Moors Bottom Road – Report of the Service Director Highways and Planning.
9. Planning Act 2008 – Report of the Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development.
10. The Housing Challenge – The Yorkshire and Humber Plan – 2009 Update – Spatial Options- Report of the Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development
11. Review of Peat Working Consents under the Habitats Regulations.

Note: All reports are by the Head of Planning unless otherwise stated.

Minutes

PRESENT:  Councillor Collinson (Chair).

Councillors Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, Carlile, B Briggs, Bunyan, Eckhardt, England, Regan, C Sherwood, Wardle and Whiteley.

Councillors Mrs Redfern and Smith attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37(b).

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

1105  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 and prejudicial interests:-

Members	Minute	Applications/Item	Nature of Interest
Cllr Armitage	1108 (ii)	08/1338	Son worked part time for applicants
Cllr Barker	1111	Yorkshire Moors Bottom Road	Member of Crowle Town Council

The following members declared personal interests: –

Members	Minute	Applications	Nature of Interest
Cllr B Briggs	1108 (iii)	08/1363	Ward Councillor
Cllr B Briggs	1108 (iv)	08/1515	Ward Councillor
Cllr B Briggs	1108 (ix)	08/1653	Ward Councillor Knew applicant
Cllr B Briggs	108 (x)	08/1721	Ward Councillor

The following members declared that they had been lobbied: –

Members	Minute	Application/Item
Cllr Bainbridge	1111	Yorkshire Moors Bottom Road
Cllr Bunyan	1111	Yorkshire Moors Bottom Road
Cllr Collinson	1111	Yorkshire Moors Bottom Road
Cllr Regan	1111	Yorkshire Moors Bottom Road
Cllr B Briggs	1108 (x)	08/1721

The following member, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37(b), declared that she had been lobbied:

Members	Minute	Application/Item
Cllr Mrs Redfern	1108 (ix)	08/1653
Cllr Mrs Redfern	1108 (x)	08/1721
Cllr Mrs Redfern	1108 (iii)	08/1363

Mr S Whittemore, Regulatory Support Officer, declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 1108 (ix)  as he knew the applicant.

1106  MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 7 January 2009 having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.

1107  (52) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS – The Head of Planning submitted a report incorporating a schedule containing details of major applications for determination by the committee including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications.

(i) 08/1122 by SITA UK for extension of an existing non-hazardous landfill site at New Crosby landfill site, off Dawes Lane, Scunthorpe.

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

1108  (53) 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) 08/1300 by North Lincolnshire Homes Ltd for the erection of a block of three houses (re-submission of 08/0910) on site between 26 and 87 Parklands, West Butterwick.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred until the next meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting. The reason for the site visit being to enable members to assess the likely impact of the proposed development on the drainage system.

Councillor Armitage, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application, 08/1338, left the meeting.

(ii) 08/1338 by Mr P Ellis for amendment of the size of an MOT station previously approved under application 07/1383 and replacement of existing garage with a workshop at Keadby Bridge Filling Station, Station Road, Gunness.

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

Councillor Armitage returned to the meeting.

(iii) 08/1363 by Northcroft Boarding Kennels and Cattery for the retention of kennels (amended design), four cat pens and owner’s dog run at Northcroft Boarding Kennels and Cattery, Belton Fields Lane, Westgate, Belton.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee. She was concerned at the noise created by the use. The buildings should have been built in such a way as to minimise noise nuisance. The hedge between the application site and the objector’s property was seasonal and did not provide screening all year round. There was no guarantee that the acoustic fence would reduce noise levels. Much of the noise nuisance was caused by the applicant’s pet dogs. Cats were not being separated from dogs and this was exacerbating the noise problem.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred until the next meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting. The reason for the site visit being to enable members to assess the impact that the development has on neighbours.

(iv) 08/1515 by Mr D Leader for the change of use of a sewing room/playroom into self-catering holiday accommodation at West Farm, 70 Station Road, Epworth.

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

(v) 08/1541 by Mr and Mrs K Wiepcke for the erection of a detached bungalow with garage on plot north of Longfield, Ferry Road, Goxhill.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to allow for further consultation with the Building Control Team regarding drainage issues.

(vi) 08/1554 by Mr P and Mrs S Moynan for the erection of a temporary dwelling in connection with agriculture on land north of Winteringham Lane, West Halton.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report subject to an additional condition relating to agricultural occupancy.

(vii) 08/1554 by Mr P and Mrs S Moynan for the erection of an agricultural building in connection with calf rearing on land north of Winteringham Lane, West Halton.

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

(viii) 08/1588 by Miss L Robinson for the change of use of existing office accommodation to a single dwelling with minor internal alterations at The Cartshed, The Nutshell, Chapel Lane, Scawby.

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

(ix) 08/1653 by North Lincs Property Holdings Ltd for the removal of part of the former railway embankment and construction of a 2.3 metre retaining wall (re-submission of PA/2008/0506) on former railway embankment, Fernbank, Epworth.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee. He stated that the benefits to householders of extending their gardens would not outweigh the adverse impact on the character of the site which was part of an area of historic landscape or the damage to habitats. Two previous applications had been refused.

Councillor Mrs Redfern, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) addressed the committee.

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

(x) 08/1721 by Mr W Teasdale for the erection of a detached double garage at 64 Sandtoft Road, Westgate, Belton.

Moved by Councillor Armitage and seconded by Councillor Bainbridge

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

Moved by Councillor B Briggs and seconded by Councillor Bunyan as an amendment

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

Amendment Lost
Motion Carried

1109  (54) 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.

1110  (55) KILLIAN PRETTY  REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PRACTICES NOVEMBER 2008 – The Head of Planning submitted a report informing members about the findings and recommendations of the recent Killian Pretty Review, which had been published by the government in November 2008.

The Killian Pretty Review had been launched on 24 November 2008 by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Rt. Hon Hazel Blears MP and the Minister for Housing and Planning, the Rt. Hon Margaret Beckett MP at the Work Foundation.

The review had undertaken a detailed examination, from start to finish, of the process for seeking planning permission. It looked at case studies for a range of different sectors including housing, business and the renewables industry. The aim was to identify reasons for delay in deciding planning applications and make recommendations for dealing with these and reducing unnecessary burdens for all parties involved in the process.

The review had identified key areas of concern within the planning application process, based on case studies and through consultation with parties who had first-hand experience of dealing with planning applications. It also made recommendations on how these areas can be addressed, and hopefully improved. These recommendations were summarised in the report and the review report itself was summarised as an appendix.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

Councillor Barker, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following matter, Minute 1111, left the meeting.

1111  (56) DECISION LETTER – YORKSHIRE MOORS BOTTOM ROAD, CROWLE – The Head of Highways and Planning submitted a report updating members in respect of  Yorkshire Moors Bottom Road, Crowle following the publication of a decision letter by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concerning an appeal by Crowle Town Council.

The decision was part of an ongoing debate that had been initiated by North Lincolnshire Council when on 3 April 2003 an order had been made to add to the “County of Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey (Isle of Axholme)” definitive map and statement a byway open to all traffic over the length of Yorkshire Moors Bottom Road in the Township of Crowle between Dole Road and the former county boundary.

The order had been opposed by Crowle Town Council. However, the Secretary of State had found in North Lincolnshire Council’s favour in his decision letter published 21 April 2005.

Yorkshire Moors Bottom Road south of Dole Road was maintainable at public expense, a fact that the council  had accepted when it had been added to the list of streets – the schedule of maintainable highways held under the Highways Act 1980 – in 1999. The way was, though, an unmade rural track. It had never been surfaced by the highway authority. Its character was thus one of a quiet unmade rural lane more suitable for use by walkers and horse riders than vehicles.

The adding of the road to the definitive map was not discretionary. The law required North Lincolnshire Council to seek to modify the definitive map and/or statement on the discovery of evidence that a way not hitherto included subsisted or was reasonably alleged to subsist.

However, all orders made to modify the definitive map and/or statement must contain a width. Crowle Town Council had argued that the width was 66 feet and that the definitive statement should be modified accordingly. But the only reference to such a width that either North Lincolnshire Council or Crowle Town Council could find was the Crowle Inclosure Award 1823. North Lincolnshire Council felt that because the award set out Yorkshire Moors Bottom Road as a private rather than a public road, the width specified could not be taken to be the width of the highway it subsequently became.

On 21 November 2006 Crowle Town Council had applied under section 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the definitive statement by introducing a width of 66 feet. North Lincolnshire Council had declined the application, so Crowle Town Council had appealed.

The Secretary of State had upheld the appeal and directed that the council make an order under Section 53(2) of and Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

An order to modify the definitive map and statement had to be advertised after it had been made and could be objected to within six weeks .Duly disputed orders could not be confirmed by North Lincolnshire Council and must be referred instead to the Secretary of State.

Resolved – That the report be noted and an order made in accordance with the direction of the Secretary of State.

Councillor Barker returned to the meeting.

1112  (57) PLANNING ACT 2008 – The Head of Planning and the Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development submitted a joint report informing members of the key provisions of the Planning act 2008 which had received Royal Assent on 27 November 2008 and was expected to  come into force in 2009.

The key provisions of the Act were: (i) the creation of an independent Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC); (ii) the introduction of National Policy Statements covering a range of policy issues which will guide the work of the IPC; (iii) the introduction of a definition of what constitutes a nationally significant infrastructure project; (iv) changes to the existing planning regimes (both development control and planning policy), and (v) the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy.

The creation of an independent Commission to make decisions on major infrastructure raised concerns about local democracy. By moving these decisions from local planning authorities to a national body local community concerns could be more easily ignored. There was however a duty to consult and local authorities would need to make the most of this in situations where there were strong local concerns about the development. The most recent example of a national panel making decisions on development was the eco-towns programme. Unfortunately, the collapse of that programme did not bode well for this model.

The inclusion of climate change in regional and local development plans was, however,  a welcome addition. Planning could shape communities that were mitigating climate change and also ensure they were resilient to expected climate change, such as flooding or heatwaves. There was a link here between a number of Acts that gained Royal Assent in November 2008, including the Energy Act and Climate Change Act.

It was welcomed that the proposals to change the planning appeals system had not been carried forward into the Act. The council, in its response to the Planning Bill 2007, had objected to these proposals. Accordingly, it was welcomed that this councils’ views together with others have been taken into account.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

1113  (58) THE HOUSING CHALLENGE – THE YORKSHIRE AND HUMBER PLAN – 2009 UPDATE SPATIAL OPTIONS – The Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development submitted a report informing members about the publication and implications of theYorkshire and Humber Assembly’s ‘The Housing Challenge – The Yorkshire and Humber Plan – 2009 Update Spatial Options’ and seeking approval to respond to the consultation as detailed in an appendix to the report.

The key points of this Report were to seek responses on the following issues (i) how many new homes needed to be built in the Region – looking to the longer-term, but also taking proper account of the potential shorter-term impact of the current ‘credit crunch’?; (ii) how well could the current Yorkshire and Humber Plan strategy accommodate the growth needed – and yet also deliver sustainable development?, and (iii) what opportunities (and in which general locations) could best meet longer-term housing needs in different parts of the Region?

The document asked 31 specific questions and a suggested response was appended to the report.

The Assembly had offered four options to deal with where additional development might occur:

Option 1. Maintain the Plan’s current core approach. Most additional development to go in towns and cities, with some development to meet local needs in smaller settlements. More urban extensions are likely;

Option 2. More urban focus: greater concentration in fewer larger towns and cities. More or larger urban extensions likely, encroachment into greenbelts and countryside;

Option 3. Key settlements in high quality public transport corridors;

Option 4. Broad ‘areas of search’ where towns could develop further. This may mean settlements changing their place in the hierarchy.

For the Humber sub-area the four options for growth which had been identified were:

Option 1. Urban extensions to Hull, Scunthorpe, and Grimsby with additional development in Beverley, Bridlington and Driffield. Flood risk constraints are acknowledged for Goole, Hull, Grimsby, and Scunthorpe;

Option 2. Urban expansion to Hull (west side), Beverley (north and south), Driffield (south), Bridlington, Grimsby (south and west), and Scunthorpe (north, east and south);

Option 3. Growth in the Hull/Beverley/Driffield/Nafferton corridor, growth in the Hull/Ferriby/Brough corridor, and in the Brigg/Barnetby/Haborough area between Grimsby and Scunthorpe. This option also identified the option of a new settlement (location not suggested);

Option 4. Growth west of Driffield (Alamein Barracks area). 

It was considered that the current RSS strategy of focusing development on the region’s towns and cities was still the correct one, and that if additional housing was needed then that strategy was robust and flexible enough to still deliver it for the most part. In the case of North Lincolnshire the current approach strongly supported the delivery of the urban renaissance programme, which was vital to transforming the area via projects like the Lincolnshire Lakes urban expansion.

If further housing was required in North Lincolnshire it was considered that it should be focussed in Scunthorpe, the most sustainable settlement, and that the Lincolnshire Lakes urban expansion would be well placed to accommodate additional growth.

Options that deviated away from the RSS’s current core approach raised considerable concerns due to the potentially detrimental impact on the sustainable growth of Scunthorpe and the delivery of the urban renaissance programme. As such these would not be supported.

There was also concern that work and consultation carried out on the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy would be in danger of not being in general conformity with the RSS if new spatial options were considered.

The consultation paper also looked at the needs of Gypsies and Travellers across the region. It considered the factors affecting potential site locations and the weight to be attached to them, and also asked under what circumstances might all or part of one authority’s needs be met by another(s).

Resolved – That the responses detailed in Appendix 1 to the report be submitted to the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly as this Council’s formal response to the ‘The Housing Challenge – The Yorkshire and Humber Plan – 2009 Update Spatial Options’ document.

1114  (59) REVIEW OF PEAT WORKING CONSENTS UNDER THE HABITATS REGULATIONS – The Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report  recommending that the Council should  complete the review of two consents that adversely affected Crowle Moors. This might entail modifying or revoking the consents.

The Council had a duty to review any planning consents that could adversely effect the internationally important peat bog at Crowle Moors. Three such consents had been identified, one of which had been dealt with through a Public Inquiry. The procedure  to be followed was detailed in the report.

The two remaining consents both related to peat extraction from the Moors. Such extraction harmed the peat bog habitat directly through the removal of peat and indirectly by altering water levels on adjacent parts of the bog. Therefore, the Council needed to explore options for modifying or revoking the consents. Paragraph 39 of Planning Circular 06/2005 listed seven alternatives that the Council should consider.

Modifying or revoking a consent might result in compensation being paid to a landowner, depending on the circumstances. However the Government had stated that in cases where such compensation was payable, it would consider reimbursing the planning authority where costs were high and where the action taken was no more than necessary to remove the risk to the site.

Recommended to Council – That the Service Director Highways and Planning be authorised to begin the process of modifying or revoking consents 97/0869 and 97/0870 in accordance with Paragraph 39 of Circular 06/2005.