Planning Committee – 14 October 2009
Chair: Councillor Collinson
Venue: The Council Chamber, Pittwood House, Scunthorpe
Time: 2pm
AGENDA
- Substitutions.
- Declarations of Personal and Personal and Prejudicial Interests, significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (Lobbying) and Whipping Arrangements (if any).
- To take the minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2009 as a correct record and authorise the chair to sign.
- Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
- Enforcement update.
- Circular 03/2009 – “Cost awards in appeals and other planning proceedings”.
- Planning Act 2008 – Implementation – Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects – publication of Statutory Instruments and Guidance – report of the Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development and Head of Planning.
- Community Infrastructure Levy – report of the Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development
- Consultation on Proposed Amendments to Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk – report of the Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development
- Restricted Byway 150, Wroot – report of the Service Director Highways and Planning.
- Proposed diversion of Public Footpath 210, and proposed stopping of Public Footpath 210A, Manton – report of the Service Director Highways and Planning.
- Any other items, which the chair decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances, which must be specified.
Minutes
PRESENT: Councillor Collinson (Chair).
Councillors Armitage, Bainbridge, B. Briggs, Carlile, Eckhardt, England, Glover, Grant, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, Swift and Whiteley.
Councillors J Briggs and Waltham attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b)
The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.
1178 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 a personal and prejudicial interest: –
|
Member
|
Minute
|
Application
|
Nature of Interest
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Cllr Carlile | 1180 (vii) | 09/0864 | Knew objector |
The following members declared personal interests: –
|
Members
|
Minute
|
Applications
|
Nature of Interest
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Cllr Bainbridge | 1180 (iii) | 09/0686 | Member of North Lincolnshire Homes Board |
| Cllr Carlile | 1180 (x) | 09/0982 | Knew applicant |
| Cllr Collinson | 1180 (vii) | 09/0864 | Knew objector |
| Cllr England | 1180 (vi) | 09/0795 | Knew applicant |
| Cllr England | 1180 (x) | 09/0982 | Knew applicant |
| Cllr Grant | 1180 (vii) | 09/0864 | Knew applicant and husband |
The following members, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared personal interests as follows: –
|
Members
|
Minute
|
Applications
|
Nature of Interest
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Cllr Briggs | 1180 (iii) | 09/0686 | Member of North Lincolnshire Homes Board |
| Cllr Waltham | 1180 (iii) | 09/0686 | Member of North Lincolnshire Homes Board |
The following members declared that they had been lobbied: –
|
Members
|
Minute
|
Application/Item
|
|---|---|---|
| Cllr Bainbridge | 1180 (vii) | 09/0864 |
| Cllr Grant | 1180 (x) | 09/0982 |
| Cllr Glover | 1180 (xvi) | 09/1086 |
| Cllr B Briggs | 1186 | Restricted byway 150, Wroot |
| Cllr N Sherwood | 1186 | Restricted byway 150, Wroot |
The following member attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared that he had been lobbied:
|
Member
|
Minute
|
Application/Item
|
|---|---|---|
| Cllr J Briggs | 1180 (x) | 09/0982 |
1179 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 16 September 2009 having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.
1180 (32) PLANNING AND OTHER 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) 09/0560 by Mr R Barker for the erection of four 20kw micro wind turbines with associated works at Poplars Farmhouse, Jaques Bank, Medge Hall, Crowle.
Prior to consideration of this application, Councillor J Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b), spoke on the application.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the reports.
(ii) 09/0661 by Mr and Mrs J Cook for the erection of a dwelling and integral garage (re-submission of PA/2008/1684) on land adjacent to Chapel House, North End, Goxhill.
Prior to consideration of this application an objector and the applicant addressed the committee.
The objector did not object in principle to development on the site but considered that the application was out of character with the location and would overlook his house and garden. A previous application on the site had been refused. Any house built on the site should be to the rear of the plot
The applicant stated that the application had been amended to address the concerns of objectors.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(iii) 09/0686 by North Lincolnshire Homes Ltd for the retention of UPVC windows and doors at 12 North Carr Lane, Saxby-all-Saints.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(iv) 09/0703 by Mr J Scott for the erection of one pair of semi-detached houses at garage site adjacent to 12 Edinburgh Road, Keadby.
Resolved – That it be noted that this application has been withdrawn.
(v) 09/0761 by ASDA Stores ltd for the erection of a warehouse extension and enclosure of an existing canopy at ASDA Stores Ltd., Burringham Road, Scunthorpe.
Prior to consideration of this application, Councillor Waltham, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on the application
Moved by Councillor C Sherwood and seconded by Councillor England –
That consideration of this application be deferred until a future meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting
Motion Lost
(The voting on the motion being equal the chair used his second and casting vote against it.)
Moved by Councillor Grant and seconded by Councillor Whiteley –
That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
Motion Carried
(vi) 09/0795 by Mr and Mrs K and S Anderson for the erection of a replacement dwelling and a detached double garage/store at Low Farm, Brigg Road, Messingham.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report subject to an additional condition requiring the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site within three months of the occupation of the new dwelling.
Prior to consideration of the following application, 09/0864, Councillor Carlile, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, left the meeting.
(vii) 09/0864 by Mrs M Stones for the change of use of a dwelling into a funeral parlour at 62 East Common Lane, Scunthorpe.
Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant and an objector addressed the committee.
The applicant stated that the business would be run from a former dentist’s surgery. It was common for funeral parlours to be situated in residential areas as this was more appropriate than a commercial area. She had satisfied all the necessary requirements and accepted all proposed conditions.
The objector stated that the proposal would be a commercial use in a residential area. It was on a busy road and a bus route and would therefore be a traffic hazard. She was also concerned at potential noise from the refrigeration and ventilation units
Moved by Councillor Bainbridge and seconded by Councillor B Briggs –
That consideration of this application be deferred until a future meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting.
Motion Lost
Moved by Councillor Armitage and seconded by Councillor B Briggs –
That permission be refused.
Motion Lost
Moved by Councillor C Sherwood and seconded by Councillor Eckhardt –
That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
Motion Carried
(viii) 09/0924 by Mr G Turner for the erection of a replacement garage at 6 West Street, Hibaldstow.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report
(ix) 09/0934 by Mr M B Fennimore for the retention of a change of use of land as an extension to the rear residential garden at Linford Chase, 48 Bigby High Road, Brigg.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(x) 09/0982 by Mr W Smith for the erection of a dwelling at Cottages 1 and 2, The Grove, Trent Side, Amcotts.
Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred until a future meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting. The reason for the site visit being to establish whether the existing dwellings are habitable.
(The voting on the motion being equal the chair used his second and casting vote in support of the application.)
(xi) 09/0983 by Mr B Hotchin for the erection of a first floor side extension, loft conversion with dormer roof and porch extension to front elevation to front elevation (re-submission of PA/2009/0381) at 39 Jeffrey Lane, Belton.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(xii) 09/1028 by Mr A Waite for the retention of a replacement conservatory and a domestic garage to the rear at 33 Buckingham Street South, Scunthorpe.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report subject to an additional condition preventing the garage door from opening onto the public highway.
(xiii) 09/1041 by the trustees of GSA Ltd Retirement Benefit Scheme for retention of a gate at 6 Market Place, Brigg.
Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to enable further investigation into the possible highway status of the path between Market Lane and the Market Place.
(xiv) 09/1082 by Mr M Sparling for the retention of the change of use of land to garden and retention of the fence at 54 Bigby High Road, Brigg
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report
(xvi) 09/1086 by Mr P Cannon for retention of a conservatory at 102 Westgate, Belton
Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee. He referred to a neighbour’s objections. Rainwater would not discharge onto the neighbour’s property as he would be fitting guttering. It would not cause significant loss of light to the neighbouring property.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
1181 (33) 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.
1182 (34) CIRCULAR 03/2009 FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – COST AWARDS IN APPEALS AND OTHER PLANNING PROCEEDINGS – The Head of Planning submitted a report advising the committee of the details of Circular 03/2009 relating to the award of costs in planning appeals. The costs awards regime sought to increase the discipline of parties when taking action within the planning system, through financial consequences for those parties who had behaved unreasonably and had caused unnecessary or wasted expense in the process.
The report also informed members of the outcome of a recent planning appeal decision at 59West Street, Winterton in respect of the construction of 14 new dwellings with associated access and parking (PA/2008/0365) which had been allowed on appeal and where costs had been awarded against the local authority taking into account the provisions of the costs circular.
The appeal process (which was administered by the Planning Inspectorate from its Bristol office) was an integral part of the Town and Country Planning system within England. It provided for the resolution of disputes arising from decisions taken at a local level and ensured that decisions about the use and development of land were consistent with up-to-date national, regional and local planning policies.
In planning appeals all parties involved in the process would normally be required to meet their own expenses. However there had been a steady increase in the number of claims for costs where one party or another involved in the process has acted unreasonably, had failed to substantiate reasons for refusal or put together a cogent, realistic argument as to why development should be allowed to proceed contrary to national, regional and local planning policy. An award of costs did not necessarily follow the outcome of the appeal. For example, the local authority could win an appeal but merely because the appeal had been dismissed did not provide the basis for a legitimate claim of costs by the local authority. Likewise, merely because an appellant had won an appeal against the local authority decision it did not automatically follow that the local authority would be awarded a costs claim against it. The test as to whether an award of costs was reasonable or not was set out in paragraph A12 of the circular.
It was possible within the costs system for the local authority to win the appeal but still have a partial award of costs made against it for unreasonable behaviour. In particular it was important that the local planning authority, in refusing planning permission, clearly identified exactly the reasons for refusal and, most importantly, was then capable of defending those reasons for refusal at the subsequent appeal.
The circular also set out suggestions for good practice in order to minimise the risks of a costs award.
In the context of Circular 03/2009 the Head of Planning drew to the attention of the committee a recent planning appeal decision in respect of a housing development site at West Street, Winterton (application number PA/2008/0364). The appeal, submitted by Keigar Homes Limited, was against the refusal of planning permission by North Lincolnshire Council on 7January 2009. The application had been recommended for approval but members, following a site visit, decided to refuse the application because it was considered that the density would be out of character with the surrounding area, and the development would not enhance or preserve the character of the conservation area and would have an effect on highway safety within the area. The inspector had allowed the appeal and awarded costs against the council. In this particular case the inspector had concluded that the council had relied on hearsay evidence from residents and local councillors and had not substantiated the extent of any harm that could arise. Whilst planning authorities should consider the views of local residents when determining a planning application, ‘the extent of local opposition is not, in itself, a reasonable ground for resisting development’. To carry significant weight, opposition should be founded on valid planning reasons which were supported by substantial planning evidence. Planning authorities would be at risk of an award of costs for unsubstantiated objections where they included valid reasons for refusal but relied almost exclusively on local opposition from third parties through representations and attendance at an inquiry or hearing to support the decision. This decision of the inspector had confirmed the view held in previous cases that merely because local residents objected to an application, possibly in significant numbers, was not in itself a justified reason for refusal.
Resolved – That the report be noted.
1183 (35) PLANNING ACT 2008 – IMPLEMENTATION – NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS – PUBLICATION OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS AND GUIDANCE – The Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development and the Head of Planning submitted a joint report informing members of the publication of four new statutory instruments and three non-statutory guidance notes as part of the implementation process for the Planning Act 2008. These set out the procedures which applicants for consent of nationally significant infrastructure projects would be required to follow before and after submitting an application to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) and the content of such applications and had come into force on 1 October 2009.
The Planning Act 2008, which had received royal assent in November 2008, had created a new regime for dealing with proposals for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) by establishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) to oversee the application process.
As part of the implementation of the 2008 Act and this new regime for infrastructure planning, a suite of Statutory Instruments and non-statutory guidance documents had been prepared by the Government which set out the procedures that applicants for consent for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) would be required to follow before and after submitting an application to the IPC and the content of such applications. A detailed overview of the Statutory Instruments was contained in an explanatory note which was attached as Appendix 1 to the report.
Further statutory instruments and guidance documents would be produced governing the processes and procedures which would be used by the IPC in considering and making decisions on proposals for NSIPs.
Local authorities would have an important role to play, particularly during the pre-application discussions and giving advice on consulting local communities. Opportunities would also arise later on in the process for local authorities to have their say on proposals themselves. However there was no provision in the new regime for Local Planning Authorities to be reimbursed for extensive pre-application advice and consultation work. No part of the fee, which applicants would pay to the IPC was identified to be paid to the local authority to cover for any staffing costs incurred.
Recommended to Council – That the council expresses its serious concerns to the Department for Communities and Local Government, that Local Planning Authorities appear to be expected to undertake extensive pre-application advice and consultation without any financial resources to fund appropriate and reasonable staffing requirements.
1184 (36) COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY – The Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development submitted a report informing members of the most recent Government consultation for the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), and seeking agreement to the proposed council response.
The Government had released detailed proposals and draft regulations for a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which would be a new charge that local authorities were empowered, but not required to charge on most types of new development. CIL was only to be spent on general infrastructure requirements and important sub-regional infrastructure contemplated by the development plan and not to remedy existing deficiencies. The Regulations implementing CIL would come into force on 6 April 2010 and would not be retrospective, followed with a proposed scale back in the use of Section 106 Planning Obligations.
The Government’s aim for CIL was to take advantage of the financial benefits arising from planning consent (other than for householder development). Almost all new development had some impact on the need for infrastructure, services and amenities, or benefits from it, and it was therefore fair that such development paid a share of the cost. It was proposed that CIL would be a standard charge per square metre of gross internal floor space of chargeable development, to be set using a ‘charging schedule’ produced by the council. If set at the right level, the Government wanted CIL to be used to unlock development, but recognised that if it was set too high it might cause some development to become unviable. CIL would be a mandatory charge, which a developer would not, in principle, be entitled to dispute.
The CIL would be levied on developers when development commenced, and was intended to fund considerable infrastructure at both local and sub-regional level. The subject could embrace transport; construction of public utilities, such as water supply and disposal or energy supply; schools; recreation and flood defences. Initially, affordable housing would not be included and would continue to be secured using S106 Planning Obligations, but it could possibly be added after the final Regulations were published.
Currently developers of major projects did make a contribution via a Planning Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. This covered only 14% of house building, and 7% of office development.
The Government considered that whilst CIL would make a significant contribution to infrastructure provision, core public funding would continue to be the main contributor. CIL would need to be used alongside other funding to deliver infrastructure locally.
Appendix 1 to the report contained a proposed response to the consultation.
Recommended to Council – That the response as set out in Appendix One of the report be agreed for submission to Communities and Local Government
1185 (37) CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 25:DEVELOPMENT AND FLOOD RISK – The Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development submitted a report informing members about the consultation currently taking place on proposed amendments to Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk.
Current national spatial planning policy on development and flood risk was covered by PPS25 Development and Flood Risk, which had been published by Communities and Local Government (CLG) in December 2006.
The principle aims of PPS25 were to ensure that flood risk was taken into account at all stages in the spatial (town and country) planning process, to avoid inappropriate new development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest flood risk. Where new development was, exceptionally, necessary in such high risk areas, the policy aimed to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reduce flood risk overall.
CLG were now looking to make some limited amendments to PPS25, in order to clarify how the policy should be applied and set out within its ‘Consultation on proposed amendments to Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk’ paper what the proposed amendments were and more importantly what their effects would be. These were summarised in the report.
CLG were not proposing to change the policy approach in PPS25. Rather, the intention was to clarify how certain aspects of the policy were applied to ensure it worked better and was more effective. The proposed amendments affected tables D.1 (Flood Zones) and D.2 (Flood Risk Vulnerability Classifications) in Annex D to PPS25.
Comments on the proposed amendments had been invited by 3 November 2009.
Resolved – that the report be noted.
1186(38) RESTRICTED BYWAY 150, WROOT Prior to consideration of this matter an objector addressed the committee. He stated that Misson Bank and Thatch Carr Bank were unclassified roads rather than bridleway as shown on the definitive map He said that they should be shown on the list of streets.
Further to Minute 1075, the Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report asking the committee’s instructions on how to proceed with a definitive map order to which objections had been received.
The two objectors were: Mr John Carney, and the Byways and Bridleways Trust (BBT), an organisation and statutory consultee for orders made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Mr Carney believed the two lanes were public carriageways intended primarily for motor vehicles that should be maintained accordingly. Such a public carriageway was not a public right of way. Only public rights of way were recorded on a definitive map (and statement, the map’s accompanying written schedule). He therefore did not want the order to be confirmed because he thought this would be legally wrong. The BBT on the other hand expressed support for the order in broad terms, but on the condition that the order was modified so that the widths of the lanes set out within were depicted with greater precision.
The points raised by the objectors were addressed in detail in the report and, in the case of the objection by Mr Carney, in Appendix 2 to the report.
Resolved – (a) That ‘Definitive Map Modification (Restricted Byway 150, Wroot) Order 2009(1)’ is sent with the two duly made objections to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with a request that the Secretary of State either (i) confirms the order as made or, should he think fit, (ii) confirms the order subject to a modification of the order map so as better to indicate the variations in width along its length; (b) that the Council participate fully in the Secretary of State’s preferred means of arbitration; and (c) that unless as a result of the order no highway is shown to exist over Misson Bank and Thatch Carr Bank, Misson Bank and Thatch Carr Bank be added to the list of streets made and kept corrected up to date in accordance with section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980.
1187 (39) PROPOSED DIVERSION OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH 210 AND PROPOSED STOPPING UP OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH 210 A, MANTON – The Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report asking the committee to determine an application from Sibelco UK, formerly WBB Minerals, to make a further order to temporarily (i) divert a section of public footpath 210 and (ii) stop up public footpath 210A Manton.
On 6 October 2004 members had approved the making of an order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to close the footpaths, for a period of five years.
The order had been necessary for the implementation of planning permission 1999/169. The permission was for the extraction of silica sand from land at Messingham Quarry, off Kirton Road, Manton.
In order for the operation of sand extraction to continue, it was necessary for a further order to be made. A safe alternative footpath had been provided along the northern perimeter of the site.
The report to Planning Committee on 6 October 2004 had stated that if towards the expiry of five years it remained necessary for one or both footpaths to remain diverted/closed, a further report was to be resubmitted at that time in consideration of a further consecutive closure order being made., Sibelco UK, formerly WBB Minerals, now wished to make such a further order for an extra period of five years from the date of the order’s confirmation (14 January 2005) or until the sand extraction is completed (whichever were to be the sooner).
Full consultation had taken place with all user groups, statutory undertakers, Manton Parish Council and Messingham Parish Council. None had indicated an intention to object should an order be made.
Resolved – (a) That orders be made under sections 257 and 261 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to (i) extend the temporary diversion of part of Public Footpath 210, Manton; and (ii) extend the temporary stopping up of Public Footpath 210A, Manton, both orders to be for a duration of five years from 14 January 2010 or until mineral extraction over the land crossed by the footpaths ceases, whichever is the sooner;( b) that the Service Director Highways and Planning be authorised to confirm the order if it is unopposed; and (c) that should objections be received, a further report be submitted to this committee.