northlincs.gov.uk

PRESENT:  Councillor Bunyan (in the chair).

Councillor Wardle (Vice–Chairman), Councillors Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Collinson, England, Grant, Rowson and N Sherwood.

Councillors O’Sullivan, Kirk, Jawaid, Barker, Marper, Ogg, Mrs Redfern, Oldfield, Waltham, Wilson and K Vickers, attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule1.37 (b).

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

1392  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 a personal interest:-

Members	Minute	Applications /Item	Nature of Interest
Cllr Ali	1398	Reasons for Refusal	Knew the applicant
Cllr Ali	1395	11/1008	Member for Town ward
Cllr Bainbridge	1398	Reasons for Refusal	Knew the applicant
Cllr Collinson	1398	Reasons for Refusal	Knew the applicant
Cllr Collinson	1395	11/1008	Member of the Scunthorpe and Gainsborough Water Management Board
Cllr England	1396 (xii)	11/1285	Knew the applicant
Cllr England	1398	Reason for Refusal	Knew applicant
Cllr Wardle	1396 (i)	11/0960	Knew the applicant
Cllr Wardle	1396 (vi)	11/1183	Knew the applicant
Cllr Grant	1396 (xi)	11/1278	Knew the applicant
Cllr Rowson	1398	Reasons for Refusal	Knew the applicant
Cllr N Sherwood	1396 (ii)	11/1042	Family member lived nearby

 

The following members declared that they had been lobbied: –

 

Members	Minute	Application/Item
Cllrs Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Bunyan, Collinson, England, Grant, Rowson, N Sherwood and Wardle	1395	11/1008
Cllr Ali	1396 (vii)	11/1198
Cllr England	1396 (vii)	11/1198
Cllr Wardle	1396 (vi)	11/1183

 

The following members, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared a personal interest: –

 

Members	Minute	Applications /Item	Nature of Interest
Cllr Mrs Redfern	1394 (i)	11/0263	Member of Belton Parish Council
Cllr Oldfield	1395	11/1008	Member of Gunness Parish Council
Cllr Barker	1396 (xiii)	11/1331	Knew applicant and objector
Cllr Barker	1396 (xiv)	11/1407	Knew applicant and objector

 

The following members attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared that they had been lobbied: –

 

Members	Minute	Application/Item
Cllrs C Sherwood, Kirk, T Foster, Marper, O’Sullivan, Ogg, Jawaid, Waltham and Wilson	1395	11/1008
Cllr Mrs Redfern	1394 (i)	11/0263
Cllr Marper	1396 (viii)	11/1226

 

Mr S Whittemore (Regulatory Support Officer) declared an interest in Minute 1398 (application 11/0278), as he knew the applicant’s agent.

 

1393  MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 16 November 2011, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

1394  (34) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decisions at a previous meeting, members had undertaken site visits on the morning of the meeting. The Acting Head of Planning submitted  reports and updated them orally.

(i) 11/0263 by SK Fuel Ltd for the erection of a new kiosk building and car wash on existing garage site and adjacent residential land at Filling Station, 12 High Street, Belton.

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

The applicant stated that the proposal would improve the visual amenity of the location and would also reduce traffic safety problems. It would be a small facility largely for use by local people and would therefore not lead to a significant increase in traffic.

The objector stated that the proposal would cause Health and Safety problems, especially for children attending the adjacent school. The car parking provision was inadequate.

Councillor Mrs Redfern, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on this application.

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

(ii) 11/0802 by Birchwood Developments Ltd for the erection of four dwellings with appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for subsequent approval  on land to the rear of Pine Lodge, Barton Lane, Barrow-upon-Humber.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He stated that the scheme had been designed to address the issues that had led to a previous application on the site being refused

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

1395  (35) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATION – The Acting Head of Planning submitted a report containing details of a major application for determination by the committee including a summary of policy context representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the application. The Acting Head of Planning updated the report orally. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

(i) 11/1008 by Simons Developments Ltd for the demolition of Trent Valley Garden Centre and its associated structures (including three residential properties) and erection of a retail park with associated access roads, car parking, servicing areas and hard and soft landscaping at Trent Valley Garden Centre, Doncaster Road, Gunness.

Prior to consideration of this application five objectors, a representative of the applicants and four supporters addressed the committee.

The first objector was concerned that the application would have an adverse impact on the viability and sustainability of Scunthorpe town centre. He referred to recent government statements that there were too many out of town retail parks. There was currently around 250,000 m² of empty retail space in the town centre.

The second speaker was the chairman of the local residents’ association. He stated that the developers had not consulted fully with local residents. The development would exacerbate the existing car parking problem on football match days. It would destroy a pond with associated habitats. Marks and Spencers should return to the town centre rather than to this out of town location. The development would have a significant impact on the town centre.

The third objector referred to the decreased footfall in Scunthorpe town centre, the reduction in revenue for businesses trading there since Marks and Spencers had closed its store on the High Street, and the amount of empty retail space in the town centre. The proposal was contrary to Policy CS14 of the council’s adopted Core Strategy which stated that Scunthorpe town centre would be the main location for all new retail, leisure, cultural and office development. The Section 106 Agreement restrictions on businesses not relocating from the town centre to the present site were unenforceable.

The fourth objector stated that retail development should take place in the town centre. The present development would have an impact at the sub-regional level and would take trade from surrounding sustainable town centres. There was significant retail space available in Scunthorpe town centre.

The final objector stated that the proposal would damage the economy of the town centre. PPS 1 aimed to reduce the need to travel. There was no agreement in place for the Park and Ride scheme for hospital employees to be extended to the general public. The proposal was contrary to policies in the Local Development Framework on the basis of which other companies had made investment decisions. There would be a loss of existing jobs at the garden centre.

The applicant’s representative stated that the proposal was a major investment opportunity for the town of Scunthorpe which would bring in between £14m and £18m. The town centre would be protected by means of a legal agreement. The scheme had public support. The water voles on site would be relocated.

The second supporter, representing Marks and Spencers explained that at the time of the closure of the store in the High Street the company was not actively seeking sites in the area. However following a review of company policy it had been decided that a store in this location would be viable, as part of a general expansion programme. There was no compelling case for a store within the town centre.

Two other speakers stated that they were supporting the application on the basis of the 300 jobs to be created and the generation of income for the area. The development would encourage people to shop in Scunthorpe. There were no viable sites in the town centre for Marks and Spencers.

The final speaker represented traffic consultants engaged by the applicants. Members had been shown a computer model of traffic flows prior to and after completion of the development and associated highway works. The works would improve capacity on the eastward carriageway of Doncaster Road from Berkley Circle to the M181 roundabout by creating two lanes for the entire stretch. Improvements would also take place to the traffic light system with the removal of a Toucan pedestrian crossing and the incorporation of pedestrian crossing facilities within the “Mover Controlled” traffic light system. Under the proposed Section 106 agreement a financial contribution would be made to improve capacity at Berkley Circle.

Councillors Kirk and Oldfield, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on this application.

Resolved – (a) That the committee is mindful to grant permission for the development; (b) that the Acting Head of Planning be authorised to grant permission subject to the completion of a formal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 providing for off-site highway improvements, Scunthorpe town centre protection, protected species translocation and maintenance and a contribution towards improving the existing footpaths in the vicinity of the site, and to the conditions contained in the report, and (c) that if the obligation is not completed by 14 April 2012, the Acting Head of Planning be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds of the adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of Scunthorpe town centre, adverse impact upon highway safety and levels of congestion within the locality, adverse impact upon protected species and their habitat, and non-compliance with Policy EC16 of PPS 4, policies T2 and T6 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and policies C14, C25 and CS 17 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.

(the voting being equal on the above matter (Minute 1395 (i)) the chairman used his second and casting vote in favour of the motion)

1396  (36) PLANNING AND OTHER APPLICATIONS – The Acting 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. The Acting Head of Planning updated the reports orally where appropriate. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

(i) 11/0960 by Mr S Faulding for the conversion of an ex- RAF building to a dwelling with workshop at Old RAF Building, Chapelfield Road, Goxhill.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He stated the building would be in keeping with the locality and would have no adverse impact on surrounding properties.

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

(ii) 11/1042 by Mr C Simpson for advertisement consent for one internally illuminated fascia sign at Westlands Social Club, Todds Lane, Burton–upon–Stather.

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

(iii) 11/1058 by Mrs K Smith for the erection of a pair of semi detached dormer bungalows and garages at Wayside, Sluice Road, South Ferriby.

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

(iv) 11/1156 by Mr A Catherall for the erection of ornate ironwork and lantern over Market Cross at Market Cross, Market Place, Epworth.

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

The applicant stated that he wished to preserve the heritage of the town. The proposal would be an almost exact replica of the cross before iron was removed during the Second World War. There was wide public support for the proposal.

The objector stated that the cross was a Grade II Listed Building dating from the 18^th century. The iron work structure had been erected in the early 20^th century and had only been in place for around 40 years. The proposal would undermine the historic interest of the monument.

Resolved – That permission be refused on the basis that the proposal does not comply with Policy HE5 of the North Lincolnshire local Plan.

(v) 11/1178 by Ms K Scott for outline permission for the erection of a detached dwelling (access not reserved for subsequent approval) at Drumcondra, Elm Lane, Goxhill.

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

(vi) 11/1183 by Mr M Bennett for the erection of 3 flats at 1C Dam Road, Barton–upon–Humber.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee. He stated that the site was falling into a derelict state. The proposal would enhance Dam Road.

Councillor K Vickers, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on the application.

Resolved – That permission be granted subject to conditions relating to highways, construction materials and measures identified in the Flood Risk Assessment.

(vii) 11/1198 by Mr M Mortuza for the retention of an extension and replacement fence (resubmission of PA/2010/1206 dated 15/12/2010) at 98 Cliff Gardens, Scunthorpe.

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 is  to assess the impact on neighbouring properties.

(viii) 11/1226 by Mr G Allison for the replacement of an extant permission (PA/2008/1032 dated 08/10/2008 for the erection of a dwelling on land rear of Silver Street, Winteringham.

Councillor Marper, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1(b) spoke on this application.

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

(ix) 11/1228 by Mr M Andrews for consent to fell 3 beech trees covered by Tree Preservation (Barton–upon–Humber) Order 1955 at Haleakala, 30 Eastfield Road, Barton–upon–Humber.

Resolved – That consent be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report subject to the amendment of Condition 2  to read “Within 12 months of the date of felling the trees, or within such extended period as the local planning authority may allow, 3 beech trees (Fagus sylvatica) shall be planted in a position to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The new trees shall have a minimum girth of 12-14 cm on planting.”

 

(x) 11/1233 by V Greaves for the erection of a conservatory (resubmission of PA/2011/0964) at Highbury, Finkle Lane, Barrow–upon–Humber.

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

(xi) 11/1278 by Engage North Lincolnshire for the retention of a new sprinkler tank and pump house with fenced enclosure at Foxhills Comprehensive School, Foxhills Road, Scunthorpe.

Councillor O’Sullivan, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on this application.

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

(xii) 11/1285 by Mr S Slingsby for the raising of the height of existing garage roof to  form additional first floor accommodation at Orchard House, 16 Cross Tree Road, Messingham.

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

(xiii) 11/1331 by Mr P Jackson for the erection of a terrace of four town houses and demolition of the Parochial Church Hall at St Oswald’s Church Hall, Church Street, Crowle.

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

The applicant’s representative stated that he was happy with the contents of the report. The building was in a worse condition than the applicant had realised when he had bought it. The conversion for which permission existed could therefore not be carried out. The present proposal was therefore the only viable solution.

The objector accepted much of what the agent had said. However the financial considerations were not material. None of the neighbours supported the application.. There had been no material change of circumstances since the earlier refusal.

Councillor Barker, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on this application.

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

(xiv) 11/1407 by Mr P Jackson for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the Parochial Church Hall and erect a terrace of four town houses at St Oswald’s Church Hall, Church Street, Crowle.

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

1397  (37) ENFORCEMENT UPDATE – The Acting 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.

1398  EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – Resolved – That the public be excluded from the meeting for consideration of the following item (minute 1399) on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Prior to consideration of this application Mr S Whittemore, having declared an interest, left the meeting.

1399  (38) REASONS FOR REFUSAL OF PA/2011/0278 – Further to minute 1376, the Acting Head of Planning submitted a report updating and advising members regarding the reasons for refusal of application PA/2011/0278) following the submission of an appeal against non-determination and the earlier decision of the committee not to make a decision on the application.

The committee was invited to reconsider its earlier decision in order for the council to have a mandate at the forthcoming public inquiry.

Resolved – That the suggested reasons for refusal, as outlined in the appendix to the report, be supported and used as a mandate to defend the council’s decision at the forthcoming public inquiry.