Planning Committee – 27 August 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 30 July 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), Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Collinson, Grant, Marper, N Sherwood, and Wardle.
Councillors Ogg, Rowson, C Sherwood, Waltham, Whiteley, K Vickers and P Vickers attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b).
The committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.
1604 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 England
Cllr N Sherwood Cllr Wardle Cllr Wardle |
1608 (i)
1608 (iv) 1606 (ii) 1608 (ii) |
2014/0408
2014/0520 2014/0381 2014/0449 |
Knows the applicant
Lives in the proximity Knows the applicant and objector Knows the applicant |
Prior to the meeting, all members of the committee had received copies of a series of photographs submitted by the Applicant pertaining to application 2014/0694.
The following member declared that they had been lobbied: –
| Member (s) | Minute (s) | Application/Item (s) |
| Cllr Marper | 1606 (i) | 2013/0734 |
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 C Sherwood | 1608 (iv) | 2014/0520 |
1605 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 30 July 2014, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.
1606 (7) 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 and updated the committee orally.
(i) 2013/0734 by Mr C McGurran for planning permission for the conversion and extension of a former public house into three dwellings, erection of four new dwellings, and associated access and landscaping (including demolition of part of the former public house) at the Ferry Boat Inn, 24 High Burgage, Winteringham.
An objector to the application expressed concerns on behalf of the residents of Winteringham. He confirmed that development of the site was much needed, however there was a need for further dialogue and conditions to the application for the mutual benefit of neighbours and residents.
Concerns were raised over the height of the boundary wall onto High Burgage and the need to maintain privacy and security for residents in the neighbouring property.
In addition, mention was made to the properties only having one parking space. It was considered that this may encourage on-street parking, which would impede larger vehicles and potentially discourage the use of public transportation.
The agent for the application confirmed that consultation had taken place and had resulted in the plans having been changed to address initial concerns. This had involved reducing the number of dwellings from eight down to seven and reducing the properties adjacent to Back Lane from three storeys down to two storeys.
It was also stated that allowing one space per property was in line with North Lincolnshire Council’s policies, and discouraging multiple car ownership may encourage the use of public transport. The agent for the application also stated that the Highways Team had no significant concerns and that the proposed development would help address the lack of affordable housing in the village.
Councillor Rowson, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) reiterated the general points raised by the objector, and stated that she would like to see changes to the walling and the provision of parking spaces.
Moved by Cllr England and seconded by Cllr Grant –
That the application be approved subject to conditions as recommended and the applicant entering into a S106 agreement to secure the provision of a contribution of £4349.48 towards recreation facilities with the issuing of the decision being delegated to the Head of Development Management.
Moved by Cllr Marper and seconded by Cllr Allcock as an amendment –
That the application be refused.
Amendment Lost
Motion Carried
(ii) 2014/0381 by Mr J Burns, J J Equestrian for planning permission to construct a new vehicular access dedicated to the business at J and J Equestrian Stables, Thornton Road, Goxhill.
An objector to the application explained that the existing access point was opposite his property, however it did not present a great deal of disturbance. By moving the location directly opposite his access and drive this would increase disturbance and would result in the removal of trees, hedges and an increase in vehicle fumes which he added were contrary to Policy DS1 and RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
The objector stated that the applicant should receive any impact arising from operating their business from the site, and that it would be unfair to expect others to suffer from increased noise and pollution.
Moved by Cllr Wardle and seconded by Cllr Allcock –
That the application be refused.
Moved by Cllr Grant and seconded by Cllr England as an amendment –
That the application be deferred to enable negotiations to take place on alternative placement of the proposed access, and that the renegotiated application be resubmitted to the Planning Committee for consideration.
Amendment Carried
Substantive Motion Carried
1607 (8) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATION – The Head of Development Management submitted a report 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. In accordance with Procedure Rule D1.35 (i) (a), members had previously undertaken a site visit.
(i) 2013/1496 by Wren Kitchens for planning permission to construct a new vehicular access from Barrow Road and two new car parks (800 spaces), carry out additional landscaping, and retain a 2m high electric perimeter fence and 12 loading bays with canopies.
The Head of Development Control provided an oral update and confirmed that alterations to the conditions had been recommended further to consultation with Highways Officers. These were as follows:-
(4) To remove condition 4 from the application, reading:
No development shall take place until a noise impact assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing to the local authority. The noise impact assessment shall be carried out with reference to:
- BS 4142 (1997) Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas;
- World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise (1999);
- World Health Organisation Night Noise Guidelines for Europe (2009);
- BS8233 (1999) Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings – Code of Practice.
The assessment report shall provide details of existing background noise levels, likely noise sources which will impact upon the proposed development, mitigation methods to be employed and the resulting predicted levels of noise at sensitive locations. Any approved mitigation measures shall be carried out in their entirety before the use of the site commences and shall be retained thereafter.
(16) To add an additional condition, reading:
Notwithstanding the details submitted, before development is commenced on the Northern car park area, further details and modifications shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority showing as far as is practicable the retention of trees on and adjacent to the car park area.
Reason – In the interests of biodiversity and local amenity.
The agents for the applicant submitted that Wren Kitchens had worked closely with the local authority, the Town Council and others to address any initial concerns, amending plans as required. Wren was an expanding company in the area, helping to bring jobs and economic growth to the area and their factory in Scunthorpe was at capacity.
The agent stated that the proposal would be safer and better for the HGV lorries who attended the site, creating a natural circuit, and expanding the car parking provision. A number of legally binding measures would also improve the Barrow Road area, including street lighting, traffic calming measures and the retention of the existing picnic area.
Members discussed the proposal, considering issues such as road safety, access and the conditions.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the amended conditions specified above and contained within the report and subject to the applicant providing a Unilateral Undertaking to make the necessary contribution to highway measures with issuing the decision being delegated to the Head of Development Management.
1608 (9) 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) 2014/0408 by Mr W Smith for planning permission for alterations to outbuildings to form a new dwelling.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
(ii) 2014/0449 by Mr G Herring for planning permission to erect a detached dwelling (resubmission of planning application PA/2013/1059).
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
(iii) 2014/0500 by Mr & Mrs Griffiths for planning permission to erect a dwelling.
The Head of Development Control confirmed that alterations to the conditions had been recommended further to consultation with Highways Officers. These were as follows:-
To remove condition 3 from the application, reading:
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.
A local resident spoke in favour of the application, stating that the development would assist with car parking and that some initial concerns had been addressed.
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.
(iv) 2014/0520 by Mr and Mrs G Perkins for planning permission to erect a two-storey rear extension.
A local resident spoke on the application, stating that the only issue may be the impact to the existing properties in the neighbouring Bakersfield Road.
Some members expressed concern that neighbours were concerned that they may lose amenity and that there had been a number of complaints.
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) 2014/0588 by Mr & Mrs Stafford for planning permission for extension to rear.
The Head of Development Control stated that the recommendation within the report was to grant the application, but that it may be beneficial to require the residents to conduct a survey to ensure that the development does no harm to nearby bat populations and bat roosts. Upon the receipt of evidence that there is a lack of harm, the decision could be delegated to officers if the committee so wished.
The agent to the application stated that the house was situated in a remote area of natural woodland, and within a sizable boundary. There would therefore be no impact on the surrounding area. The proposed development would make good the existing outbuildings, and that the application contained only one elevation. The development complied with planning policy and would significantly improve an already attractive property.
Resolved – That the Committee is minded to approve the application, subject to the applicants demonstrating no adverse effect on protected species, specifically bats or bat roosts, with the decision being delegated to the Head of Development Management.
(vi) 2014/0632 by Mr P Couch for outline planning permission for residential development (all matters reserved for subsequent approval).
The agent for the application submitted that the application was for only one property to enable residents to live next door to their elderly parents. National planning guidance stipulated that development should be approved unless there was a material consideration not to, and that the current lack of a 5 year housing land supply was a material consideration. The agent’s view was that this application should therefore be seen as a ‘windfall’ plot, which would greatly aid the current lack of housing provision.
The Head of Development Management clarified that the proposed development lies well outside of the development boundary for Belton village and was an unsustainable location. The council was able to demonstrate the provision of adequate housing land elsewhere. This was a green field site and if approved would likely trigger further applications for development in similar circumstances.
Members discussed the application in detail, seeking advice as required from officers.
Resolved – That planning permission be refused in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.
(vii) 2014/0685 by Mr S & Mrs R Bennett for planning permission to erect a rear single-storey extension.
Councillor K Vickers had requested this application be brought to the committee under the Member ‘call-in’ provisions. Councillor Vickers stated that the objectors to the application were unable to attend the meeting, but requested that the committee consider adding a condition requiring opaque windows in the proposed utility room overlooking their drive.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the following condition being appended to the conditions within the report.
4.
Before the extension is first occupied the utility room windows in the south wall shall be obscure glazed and retained in that condition thereafter.
Reason – In order to protect the living conditions presently enjoyed by the occupants in the adjoining propertied in accordance with policy DS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
(viii) 2014/0694 by Mr R Connole for planning permission to erect a fence (resubmission of PA/2013/1460)
The Head of Development Control stated that the preference would be to incorporate a condition on landscaping within the application to soften the impact of the proposed fencing.As it was at the back edge of the Highway limited landscaping could be achieved.
The applicant submitted that the fence was required to ensure the family’s right to privacy, and that he had taken all required steps to comply with the requirements of the officers’ advice.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the following condition being appended to the conditions within the report.
3.
That no development shall take place until proposals for landscaping have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason – To enhance the appearance of the development in the interests of amenity.