Planning Committee – 14 February 2018
Chair: Councillor N Sherwood
Venue: The Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Scunthorpe
Time: 2 pm
Email address: planningcommittee@northlincs.gov.
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 17 January 2018, as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.
4. Major Planning Application
5. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
6. Any other items, which the chairman decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances, which must be specified.
Note: All reports are by the Director: Operations unless otherwise stated.
MINUTES
PRESENT: – Councillor N Sherwood (Chairman) in the chair.
Councillors Ogg (Vice-Chairman), Ali, Bainbridge, Collinson, Glover, Kataria, Longcake, C Sherwood and Wells
Councillor(s) T Foster, Mumby-Croft, Poole, Rose and K.Vickers attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 37(b).
The committee met at Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.
1865 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) AND WHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS (IF ANY) – The following member declared a personal and prejudicial interest:-
| Member(s) | Minute | Application(s) | Nature of Interest |
| Councillor C Sherwood | 1868 (viii) | PA/2017/2031 | Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing |
The following member declared a personal interest –
| Member(s) | Minute | Application(s) | Nature of Interest |
| Councillor C Sherwood | 1868 (ix) | PA/2017/1717 | Knew the applicant |
The following members declared that they had been lobbied:-
| Member(s) | Application(s) | Minute |
| Councillor T Foster | PA/2017/1199 | 1867 (iv) |
| Councillor Glover | PA/2017/1691 | 1867 (v) |
| Councillor Mumby-Croft | PA/2017/1691 | 1867 (v) |
| Councillor Poole | PA/2017/1199 | 1867 (iv) |
| Councillor Rose | PA/2017/1963 | 1868 (vii) |
| Councillor C Sherwood | PA/2017/1038
PA/2017/1039 PA/2017/1041 |
1867 (i)
1867 (ii) 1867 (iii) |
| Councillor Wells | PA/2017/1199 | 1867 (iv) |
1866 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 17 January 2018, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Chairman.
1867 MAJOR APPLICATIONS – The Group Manager – Development Management submitted a report containing details of major applications for determination by the committee, including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications.
(i) PA/2017/1038 by Mr L Dodds, Bio Waste Solutions Limited for planning permission to vary condition 2 of WD/2014/0908 to vary site layout at Bio Waste Solutions, Bonby Lane, Bonby, DN20 0PJ.
The applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He informed members that following minor amendments to the application, the layout of the site had now been approved. The tanks and equipment on site had been re-arranged in order to satisfy the statutory consultees.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.
(ii) PA/2017/1039 by Mr L Dodds, Bio Waste Solutions Limited for planning permission to construct a fire water lagoon and soakaway in connection with AD Plant at Bio Waste Solutions, Bonby Lane, Bonby, DN20 0PJ.
The applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He informed members that the application would only use fine water, which was a requirement of Humberside Fire and Rescue Service. The applicant had ensured that the application had met all the requirements of the Environment Agency. The permit would only be used when the lagoon was to their satisfaction.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.
(iii) PA/2017/1041 by Mr L Dodds, Bio Waste Solutions Limited for planning permission to construct lagoon for storage of digestate in connection with AD Plant, and for erection of security fence and tree planting to eastern boundary and creation of overflow lorry parking area at Bio Waste Solutions, Bonby Lane, Bonby, DN20 0PJ.
The applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He informed members that there was constant traffic on the plant, which had reduced the level of traffic on the nearby public highway. A complaint about the odour from the site had since been withdrawn. Importantly, Environmental Health had no objection to the application.
Councillor C Sherwood, informed the committee that he was in agreement with the application. Local residents had previously suffered as a result of the odour emanating from a nearby site that was similar in nature to this application. However, so long as the applicant adhered to the planning conditions then a similar situation should not arise with this site.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.
(iv) PA/2017/1199 by Green Meadow Limited for outline planning application for up to 302 dwellings with public open space, including demolition of existing buildings, with all matters reserved except for access at RAF Kirton in Lindsey, B1400 from B1398 to B1205, Kirton in Lindsey, DN21 4HZ.
An objector addressed the committee. She informed the committee that her home was directly opposite the camp. The application was for 302 houses. If this application was granted, it, alongside other developments recently approved, would result in Kirton-in-Lindsey growing in size by 43 per cent. This application would place an unbearable strain on the towns’ infrastructure and facilities. Local schools were at full capacity. The local medical practice already had long waiting lists for appointments. This development would exacerbate the lack of parking in the town centre. The local highway infrastructure could not cope with any increase in daily vehicle movements. The application required the removal of many hedges, which was disappointing as they could help to minimise noise from the site. The local sewage infrastructure would also not be able to cope with an extra 302 houses.
The applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He informed members that the committee originally considered this application in December 2017. The planning officer’s report was very thorough and dealt with the many issues that the objector raised in her presentation. Following consultation with NHS England, it was now agreed what contribution the applicant would make towards local health services. In addition, the applicant had now agreed that land would be made available for community allotments. The planting of shrubs and all landscaping would be in keeping with the site. The applicant was also committed to investing in the local amenities, namely health, education and recreation.
Following the objector and the agent of the applicants’ presentation, the Group Manager – Development Management addressed the committee. He provided an update on the dialogue with NHS England, the location of the community allotments, parking in Kirton town centre and the need to amend the recommendation.
Councillor Poole, local ward member, thanked the council officers for proactively resolving the outstanding issues associated with the application. Local residents were concerned about the impact the development would have on the town of Kirton-in-Lindsey. 302 houses would dramatically increase the volume of traffic in the town. Therefore, the council must ensure that speed management strategies were implemented in the town to protect local residents. The agreement on the location of the community allotments was welcome. The recommendation should also be amended to ensure that any monies were invested in Kirton-in-Lindsey.
Councillor T Foster, local ward member, was pleased that the development was moving forward. However, he was disappointed that the Section 106 agreement was to provide less money than was originally included in the previous report considered by the committee. That being said, the agreement on the location of the community allotments was a positive step forward.
Councillor C Sherwood stated that he was in agreement with the comments made by the ward councillors. The council officers should be congratulated for resolving many of the outstanding issues.
Councillor Collinson acknowledged that many of his concerns had now been addressed. The reduction in the contribution to NHS England, however, was disappointing.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.
(v) PA/2017/1691 by Martin Flynn, JK Construction and Building Services Limited for planning permission to erect 10 new dwellings along with associated access and landscaping at Former School Playing Fields, High Street, Broughton.
An objector addressed the committee. He informed members that he owned the property that ran along the eastern boundary of the site. This application would have a detrimental impact on his property. The position of plot 9 would overlook his property and result in a loss of privacy. The land surrounding plot 9 was higher in elevation, which would result in his property being overlooked. The plot being rotated 30 degrees clockwise would address this. Plot 6 would be, were it built, touching the hedge. It should therefore be deleted from the application. The development would generate a lot of dust, which would need to be managed. Deliveries should only be made after 08:00 hours, as opposed to 07:00 hours.
The applicant stated that he already had planning permission for eight dwellings. The site was 21 hectares, and he believed that the land could be used better. There was no over development on the site. Paragraph 4.49 of the council’s Local Plan allowed for a mixture of properties in developments. The planning officer’s report stated that there had been significant public interest in the application. However, only four households had submitted representations. Such a small number of respondents was not significant. There were no objections submitted by the majority of statutory consultees. Indeed, the majority of statutory consultees had supported the application. This application was for low density mixture of housing.
Councillor Mumby-Croft, local ward member, informed members that local residents were concerned about the application. Particular concern to the villagers was the impact on the hedge and the potential for disruption caused by the construction, demolition and site clearance operations commencing at 07:00 hours.
Councillor Glover stated that he was against the development of playing fields for housing. He too agreed that 07:00 hours was too early for works to commence, with 08:00 being more acceptable.
Councillors Ogg and Collinson both agreed with the local ward members in that condition 12 should be amended so that work does not commence until 08:00 hours.
Councillor Bainbridge believed that the development was appropriate to the size and location of the site. There was no legitimate planning reason to refuse the application.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report with the amendment to condition 12 as follows:-
That construction, demolition and site clearance operations shall be limited to the following times on a Saturday – 8am – 1pm.
1868 PLANNING AND OTHER APPLICATIONS – The Group Manager – 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 Group Manager – Development Management updated the reports orally where appropriate. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.
(i) PA/2017/1440 by Mr P Wright for outline planning permission for erection of two bungalows with all matters reserved at land to the north of Ivy Cottage, King Edward Street, Belton.
An objector addressed the committee. He was concerned that the development would result in a loss of privacy, light and see his property being overlooked. The development would result in an increase in traffic, and a loss of wildlife. The land was, in his opinion, a greenfield site. The development would require him to close his blinds during daylight hours to ensure his privacy was maintained. The visibility splays were in accurate and misleading. Members would benefit from undertaking a site visit. The development was also in a flood risk area. The planning officer’s report stated that backland development was permissible so long as it did not create any adverse issues for neighbours. However, this development would create adverse issues, as had been mentioned previously so should not be passed, and urged the committee to visit the site to see it first hand.
The applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He informed members that neighbours and the parish council had raised concerns. The planning officer’s report confirmed that the application site was located within the development boundary. To leave the site vacant and not develop would make no sense. The application complied with policy H7 of the council’s Local Plan. The applicant had an acceptable relationship with the proprietor of Ivy Cottage. The development would not overlook nearby properties. Any trees and shrubs that had to be removed as part of the development would be replanted. The shared driveway could accommodate up to five properties. The application would not result in a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the tree. There had also been no objections from any statutory consultees.
Councillor C Sherwood referred to the concerns raised by the objector, particularly the access and egress to the site. However, this was an outline planning application, and any means of access would be covered in any subsequent application.
Councillor Ogg was concerned about the drainage on the site. Although conditions 6 and 10 went some way to addressing these issues, it would be appropriate for a Drainage Officer to oversee the implementation of these two conditions.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.
(ii) PA/2017/1777 by Mrs Teresa Mack for planning permission to retain brick wall at front and side boundary at 178 Scawby Road, Scawby Brook, DN20 9LE.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.
(iii) PA/2017/1875 by Mr Scott Smith for planning permission to erect extensions at Common Farm, Mosswood, Belton, DN17 4BZ.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.
(iv) PA/2017/1888 by Mr Coggon, Coggon Brothers Limited for outline planning permission to erect a dwelling with all matters reserved for subsequent approval at land between 43 – 51 North Street, West Butterwick.
The applicant’s agent addressed the committee, and respectfully asked that members grant the application.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.
(v) PA/2017/1891 by Rachel Coles for planning permission to replace the windows at the front of the property with black and white flush fit conservation style UPVC windows at Thornsett, Bigby Road, Brigg, DN20 8HN.
The applicant addressed the committee. She informed members that the property was purchased three years ago. Over that time, the property has been completely renovated. Unfortunately, the previous owners removed many period features at the property. Along the road, two similar style houses from the same period had exactly the same windows installed. They either were approved or have been installed without permission. The design of the windows was such that it would leave the property with an original look. The windows were exactly the same measurements as the existing ones, and were not bulky. They have a wood grain textured finish. The windows were made from an alternative material, which replicated the original timber design and were in keeping with the conservation style. It would not be apparent from the roadside that the windows were made from an alternative material.
Councillor C Sherwood confirmed that he drove along Bigby Road on a regular basis. He agreed with the applicant in that every house was different along the road and that he had no issue with the application.
Councillor Bainbridge admitted that she could not support the application. The council had conservation areas for a very specific reason. The committee should enforce the rules for what was permissible in a conservation area.
It was moved by Councillor C Sherwood and seconded by Councillor Wells –
That planning permission be granted, subject to the following conditions –
- The development must be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason
To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
- The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Drawing No. 2017/91/1 and Window Details Drawing No. 2017/1892/3.
Reason
For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
motion carried
(vi) PA/2017/1937 by Corcoran, The Money Box for advertisement consent to retain two non-illuminated fascia signs at 1 – 2 Market Place, Barton upon Humber, DN18 5DA.
Councillor K Vickers, local ward member addressed the committee. He suggested that the committee would benefit from viewing colour photographs of the two non-illuminated fascia signs as the black and white photos contained in the planning officer’s report did not, in his opinion, sufficiently show how visually intrusive the signs were. The signs were blue in colour and were not in keeping with the area. The planning officer’s recommendation should therefore be agreed.
Councillor C Sherwood admitted that he had no problem with the application. The business was entitled to advertise its location and the services it provided.
It was moved by Councillor N Sherwood and seconded by Councillor Wells –
That consideration of the application be deferred to allow the committee to view a colour photograph of the fascia signs.
Motion carried
(vii) PA/2017/1963 by Mr Steve Deeks, Absolute Children’s Services for planning permission to retain change of use from dwellinghouse (C3) to children’s home (C2) at The Old Barn, Owston Ferry Road, Low Burnham, Haxey, DN9 1DB.
An objector addressed the committee. He explained that Haxey was a small market town. The premises was located on a dangerous section of the A161. The site had no recreation facilities for its residents. The applicant had never had the appropriate planning permission for the change of use to non-residential. The business was to provide care to vulnerable children. Paragraph C2 of the council’s Local Plan stated that premises can include commercial use, so long as it did not change the character of the area. Neighbouring residents were all concerned about the planning application, particularly how it would affect their respective residential properties. One neighbouring property was less than two metres away from the application site. The application does not meet the requirements of the council’s Local Plan. It was not situated in a stable location and nothing had changed since the committee previously refused the application. The applicant subsequently appealed the decision to the Planning Inspector who, after considering all the evidence, dismissed the appeal. To grant the application now would set a precedent.
The applicant informed the committee that the Planning Inspector only dismissed the appeal due to the impact on the residents of Hall Farm. Vehicle movements were a concern, particularly at night. There had been no objection from the council’s Environmental Health department. To alleviate the concerns of local residents, it was proposed that shift patterns of employees working at the premises would be changed so that there was no late night traffic movements.
The last shift change would be 21:00 hours, before the next shift started at 08:00 hours. A parking management plan had also been prepared, with a maximum vehicle movement of one per day.
Local residents at Hall Farm had not objected to this application. The planning officer had included a number of conditions which if granted would be attached to the permission. The facility was much needed and would be a highly regarded business.
Councillor Rose, local ward member, informed the committee that the Planning Inspector had, on two occasions, dismissed appeals by the applicant against the refusal to grant permission for the children’s home. Local residents were frustrated that the application had again been re-submitted. The applicant had been operating without planning permission at the site since 2015. Local people had objected on each occasion the application has been submitted. It was disappointing that the council had not proactively undertaken enforcement action at the premises. The property was not suitable to provide this type of service as it had no facilities on site. Local residents were already suffering from noise and disturbance from activities at the property, which was having a detrimental effect on the quality of life of neighbouring homeowners. The application was contrary to Local Plan policies H16 and DS1, and policies CS1, CS2 and CS5 of the council’s Core Strategy. Therefore, the application should be refused.
Councillor C Sherwood referred to the decision of the Planning Inspector, on two separate occasions, to dismiss the applicants appeal. Whilst the applicant had resolved the issue surrounding the shift patterns of employees, nothing else had changed. It was inevitable that, as the property was a place of employment, there would be vehicle movements on a daily basis. He also agreed with Councillor Rose in that the application was contrary to Local Plan policies H16 and DS1, and policies CS1, CS2 and CS5 of the council’s Core Strategy.
Councillor Collinson expressed his concern that the premises was trading without planning permission, and suggested that the Group Manager – Development Management, investigate this matter.
It was then moved by Councillor C Sherwood and seconded by Councillor Glover –
That planning permission be refused on the following grounds –
The retention of the facility, which is not located in the Scunthorpe and Bottesford urban area, Barton upon Humber or Brigg, represents an unsustainable use as it is not readily accessible to schools or other local facilities. Furthermore, the proposal will have an adverse impact on the character of the area by the introduction of a commercial enterprise in an area which is predominantly residential in character and is considered to be detrimental to residential amenity through noise and disturbance. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the provisions of policies H16 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, policies CS1, CS2 and CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy and guidance contained within the Interim Planning Policy for Residential Care Homes/Institutions.
Motion carried
(Cllr C Sherwood having declared a personal and prejudicial interest left the meeting prior to consideration of the following item – Minute 1868 (viii) refers).
(viii) PA/2017/2031 by Miss Sandra Simmons, North Lincolnshire Council for planning permission to erect a single-storey extension for a new Wellbeing Hub and associated works at Baysgarth Leisure Centre, Brigg Road, Barton upon Humber, DN18 5DT.
The Group Manager – Development Management updated the committee, stating that following the publication of the committee agenda formal comments where received from the Town Council, Environmental Health Officer and several additional objections from residents. The objections from the Town Council and additional residents were discussed and the Group Manager – Development Management confirmed that the issues had been addressed within the officer’s report. The Environmental Health response requested the inclusion of an additional condition. Clarification was also provided in relation to the inclusion of two further conditions.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report together with the additional conditions proposed.
(At this stage of proceedings, Councillor C Sherwood returned to the meeting).
(ix) PA/2017/1717 by Mr and Mrs Evison for planning permission to erect a single storey eco dwelling with attached double garage.
The Group Manager – Development Management updated the committee on the reasons for reference to committee. The reasons should of also included that the proposed development is a ‘Departure from the Development Plan’.
The applicant addressed the committee. He informed members that the proposed development was half the size of the existing property. Now that he and his wife had retired, they wanted a more manageable property, without having to leave the village they love. The proposed property adhered to the eco principles that they both practiced. The property would not be visible from the road and would have no adverse impact on the street scene or the area. Elsham had excellent transport links, which would make the delivery of the raw materials much easier to manage.
Councillor Bainbridge questioned whether the property was actually an eco-house. The committee’s role was not to allow homeowners to downsize their property just so they did not have to move from their existing location. Of particular concern was drainage issues, in particular ground water runoff. Therefore, she could not support the application.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the inclusion of the following condition:
- No development shall take place until a method statement for excavation within the vicinity of a chalk cutting and springs, and possible mitigation works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason
To prevent the increased risk of flooding to themselves and others, in accordance with policy DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and policies CS18 and CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.