Planning Committee – 24 September 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 27 August 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 Bunyan (in the Chair).
Councillors England (Vice Chairman), Allcock, Bainbridge, Collinson, Gosling, Kataria, Marper, N Sherwood, and Wardle.
Councillors Briggs, Carlile, Poole, Redfern, C Sherwood, Wells, Whiteley, and Wilson attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b).
The Committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.
1609 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 Collinson | 1612(ii) | 2013/0397 | Knows the applicant |
| Cllr Redfern | 1613 (iv) | 2014/0498 | Member of Epworth Town Council |
| Cllr N Sherwood | 1611 | 2014/0520 | Lives in the proximity |
| Cllr Wardle | 1613 (ii) | 2014/0381 | Knows the applicant and objector |
| Cllr Wardle | 1613 (iii) | 2014/0422 | Knows the applicant |
Prior to the meeting, all members of the Committee had received copies of a series of photographs and links to a YouTube video submitted by the Applicant pertaining to application 2014/0498.
In addition, the following member declared that they had been lobbied: –
| Member(s) | Minute(s) | Application/Item(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Cllr Allcock | 1613 (I) | 2013/0479 |
| Cllr Bunyan | 1612 (ii) | 2013/0397 |
| Cllr Bunyan | 1613 (I) | 2013/0479 |
| Cllr Collinson | 1613 (I) | 2013/0479 |
| Cllr Marper | 1613 (i) | 2013/0479 |
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 Redfern | 1613 (iv) | 2014/0498 |
1610 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 27 August 2014, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.
1611 (10) 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) 2014/0520 by Mr and Mrs G Perkins for planning permission to erect a two-storey rear extension at The Poplars, Barton Road, Wrawby.
The agent for the application stated that the application was for a modest extension based on the same footprint as a previous plan. There was no issue with overlooking, and there would be sufficient distance between the proposed extension and other residents’ properties.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions within the report and the following condition being appended to the conditions within the report.
5. The conifer hedge on the north-east boundary of the site shall be maintained at a height of 2.5 metres unless a variation is agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
1612 (11) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS – The Head of Development Management submitted reports containing details of major applications for determination by the Committee, including a summary of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications.
(i) 2014/0358 by School Partnership Trust Academies for planning permission to change the use from retail to Free School, former retail unit, Brigg Road, Scunthorpe.
The agents for the application stated that they had worked closely with officers to develop the plans, and that the objections that had been raised were misguided or incorrect. For example, objections regarding potential parking issues during pick-up and drop-off times were unfounded, as students would be transported via minibus only, boarding and unboarding within the proposed school’s grounds. Concerns about poor site access were also illogical as the unit was approved for retail use, where footfall would typically be much higher.
The agents stated that the local Air Quality Action Plan was clear that new developments could still occur and that the proposed development fell outside of the established boundary. Previous applications for similar educational establishments within Scunthorpe had been granted. The agents maintained that the principle for polluters was to monitor and take action against their activities, and not to punish those who sought developments within the general proximity of the polluter.
It was the view of the applicant that the particle matter concentrations fell within national standards and that the objections were misleading. There was no ‘safe distance’ and contaminants existed across the whole area. As such, if contaminants are to be considered as a planning consideration, then all applications should be refused. There had been only two complaints to the Environment Agency, and these were of questionable validity. The application in front of the Committee provided very little change to the status quo, and the character of the site would remain.
Attempts had been made to consult and respond to questions and criticisms, but it remained true that contaminants were of a safe level, the application fell outside of the cumulative boundary, and that proposals for other schools with similar demography had been allowed.
Resolved – That planning permission be refused in accordance with the recommendations and associated content of the report.
(ii) 2014/0397 by Mr & Mrs Stone for planning permission to erect 16 dwellings with estate roads and footpaths.
The Head of Development Management clarified that the £2,727 contribution required for primary school places described on page 22 of the report applied to each of 15 of the 16 premises, with the affordable house exempt. This totalled a contribution of £40,905.
The Chairman stated that he had received a letter from Mr Nic Dakin MP regarding the application, citing concerns about the potential impact on the character of the village. A number of other issues also existed around parking and transport, the impact on a relatively small area, and the cumulative effect of a separate application for housing in the village.
The agent for the application explained that his presentation would cover three main issues; the changes to the previous application, the scale and density of the housing, and the existing trees on site.
The agent explained that the applicant had revisited his previous submission, reducing the number of plots and altering the style of housing. The land in question was previously developed, and in a central location where a mix of buildings was to be expected. The proposed housing was now limited to two storeys, with each property having a garden and parking.
Following investigation, of the four trees on site, two were viable and would be retained, and two were in substantial decline with no prospect of recovery. These would therefore be removed. Complementary planting would be undertaken following this.
The site was located on brownfield land in an area where housing was much needed. The Parish Council and the council’s Highways Team had raised no objections, and each house would have parking, along with some overflow capacity. The applicant had taken on board suggestions, and the road would be widened to benefit all of the village.
An objector stated that she agreed with Mr Dakin’s letter, explaining that the village wasn’t against developments and people moving into the area, but that residents had serious concerns about the proposal. These concerns include the view that the houses were out of character with the surrounding area, and the density would be too high. Potentially introducing 16 new families into the village, on a site next to a quiet road, would lead to an increase in traffic, road safety and parking issues. The site was in the centre of the village, and not at the periphery where the impact would be lessened.
A second objector echoed these concerns, stating that the high density and overlooking nature of the development would lead to concerns around privacy to existing properties. As the proposed houses were raised as a flood defence, this would increase the risk of overlooking nearby properties. In addition, two of the properties (15 and 16) could only be accessed via new access routes off of Barnside. Agreement had been given for a 50 home development in the area, which could add to a number of detrimental impacts, including road safety.
A third objector also raised similar concerns, but also stated that the existing trees on the site could recover, given appropriate pruning and management. There were significant road safety concerns, as there is a sharp turn close to the proposed development, and that the footpath that is regularly used by families and children crosses sides. This could lead to serious concerns about the potential for an accident.
The Head of Development Management clarified issues raised around residential density and the mix of styles.
Councillor Poole reiterated the concerns raised by residents, and requested that the Committee consider a site visit in order to gain a fuller understanding of the application.
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.
1613 (12) 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) 2013/0479 by Mr L Moore for planning permission for the installation of solar panels.
The Head of Development Management explained that a letter had been received from Thornton Curtis Parish Council objecting to the development expressing concerns around the screening of the proposed solar arrays,and the inadequacy of the existing landscaping to screen the adjacent polytunnels.
Members discussed the application, seeking clarification about the possibility of incorporating a conditionto secure adequate screen planting.
Councillor Wells spoke about the application, expressing concerns regarding screening.
Resolved – (i) That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations made within the report and, (ii) that a letter be sent to the applicant insisting that landscaping to the roadside is properly installed and maintained for the length of the polytunnels and the solar panels.
(ii) 2014/0381 by Mr J Burns for planning permission to construct a new vehicular access dedicated to the equestrian business.
Members requested clarification that the previous objector was satisfied with the outcome of the alterations to the application. It was confirmed that he had been reconsulted on the new arrangements and no further objection had been received.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
(iii) 2014/0422 by Clarkeson Recycling Ltd for planning permission for the siting of a container for use as a boiler house associated with farming fish and erection of a polytunnel for growing plants.
The Head of Development Management reminded the Committee that the application had previously been deferred to enable discussions with the Highways Agency and National Grid. It was confirmed that there were no subsequent objections. Further, it was suggested that the Committee may wish to consider imposing additional conditions to the application to ensure that only untreated wood was used in the proposed boiler, and that steps be taken to ensure that noise output remained below 35 decibels.
An objector stated that they were pleased with the proposed conditions, but would wish to see steps taken to ensure noise was restricted to certain times, as well as to certain levels, and that any fuel storage facilities are kept indoors to prevent the spread of dust.
Councillor Wells spoke in detail about the application, providing wider context about the role of economic growth within the planning agenda. Councillor Wells stated that he was concerned about the high number of residents who had written to the Planning Team regarding this application, and also highlighting the potential visual impact of the proposed chimney. Storage, risk assessment and noise pollution were also included in Councillor Wells’ submission.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations made within the report and the amended conditions as proposed in the oral update provided by the Head of Development Management. Namely, these are that:
4. The woodchip biomass boiler shall not burn waste except for the following:
• Untreated wood, as defined by the waste codes 170201 and 020107 in the List of Wastes (England) Regulations 2005.
• Untreated wooden packaging, as defined by the waste code 150103 in the List of Wastes (England) Regulations 2005.
The woodchip biomass boiler shall burn no more than 50kg of waste in 1 hour. No more than 10 tonnes of waste wood shall be stored on site.
Reason: To protect residential amenity.
5. The total rating level of noise emitted from all fixed plant shall not exceed 35dB, measured as LAeq, 5mins at any residential boundary. The definition of rating level shall be as described in British Standard BS4142:1997.
Reason: To protect residential amenity.
Informative: The boiler must operate under the terms of a valid Environment Agency Waste Exemption in order to burn waste.
(iv) 2014/0498 by Mr J Shirley for planning permission to carry out alterations and extensions.
The applicant stated that the proposed development had been designed with the Core Strategy and zero-carbon sustainability in mind, then went on to suggest that the report before the Committee had several inaccuracies. The proposal was intended to minimise the carbon footprint, whist maximising the potential for solar heating and lighting through large windows and a flat roof to enable the placement of solar panels.
An objector responded to suggestions that the presentation was inaccurate, and expressed concerns that the ‘box-like’ structure would be significantly out of character with the area. The objector pointed out that the Parish Council were not in favour of the development, and that permission should only be given if a proposal was congruent with existing properties. The property could be redesigned to increase efficiency and sustainability whilst retaining a more sympathetic design. There were also concerns around overlooking other properties due to its raised height.
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) 2014/0651 by Gresham Lodge Care Home for minor material amendments to PA/2012/1315 to provide the addition of small bays to 12 bedrooms to the rear projection.
An objector expressed his concern, on behalf of several residents, regarding several aspects of this application. Attempts to develop this site had been going on for a number of years, and much of this work was already completed despite a lack of planning permission. The proposal would increase the footprint of the development by 36 square metres, which would almost fill the whole footprint. Previously imposed conditions had not been acted upon, and concerns existed around a loss of amenity for neighbours, resident safety and nearby trees.
The agent for the application responded that the proposal before the Committee was for a minor amendment, and that the issues previously described related largely to the original submission. The intended porches were designed solely to comply with regulations for resident amenity, rather than to increase the size or profitability of the home. The pace of the build was to ensure that residents’ wellbeing was guaranteed.
Councillor Gosling had requested this application be brought to the Committee under the Member ‘call-in’ provisions. Councillor Gosling stated that he was concerned that the conditions placed on the applicant by the planning authority were being flouted, and this was having a negative impact on residents.
The Head of Development Management provided responses to members’ questions about the enforcement of conditions. It was confirmed that the authority could enforce any conditions put in place.
Members discussed the issue further, agreeing that the authority follow-up any concerns around conditions not being acted upon.
Resolved – (i) That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report, and (ii) that the Head of Development Management write to the applicant insisting on all planning applications from the original scheme (2012/1315) be complied with.
(vi) 2014/0669 by Mr James for planning permission to erect a porch to the front of the property, a conservatory to the rear of the property, and an extension to the existing garage to the rear.
An objector spoke on the application, stating that she lived next door to the applicant, and her primary concern was related to the proposed front porch. The applicant’s car port acted as a storeroom, linking the two properties together. The proposed development would increase how joined the two properties were, effectively turning the two detached properties into a semi-detached house. External communications utilities to the objector’s property would be enclosed in the applicant’s extension, and there were already issues of noise and vibration related to the adjoining nature of the properties.
The applicant responded that he had worked closely with planning officers, refuting any concerns raised. The applicant’s deeds do not include any requirement to retain the frontage of the property, and he was content with the conditions suggested within the report.
Councillor Carlile spoke on the application, requesting the Committee to undertake a site visit in order to form a better judgement.
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) 2014/0673 by Mr R Young for planning permission to construct a new attached double garage with two bedrooms at first floor, convert an existing integral garage into a study, and retain raised decking to the rear (resubmission 2014/0315).
The Head of Development Management stated that the application comprised of several elements, with the raised decking proving most controversial. Following discussions with the applicant, it had been agreed to remove this proposal from the application. As this would comprise a substantial change, it was suggested that an amended plan be sought, with neighbours consulted.
Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to a future meeting.
(viii) 2014/0776 by Mr and Mrs J Ross for planning permission to erect a replacement dwelling (including demolition of existing bungalow) and extension to existing annex (resubmission of PA/2014/0433)
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations made within the report.
(ix) 2014/0777 by Mr R Mills for planning permission to erect two detached houses.
Councillor Allcock sought advice regarding a previous application providing funds to the Wheatsheaf Pub. The Head of Development Management confirmed that, whilst it was suggested that this was so on the previous outline permission, conditions on funding were not applied or enforceable and were subsequently not appropriate with this proposal for the detailed scheme.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations made within the report.