Planning Committee – 12 May 2020

Chairman:  Councillor N Sherwood
Venue:  Virtual Meeting Microsoft Teams
Time:   2.00 pm
Email address: planningcommittee@northlincs.gov.uk

Watch this meeting live

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 11 March 2020 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.  Tree Preservation (Prospect Lane, Alkborough) Order 2019.
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 Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control unless otherwise stated.

MINUTES

PRESENT:-  Councillor N Sherwood (Chair)

Councillors Evison (Vice-Chairman), Bainbridge, J Davison, Grant

Councillors L Foster, Ogg, Rowson, Marper and Waltham MBE, attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 37(b).

This was a Microsoft Teams Virtual Online Meeting

Councillor N Sherwood informed the meeting that he would like to begin the meeting with a minute silence for Councillor Longcake who had sadly passed away and was a former member of the committee.

2012   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 a personal interest:-

Councillor N Sherwood
Minute  2015(iii)   Application PA/2019/1984

Councillor R Ogg
Minute 2017   Application Tree Preservation Order

Councillor H Rowson
Minute  2014(i)  Application PA/2020/103;
Minute  2014(ii)  Application PA/2020/324

The following members declared that they had been lobbied:-

Councillor N Sherwood
Minute 2015 (vii) Application PA/2020/53

Councillor R Ogg
Application PA/2020/103 Minute 2014(i)
Application PA/2019/2009 Minute 2015(vi)
Application PA/2020/324 Minute 2014(ii)

Councillor H Rowson
Application  PA/2020/103 Minute 2014(i)
Application PA/2020/324 Minute 2014(ii)

Councillor E Marper
Application PA/2020/103 Minute 2014(i)
Application PA/2020/324 Minute 2014(ii)

Councillor J Davison
Application PA/2020/53 Minute 2015(vii)

Councillor J Evison
Application PA/2020/53 Minute 2015(vii)

2013   MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 11 March 2020, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Chairman.

2014   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/2020/103 by KCS Developments Ltd for Outline planning permission to erect 55 dwellings, including drainage infrastructure, public open space and associated landscaping, with appearance and scale reserved for subsequent consideration at land to the east of High Burgage, Winteringham.

There were three objectors speaking against the application.  Their main concerns and objections covered the following areas

The proposed development was outside the development boundary and sat on grade 2 agricultural land.  Repeated flooding of sewerage in low lying areas of Wintertingham during heavy rain occurs. Winteringham waste treatment centre was at capacity and would not meet the needs of this development or the development at Winterton.

A 12% increase in housing stock was too demanding for local services and amenities to accommodate.

There was no evidence to support demand for such housing density. The proposed development being urbanising in nature was not sympathetic to the local style, character and history and would have a negative visual dominance on the approach to the village.

Winteringham did not appear in the current development plan nor was it is mentioned in the preferred options for the future plan.

It would would increase carbon footprint of the area with 110 additional cars commuting to work outside the village.

The site was home to local and migrating wildlife.

The development was therefore contrary to so many policies.   Winteringham was a minimal growth settlement.

The applicant addressed the committee and referred to the previous application submitted for this development and made reference in particular to the two reasons for refusal.  The reasons for refusal have now been looked at and changes had been made that are acceptable in particular in relation to landscaping.

The Chairman read out a letter to the committee from Andrew Percy MP stating he had received a number of comments from concerned residents concerning this application and the impact of  what a permitted development of this size would have on the village.  Unacceptable development outside the current development boundary given that the council already adopted a local plan which considered the potential for the development in Winteringham and concluded that the scope of the development didn’t exist  It would be seen to be contrary to the evidence and views of local plan to permit development of this design and scale.

Reference was made to a similar application that was refused and went to appeal and the committee decision was upheld.

There were a great number of other concerns raised by local residents including drainage, highways, local impact, scale and size and urged the committee to listen to views of local residents.

Councillor Ogg as the local ward member expressed his concerns and informed the committee of sewerage issues at High Burgage and Ferry Lane for a number of years and pointed out that the proposed development would put more pressure on this system, causing more problems in the future.  Surface water was also a problem within that field, that field has been flooded two years in the last five years.  There was no extra capacity for surface water. That system is not adequate to cope with extra amount of water that would potentially come from this site.

Councillor Marper as local ward member expressed concern the development would have a negative impact on local amenities, the school, highway structure, agriculture, drainage and detrimental effect on the conservation area.  The application therefore being unsustainable.  Over development on a rural landscape, have an urbanization affect and totally detrimental to the open character and appearance of this village.

Councillor Rowson as local ward member indicated there was nothing different to the previous application that was refused.  The proposal was outside the development limits of Winteringham, in open countryside and if allowed this development of 55 dwellings would significantly urbanize the small rural village.  The previous application was not refused because of lack of 5 year land supply it was refused because it was contrary to policies.

Councillor Bainbridge said she understood the concerns that were being expressed by the villagers and by the local councillors and indicated this application had more merit and that there were clear benefits with a wide range and types of housing to meet the needs of young people i.e. affordable housing and two and three bedroom properties.  The density of the application had been reduced that is an advantage, also some of the landscaping issues have been addressed.  Councillor Bainbridge also referred to the issue of the 5 year land supply.

Councillor Grant referred to the 5 year land supply.  He expressed concern that the proposed development would be outside the development boundary.

Councillor J Davison indicated the application had only bounced back because of the 5 year land supply.  He felt it was being brought back to committee due to this and it was not a good enough reason so happy to second refusal.

The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control provided an update to the committee.

Councillor Grant stated that just because there was no specific 5 year land supply, it could not be said that all the other policies were out of date, as they were not necessarily out of date.

Councillor Evison – agreed to a large extent with Councillor Grant, that there should be reference to two thirds of the development, if not three quarters of it being outside the development boundary.

It was moved by Cllr Evison and seconded by Councillor J Davison –

That planning permission be refused in accordance with the recommendations contained in the officers report, with the following addition:

1.
The proposed development is contrary to policies RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and CS2, CS3 and CS8 of the adopted Core Strategy, in that the site is located outside of a defined settlement boundary and is not for specific purposes associated with a rural location, which include agriculture, forestry or to meet a special need associated with the countryside.

2.
The proposed development, by virtue of its location outside the defined settlement boundary for Winteringham and the scale of development proposed (55 dwellings), is considered to have a significant urbanising effect on the southern edge of the settlement by introducing a significant level of built form into the rural landscape, to the detriment of its open character and appearance. Therefore, the development is considered contrary to policies RD2, H5, and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and CS5 and CS8 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Motion Carried.

(ii)      PA/2020/324 by Mr Matt Smith, Gleeson Regeneration Ltd for planning permission to erect 110 dwellings, including associated works at  land east of Top Road, Winterton

A representative of the applicant addressed the committee and highlighted that the company specialise in the provision of entry level housing aimed at first time buyers giving customers at the lower end of the housing market the chance to afford to buy their own homes. He stated that the company was currently developing 70 sites across the North of England to do that.  This proposal was for the development of 110 of such homes. Special care was taken in ensure selling prices are affordable to first time buyers who were generally under 35 year olds.  Details of the scheme was outlined with benefits to key workers, low cost homeowner and community schemes.

Councillor Rowson as local ward member expressed main concerns of highway safety.  The 1077 was a fast thoroughfare and felt a roundabout would alleviate these concerns.  There was adequate agricultural land at either side of Thealby Hill to make provision and urged the committee to make this a condition.  Ward councillors were worried that if this development was granted highway safety would be compromised.  Previously the proposed access arrangement was refused due to exasperating existing highway safety concerns putting existing and future users at risk and is contrary to policies T2 and H5.  Also concern about surface and foul drainage disposal with Winteringham Water Treatment works had no capacity.  Consider ward councillors concerns especially compromising the highway safety.

Councillor Bainbridge stated there was a valid point about having a roundabout and putting that in the conditions but had concerns that there was no support with this from highways and asked how could this be implemented.  She would like highways to explain what their reasons were why a roundabout on that stretch of road would not be acceptable.

Councillor Grant asked officers to clarify if the authority had an adopted target to deliver 754 dwellings per annum up to 2026 which was based upon objectively assessed need’.  His understanding was it was around the 400 mark and would like this point clarified in order to support the application.

The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control provided an update to the committee in relation to the clarification sought by Councillor Grant.  He also updated the committee with reference to the provision of a roundabout.

A member of the highways team also updated the committee in relation to Cllr Bainbridge’s question and was now happy with the inclusion of a 30 mph extension speed limit northwards to address any speeding issues with highways to be kept under review.

Resolved – The permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the officer’s report.

2015    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 Head of Development Management updated the reports orally where appropriate.  Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

(i)  PA/2019/1433 by Mann for planning permission to erect a dwelling and detached garage, including associated works at land to the rear of Homenook, Nethergate, Westwoodside, DN9 2DL

An agent spoke on behalf of the applicant and made reference to the previous application and the two objections made.  A more rural amended design had now been prepared and was supported by the historic environment officer.  Reference was also made to previous comments by Councillor Grant that the development was partly outside the development line but stated this was only for a single storey extension to the rear of the dwelling.

Councillor Evison referred to the previous application and was now happy that the previous application reasons for refusal had been addressed and therefore was mindful to move the officer recommendation and grant permission subject to conditions.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the officer’s report.

(ii)  PA/2019/1608 by Mr Carney for planning permission to change the use of land to the sale of cars, including the siting of a sales office at vacant land on Sandtoft Industrial Estate, Belton

An objector raised concerns about the proposed development particularly regarding the fact that it was directly behind the gardens of several residential properties.  He stated that the land was originally a buffer from the industrial estate and by allowing this development for commercial use would obviously  make the area quite busy with traffic and everything else.

The applicant stated that this development would greatly benefit the area as the site had previously been used as a dumping ground, including a toilet by lorry drivers and by changing its use would greatly benefit the whole community and would eradicate all current problems.

Councillor Evison pointed out this application was a change of use.  He stated he was familiar with the area and it was a mess.  He referred to the acoustic barrier, as detailed in the report, is quite substantial so was happy to move the recommendation.

Councillor Grant stated he was quite happy to support the application.

Councillor Bainbridge stated the development would be a very good use of the piece of land and was in keeping with the area as it was on the edge of the industrial estate.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the officer’s report.

(iii)  PA/2019/1804 by Mr & Mrs McConachie for planning permission to erect a detached three-bedroomed bungalow and four semi-detached bungalows with shared private drive (including demolition of existing bungalow) at The Sycamores, Battle Green, Epworth, DN9 1JT

An objector, the owner of the property adjacent to the proposed development, raised concerns about the over development of a relatively modest plot and the impact it would have on residential amenity, privacy and highway safety.

In particular, in addition to the over development the provision of a private drive, serving 5 dwellings, that would run the entire southern boundary of her property and would have a significant impact causing loss of privacy and enjoyment of the private rear living and garden space.  At outline planning stage, it was acknowledged that, significant traffic along that private road would cause an impingement of residential amenity.

The Town Council had requested a site visit and the objector would welcome this.  The additional vehicles using this already congested junction would have a significant impact as this was an area where there are cars parks on the street as there is very little off street parking.

An agent on behalf of the applicant stated there was a need for this type of housing in North Lincolnshire in order to meet specific needs.  The application was within the settlement boundary of Epworth as identified by the housing and employment allocations and already benefitted from outline planning permission.  It was within the highly sustainable area of Epworth and complied with policy CS1 of the Core Strategy.  The site sat fully within the flood zone which was the most desirable location for potential development, and noted there were no objections from statutory bodies.  The design solutions ensured acceptable levels of amenity impact which complied with policy DS1, DS11 of the Local Plan in particular being single storey.  Issues with overlooking and overshadowing had been addressed within the design.

Regarding traffic congestion issues raised the by Town Council the site had been assessed by highway officers and they had raised no objection and had advised conditions.

The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control gave an update on the application regarding an additional condition to secure the submission and implementation of a surface water drainage scheme.

Resolved –  That planning permission be granted with the following additional conditions:

11.
No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development. The drainage scheme shall demonstrate that surface water run-off generated up to and including the 1 in 100 year critical storm (including allowance for climate change) will not exceed the run-off from the existing site. It shall also include details of how the scheme will be maintained and managed for the lifetime of the development. SuDS must be considered. Should infiltration not be feasible, alternative sustainable drainage measures should be used, focusing on above ground solutions.

Reason
To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, and to ensure the implementation and future maintenance of the drainage structures in accordance with policy DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, policies CS18 and CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and paragraphs 155, 157, 163 and 165 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

12.
The surface water drainage scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details, completed prior to the occupation of any dwelling on site, and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the scheme for the life of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

Reason
To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, and to ensure the implementation and future maintenance of the drainage structures in accordance with policy DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, policies CS18 and CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and paragraphs 155, 157, 163 and 165 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

13.
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 and thereafter so retained.

Reason
In the interest of highway safety and to comply with policy T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, policies CS18 and CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and paragraph 163 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(iv)  PA/2019/1984 by Mr Keith Simpson for planning permission to erect six semi-detached dwellings, following the demolition of existing buildings, including associated works at The Haymaker, 75 Main Street, Bonby, DN20 0PY

An objector raised a number of concerns on the proposed dwellings in relation to the size of the site that it was excessive, it represented a density level of 50 dwellings per hectare as opposed to a more appropriate level for rural settlements of 30/35 as outlined in the NL Development Framework Core Strategy SC7.  The proposed design was not in keeping with a small rural village.  The six 2½ storey town houses with rear facing balconies were an invasion on the privacy of the properties it would overlook.

Sufficient evidence had not been put forward to show the village pub was not viable therefore should remain as a valuable community asset.

The objector and many residents also raised concerns for the number of parking spaces allocated, for this type of development, as the site was located in a busy section of the village (on a blind bend, opposite a busy working farm and a Post Office) and any additional on street parking requirement created by this development would result in this area being a danger to the community.

An agent on behalf of the applicant addressed the committee and gave an outline of the exhaustive attempts made by the applicants, over several years, for the continued use of the Haymaker as a valuable community asset.  In support of the application for a residential development the agent stated this location was within the settlement boundary and was an acceptable proposal in layout and scale.

Councillor Waltham MBE as local ward member indicated that this application was not befitting the sustainability of the village and there was no evidence of market need.  Previously when market need had been assessed in this area it had been met.  There had been a number of other applications of committed sites in the proximity that more than meet the requirement.  Also he supported the view that the density of the proposal would be unacceptable.  Bonby has had an increased housing development but had little in the way of public amenities so to build a sustainable village the view from himself and many residents the Haymaker should be brought back into profitable use as there was a need for the presence of a public amenity.

Councillor J Davison stated the business could be viable as there was very little by way of public amenity in the area and strongly agree with Councillor Waltham’s views the proposal was over development and felt the officer’s recommendation on this application was valid and supported refusal.

Resolved – That planning permission be refused in accordance with the officer’s recommendations contained within the report.

(v)  PA/2019/1985 by Mrs Jayne Dealtry for planning permission to erect a two-storey detached dwelling at Sandhill Cottage, Whins Gate, Eastoft, DN14 8EB

The applicant’s agent addressed the committee and referred to the scale and size of the proposed dwelling.  He pointed out the existing dwelling stands derelict with overgrown vegetation and was quite small in size.  The replacement dwelling is a modest proposal for a traditional family home especially given the expansive site and only a 27% increase in the present volume.  The application is fully supported by all consultees, the Environment Agency have been consulted, the flood risk assessment was considered a betterment and there were no drainage objections.  There was no overlooking or overbearing issues as there is a very large separation with neighbours.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the officer’s report.

(vi)   PA/2019/2009 by Mr A Hubbard for planning permission to erect a replacement dwelling and additional garage (following the demolition of existing dwelling), including associated works at Roseneath, 18 Low Burgage, Winteringham, DN15 9PF.

The applicant addressed the committee and stated the present dwelling had been neglected for many years, the building condition survey confirms this.  The property was in a very poor state of repair, needing structural, remedial and cosmetic work to make it fit for habitation and was wholly beyond viable repair.  A Heritage Impact Assessment concluded that its contribution to the conservation area is negligible.  To demonstrate this the proposal was based on a robust appraisal of costs, values and detailed heritage assessment.  The parish council was in favour of the application although had raised concerns as did a neighbour of the height of the proposal, these concerns had been addressed.  Its position on the street front made a positive contribution and the proposal maintains this.  The proposal would have a positive addition to the street screen and the conservation area.

Councillor Ogg addressed the commit as a ward member.  He stated that although initially he had concerns as did one or two neighbours but having now looked at the building and its state of deterioration and to avoid the property falling further into disrepair would like to grant permission but with a condition which would protect No. 16 regarding issues with removing a wall.

Councillor Evison said based on his knowledge of the poor condition of properties in this area he agreed with Councillor Ogg and was minded to grant permission for the proposal.  It was a complimentary design.  He had an understanding of the concern of the roof height and was happy with this issue.

Councillor Bainbridge was happy to second proposal although did not like to see heritage assets go agrees there is a valid case to grant permission for this application.

The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control advised members that there were a number of conditions recommended by consultees attached to the approval.  The suggestion by members of an additional condition regarding protecting the adjacent property during works, these were structural issues, and would be dealt with through the building regulations process.

It was moved by Cllr Evison and seconded by Cllr Bainbridge:

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the following conditions:

1.
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.

2.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 221 1002 and 221 1003.

Reason
For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.
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.

4.
Within six months of the building works being completed on the replacement dwelling hereby approved, the footway fronting the site shall be resurfaced in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall take place in accordance with the agreed details and shall thereafter be retained.

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

5.
Unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until parts 1 to 4 below have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the local planning authority in writing until part 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

Part 1: Site Characteristics

A Phase 1 desk study shall be carried out to identify and evaluate all potential sources of contamination and the impacts on land and/or controlled waters, relevant to the site. The desk study shall establish a ‘conceptual model’ of the site and identify all plausible pollutant linkages. Furthermore, the assessment shall set objectives for intrusive site investigation works/Quantitative Risk Assessment (or state if none required). Two full copies of the desk study and a non-technical summary shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval prior to proceeding to further site investigation. An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. The report of the findings must include:

(i)       a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;

(ii)      an assessment of the potential risks to:

–        human health;

–        property (existing or proposed), including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland, and service lines and pipes;

–        adjoining land;

–        groundwaters and surface waters;

–        ecological systems;

–        archaeological sites; and

–        ancient monuments;

(iii)     an appraisal of remedial options, and a proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

Part 2: Submission of Remediation Scheme

A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

Part 3: Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme

The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The local planning authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority.

Part 4: Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved  development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the local planning authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Part 1, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Part 2, which is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority in accordance with Part 3.

Reason
To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off-site receptors in accordance with policy DS7 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

6.
The development permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, ‘Flood Risk Assessment in support of full application for the demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling’ (undated). In particular:

–        finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 300 millimetres above existing ground level; and

–        flood resistant construction shall be incorporated as described.

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and shall subsequently remain in place.

Reason
To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and its future occupants, and to prevent the risk of flooding elsewhere, in accordance with policies DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and CS19 of the adopted Core Strategy.

7.
‘The development hereby permitted shall take place in strict accordance with the Precautionary Working Measures as set out in Appendix 1 of the Protected Species Survey produced by CBE Consulting dated 29 November 2019 and these shall be adhered to during all demolition, vegetation clearance and construction works.’

Reason
To conserve biodiversity in accordance with saved policy LC5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and policy CS17 of the Core Strategy.

8.
Within three months of the commencement of development, the applicant, or their successor in title, shall submit a biodiversity management plan to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The plan shall include:

(a)      details of bat roosting features to be installed;

(b)      details of nesting sites to be installed to support house sparrows;

(c)      restrictions on lighting to avoid impacts on bat roosts, bat foraging areas, bird nesting sites and sensitive habitats;

(d)      provision for hedgehogs to pass through any fencing installed between gardens and between areas of grassland;

(e)      prescriptions for the planting and aftercare of native trees and shrubs of high biodiversity value;

(f) proposed timings for the above works in relation to the completion of the building.

Reason
To conserve biodiversity in accordance with saved policy LC5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and policy CS17 of the Core Strategy.

9.
The biodiversity management plan and species protection plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timings, and the approved features shall be retained thereafter, unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority. The applicant, or their successor in title, shall submit photographs of the installed bat roosting and bird nesting features, within two weeks of installation, as evidence of compliance with this condition.

Reason
To conserve biodiversity in accordance with saved policy LC5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and policy CS17 of the Core Strategy.

Motion Carried.

(vii)  PA/2020/53 by Miss Isla Bowman, Persimmon Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd for planning permission to form a lay-by and retain foul and surface water pumping station, including associated infrastructure at land west of Scotter Road, Scunthorpe.

An agent on behalf of the applicant addressed the committee and outlined the history of this site and addressed the concerns relating to access to the pumping station.  It was proposed forming a layby would improve highway safety by reducing the risk of using the highway network, and would not require any traffic measures to be put into the carriageway therefore being low risk to highway users.  This would enable service vehicles to pull clear of Scotter Road and access the site safely.  He also pointed out service vehicles only visit the site five times a year or in an emergency.

Councillor L Foster addressed the committee as ward member and stated his concerns for the construction and installation of this pumping station and the fact that it had now been given deemed consent.  His further concerns were now the future proposed service arrangements for the pumping station.  The proposal was going to cause a hazard, its on a major access and egress road to Scunthorpe.  The proposal to build the layby and access and egress it from the south side only was absolutely unenforceable and the Humberside Police had raised concerns  and raised the question regarding an alternative access.

Councillor Grant agreed with Councillor L Foster and asked if there was another alternative option to the proposal before making a decision on the application.

The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control stated this was the proposal that has been put to the committee and had to be determined on its merits.  He stated he was not privy to land ownership details and whether there may be another route that could be used to gain access to the pumping station.

Councillor L Foster referred members to the objection letters, objectors were offering an alternative access point, it was available, there was an alternative to the proposed layby scenario.

Councillor J Davison indicated he would like to defer the application to investigate other options before the committee made a decision, the other members of the committee were in agreement.

Resolved – That the application be deferred for the applicant to consider alternative options.

(viii)  PA/2020/92 by Dorritt for planning permission to erect single-storey side and rear extension following demolition of existing garage at 27 The Rowans, Westwoodside, DN9 2PQ

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the officer’s report.

2016   APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS FOLLOWING THE GRANT OF OUTLINE PERMISSION FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE – The Group Manager  Development Management and Building Control submitted a report outlining an application for reserved matters.

(i)  PA/2020/181 by Mr David Tennant, Bluebell Homes Ltd for application for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) pursuant to outline planning permission PA/2018/1327 dated 04/10/2018 to erect a detached chalet bungalow at land adjacent to 20 Vinehall Road, Haxey, DN9 2HU.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the officer’s report.

2017   CONFIRMATION OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (PROSPECT LANE, ALKBOROUGH) ORDER 2019 – A report was submitted seeking the committee to consider whether to confirm a tree preservation order at Prospect Lane, Alkborough.

Resolved – That the Order be confirmed.