Planning Committee – 13 March 2013
Chair: Councillor Bunyan
Venue: The Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Scunthorpe
Time: 2 pm
2. Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and Personal or 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 February 2013 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.
4. Applications deferred from previous meeting for site visits.
5. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
6. PA/2009/0600 – Able UK.
7. Public Rights of Way Orders: –
(i) Public Footpath 224, Broughton;
(ii) Public Footpath 32, South Ferriby;
(iii) Public Footpath 54A, Goxhill
(Reports of the Director of Places)
8. Any other items, which the chairman decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances, which must be specified.
Note: All reports are by the Head of Development Management unless otherwise stated
PRESENT: – Councillor Bunyan (in the Chair).
Councillors Wardle (Vice–Chairman), Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Collinson, England, Grant, Rowson and N Sherwood.
Councillors Gosling, Waltham and Wilson attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b).
The committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.
1496 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND 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 as follows: –
|Member (s)||Minute||Application(s)/Item||Nature of Interest|
|Cllr Allcock||1499 (i)||12/0559||Member of Campaign for the Protection of Rural England.|
|Cllr Allcock||1500||Application 09/0600 by Able UK Ltd.||Member of –
(i) Environment Agency: –
Anglian Northern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee
Humber Joint Committee
Humber Elected Members Forum
Humber Estuary and Coastal Authorities Group
Humber Flood Risk Management Society, and
(ii) North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority.
|Cllr Collinson||1499 (vii)||13/0078||Member of Bottesford Town Council|
|Cllr Rowson||1499 (i)||12/0559||Knew applicant|
|Cllr Wardle||1499 (v)||12/1488||Knew applicant|
|Cllr Wardle||1499 (i)||12/0559||Knew applicant|
The following members declared that they had been lobbied: –
|Member (s)||Minute (s)||Application/Item (s)|
|Cllrs Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Bunyan, Collinson, England, Grant, Rowson and N Sherwood.||1498 (i)||12/1227|
|Cllr Allcock||1499 (iii)||12/1341|
|Cllr Bainbridge||1498 (ii)||12/1315|
The following member, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared that he had been lobbied: –
|Cllr Waltham||1499 (i)||12/0559|
The following officer declared a non-pecuniary interest as follows –
|Officer||Minute||Application(s) /Item||Nature of Interest|
|Mr S Whittemore||1498 (i)||12/1227||Knew the applicant|
1497 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 13 February 2013, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.
1498 (32) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decisions at a previous meeting, members had undertaken site visits prior to the meeting. The Head of Development Management submitted reports and updated them orally.
Prior to consideration of the following application (12/1227) Mr S Whittemore, having declared a non-pecuniary interest in the application, left the meeting.
(i) 12/1227 by Dr M J Dwyer, Cedar Medical Practice for operation of a pharmacy within the existing medical practice at 275 Ashby Road, Scunthorpe.
Prior to consideration of this application an objector and the applicant addressed the committee.
The objector was concerned about security, the potential increase in traffic arising from the proposal. It was not a small business and it would be in breach of a number of planning policies. It was an inappropriate development in a residential area. He had concerns about risk of crime and storage of clinical waste. The development would cause nuisance to neighbours through noise, light pollution and smell. The car parking provision was inadequate. He requested conditions regarding fencing and lighting.
The applicant stated that in order to get a licence from the Primary Care Trust, the pharmacy would be required to be open 100 hours a week. The proposal would benefit the practice’s customers. There was provision for parking at the front of the site. Drugs would be stored appropriately on site. There would be a reduction in traffic as patients would not have to travel to another pharmacy. The gate to the rear car park would be locked outside surgery hours and it was intended to improve fencing to the rear. Any signage would be unobtrusive.
Councillors Gosling and Wilson, 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 subject to additional conditions relating to a restriction on illumination of the rear of the site and provision of secure fencing.
Mr Whittemore returned to the meeting.
(ii) 12/1315 by Mr Sukhi Majara, Gresham Lodge Care Home for change of use of part of rear garden and part of front garden of 253 Ashby Road into curtilage of care home, extension and alterations to Gresham Lodge, 255 Ashby Road, and change of use to 257 Ashby Road to offices, meeting room, reception area and staff facilities in connection with Gresham Lodge Care Home in accordance with amended plans received on 14 December 2012, 8 January 2013 and 28 January 2013 at Gresham Lodge, 255 Ashby Road, Scunthorpe.
Prior to consideration of this application the applicant’s agent and an objector addressed the committee.
The agent stated that the applicant had made changes to his previous application following discussions with officers. The number of proposed bedrooms had been reduced. The proposal would create employment during the construction phase as well as three permanent jobs. There were no objections from consultees. The development would have no adverse impact on the character of the area. 253 Ashby Road would be retained and the garden used as amenity space and 257 would be used for ancillary staff and office staff. There would be no external changes.
The objector lived at 251 which was attached to 253. He stated that the proposal was inappropriate in a residential area. The site was unsightly. A fence had not been erected between Gresham Lodge and 253 as had previously been required. There would only be one parking space for 253 if this was returned to residential use and access to it would have to be over Gresham Lodge’s land. The arrangements for disabled access were inadequate. An arborist’s report had not been submitted as requested by the Environment Team
Councillors Gosling and Wilson, attending the meeting in accordance with procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on this application.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report subject to additional conditions relating to the erection of fencing to the rear garden and southern boundary of the front garden of 253.
1499 (33) PLANNING AND OTHER APPLICATIONS – The Head of Development Management 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 Head of Development Management updated the reports orally where appropriate. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.
(i) 12/0559 by LFC Horkstow Ltd for the erection of a 57m high wind turbine with associated infrastructure including access track, sub station, underground cable and crane hardstanding on land north of Hall Farm Cottage, Main Street, Horkstow.
Prior to consideration of this application a representative of the applicants and an objector addressed the committee.
The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant company’s business used a considerable amount of electricity. It was looking to generate as much as possible from renewable and low carbon sources. Surplus energy could be sold to the national grid. There had been no objections from statutory consultees. The proposal complied with all relevant planning policies.
The objector lived 500 metres from the site of the proposed turbine. He was concerned at the impact the proposal would have on views from the Viking Way and local heritage sites such as Horkstow Bridge. It would also create shadow flicker and noise and affect wild birds such as barn owls, harriers and geese. It could also “spook” horses including those kept by the objector
Councillor Waltham, attending the meeting in accordance with procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on this application.
Resolved – That permission be refused for reasons relating to the adverse impact of the proposal in relation to visual impact, noise and shadow flicker which are considered to outweigh the benefits of renewable energy creation.
(ii) 12/1191 by Mr J and Mrs K Anderson for variation of condition 10 of planning permission PA/2011/0578 to allow a marquee to be sited 12 times a year at Cleatham Hall, access road to Cleatham Hall, Cleatham
Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee. She lived next door to the site. She considered that the condition had been necessary to prevent disturbance to herself and should remain. The associated toilets and catering facilities would be 30 metres from her property. She was concerned that loud music would be played in the marquee.
Resolved – That permission be refused on the basis of the adverse impact that the development would have on the neighbouring property in terms of noise and disturbance.
(iii) 12/1341 by North Lincolnshire homes for prior approval of proposed demolition of Hallcroft House at 1-20 Hallcroft Close, Haxey.
Resolved – That prior approval be granted.
(iv) 12/1475 by Mr S Keech for the erection of a first floor extension at 28 Holme Drive, Burton–upon–Stather.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(v) 12/1488 by Mr P Saxby for the erection of a detached two-storey dwelling (all matters reserved for subsequent approval ) ( including demolition of existing outbuilding) on land adjacent to Oakroyd, North End, Goxhill.
Prior to consideration of this application a representative of the applicants addressed the committee. He stated that the site had been enlarged since a previous application had been refused. There were no objections from statutory consultees. The development would add to the diversity of plot size and property type in the vicinity.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(vi) 13/0035 by Mr J Brister for the erection of a two-storey extension to the rear and a detached garage at 119 Station Road, Hibaldstow.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the deletion of the words “the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan” from the Reasons for Approval.
(vii) 13/0078 by Mr P Clague for the erection of two-storey and single-storey side extensions (resubmission of PA/2012/1200) at 45 Quebec road, Bottesford.
Prior to consideration of this application a representative of the applicants addressed the committee. He stated that the scheme had been amended to reduce the loss of light to neighbours. It would not have any detrimental effect on the character of the area.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report
1500 (34) APPLICATION PA/2009/0600 – ABLE UK – PLANNING PERMISSION TO ERECT BUILDINGS AND USE LAND FOR PURPOSES WITHIN USE CLASSES A3, C1, B1, B2 AND B8 FOR PORT-RELATED STORAGE AND ASSOCIATED SERVICE FACILITIES TOGETHER WITH AMENITY LANDSCAPING AND HABITAT CREATION, INCLUDING FLOOD DEFENCES, NEW RAILWAY SIDING, ESTATE ROADS, SEWAGE AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES, FLOODLIGHTING, WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY, HYDROGEN PIPELINE SPUR AND TWO 20 METRE TELECOMMUNICATION MASTS (IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE ADDITIONAL DETAILS AND PLANS CONTAINED WITHIN THE ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DATED APRIL 2011 RECEIVED BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY ON 20 APRIL) ON LAND OFF SKITTER ROAD, EAST HALTON.
Further to Minute 1352, the Head of Development Management submitted a report regarding progress on this application.
The requirements of the committee that need to be met before the decision notice can be issued had only been satisfied in part, that is to say, the Section 106 and its provisions to secure monies for highway improvement works had been negotiated and was awaiting final completion, and the Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations that has been carried out by DEFRA had been completed and signed off. The remaining provision was that an agreement be made between the applicants, Able UK, and the Environment Agency in relation to land drainage consent for the flood wall works. It was this element that had not been finalised.
There was becoming a pressing need to commence this development due to the pressure that the applicant was experiencing from customers wanting to locate on the south bank of the River Humber within North Lincolnshire. Accordingly the Environment Agency had been asked to attend a meeting with members of the Planning and Regeneration team to explore the opportunity of overcoming the outstanding issues. This meeting had taken place on 5 March 2013, after the report had been prepared an update was given by the Head of Development Management.
The Environment Agency had confirmed that it would not object to planning permission being granted subject to the Section 106 Agreement being signed in respect of the highway improvements and subject to conditions being imposed.
The Head of Development Management advised the committee of the content of an objection from a local resident. He also advised that since the committee’s previous resolution changes in national policies would require amendments in the wording of some proposed conditions to reflect these changes and comply with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Resolved – (a) That the committee is mindful to grant permission for the development subject to conditions as modified to delete reference to superseded documents and to refer to the NPPF and ensure additional conditions that require (i) no development which comprises the erection of a building with the exception of the pumping station shall commence within any area identified as Flood Zone 3 on the attached plan until the construction of the sea wall and associated sea wall works have been completed, and (ii) Suitable baffling of flood lights to control light spill outside the site, and (b)that the Head of Development Management be authorised to grant permission subject to the completion of a formal agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 providing for the sum of £1,255,000 in staged payments to secure highway improvements in the vicinity of the proposed development .
1501 (35) PUBLIC FOOTPATH 224, BROUGHTON – The Director of Places submitted a report inviting the committee to determine what action to take in respect of a contested order.
Prior to consideration of this item an objector addressed the committee. He questioned the validity of the order and suggested that the matter had not been properly researched before the order had been made.
The Director of Places reported that he had authorised the making of an order and to remove part of Public Footpath 224 from the definitive map and statement as shown on Appendices 1 and 2 of the report.
The order had been advertised on 19 April 2012. Three objections were subsequently lodged. These were included as Appendix 3.
One objection claimed that there is insufficient evidence to remove the path. The remaining two objectors claimed that the route was still used by members of the community. This was to enjoy elevated views of the surrounding area. However, officers had visited the site over a period of years. No visible route on the ground supported this. An alternative route close by displayed heavy usage.
Resolved – That the order be referred to the Secretary of State to determine whether the order should be confirmed as made.
1502 (36) PUBLIC FOOTPATH 32, SOUTH FERRIBY – The Director of Places submitted a report inviting members to decide whether to submit a public path diversion order to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Secretary of State).
Prior to consideration of this item an objector addressed the committee. He stated that the proposal was contrary to the national trend for increasing coastal access. If the Police wished the path to be closed they could use provisions in relation to the prevention of crime
The former Director of Infrastructure Services had approved the making of an order to divert this path on 11 April 2012. The order had been supported by Humberside Police. The Police rented the land in question. They considered that the current route of the footpath was dangerous.
The current route of the footpath was considered to be unusable. The cliff had a steep side. The proposed new route would run over a safe and well-defined walking surface as shown on Appendix 1 to the report.
There was one objection to the route proposed. The objector stated the proposed route would be less scenic and hence less enjoyable and that it is the only section of cliff that could be walked in the area.
The section of the proposed route to which the objector referred to was the diverted 390 metre section of path following a stone track rather than the cliff edge. The remainder of the footpath followed the bank of the River Humber through to Barton upon Humber, and beyond to North Killingholme.
It was therefore arguable whether a safe and well defined route outweighed the objection.
Resolved – That consideration of this matter be deferred to a future meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting. The purpose of the site visit is to determine the safety and accessibility of the existing route.
1503 (37) PUBLIC FOOTPATH 54A, GOXHILL – The Director of Places submitted a report inviting the committee to determine what action to take in respect of a contested order.
Prior to consideration of this item an objector addressed the committee. He questioned the validity of the order.
The order added a public footpath between Greengate Lane and Westfield Road in Goxhill to the definitive map and statement as shown on Appendices 1 and 2 to the report.
The order had been advertised on 3 May 2012. Two duly made objections. Had been received, one of which had subsequently been withdrawn
The objections brought no new evidence to light. However, the point made by the remaining objector was persuasive If the Secretary of State modified the order in accordance with his representation, which related to the width of the path he had agreed to withdraw his objection.
Once a modification order has been made, it had to be determined.
Resolved – That the order be submitted to the secretary of State for confirmation subject to the amendment set out in Appendix 1 to the report.