northlincs.gov.uk

Planning Committee – 30 May 2012

Chair:  Councillor Bunyan
Venue:  The Council Chamber, Civic Centre, 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 2 May 2012 as a correct record and authorise the chair to sign.

4.  Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.

5.  Incomplete Residential Development – West Street, West Butterwick.

6.  Residential development in Goxhill – Moratorium.

7.  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.

MINUTES

PRESENT:   Councillor Bunyan (in the chair).

Councillors Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Collinson, England, Glover, Grant, Rowson and N Sherwood.

Councillor Whiteley attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.36 (b).

The committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.

1443  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:

The following member attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.36 (b) declared a personal interest: –

The following member declared that he had been lobbied:

1444  MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 2 May 2012, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

1445  (1)  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) 12/0267 by Mr P Colebrook for the erection of a replacement dwelling and domestic garage at 26 West Street, West Butterwick.

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

The objector was concerned that the proposed dwelling would be too close to her own property and would lead to a loss of privacy. It would also exacerbate the risk of flooding of that property.

The agent stated that the development would be a replacement for an existing bungalow on the site. The applicants had discussed the positioning of the dwelling on the site with both planning officers and the Environment Agency. The site was surrounded on two sides by a two metre high hedge which provided visual screening from the objector’s property. Surface water would be disposed of via the drainage for the proposed larger development to the north.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the amendment of Condition 12 to read “ The existing dwelling shall be demolished and all debris removed from the site before the new dwelling is first occupied”.

(ii) 12/0313 by Mr P Park for change of use of agricultural land to garden at Haybrook, Thorne Road, Sandtoft.

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

(iii) 12/0319 by Mr Shrimpton for change of use of part of ground floor from offices to 4 self-contained flats and change of use of first floor from restaurant to 2 self-contained flats with associated alterations at 24 and 24a High Street, Barton–upon–Humber.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to an amendment to Condition 2 to reflect the submission of a further revised plan.

(iv) 12/0328 by Mr A W Riley for outline permission to erect 3 dwellings, garage and private road with all matters reserved on land adjacent to the south boundary of 49b Moorwell Road, Bottesford.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee. He was concerned at the proposals for drainage on the site. He considered that the development would exacerbate existing problems and could lead to landslip.

Councillor Whiteley, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.36 (b), spoke on this application.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to allow further information to be obtained regarding foul and surface water disposal.

(v) 12/0354 by Mr A W Riley for the erection of a detached bungalow and garage on land adjacent to the southern boundary of 49b Moorwell Road, Bottesford.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to allow further information to be obtained regarding foul and surface water disposal.

(vi) 12/0358 by Mr H E Brinkley for amendments to planning approval PA/2010/1317 including increased height of front gable and additional windows on development north of The Gables, Belton Road, Epworth.

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

(vii) 12/0433 by Mr and Mrs M  and L Simmonds for the erection of a first-floor side extension, porch and trellis to front boundary at 73 Annes Crescent, Scunthorpe.

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

1446  (2)  INCOMPLETE DEVELOPMENT, WEST STREET, WEST BUTTERWICK – Further to Minute1254, The Head of Development Management submitted a report updating members on the issues surrounding a housing development that had been commenced in West Butterwick but which had not been completed within a period considered satisfactory or reasonable.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee. The objector believed there had been no change in circumstances since the previous decision of the Committee and that officers were too charitable. There was no intention to complete the development and that the council was being strung along by the S38 agreement. The development had been hanging over the village for 14 years. It was clearly a site in the flood zone and he doubted the planning permission had ever been commenced.

The agent explained that amendments to the original permission had recently been agreed that made the scheme more attractive and saleable, the roads and layout had been agreed and the S38 was nearing completion. Payment to the parish council had been made to secure the access. They had a development partner interested in building out the project but a building rate of 6/7 per year was most realistically that could be achieved. He indicated that  the new house approved would assist in raising funds for the project and that it was important that a completion notice was not served as this would adversely effect the ability to raise funds and complete the development . He indicated his belief that there was no doubt that the development had been properly commenced with the installation of piling foundations on one of the plots.

The committee had previously (on 30 June 2010) authorised the serving of a completion notice, this had not been done due to a change in circumstances.

Following the committee meeting of 30 June 2010, the applicants, Fleet Developments Ltd, had met with officers to seek a solution to the incomplete development. This had been followed by the submission of a planning application (reference PA/2011/0773) in which the developer had sought minor material amendments to house types approved on this site. The committee had granted planning permission for these amendments on 21 September 2011. Following the approval the developers had advised that it was their intention to resume development of this site in February/March 2012, weather permitting.

In order to develop the site the developers had had to apply to the council’s highway department for a Section 38 agreement in respect of the access road for the development; this had recently been received and was currently awaiting determination. This, to a certain extent, demonstrated the developers’ intent to return to the site. The developers’ desire to return to site and complete the development once the Section 38 agreement is in place had been indicated by contact with the developers’ agent in April 2012, but the timescale was again unclear.
Section 94 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, (‘the Act’) allowed a local planning authority to serve a completion notice requiring an implemented development to be completed within a specified period of time. The completion notice required confirmation by the Secretary of State and would not take effect immediately; it must specify a period of at least 28 days before it took effect and any person served with the notice could require the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry before he confirmed the notice. The notice must also give a minimum of 12 months in which to comply.

If a notice was confirmed by the Secretary of State, and the development was not completed by the date specified, the planning permission to which it related became invalid. This meant that no further work could take place under that permission. The local planning authority could not take action against any work that had already been carried out in accordance with the permission up to the specified date. If only half the number of dwellings on a site had been built by the specified date, the remaining half could not be built under that permission.

The Head of Planning and Development and the Assistant Director Legal and Democratic both advised the committee that Completion Notices were only rarely used and were very much a last resort. Should such a notice be served in this instance they considered it unlikely that the Secretary of State would confirm it as the approval of the amended house types could be considered to have “re -started the clock” and the requirements of the notice could be considered to be too onerous given the present state of the housing market.

Resolved – That a Completion Notice be served in respect of the original planning permission, as amended, requiring completion of the development within 12 months.

1447  (3) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN GOXHILL – MORATORIUM UPDATE  – Further to Minute 1339, the Head of Development Management submitted a report updating members on progress by Anglian Water with regard to a solution to overcome sewerage and drainage issues in Goxhill. The report updated the position with regard to what had been described as a moratorium on new residential development within the village but in reality had been a precautionary approach to new development.

In April 2011 the “moratorium” had been extended until the end of October 2012. Anglian Water’s updated programme of works had now been received and these were summarised in the report. The scheme was proposed to be completed by the end of February 2013.
In addition to the Anglian Water scheme the council had completed a £200k improvement to the surface water drainage system at South End, Goxhill. Works included installing new highway drains, construction of additional road gullies, clearance and reforming of drainage ditches, enlarging culverts and resurfacing to reshape the road for drainage.  The scheme, completed in February 2012, included works on South End, Chapelfield Road and Soff Lane. These improvement works were solely related to highway drainage improvements with possibly some benefit to residential properties and it was essential that Anglian Water’s flood alleviation scheme was completed to fully benefit the satisfactory drainage of existing and potential residential areas in Goxhill.

The “moratorium” had now been in place since February 2008, and had had an impact on the scale and frequency of new residential development within the village. In this respect the moratorium was considered to have proved successful and generally applicants and developers had accepted that the problems within Goxhill required careful attention. The pragmatic precautionary approach had been working well considering each planning application for residential development on its merits particularly regarding drainage issues. However, as Anglian Water had now tabled a scheme with a timetable of works which would alleviate the problems for the village, it would now seem an appropriate time to review the “moratorium”.

Resolved –(a) That, in view of the information provided by Anglian Water as reported, the “moratorium” be extended for a further 9 months, that is until the end of February 2013, and (b) that a further review be undertaken once a firm finish date for the works is known.