Planning Committee – 14 January 2015
Chair: Councillor Bunyan
Venue: The Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Scunthorpe
Time: 2 pm
AGENDA
1. Substitutions.
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 17 December 2014 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.
4. Applications deferred from previous meeting for a site visit.
5. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
6. 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: – Cllr Bunyan (in the Chair)
Councillors England (Vice-Chairman), Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Collinson, Ellerby, Marper, Poole, and N Sherwood.
Councillors Barker, Briggs, Gosling, C Sherwood, and Waltham attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b).
The Committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.
1635 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 Ali | 1637 (I) | 2014/0764 | Knows objector |
| Cllr Allcock | 1638 (ii) 1637 (I)1638 (vi) 1638 (ix) |
2014/0093 2014/07642014/0953 2014/1140 |
Member of CPRE Knows objector and Member of Isle of Axholme & North Notts Water Level Management Board Knows speaker Knows objector |
| Cllr Bunyan | 1637 (I) | 2014/0764 | Knows objector |
| Cllr Collinson | 1637 (I) | 2014/1161 | Knows applicants |
| Cllr England | 1637 (i) 1638 (vii) |
2014/0764 2014/0998 |
Knows objector Knows objector |
| Cllr Marper | 1637 (i) | 2014/0764 | Knows objector |
| Cllr Poole | 1637 (i) | 2014/0764 | Knows objector |
| Cllr N Sherwood | 1637 (i) 1638 (vii) 1638 (ix) |
2014/0764 2010/0998 2014/1140 |
Knows objector Knows objector Knows objector |
In addition, the following member declared that they had been lobbied: –
| Member(s) | Minute | Application/Item(s) |
| Cllr Allcock | 1637 (i) | 2014/0764 |
| Cllr Bunyan | 1637 (i) 1638 (ix) |
2014/0764 2014/1140 |
| Cllr Collinson | 1637 (i) | 2014/0764 |
| Cllr Poole | 1638 (vi) | 2014/0953 |
| Cllr N Sherwood | 1637 (i) | 2014/0764 |
The following member attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared a personal interest as follows: –
| Member (s) | Minute | Application(s) /Item |
Nature of Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cllr Briggs | 1637 (i) 1638 (I) |
2014/0764 2013/0930 |
Member of Fire Authority and Member of Isle of Axholme & North Notts Water Level Management Board |
| Cllr Waltham | 1638 (xii) | 2014/1189 | Knows applicant and agent. |
The following member attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared that they had been lobbied as follows: –
| Member (s) | Minute | Application(s) /Item |
|---|---|---|
| Cllr Barker | 1637 (i) | 2014/0764 |
| Cllr Briggs | 1637 (i) | 2014/0764 2013/0930 |
| Cllr C Sherwood | TBC | 2014/1189 |
1636 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 17 December 2014, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.
1637 (26) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decision at a previous meeting, members had undertaken a site visit prior to the meeting. The Head of Development Management submitted a report.
(i) 2014/0764 by RJE Planning & Developments Ltd for planning permission for the demolition of an existing public house, erection of two 4 bedroom semi-detached houses, rebuilding of existing public house to provide a bar, restaurant, B&B rooms, landlord accommodation, 2 bedroom flat, car parking spaces and associated landscaping at The Bay Horse, Shore Road, Garthorpe.
The Head of Development Management explained that the main area of concern was flood risk, which North Lincolnshire Council retains some level f responsibility for. The site in question falls across the boundary, with the proposed housing falling into the most ‘at-risk’ zone, and the pub sited in an area of less vulnerability. As such, the housing would not pass the exception test. A letter had also been received from villagers highlighting car parking as a potential problem.
An objector to the application thanked the committee for visiting the site in question, and explained that the main issue of concern amongst local residents was around on-street car parking. To ensure that the pub was a viable business in such a location would require a significant influx of customers, the majority of which would drive. The proposed car park would be unable to accommodate more than 8-10 cars, which would lead to on-street car parking, and subsequent problems for farm machinery passing through the village. As such, the village would welcome a refurbished pub, which would be the only facility in the village, but there was no need for additional housing.
Councillors Briggs and Barker, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on this application and also expressed concerns over the levels of available off-street car parking. Councillor Briggs encouraged the applicant to work with the community, and for the committee’s decision to reflect the concerns of local residents. Councillor Barker agreed that the applicant should invite new ideas and approaches to ensuring a viable community facility in the village.
Clarification was requested from the traffic officer on the potential impact on residents. It was confirmed that the council could put restrictions on on-street parking, but there may still be a potentially adverse impacts on residents.
Resolved – That planning permission be refused, in accordance with officer recommendations.
1638 (27) 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) 2013/0930 by Miss L Stephenson for planning permission to retain lean-to paddocks, runs with two accompanying shelters, two storage containers and a WC at Sandwood, Whinsgate, Eastoft.
Cllr Briggs spoke on the application, stating that his views had been given to the committee at previous meetings. Cllr Barker spoke to state that there was some history of non-compliance with planning conditions.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
(ii) 2014/0093 by EDP for planning permission for the erection of a single wind turbine generator with a maximum height to blade tip of 78m above existing ground level, vehicle access tracks, crane pad, construction compound and sub-station building at New River Ancholme, Bridge Lane, Cadney.
The Head of Development Management highlighted some minor changes to the report, specifically around removing sections of the report regarding any agreement between the applicants and National Air Traffic Services (NATS).
The Agent for the applicant stated that the applicant was a nearby business and landowner seeking to diversify and raise income through the production of green energy. The height of the proposed turbine would be smaller than others in the area, including one on Carr Lane, which was relatively close to the proposed site. There were only a relatively small number of objections, with one letter of support, and the officer recommendation was to grant permission. Actions were underway to address the concerns previously raised by NATS. The impact from traffic was likely to be minimal, amounting to a monthly visit by a 4X4, and the applicant had worked hard to address any other concerns. The Planning Policy Guidance was clear that even an individual turbine could play a role in reducing greenhouse gasses, therefore the agent requested that the officer recommendation be agreed.
An objector stated that consideration needed to be taken of local policies, which state that there was little need for further turbines. There had recently been a move by the government away from supporting and subsidising such turbines, as they could be inefficient and expensive. Alternatives such as solar would be far less obtrusive, and there was a need to look at a range of alternatives to wind power.
Councillor England queried whether the existing turbine in the area had been agreed by the Planning Committee. The Head of Development Management confirmed that it had been agreed by officers some time ago in line with the policy at the time.
Cllr N Sherwood stated that we already have many turbines within North Lincolnshire and that ‘enough was enough’. There were widespread concerns that the cumulative impact of so many turbines was having a detrimental effect on local amenity. Cllr Marper echoed these views.
Resolved – That planning permission be refused.
Reason:
The proposed wind turbine was located within the Central Lincolnshire Vale National Landscape Character Area and the Vale of Ancholme Regional Landscape Character Area. The proposed turbine would add to a cumulative adverse visual impact upon the flat rural landscape and character of the area, contrary to policies DS1 and RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
(iii) 2014/0094 by Mr M Bhangu for planning application for the removal of condition 7 on planning application 2010/1445 (None of the flats shall be occupied until the building has been sound insulated in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority beforehand, and once installed the sound insulation shall be retained thereafter.) 26 Cornwall Road, Scunthorpe.
The Head of Development Management explained that the application had been withdrawn by Mr Bhangu.
Resolved – That the situation be noted.
(iv) 2014/0419 by Mr K Embleton for planning permission to change the use to form a guest house, an extension to the existing first-floor accommodation to form a bathroom and alterations within the existing front garden to form a small car park.
Cllr Alcock stated that he was asking the committee to defer consideration of this item, as previous consultations with the parish council and local people did not include a change of use to a guest house.
The Head of Development management confirmed that there had been previous discussions about a proposal to establish a tea room and restaurant. Clarification was required about the content and timing of previous consultation.
Resolved – That a decision on planning permission be deferred.
(v) 2014/0673 by Mr R Young for planning permission to construct a new attached double garage with two bedrooms at first floor, and to convert an existing integral garage into a study, at 1 Pavilion Gardens, Scunthorpe.
An objector spoke on the application stating that the proposed extension would amount to around 680 square metres; a doubling of a previous application. This would mean an overdeveloped plot and subsequent loss of amenity. The proposal includes plans for a large, featureless gable wall and the removal of a number of trees, and the proposal in effect would move into Brumby Wood Lane. There would be a subsequent loss of uniformity, with one visually dominant property which was not in keeping with the area. Given the location and size of the proposed structure, shadowing would become a major problem, and the light which currently falls on a number of properties on the north side of the street would be blocked. The objector made clear that he wasn’t against sympathetic development, but that he was opposed to a poor proposal.
The applicant stated that he required a larger garage and additional bedrooms as his family was growing larger. The proposal would mean that further on-site parking would reduce the need to park on-street, and that he had previously been victim to his vehicles being vandalised. The applicant stated that he feels victimised when he was only seeking to extend his property to accommodate a new baby.
The Head of Development Management explained that the building line referenced by both the objector and applicant had lapsed around 10 years previously, so could not be considered. The issue before the committee was the potential impact of the proposal on the character of the area and the street scene. The proposal was relatively large, but the site was considered of sufficient size to accommodate.
Cllr Gosling spoke on the application, stating that he had concerns that the applicant may choose to run a business from the premises, and that the committee may decide to impose conditions that could appease local residents. Cllr Gosling continued that a previous submission had included proposals about decking which were subsequently withdrawn due to the decking being lowered. In fact, the decking has not altered, and there was an attempt to ‘hoodwink’ the committee as the new submission didn’t include reference to decking. Cllr Gosling suggested that there may be some inaccuracies in the report and that it may be beneficial to visit the site.
The Head of Development Management confirmed that there had been some actions to reduce the height of the decking, although there may be a need for further enforcement. He was therefore content that the contents of the report were correct.
Cllr N Sherwood sought advice about whether heightened decking required planning permission. The Head of Development Management confirmed that any decking above a height of 30cms required permission.
Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to a future meeting and that members visit the site, prior to that meeting.
Reason:
To allow for a site visit and to observe potential issues with the impact on the street scene, decking and fencing issues, and the overall impact.
(vi) 2014/0953 by Mr G Maycock for outliner planning permission to erect a bungalow on land adjacent to Mayscroft, Ings Lane, Hibaldstow.
The applicant addressed the committee to explain that he was seeking the application to ensure that he could care for his mother, who required suitable accommodation and 24/7 care. Mr Alderson’s mother was currently staying in his property, but there were a limited number of rooms and there was a risk of falling. As the applicant cannot give the best care at the moment, he was proposing to build a bungalow to reduce any concerns, and to improve the levels of care. The applicant stated that the proposed development was in a well-developed area, and that there were exceptions for essential properties, which the current need should meet.
The Head of Development Management confirmed that a separate bungalow was less sustainable than a ‘granny annex’, which would be looked on more favourably. It was confirmed that the proposed property would all outside of the development boundary.
Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to a future meeting and that members visit the site, prior to that meeting.
Reason:
To allow a site visit.
(vii) 2014/0998 by Mr C Bratton, Land Developers (Lincs) Ltd for planning permission for a proposed increase in residential units in Block 3, plot 6, 7 and 8 from 2 (as approved under PA/2010/1046) to 3 on land to the rear of 13 Queen Street, Barton-upon-Humber.
An objector stated that he was objecting because of the potential impact on traffic. The objector didn’t accept the likely number of cars, as many families owned two cars nowadays, which would mean at least 28 cars seeking access and egress onto a narrow road. The objector was also concerned about a lack of compliance with a tree preservation plan, as most trees had already been removed. The explanation within the report about tree numbers was therefore, at best inaccurate, and at worst, misleading.
Cllr Collinson expressed his disappointment at developers seeking a certain number of properties, and then returning to committee at a later date seeking an increase.
Cllr N Sherwood sought an opinion from the highways team about the potential impact. It was explained that this was a relatively old application in a sustainable location, and that it was unlikely that a modest increase in properties would have more than a minimal impact.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
(viii) 2014/1022 by Mr and Mrs Westray for outline planning permission to erect two dwellings with all matters reserved for subsequent approval at land adjacent to The Hawthornes, King Street, Goxhill.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
(ix) 2014/1140 by Mr & Mrs B A & L J Chapman for planning permission to erect a workshop with attached dwelling on land adjacent to the crossing, Church Side, Goxhill
The applicant’s agent addressed the committee, stating that the application was to facilitate a young local resident in establishing his own plumbing business to serve the local community. As the business would require 24 hour access for call-outs, and the storing of several vehicles, consideration should be given to the impact on neighbouring properties. As such, it would not be appropriate to house a workshop in the main residential area. The agent stated that rural activities should be promoted, and that the report’s recommendations were specific to dwellings, and not to workshops. Whilst there were other potential sites within the development boundary, none were fit for purpose, requiring a new build.
The Head of Development Management advised the committee that the proposed site was not a suitable location for a plumbing business, as it was a rural area that fell outside of the development boundary. Whilst the guidance does relate to private dwellings, the general tone was around sustainable development, and the proposal would not meet these requirements. The council was available to provide advice to make the existing sites within the development boundary fit for purpose.
Cllr Collinson stated that, whilst he had sympathy for the applicant, there were other areas in the locality that were more suitable. Cllr N Sherwood stated that Goxhill was a very spread out community, with no definite boundary between dwellings and rural areas.
Resolved – That planning permission be refused in accordance with the recommendation contained within the report.
(x) 2014/1149 by Mr J Beryy for planning permission for the construction of a 3m x 6m ‘log-style’ garage in front garden, at The Graneries, 93 High Street, Wootton.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained within the report.
(xi) 2014/1161 by Mr S Quibell for planning permission to retain a single-storey rear extension, demolish an existing single garage and erect a detached double garage (resubmission of PA/2014/0028) at 246 Messingham Road, Bottesford.
The Chairman advised the committee that a request had been received from the applicant to defer the application to a future date.
Resolved – That planning permission be deferred to a future meeting.
(xii) 2014/1189 by Mr & Mrs Robinson for planning permission to erect a new dwelling including attached garage, adjacent to Fair View, Marsh Lane, Barnetby le Wold.
The agent for the applicant outlined that the application was for a modest family home in an area where there was a presumption of sustainable development. The area was rural in nature, and only just fell outside of the development boundary. There was a clear view from government that rural areas should be supported. The site in question was close to other dwellings, and was within walking distance of the village shop, hall, school, bus stop and other amenities. The site was in the lowest flood risk zone, and the proposal has the support of the parish council. There would be minimal impact and there had been no objection from Highways. In fact, the development was likely to be seen to improve the street scene as a whole.
Cllr C Sherwood stated that he agreed with the application, and the papers show that there would be no extension of the village and that the proposed site was not in the countryside. As such, it should be treated as an in-fill application.
Cllr Waltham echoed these views, stating that there had been a similar application recently on the nearby Marsh Lane which had been agreed, and there was a need for the committee to act consistently. The application was not a lavish or very large property, and its design would ensure that it was in keeping with the local street scene.
The Head of Development Management advised the committee that, whilst there had been a similar application approved, this had fallen within the development boundary. The council had previously refused similar applications which fell outside of the boundary.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
1.
The development must be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason
To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PA/2014/1189/001, PA/2014/1189/002 and 112014-01.
Reason
For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3.
No development shall take place until details showing an effective method of preventing surface water run-off from hard paved areas within the site onto the highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These facilities shall be implemented prior to the access and parking facilities being brought into use.
Reason
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
4.
No loose material shall be placed on any driveway or parking area within 10 metres of the adopted highway unless measures are taken in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to prevent the material from spilling onto the highway. Once agreed and implemented these measures shall be retained.
Reason
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
5.
The dwelling shall not be occupied until the vehicular access to it and the vehicle parking and turning space(s) serving it have been completed and, once provided, the vehicle parking and turning space(s) shall be retained.
Reason
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies T2 and T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
6.
No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority of the make, type and colour of all external facing materials for the development and only the approved materials shall be used.
Reason
To ensure that the building is in keeping with its surroundings in the interests of visual amenity, in accordance with policy DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
7.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no extensions or detached buildings shall be erected on the site, or windows installed, other than those expressly authorised by this permission.
Reason
The footprint of the bungalow hereby approved is large and extensions allowed under permitted development rights could result in a building that, due to its size, adversely affects the character of the surrounding area, in accordance with policy DS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
8.
No development shall take place until proposals for landscaping have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The proposals shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the site, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection during the course of development.
Reason
To enhance the appearance of the development in the interests of amenity.
9.
All the approved landscaping shall be carried out within twelve months of development being commenced (unless a longer period is agreed in writing by the local planning authority). Any trees or plants which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased within five years from the date of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted, unless the local planning authority agrees in writing to any variation.
Reason
To ensure the implementation and maintenance of the submitted scheme of landscaping for the proposed development.