Planning Committee – 19 November 2014

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 22 October 2014 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.

4.  Applications deferred from previous meeting for a site visit.

5.  Major Planning Applications

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

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 England (in the Chair).

Councillors Ali, Bainbridge, Collinson, Grant, Marper, Poole, N Sherwood, Waltham and Wardle.

Councillors Briggs, Ogg, Redfern, Rowson, C Sherwood and Whiteley attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b).

The Committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.

1621 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  1623 (ii)
1625 (vii)
2014/0718
2014/1083
Knows objector
Council colleague
Cllr Bainbridge 1625 (vii) 2014/1083 Council colleague
Cllr Collinson 1623 (ii) 2014/0718 Knows objector
Cllr England 1625 (vii) 2014/1083 Council colleague
Cllr Marper 1625 (vii) 2014/1083 Council colleague
Cllr Poole 1625 (iii) 1625 (vii) 2014/0407
2014/1083
Occasionally uses shop
Council colleague
Cllr N Sherwood 1625 (iii)
1625 (vii)
1625 (vi)
2014/0407
2014/1083
2014/0749
Customer of the shop
Council colleague
Site is opposite business
Cllr Waltham 1625 (iii)

1625 (vii)

2014/0407

2014/1083

Customer of the shop / relative works at the shop part-time

Council colleague

Cllr Wardle  1625 (vii) 2014/1083
2014/0749
Knows Applicant
Knows applicant

In addition, the following member declared that they had been lobbied: –

Member (s)  Minute (s) Application/Item (s)
Cllr Marper 1623 (ii) 2014/0718
Cllr Waltham 1623 (iv)
1625 (iii)
 2014/0943
2014/0407

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 1625 (iv)
1625 (iv)1625 (vii)
2014/0591
2014/05912014/1083
Member of Fire Authority
Member of Isle of Axholme
& North Notts Drainage Board
Council colleague
Cllr Ogg 1625 (vii)  2014/1083 Council colleague
Cllr Redfern  1625 (iv) 2014/0104 Member of Epworth Town Council
Cllr Rowson  1625 (vii)  2014/1083 Council colleague
Cllr C Sherwood  1625 (iii)  2014/0407 Member of Brigg Town Council

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 Briggs 1625 (i)
1625 (iv)
2013/0930
2014/0591
Cllr Redfern 1625 (ii) 2014/0104
Cllr C Sherwood 1625 (iii)
1623 (iv)
2014/0407
2014/0943

1622 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 22 October 2014, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

1623 (18) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decision at a previous meeting, members had undertaken site visits prior to the meeting. The Head of Development Management submitted a report.

(i) 2014/0446 by Mr Durnian for planning permission to erect two semi-detached dwellings with associated infrastructure and garages (including demolition of existing public house) in accordance with amended plans received on 9 September 2014.

The applicant sympathised with the objector about previous experiences of flooding, but assured them that the proposed development would not exacerbate the existing problems.  This view was supported by an independent architect’s report which stated that the development would reduce the amount of run-off water which went into the drains compared to the previous pub on the site.  The proposal had received no objections from any of the statutory bodies since the Town Council had withdrawn theirs, and it would result in a building in a state of disrepair within a conservation area being replaced with two attractive new–build premises.

An objector stated that his family lived opposite the proposed development, and their property had been flooded several times in previous years with both storm water and sewerage.  The combined drain was the responsibility of Anglian Water, but North Lincolnshire Council was aware of the problem, and had taken some steps to reduce the flooding risk.  The objector was very concerned that each additional property which contributed to the level in the drain would incrementally add to the water level, and therefore the likelihood of flooding.  As the number of developments had increased in the area over the years, the problem had become steadily worse, including whilst the pub had been shut for the previous two years.  Given the significant impact on the family that flooding causes, the objector asked the committee to reject the proposal.

Councillor Ogg stated that he had sought advice, and the flooding risks were caused by the location of the objector’s house in a low point in the road, and that the combined drain couldn’t cope with very heavy rain.

Councillor Waltham said that the site visit was very helpful, and that it was clear that, whilst the development would be positive for the town, the capacity issue of the drain should be considered by the Committee.  He suggested a number of alterations to the proposed condition 10 to ensure that the development wouldn’t increase the flood risk and required that the details of the arrangements for dealing with foul and surface water run off be returned to the Planning Committee for its decision.  He also suggested alterations to a second condition regarding the suitability of the proposed brickwork, to ensure that the development was sympathetic to the existing street scene, and noting that the brick on site was not appropriate.

Councillor Marper stated that she remained unconvinced that the proposed development would not make the situation worse, and suggested that there be further discussions with Anglian Water.

Councillor Waltham moved and Councillor Poole seconded that –

Permission be granted for the application subject to clarification of condition 4 regarding brick type and amendment to condition 10 dealing with the management of foul and surface water disposal with the details to be returned to the Planning Committee ..   No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority and none of the dwellings shall be occupied until it is connected to the approved drainage system. The submitted details shall implement, where possible, sustainable urban drainage systems.

Councillor Grant moved and Councillor Collinson seconded as an amendment that –

Permission be granted for the application in line with the recommendations and proposed conditions within the report.

Amendment lost
Motion carried.

Reason – to ensure satisfactory drainage is provided in accordance with policy DS14 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and to ensure no adverse effect on nearby residential property.

(ii)    2014/0718 by Mr R Smith for planning permission for a warehouse extension at Kings Ferry Wharf, Stather Road, Burton-upon-Stather.

The applicant’s agent thanked the committee for conducting a site visit to the wharf, and stated that the site had historically operated at higher volumes.  During the pre-application process, discussions with statutory bodies had led to no concerns being expressed.  For several years, HGVs had taken a route to the site which did not pass through the centre of the town, and that the proposal would be for a relatively minor increase of 7 lorries a week to 12, equating to an increase from 200 to a maximum of 300 tons.  The majority of journeys would also be during the day when most people are at work, in school etc. The agent was a resident of Burton and didn’t wish to see any actions that were detrimental to the village.  He also stated that it was rare to actually see a HGV lorry in the area.  The agent summed up by stating that he appreciated the comments and feedback that he had received, and that extending and investing on the site could lead to opportunities for employment in the future.

An objector spoke on the application and stated that the number of HGVs recorded in the area is far higher than suggested, and there is an adverse impact on the village and the community.  The premises no longer functions as a wharf, which led to questions about a change of use for the site.  Access to the site is via a very narrow opening, which is flanked by listed buildings.  There was a general feeling that any industrial activity shouldn’t impact on local people, and that whilst noise and dust is an issue, the main concern is the increase in HGVs travelling up and down the hill to the site.

The Head of Development Management confirmed that no application for a change of use had been made and  a wharf is simply a warehouse unit with a river frontage..

Councillor Rowson, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b), spoke on this application and thanked the committee for visiting the site.  Councillor Rowson explained that the Parish Council had concerns about the hill, as cars tended to park on either side, leading to a lack of sufficient road width for the lorries.  Councillor Rowson questioned whether a traffic impact study had been completed, and stated that she believed that the proposed development would be contrary to policy IN11 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Councillor Marper stated that she had concerns about the site, as it only has one entrance/exit, and that the road in question is often busy with parents taking children to school.  The use of the site is not the important issue; the increase in HGVs and subsequent safety issues is.  The council should be looking to reduce the impact of industry on local communities, whereas this proposal would have a detrimental effect.  There were also questions about whether the proposal was contrary to IN11.

Members engaged in further discussions.

Moved by Councillor Marper and seconded by Councillor Waltham–

That permission be refused. The proposed development will result in increased activity and HGV traffic movements to and from the site which will be likely to have an adverse effect on the amenities of nearby residents and the village of Burton upon Stather.  The proposal is thus contrary to policy IN11 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003.

Motion Carried.

(iii)  2014/0844 by Mr S Price for planning permission to erect a cattery at Westdene, 8 West End Road, Epworth.

Councillor Redfern asked whether an assurance could be given that the applicant will advise customers not to park on West End Road when dropping off or picking up cats.

The Head of Development Management confirmed that the applicant was well aware of any potential impact on neighbours, and that activity would be by appointment only.  The applicant intends to clear part of the frontage of his property, and there will be four parking spaces available.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations made within the report with an amended condition added that (9) before the cattery is brought into use an additional car parking space with turning facility shall be provided to the premises.

Reason – to enable vehicles visiting the site to be parked clear of the highway in the interests of highway safety.

(iv)    2014/0943 by Mr & Mrs N Empson for outline planning permission to erect a 3-bedroom detached chalet bungalow and garage block (with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for subsequent approval)

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee and stated that she wouldn’t spend a great deal of time reiterating the arguments that she put forward at the previous Planning Committee meeting (minute 1618 (xi) refers).  The agent suggested that when policy LC11 was drafted, the plot in question was designated as an area of local amenity.  This was no longer the case, and the site no longer serves the community in this manner.  Other areas that were also designated as areas of amenity in the area have allowed developments.  The Policy Framework supports sustainable development, and the proposal would be in line with this.

Councillor C Sherwood, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b), spoke on this application, and also stated that he would not repeat his previous arguments in depth.  Councillor Sherwood summarised that the application was in the centre of Worlaby, in an area surrounded by housing, so it was not appropriate to suggest that the site was unsuitable for development.  Arguments about affordability were spurious, as the applicant can afford to finance the project.  There has been no objection from the Parish Council, and the Committee has scope to decide to allow the development.

Members sought advice from the Head of Development Management about potential conditions.

 Resolved – that permission be granted, subject to the following conditions.

1.  Approval of the details of the layout, scale, appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called ‘the reserved matters’) shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason – The application has been made under Article 3(1) of the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 above, relating to the layout, scale, appearance of any buildings to be erected and the landscaping of the site, shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved.

Reason – The application has been made under Article 3(1) of the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

3. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason – To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

4.  The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason – To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

5. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: NE/14/01, NE/14/02 and NE/14/03.

Reason – For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

6. No development shall take place until details of:

(i) the location and layout of the vehicular access; and

(ii) the number, location and layout of vehicle parking and turning spaces within the curtilage of the site;

have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies T2 and T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. No development shall take place until full details of the proposed widening of the access, including the relocation of the telegraph pole, surfacing and drainage, have been submitted  to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason – In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Informative 1
The development hereby granted planning permission requires works to be carried out within the limits of the adopted (public) highway. Therefore:

– before ANY construction works take place within the limits of the highway you MUST contact the highway authority on telephone number 01724 297000 to arrange for the relevant permissions/licenses to be issued;

– before ANY service (utility) connections take place within the limits of the highway you MUST contact the highway authority on telephone number 01724 297319 to arrange for the relevant permissions/licenses to be issued.

Informative 2
In determining this application, the council, as local planning authority, has taken account of the guidance in paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

(v) 2014/1013 by Mr and Mrs P Nunn for planning permission to erect a single-storey extension (resubmission of PA/2014/0331)

An objector stated that the proposed extension would represent a dominant and overpowering structure in a small cul-de-sac, where all other buildings are in keeping with the local area.  The proposal goes against planning guidelines, and if it went ahead, the imposing extension would more than double the width of an already-large property, impacting on the amenity of the area.  Any suggestion that residents didn’t wish to see the applicant’s caravan was incorrect.

The applicant’s agent thanked the Committee for visiting the site and expressed the hope that seeing the premises would help members reach an informed viewpoint.  The agent stated that the applicant’s current garage was too small, so they wished to make the existing garage into a dining room, before building a single storey area to house their vehicles.  There was an allegation that local youths had thrown stones at the vehicles in the past, and the applicants were concerned that when the caravan was not at the premises, then local people would know that the property was likely to be empty.  Next door to the property was a similar structure, which caused no problems.  This local precedent suggests a need for consistency.  The proposed elevation of the proposed extension was around the same height as the existing gates, so there would be minimal impact on neighbours and no loss of light, aided by an existing streetlight outside the objector’s property.   The extension would be used for entertaining only, with the garage used only for vehicles and for storing the family’s belongings.

 Resolved – That permission be granted, subject to standard plans and time limit conditions, and also that the development hereby approved shall only be for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of 67 Greenfield Road as a single dwellinghouse.

Reason – In order to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring property and to provide a level of control over the future use of the accommodation.

1624 (19) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS – The Head of Development Management submitted reports 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 applications.

(i)  2012/0747 by Mr I Slater, Hargreaves (UK) Ltd, for outline planning permission for the erection of four industrial units and an extension to an existing unit, with a new access from East Halton Road.

The applicant stated that Hargreaves (UK) Ltd had allocated some £10M to invest in local infrastructure in 2001.  Subsequent work over the years had led to a formal application being submitted in 2012.  The main continued “sticking point” was around the infrastructure levy, which the company would find difficult to pay.  There was also an outstanding issue with archaeology on the site, which Hargreaves were more than happy to attempt to resolve.  Hargreaves do not currently own the land in question, but are content to accept a suitable condition as agreed by the Committee.  Regarding the levy, access can be difficult via the Lancaster Road site, so the applicant was encouraged to put a new road in place.  This proposed road potentially opens up the whole site, which is a move supported by council policy IN7 of the Local Plan.  Hargreaves are now keen to put the scheme into motion.  The applicant also referred to Policy 121, which stated that businesses should not be put under undue financial burden by local authorities or others, especially when looking to invest.

Councillor Wardle commented on his serious concerns over road safety at the proposed access point.

Resolved – That planning permission be refused in accordance with the recommendations and associated content of the report.

1625 (20) 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, 2 storage containers and a WC at Sandwood, Whinsgate, Eastoft.

Councillor Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on this application.  He requested that the Committee consider a site visit to gain a fuller understanding of the site in question.

The Head of Development Management gave appropriate guidance on the potential modest impact of the proposals on the site.

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.

(ii)  2014/0104 by Mr Behnam Heydari-Begvand for planning permission to change the use from A1 to A5 (hot food takeaway) and to extend the existing premises, opposite to 24 High Street, Epworth.

An objector stated that she had lived opposite the proposed site for three years in a listed building.  In that time, the premises opposite had operated as a shop which shut at 5 p.m.  The proposal was in the centre of a conservation area, and it would not be an appropriate place to operate a pizza shop.  Because of the conservation area requirements and the very high cost of suitable replacements, the objector had single pane windows, so anyone currently picking up takeaway food could often coincide with excessive noise, ensuring that it felt the customer was “in the room”.  The objector worked as a florist, which necessitated very early starts.  People driving to collect food, often playing music and revving their engines, would inevitably lead to problems as the premises owner intended to operate until midnight 7 days a week.  Smells from the cooking food were already having a detrimental effect on residents in the area.    The objector summarised that a home should be a place to relax, and asked the Committee to consider whether the unsuitable site for a hot food takeaway in a conservation area, with related noise and smells, meant that the application should be refused.

Councillor Redfern, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b), spoke on this application in support of the objector.  Councillor Redfern reiterated concerns about the site suitability in a conservation area, whilst also expressing concerns about extraction equipment and the style and design of the property.

The Head of Development Management advised the Committee that the conditions within the report addressed any noise nuisance, and that the proposal would improve a run-down premises in the village.

Councillor Waltham stated that he had concerns over a takeaway site that would be larger than others in the area, and that dedicated, off-site parking would encourage the accumulation of people.

Resolved – that planning permission be refused.

Reason

The proposed use of the premises is likely to have an adverse effect on the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential property by reason of noise, odour and late-night operations.  The proposal is thus contrary to policy S9 of the North Lincolnshire Plan 2003.

(iii) 2014/0701 by Brian’s DIY for advertisement consent to display 11 signs, for Brian’s DIY, 24 Wrawby Street, Brigg.

Cllr C Sherwood stated that some sections of Brigg had become plagued by signs over the years, some which were inappropriate.  This had become an issue of concern amongst local residents.  Cllr C Sherwood suggested that there needed to be a balance between promoting retail, whilst also ensuring that there was no detrimental impact on residential properties within the conservation area.

Resolved – that planning permission be approved for signs 11a, 11b (x3), 11d (4, 5 & 6), 11d (1) and 11d (7), and that planning permission be refused for signs 11d (2) and 11d (3).

(iv)  2014/0591 by Mr D Albone for planning permission for erection of a single 500kw wind turbine at Rainsbutt Farm, access road to Chicken Farm, Crowle.

The Head of Development Management noted an error in the report on proposed condition 13, which should state that noise emissions “…shall not exceed 35dBa…”.

The applicant stated that he had operated a successful potato farm for many years, but that supermarket clients were increasingly requiring farmers to minimise their carbon footprint, especially for higher graded products.  The farm used a large amount of electricity, so the applicant had explored the use of wind power because of its range of benefits, sustainability and minimal impact.  The proposed turbine would be much smaller than neighbouring turbines, and the Parish Council had expressed no objection.  The applicant summarised that the lack of concern amongst residents, the offsetting of costs to ensure future sustainability, and the green benefits make this an attractive option.

Councillor Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b), spoke on this application to state that, whilst he had sympathy for the applicant’s position, North Axholme was an area with many windfarms.  There was a particularly high concentration of large turbines in the area, which had transformed the environment.  Councillor Briggs posed the question whether North Lincolnshire had met their obligations around green power, and whether enough was enough.  It was suggested that a site visit may be helpful.

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.

(v) 2014/0723 by Mr P Sheriff for planning permission to retain the storage/display of cars for sale at Swallow Eaves, Silver Street, Winteringham.

Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.

(vi)  2014/0749 by Mr M Snowden, Keigar Homes Ltd, for permission to remove condition 25 of PA/2012/0674 code for sustainable homes, land off Island Carr Road, Brigg.

Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.

(vii)  2014/0862 by G Suszczenia for planning permission to erect two detached three-bedroom dwellings with associated car parking on land to the rear of Greenhill Stores, 2-4 Greenhill Road, Haxey.

The Head of Development Management explained that a slight modification was required to the report under ‘consultations’, and that two letters of objection had been received.

An objector stated that he lived next door to the site, and that, whilst he acknowledged the reduction from 3 to 2 properties, this was still far too much and the proposals represented over-development.   The objector was concerned that there would be adverse implications for the privacy of residents at numbers 3 and 5, and the proposal would look like a “house at the end of a garden”.  Other concerns existed, including around traffic and access on a particularly bad junction.  The objector could understand the need for one property to serve the shop owners, but not two.

The agent for the applicant stated that they had acted on the guidance of the Committee, and had reduced previous plans for three properties to two.  The proposal now looked much more sympathetic to the area, and there is no possibility of a lack of privacy or ‘overlooking’.

Councillor Waltham sought advice from officers from Highways regarding parking and safety concerns.  It was confirmed that parking for the proposed properties will be off-road, and that the road and junction did not represent any marked danger.

Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.

(viii)  2014/1083 by Mr P Clark for planning permission to erect a first floor extension above the garage and a single storey extension to the rear at 5 The Spinney, Barrow-upon-Humber.

Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.