Planning Committee – 29 July 2015

Chair:  Councillor N Sherwood

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 1 July 2015 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.
  4. Major Planning Applications
  5. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
  6. Application for a Lawful Development Certificate.
  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 N Sherwood (Chair).

Councillors Allcock (Vice-Chairman), Bainbridge, Carlile, Collinson, L Foster, Glover, Longcake, Ogg and C Sherwood.

Councillor Briggs, Clark, Hannigan, Marper, Redfern, Robinson, Rose, Wells and Wilson attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 37 (b).

The committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.

1674    DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) AND WHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS (IF ANY)

The following members declared personal interests

Member (s) Minute Application (s) Nature of Interest
Cllr Cllr Allcock 1677 (v)

1677 (xvii)

2015/0409

2014/1094

Member of Haxey Parish Council

Knows speaker

Cllr Cllr Briggs 1677 (iv) 2015/0162

General

General

 

Resident of Crowle

Member of the Fire Authority.

Member of the Isle of Axholme and North Nottinghamshire Water Management Board.

Cllr Cllr Carlile

 

Cllr L Foster

 

  1677 (xii)

1676 (iv)

1677 (xvi)

2015/0580

2015/0597

2015/0737

Personal GP Practice Member of Ashby Decoy Gold Club

Member of Bottesford Town Council

Cllr Cllr Redfern

 

 

Cllr Robinson

1677 (ii)

1677 (ix)

1677 (xiv)

1677 (ix)

2014/0995

2015/0532

2015/0615

2015/0532

Member of Epworth Town Council

Member of Belton Parish Council

Member of Epworth Town Council

  

Member (s) Minute Application (s) Nature of Interest
Cllr Cllr N Sherwood   1677 (xiii)     1676 (iv)

 

2015/0594

2015/0597

Relative works in the proximity Occasionally plays golf at the nearby course.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied: –

Member (s) Application Minute
Cllr Allcock

Cllr Bainbridge

 

Cllr Carlile

Cllr Collinson

Cllr Longcake

Cllr Ogg

Cllr N Sherwood

2015/0409           2014/1094           2015/0580

2015/0114           2015/0204           2015/0409           2015/0580

2015/0580

2015/0580

2015/0580

2015/0580

2015/0580

1677 (v) 1677 (xviii)                1677 (xii)

1676 (ii)                1676 (iii)                1677 (v)                1677 (xii)

1677 (xii)

1677 (xii)

1677 (xii)

1677 (xii)

1677 (xii)

 

1675   MINUTESResolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 1 July 2015, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

1676    (8) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS – The Head of Development Management submitted a report 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)  2012/1399 by Mrs J Grimley, Market Court Developments Ltd. for demolition of a metal clad shop, a store and a retail stall and planning permission for the erection of a mixed use development comprising eight town houses, six flats and three shops at land to the rear of 5-6 Market Place, Brigg.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.

(ii)  2015/0114 by Mr J Wallwork, Rochester 005 Limited for planning permission to install standalone solar photovoltaic modules and associated infrastructure including underground electric cable connection to the national grid along the A18 and A1029 at Storage Land, Raventhorpe Lodge access road in Raventhorpe Lodge depot, Holme.

The Head of Development Management suggested some minor changes to conditions 2 and 4 as contained within the report.

The applicant stated that there would be many benefits to the area, as set out in the report.The location was ideal, with close access to the electrical infrastructure and the ability to easily screen the site.  There was close access to the A18 and the land was unsuitable for agriculture.  There had been attempts to engage with the community, parish council and other stakeholders, and there were only two objections to the proposal.  The scheme would contribute circa £3m to the local authority in business rates over its lifetime, and there would be benefits for biodiversity, the environment and the rural economy.

Cllr Briggs questioned whether the proposal was the best use of the land in this area, suggesting that a business park might be better suited for a key gateway into Scunthorpe.  Cllr Briggs was unsure whether other options, including the potential for housing, had been considered.  Cllr Glover agreed with this view, also asking whether there would be the possibility of attaching a S106 agreement to any proposal.

Cllr Collinson questioned how much weight the committee could attach to the considerations raised previously, and also asked about the infrastructure in the area.  Cllr Bainbridge suggested revisiting the suggested conditions to improve public rights of way.

The Head of Development Management clarified the position, stating that an increasing weight could be placed on the possibility of siting a business park in this area.  However, recent discussions with the applicant suggested that they had no interest in pursuing this.  The council could explore the possibility of a joint business park / photovoltaic site.  The site has not been identified as suitable for housing, and if the committee were clear on what they wished to achieve regarding access and public rights of way, a relevant condition could be attached to the permission.

Resolved – That a decision be deferred for further discussions regarding securing community benefits as part of the scheme.

(iii)        2015/0204 by Clarkeson Recycing Ltd for planning permission to demolish existing structures, retention of farm shop and erection of new buildings, and use of the site as a materials recycling facility, including the provision of a waste transfer station and realigned access at Poplar Farm, Ulceby Road, South Killingholme.

The Head of Development Management highlighted some minor changes to the report, including suggested additional conditions on external storage  heights being limited to 6m

An objector stated that they were speaking on behalf of South Killingholme residents, and highlighted that there was significant local resistance to this proposal.  There were concerns around noise, odours, drainage, and possible construction waste, including asbestos.  The proposal would lead to additional traffic through the area, which would adversely impact on residents’ amenity.  There were existing concerns around local air quality, and this proposal would also add to this.

A second objector echoed these concerns, stating that residents were aware of the need to recycle, but the proposed site was in the wrong area.  The increased traffic flow and list of health risks make the proposal even less attractive.  Residents had a right to a healthy life, and proposals that would increase pollution or harm were not acceptable.

A third objector also highlighted serious concerns around odour, the potential for a lack of enforcement, and a large increase in HGVs transporting material to the site.

The agent for the application stated that they had listened closely to residents, and subsequently removed proposals to handle food waste and compost.  The applicant had also worked with officers, providing detailed technical data on actions to reduce risks.  In addition, there would be benefits to the rural economy as the proposal would lead to employment opportunities.

Cllr Hannigan spoke as a local member.  He raised concerns around the inappropriate and excessive industrialisation around South Killingholme, raising concerns about a lack of capacity from non-local organisations to enforce any necessary remedial action.  The nearest property to the site was less than 200 metres away, much closer than the guidance suggests.  The site was also located outside of the employment area.  South Killingholme residents were surrounded by industrialisation, apart from this area of the map, so any such scheme would mean that the town was located in the centre of industry, with all of the issues that went alongside this.  Cllr Hannigan shared the objectors’ concerns around a huge increase in heavy goods traffic, and that now was the time to ‘draw a line’ on such inappropriate and unnecessary developments in the ward.

Cllr Wells and Cllr Clark also echoed these views, raising concerns around perceived vagueness on the suggested conditions, a likely lack of enforcement action, and a wholly detrimental impact on the community.

Several members of the committee agreed with these views, suggesting that the residential amenity should be seen as more important than any limited economic benefit to the area.

Resolved – That planning permission be refused.

Reason

The proposed waste transfer station and recycling operation is substantial intensive new development which is not essential in this countryside location and, if approved, would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. Further, the operation of the proposed facility would be likely to have an adverse effect on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential property by reason of noise, dust and odour. The development as such is contrary to policies CS2 and CS3 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy 2011 and saved policies W8, W9, W13, RD2 and DS1(iii) of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003.

Informative

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.

(iv)       PA/2015/0597 by Persimmon Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd for planning permission to erect 71 dwellings with associated access, open space, landscaping and infrastructure (resubmission of PA/2014/0178) on land at Ashby Decoy Golf Club, Burringham Road, Ashby Parklands, Scunthorpe.

The Head of Development Management advised the committee that the applicant had requested that this item be deferred, pending further discussions.

Resolved – That this item be deferredat the applicant’s request for further discussions regarding sustainable urban drainage.

1677   (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.

(i)  2014/0304 by Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) Ltd for an application under the Overhead Lines (Exemption) (England & Wales) Regulations 2009 for an 11kv overhead line rebuild at various locations in South Ferriby, Horkstow, Saxby, Bonby and Worlaby.

Resolved – That the Planning Committee make no objection to the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.

(ii)  2014/0995 by Mr R Bassindale for a certificate of lawfulness for the implementation of planning permissions PA/2010/008 and PA/2011/0911, with a condition varied by application PA/2013/0874 at Hillcrest, 33 High Street, Epworth.

An objector stated that, whilst he would wish to see some form of development on the site, there were a number of concerns with this application.  These included a lack of car parking at the site, potentially leading to on-street parking, and that the boundary line may not be correctly shown within the report.

Cllr Redfern stated that the site fell within the conservation area, and was currently in a poor state.  There were also some concerns around the contents of the report, including references to road widening and the test of evidence.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to a future meeting and that members visit the site, prior to that meeting.

(iii)  2015/0027 by Mr Moore for planning permission to retain change of use to three shop units (A1, A2 and B1(a)), retention of shop fronts and rear external alterations at Colemans, Queen Street, Brigg.

Resolved –That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.

(iv)  2015/0162 by Mr W Mason for outline planning permission to erect a dwelling (all matters reserved for subsequent approval) (resubmission of PA/2013/0895 at land adjacent to 95 Godnow Road, Crowle.

The agent for the applicant stated that the application was a resubmission, and there was a good case for the application to be granted.  Developments had been agreed beyond the development line in other areas of Crowle, and it was likely that the Planning Inspector would take into account arguments about encouraging developments.  There had been significant investment in Crowle, and this proposal would add to this, helping to address the housing shortage in the town.  The site itself was surrounded by farmland, and there was a need to house and support agricultural and forestry workers.

Cllr Briggs stated that he supported the application, and there was a need for consistency of approach to developments.  There were also no objections raised on flood risk.

The Head of Development Management advised the committee that the application had previously been refused and that the circumstances of the application were unchanged.  There was also no evidence that the property would be occupied by agricultural or forestry workers.  Whilst the Environment Agency made no objection on flood risk, this was on the basis that the development would be safe however it was for the council to decide whether the development passed the sequential test and offered wider sustainability benefits.The site remained outside the development boundary which was unlikely to change..

Resolved – That outline planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions.

Approval of the details of the layout, scale, and appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto 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 5(1) of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 above, relating to the layout, scale, and appearance of any buildings to be erected, the means of access to the site 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 5(1) of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

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.

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.

The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (KRS Environmental, November 2013) including the following mitigation measures:

–         limiting the surface water run-off from the development to greenfield run-off rates within sustainable drainage techniques;

–         finished floor levels set no lower than 4.4 metres above Ordnance Datum;

–         development to incorporate flood resilience and resistance techniques as detailed in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the FRA.

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation.

Reason

To reduce the risk and impact of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.

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.

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.

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.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), nothing shall at any time be erected, retained, planted or allowed to grow over 1.05 metres in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway for a distance of 2 metres from the highway boundary across the site frontage.

Reason

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

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.

Informative 1

The proposed development site is bounded by, or has running through it, a watercourse (surface water culvert/pipe or ditch). Any drainage feature found during excavations must be immediately reported to the Drainage Team on 01724 297522, prior to any further construction works being carried out. Following inspection, the watercourse may need to be cleared, replaced, protected or diverted by the landowner at their expense in accordance with their riparian responsibilities.

Informative 2

The proposed development has the potential to suffer from a level of flooding due to surface or ground water run-off and/or drainage overflow. Care should be taken with finished floor levels, threshold levels and location of openings. SuDS must be considered. Further advice can be sought by contacting the Drainage Team on 01724 297522. Any advice offered by the Environment Agency or Drainage Team should be acted upon.

Informative 3

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 4

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)         2015/0409 Mr M & Mrs A White, Haxey Study Centre, for planning permission to erect an extension to existing training and lecture centre and relocate educational centre (Haxey Study Centre) from Rose Cottage site to Lupine Woods site, at Haxey Study Centre, Turbary Road, Haxey.

The agent reminded the committee that the recommendation was to grant the application, and that the officers’ view was that all objections had been dealt with.  The business had been onsite for more than ten years, and the facilities were now reaching the end of their life.  The buildings were already in place, with permission, and the proposal would allow all training to be completed at one site.  This would reduce the movement of staff, reducing traffic.  The proposal was for two small extensions to support an existing building’s sustainability.

An objector stated that all of the residents in the area were against the proposal.  The site was an area of historic and environmental interest, and was well utilised by residents and various groups, as there was a circular walking trail.  This leads to traffic congestion, which would be exacerbated by this proposal.  Rose Cottage was located in a forested area, next to a Site of Special  Scientific Interest, and with a narrow, unadopted path.  Lupine Woods was in a conservation area which should be protected, and there were also concerns around rights of access.  Residents were unclear of the type and number of businesses on the two sites, and there were some concerns around the behaviour of some of the children on site.

Cllr Rose reiterated some of these concerns, and also the Parish Council’s views as set out in the report.  These arguments included the view that the site was not suitable, is in a sensitive area and there were concerns that any increased traffic could lead to congestion and damage.  Cllr Allcock supported this, highlighting that a similar proposal had been refused in 2014, with the appeal unsuccessful.

Relevant advice was given by the Head of Development Management.

Resolved – That planning permission be refused.

Reason

The proposal represents inappropriate further expansion of the buildings and operations in a remote and sensitive countryside location. The proposal, if approved, would be likely to result in increased use of the facility in an unsustainable location with poor access arrangements. This would be harmful to the character of the area and the amenities of local residents. As such the proposal is contrary to policies RD2 and LC14 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and CS2, CS3 and CS13 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy. The proposal to relocate activities from Rose Cottage to the application site as described in the unilateral undertaking is not acceptable to the local planning authority and would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of local residents.

Informative

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.

(vi)        2015/0458 Mr R Templeman for planning permission for conversion to a single dwelling at Old School Canteen, School Lane, South Ferriby.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.

(vii)      2015/0488 Mr D Hansard for planning permission to retain a horticultural workshop on land to the rear of Gaunt, Front Street, Alkborough.

Cllr Marper suggested that the Parish Council had some concerns around public rights of way and requested that the committee may consider conducting a site visit.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to a future meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting.

(viii)   2015/0503 Mr J Stanton for outline planning permission for the erection of a dwelling (all matters reserved for subsequent approval) at Tout Pres, Little Lane, Wrawby.

An objector stated thatthey were speaking on behalf of several neighbours, who had concerns around a loss of residential amenity, views and that the site falls 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.

(ix)   2015/0532 Mr R Mills North Lincs Property Ltd for planning permission for the erection of a detached house and garages at plot adjacent to 85 Burnham Road, Epworth.

The agent for the applicant confirmed that planning permission had been granted previously, although this had now lapsed.  Highways had initially raised some concerns, but the applicant had worked to address these, and they were now fully resolved.

Cllr Robinson stated that he had concerns regarding the location of the proposed site on road and pedestrian safety grounds, as it was situated on the brow of a hill, close to a difficult junction and there had been a serious and recent accident close to this area.  Cllr Robinson suggested a site visit might be helpful.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.

(x)    2015/0533 Mr M Yates for planning permission to increase the height of an existing wall and pillars, erect a fence between pillars and erect pedestrian and access gates at Woodcarr Cottage, Sandtoft Road, Westgate, Belton.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.

(xi)        2015/0541 Mr & Mrs D Bray for planning permission to erect a single-storey rear extension to form an orangery, erect a detached garage and convert existing garage to form additional living accommodation at 14A Church Street, Elsham.

An objector stated that the proposed site would be situated very close to his property, and be considerably higher, with a higher roof and windows than were suggested within the report.  This would lead to concerns around overlooking and the blocking of natural light.

Responding to questions from members, the Head of Development Management gave advice, responded to questions, and confirmed that the report was factually correct.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.

(xii)      2015/0580 Mrs H Rubie, Cedar Medical Practice for planning permission to increase car parking facility to rear and install lighting at 275 Ashby Road, Scunthorpe.

The Head of Development Management informed the committee of some technical corrections to the report, concerning access, location, and the use of a pharmacy.

An objector raised a number of concerns regarding the proposal, making suggestions for improvements as appropriate.  The concerns centred around a number of issues, including tree location, the potential for noise, traffic and light pollution, the use of clinical waste facilities, and a general negative impact on residents’ amenity.

The agent for the application indicated that the proposal was relatively modest.  All of the larger trees would be retained, which was supported by the Tree Officer.  Steps had been included in the proposal to prevent light pollution, and there would be no increase in traffic pollution.  There would be no changes to opening hours of the practice, and no increase in flood or traffic manoeuvring risk.  This would therefore be an improvement to a service for local people, with no impact on residents.

Cllr Wilson suggested that there was no real need for a large increase in parking provision, and that that area of Ashby Road was becoming increasingly industrialised.  The proposal would add to concerns around light pollution and traffic, and there were pedestrian safety issues, as the access/egress road was very narrow.  Currently, many people utilise the on-street parking safely and effectively, and there was no need to alter this arrangement.

Resolved – That the application be deferred to allow further discussions over possible amendments to the proposed car parking layout.

(xiii)     2015/0594 Mr D Hardaker & Ms L Wray for planning permission to erect a 3/4-bedroom detached dwelling house with attached double garage at a plot adjacent to Jasmine House, Ferneries Lane, Barnetby.

The agent for the application stated that outline planning permission had previously been granted, and work commenced.  However, in the meantime, the applicant had purchased the property to the rear, and this application therefore represented a revised request.  There were no concerns on flood risk or privacy issues.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.

(xiv)     2015/0615 Mr & Mrs E Strong for planning permission to erect a two-storey side and rear extension, a single-storey side extension, a single-storey rear extension and detached single-story garage block at 78 High Street, Belton.

The agent for the application stated that, whilst some of the proposed building work would not be attached to the main property, it remained within the curtilage.  There would be appropriate screening to minimise any adverse impact, and no influence on the street scene.  The proposed extension was sympathetically designed and there were no other objections, other than from the parish council.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.

(xv)      2015/0658 Mrs S Symon Orkidz Pre-school for listed building consent to retain the colour of main door and adjacent front side door as lime green at Orkidz Pre-school, Old Magistrates Court, High Street, Barton-upon-Humber.

Resolved – That consent be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.

(xvi)     2015/0737 Mr Slingsby for planning permission for a roof loft conversion for additional living accommodation at Orchard House, 16 Cross Tree Road, Messingham

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to a future meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting.

(xvii)    2015/0760 Mr S Sturman for planning permission to erect extension to rear and side of existing garage at 20 Richmond Drive, Bottesford.

An objector stated that he was acting on behalf of his tenant, who lives next door to the proposed development.  The objections were set out in the report, but included the potential for providing a hiding place for criminals, that the proposal was much larger than set out in the drawings, and that the proposed pitched roof would not be in keeping with the area.

A relative of the applicant read out a letter, supporting the application.  This stated that the applicant had a large family, including one child with medical issues, requiring regular night-time checks on their wellbeing.  As the applicant ran a business, increasing the ability of working from home would assist in providing a sustainable and enjoyable homelife for the family.  Various schemes had been explored, and any that impacted negatively on neighbours had not been taken further.  The current garage had been in place for many years, and prior to the neighbour buying the property, and there were many similar garages in the area.  The applicant concluded by stating that they were open to continue seeking resolution to this issue with neighbours.

Cllr Bainbridge questioned whether the proposal fell within ‘permitted development’ criteria.  The Head of Development Management confirmed that it did not, but that the proposal would create no issues for overlooking, shadowing, and wouldn’t be out of place with the area.

Resolved – That consent be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.

(xviii)  2014/1094 Absolute Children’s Services Ltd for an application for a lawful development certificate for a proposed use to use the dwelling as C3(b) use at The Old Barn, Owston Ferry Road, Low Burnham.

An objector stated that the business was situated on a busy stretch of the A161, in a small village with only eight children.  Low Burnham was an isolated, rural village with very few facilities and limited bus coverage.  As such, the site was a very poor choice of location, and didn’t operate as a normal, family foster home.  There was significant strength of feeling within the village that the site would lead to children becoming more isolated rather than integrated into society, and that the business was having a detrimental effect on village life.

The applicant described the staffing arrangements, confirming that the numbers and practicalities were in line with the criteria for C3(b) use. Whilst it was acknowledged that this was a private business, Ofsted recently rated it as an outstanding provider.  The applicant stated that the children that they work with deserve to live in pleasant areas, and away from neighbourhoods where they may be vulnerable.  They had attempted to engage with the residents of the village, but had not been successful.  In summary, the proposal would be lawful, and operate as a genuine family home.

Cllr Rose stated that he had met with residents and agreed with the points raised by the objector.  The site doesn’t meet the criteria for C3(b) designation, and the location was unsuitable on a number of grounds, including there being no opportunities for the children to integrate into society.  Cllr Rose also queried whether the staffing structures could be considered comparable to a family home, as the main carer may be there for less than 50% of the time and other staff worked a shift system.  This lack of continuity of care would suggest that the business does not operate as a traditional family home, and would therefore not meet the guidance for the C3(b) designation.  A similar site in Eastoft had recently had their application refused, and Cllr Rose suggested that the committee may therefore make the same judgement.

The Head of Development Management stated that much of Cllr Rose’s submission was a fair summary.  However, the application could not be directly compared with Eastoft, as there were key differences in the staffing and number of children at the site.

Cllr Briggs also agreed with previous objectors, stating that this was a commercial organisation, and there was a significant lack of integration with the local community.  Cllr Allcock echoed these concerns, highlighting the lack of similar-aged peers for the children in Low Burnham and the view that the C3(b) criteria were not being met.

Cllr Collinson stated that, whilst he acknowledged that the site operated as a business, it still acted as a family dwelling.  As parents can live wherever they choose with their children, small villages should not automatically be excluded from consideration for such facilities.

Resolved – That the application for a lawful development certificate be refused.

Reason

The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the use proposed falls within Class C3(b) and as the proposed use would be materially different, the Lawful Development Certificate is refused.

1678    APPLICATION PA/2014/0466 – ERECTION OF TWO DWELLINGS AT LION’S HEAD SITE, WINTERTON (minute 1623 (i) refers).  This item was considered by the committee as the Chairman had decided it was urgent because of the need to progress a decision on finalising details on the agreed condition of water drainage as soon as possible.

The committee was asked to confirm whether details on the agreed condition on water drainage should be returned for consideration to the Planning Committee as previously agreed or, if in the interests of preventing unnecessary delays to the applicant, whether it could be delegated to officers, albeit with a route back to the Planning Committee if concerns remained.

Resolved – (a) That the condition on satisfactory surface water drainage details (minute 1623 (i) refers) for this development be determined by officers under the scheme of delegation, and (b) that, if the Head of Development Management cannot reach agreement with the applicant under this scheme, a relevant report will be considered at a future meeting of the Planning Committee.

Reports