Planning Committee – 6 April 2016

Chair:  Councillor N Sherwood
Venue:  The Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Scunthorpe
Time:  2pm

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 9 March 2016 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 N Sherwood (Chairman).

Councillors Allcock (Vice-Chairman), Bainbridge, Carlile, Collinson, Glover, Kataria, Longcake, Ogg and Poole.

Councillors Briggs, L.Foster, Marper, C Sherwood and Waltham attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b).

The committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.

1725   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 Allcock 1727(i)   1729(iii)  1729(iv) PA/2015/1285  PA/2015/1499 PA/2015/1585 Member of the Isle of Axholme and North Nottinghamshire Water level Management Board.
Cllr Collinson

Cllr Poole

 

Cllr N Sherwood

1727(ii)

1727(ii) 1729 (ii)

1730

PA/2015/1393

PA/2015/1393  PA/2015/1247

Agenda item 7

Member of Bottesford Town Council.

Knows the Applicant.  Knows the speaker.

Knows the Applicant.

 

The following members declared that they had been lobbied: –

Member(s) Application(s) Minute
Cllr Allcock

Cllr Briggs

Cllr Bainbridge

Cllr Carlile

Cllr Marper

Cllr Glover

Cllr Kataria

Cllr Longcake

Cllr Ogg
Cllr N Sherwood

PA/2015/1504

PA/2015/1499

PA/2015/1504

PA/2015/1504

PA/2015/1504

PA/2015/1504

PA/2015/1504

PA/2015/1504

PA/2015/1504
PA/2015/1504 Agenda Item 7

1727 (iii)

1729 (iii)

1727 (iii)

1727 (iii)

1727 (iii)

1727 (iii)

1727 (iii)

1727 (iii)

1727 (iii)
1727 (iii) 1730

 

The following member, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37(b), declared the following personal interest:-

Member 

Cllr Briggs

 

 

 

Minute 

General

Applications 

General

 

 

 

Nature of Interest 

Member of the Fire Authority.

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

Cabinet Member to approve assets of community value.

1726   MINUTESResolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 9 March 2016, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

1727   (40) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decisions at previous meetings, members had undertaken site visits on the morning of the meeting. The Head of Development Management submitted reports and updated them orally.

(i) 2015/1285 Miss A Oliver for planning permission for proposed indoor equestrian area at the Riding School, Skyers Farm, Carrside, Epworth, DN9 1DX.

The Head of Development Management updated the Committee and informed it that a further letter from the applicant’s agent had been received stating that the legal access to the farm was on the existing track, and that they could not understand the need for further investigation. The agent also indicated that they would agree to a condition to improve the footpath if permission was granted, and enclosed five letters of support for the development.

An objector raised various concerns about using footpath 70 as access to Skyers Farm, and the potential dangers if there was an increase in traffic. He felt that footpath 71 would be the preferred option and relieve all traffic from using footpath 70. He informed the Committee that all residents along footpath 70 objected to the application which would create extra traffic, increase in noise and dust and infringe on the rights of the residents.

Cllr Allcock stated that after having visited the site that morning and reading the officers report, which stated that the applicant was willing to improve the lane by providing passing places along it, and improving its surface which was poor and in need of repair in places, he was minded to support the officer’s recommendation to grant permission.

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

(ii)  2015/1393 Mrs C Williams for outline planning permission to erect a detached three-bedroomed dwelling with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for subsequent approval at land adjacent to 5 Beck Lane, Bottesford, DN16 3SE.

The agent for the application addressed the committee and informed it that the proposed development was within the existing settlement boundary, and that the mature tree situated at the front of the dwelling would be protected without any harm.  He did not feel this development was detrimental to the character of the area and any concerns with flood risk/drainage would be adequately taken by the soak away.

Cllr Longcake stated that he had received numerous complaints from local residents and felt that it was over development in the area, and would therefore like to see the application refused.

Cllr Collinson also raised concerns with regard to this application as he had reservations about the site, and particularly the surface water flooding that had occurred previously.

Moved by Councillor Longcake and seconded by Councillor Allcock –

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposal represents an unsatisfactory form of cramped development which, if approved, would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal as such is contrary to saved policies H8 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, policy CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy and paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Motion Carried.

(iii) 2015/1504 Mr G Blair for planning permission to change the use of land to provide an extension to an existing residential static home park at land rear of Charnwood Park Estate, Flixborough, Ferry Road West, DN15 8UG.

The Head of Development Management updated the committee informing them that an additional 11 letters of support had been received from residents on the park indicating that they had no objections to the proposal, and did not ask to be listed on a previous petition that was circulated. They also indicated that there was no problems on the site with regard to drainage and electricity and said repairs were always quickly dealt with.  Two additional letters had also been received from specialists confirming that the services on site were adequate.

Councillor Marper addressed the committee as a local ward member raising various concerns regarding this application.  She stated that the increase in caravans on this site would impact on the character and appearance of the area and it would be much better left as a brownfield site.  She felt that this application was contrary to North Lincolnshire core strategy policies CS11 allowing new enterprises to be able to flourish on this piece of land, CS19 flood risk area, and CS5 delivering quality design in North Lincolnshire. She argued this application would not deliver that quality design requirement. In addressing the committee she also raised concerns with the crime statistics produced for the committee and did not believe they were accurate and up to date. In conclusion she stated that 100 units on this site, with no community facilities was over intensive use of the park with the potential for increased problems.

Councillor Ogg reiterated the concerns raised by the previous speaker, and said that the application should be refused as it was contrary to planning policies CS11, CS19 and CS5.

Councillor Collinson did not believe after having visited the site that the extra units proposed would cause a problem in the area.  He felt there was a need for this type of dwelling to be provided, and did not feel that a business on the brownfield site would sit well alongside an established residential site. In his opinion the better option would be to increase the units currently on the park as requested in this application.

Councillor Bainbridge indicated that following the site visit to the park she was very impressed with how it was managed, with good access to the site encountering no problems. By locating more units on this part of the site she stated would improve the current visual impact of the area.  She did not feel it was a brownfield site as it was surrounded by residential properties.

Moved by Councillor Ogg and seconded by Councillor Longcake that –

Planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1 The redevelopment of the site in the manner proposed would result in the loss of an existing business and adversely affect employment opportunities in the area.

  1. The development is in Flood Zone 2/3a of the council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and the applicant has not demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits that outweigh the risk of flooding. As such the proposal is contrary to policy CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.
  2.  Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the site will be safe and secure for local residents and as such the proposal is contrary to  policy CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.
  3. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that foul drainage from the proposed development can be adequately disposed of.

Motion Carried.

1728   (41) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATION – The Head of Development Management submitted a report containing details of a major application for determination by the committee, including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the application.

(i)           2015/1196 Mr N Kirby for planning permission to install an anaerobic digestion plant with associated infrastructure (to be fuelled with organic waste) at Corrboard UK Ltd, Waldo Way. Normanby Enterprise Park, Flixborough, DN15 9YG.

The agent for the application stated that they felt this was an ideal location for this application and was also supported by local planning policies.  He highlighted that the applicant had addressed concerns regarding the potential for odours, and assured the committee that no offensive odours would be released and that it would be managed by a permit at all times, that would be monitored and enforced by regulation.

Councillor Ogg had concerns with this application and in particular the control of odours caused when moving manure. He felt it would be beneficial for the committee to have a site visit before any decision was made.

Resolved – That a decision on this application be deferred to allow the committee to have a site visit.

(ii)          2015/1527 Stoneledge (South Bank) Ltd for planning permission for the removal of condition 10 of planning permission WD/2015/0314 dated 21 October 2015 at Stoneledge Ltd, Middlegate Lane, Elsham, DN20 0NU.

The Head of Development Management updated the committee and informed it that photographs had been circulated indicating that lorries had been using the Wold Road for access to Stoneledge.  However, the applicant had confirmed that those lorries were servicing agricultural business at the nearby farm, and were not servicing Stoneledge operations.

The agent stated that this application was to vary condition 10 of a previous planning application that restricted all vehicle movement to the Stoneledge site via the Wold Road access, to allow this access to be used by light staff vehicles only as the other entrance was not suitable for staff walking and arriving in their small vehicles.  He highlighted that all heavy goods vehicles would still be prevented from using Wold Road if this was approved, and an adequate visibility splay would be provided for safety.

The applicant reiterated what the agent said, and wanted the condition to be removed as it was dangerous for staff to be travelling through the operational part of the business.  He said previously the heavy goods vehicles had had no choice but to use a different access due to the A15 being closed and they had no other alternative.

Councillor C Sherwood as local ward member addressed the committee and stated that the circumstances had not changed since this condition was attached to the planning permission in October 2015. He felt that planning conditions were not always adhered to on the site, and the land proposed for the visibility splay was not Stoneledge’s land therefore they could not guarantee that the hedge would be cut and maintained at all times, providing appropriate visibility.

Councillor Allcock agreed it was only six months since the condition was approved by the Planning Committee, and if approved it could have a big impact on highway safety on Wold Road.

Councillor Collinson supported the application and felt that the condition in its current form was rather onerous and was a sensible compromise.

Further discussion took place between the committee, North Lincolnshire Councils Highway Officer, and the Head of Development Management who in turn responded to member’s questions.

Moved by Councillor Allcock and seconded by Councillor Glover that-

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:-

The access from Wold Road (C120) is not considered to be safe, having regard to traffic speeds and restricted visibility. It is not appropriate to use this access to service this site when adequate arrangements exist from the Halifax approach.  The proposal as such is contrary to saved policy T2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and Para 32 of The NPPF.

Motion Carried.

1729   (42) 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)            2014/1098 Mr G Canham for planning permission to retain the change of use of land for siting of five touring caravans, one static and two portacabins, and to site a further six touring caravans and polytunnel in connection with private camp site/eco project opposite Springfield, Ferry Road, Goxhill, DN19 7JY.

An objector spoke on behalf of a number of residents objecting to this application on the grounds that the site was located on agricultural land and inappropriate in the open countryside.  Concerns were raised around the access and additional traffic that could be dangerous, noise and pollution had caused disturbance from music, lights, generators and smoke from bonfires late into the night. He also indicated that the application was located within a flood risk assessment for North Lincolnshire, and was not appropriate in this part of the open countryside.

The applicant informed the committee that the users on this site would be members of a community group, and it was not to be advertised as a tourist attraction for all caravans. He indicated that privacy screens had been put in place where necessary. It was a non-profitable project to be used only by group members.

Councillor Allcock having listened to all speakers felt that this proposal would have a detrimental impact on the open countryside and the residential properties nearby. It was also outside the development boundary and therefore planning permission should be refused.

Councillor Collinson also highlighted that this application did not fit into the current planning policies and therefore supported the officer’s recommendation to refuse permission.

Resolved – The planning permission be refused in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.

(ii)           2015/1247 Mr I Spencer for listed building consent to remove a supporting interior wall to open up the kitchen into a pre-existing extension at 10 Ermine Street, Appleby, DN15 0AD.

The applicant informed the committee that the property was listed due to the ornate brick work on the outside of the property. The current layout inside was particularly small, and the removal of the internal wall would not affect the nature of the building other than to increase the space available and make it more suited to modern living for a young family.

Councillor Mumby-Croft, local ward member attended the meeting in support of the application and said she would like to see permission granted.

Councillor Glover after listening to the applicant stated that the needs of the family and their improved standard of living outweighed the requirement for the retention of the internal wall.  He felt it would have no detrimental effect to the listed building if this application was approved.

Moved by Councillor Glover and seconded by Councillor Allcock that –

Planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-

  1. Standard three year time limit.
  2. Before development commences, and during the construction works, a photographic record of the alterations shall be made, and submitted to the local planning authority within three months of the completion of the works.

Reason

To retain a permanent record of the alterations to this historic building.

Motion Carried.

(iii)          2015/1499 Mr M Moat for planning permission to change the use of a former public house to a single residential dwelling (C3) at the former Dolphin Public House, 27 A18 Trunk Road, Althorpe, DN17 3HN.

The Chairman read out a letter received from the local MP Andrew Percy asking them to retain the much needed community asset, and not allow the owner to turn it into a dwelling.

An objector raised numerous concerns from residents in the community of Althorpe. In doing so he stated that some of the information provided in the officers report were inaccurate and misleading indicating that 225 letters of support had been received, although the vast majority were anonymous and without comment. He also mentioned that the viability report referred to in the planning documentation should have been made available for inspection to interested parties.  He assured the committee that the local community would support the pub and were keen to take it on as a business, however a community offer had previously been rejected.

The applicant felt that he had done everything necessary to make a success of this community pub, but along with a number of other public houses in the area the business was no longer viable.  He indicated that he had used an agent to sell the property who had set the price, and that there was other places available in the community where people could still meet and socialise including the village hall, the iron stone and working mens club.

Councillor Briggs addressed the committee as the local ward member and said the pub was the heart of the community and had an important role to play.  He also highlighted that the Government had just agreed to funding and support for local pubs during these difficult times which might be useful in the future for the success of this business.  He urged the committee to refuse this application and for the applicant to explore his options further.

Councillor Longcake stated that it appeared the applicant was already trying to turn the premises into a dwelling, and that for the time it should remain as a community asset in the form of a public house.

Moved by Councillor Longcake and seconded by Councillor Allcock that –

Planning permission be refused for the following reason:-

The proposal would result in the loss of the potential for a key village service to the detriment of the vitality of the local area. Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that a public house is no longer economically viable or that all options for its continuance have been explored. The loss of this facility is contrary to policy C2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, policy CS22 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy and paragraph 28 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Motion Carried.

(iv)         2015/1585 Mrs N Evans for planning permission for change of use of field from agriculture to keeping of horses, erection of stable and hay shed, and siting of a caravan at field south of land at junction of Common Middle Road with South Moor Road, Crowle.

The applicant stated that this was in open countryside, it was appropriate and compatible, and would not be lost to agricultural use because horses would still be kept on the land and the land could easily be returned to farming.

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

1730   (43) PLANNING APPLICATION PA/2015/1259 FOR A REPLACEMENT DWELLING AT WRESSLE HOUSE, BRIGG ROAD, BROUGHTON, WRESSLE, DN20 0BU – The chairman considered this item as a matter of urgency to allow the decision on the application PA/2015/1259 to be issued in a timely manner and secure redevelopment of the site.  At the previous Planning Committee held on 9 March 2016 the committee granted permission subject to various conditions and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement to secure the future use of the playground area within the site. (minute 1722 (iv) refers).

The committee was informed that it had become apparent that there was already in place an agreement between the owners of the site and Broughton Town Council that provided to some extent for the continued use of the playground area by the local community, therefore it was asked to reconsider whether a section 106 Agreement was necessary to secure the future use of the playground.

Resolved – That permission be issued as agreed by Planning Committee on 9 March 2016 with no requirement for a Section 106 agreement.

 

Reports