Planning Committee – 10 January 2003
PRESENT: – Councillor Ellis in the chair.
Councillors Todd (vice-chair), Holgate, Long, Rocks, Mrs Simpson, Whiteley, Wardle and Wood
Councillor Mrs Bromby attended the meeting under the provisions of Procedure Rule 38(b).
The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.
DECLARATIONS OF PREJUDICIAL AND NON-PREJUDICIAL PERSONAL INTERESTS AND DECLARATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) – The following members declared a non-prejudicial interest in the following matters:
|Member||Minute No||Subject and Nature of Interest|
|Councillor Holgate||315(iii)||Application 02/1603 (Knew applicant)|
|Councillor Long||315(iii)||Application 02/1603 (Knew applicant)|
|Councillor Wardle||315(iii)||Application 02/1603 (Knew applicant)|
|Councillor Wood||315(iii)||Application 02/1603 (Knew applicant)|
|Councillor Whiteley||315(i)||Application 02/1529 (Member of Bottesford Town Council)|
|Councillor Whiteley||316 (ii)||Application 02/1536 (Member of Bottesford Town Council)|
|Councillor Whiteley||315 (iv)||Application 02/1618 (Member of Bottesford Town Council)|
313 REQUESTS TO SPEAK – PROCEDURE RULE 36(e) – It was reported that five requests to speak had been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 36(e). The chair stated that the speakers would be able to address the committee prior to consideration of the respective items.
314 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 13 December 2002, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.
315 (59) PLANNING APPLICATIONS – The Director of Environment and Public Protection 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. Officers updated the schedule orally in respect of late representations and other significant developments since its preparation.
Resolved – That the following applications be approved in accordance with the recommendations contained in the reports.
(i) 02/1529 by Mr D Williams for the erection of a single and two – storey extension to a dwelling and conversion of a covered way into a dining room at 13 Holme Lane, Bottesford.
(ii) 02/1552 by Mr and Mrs J Callaghan for the demolition of an existing single -storey section of house and addition of extensions to accommodate breakfast room, utility room, snooker room and double garage on ground floor with loft room and three additional bedrooms on first floor at 7 The Avenue, Burton -upon – Stather
(Note: Prior to consideration of this application, an objector and a representative of the applicants addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).
The objector stated that he was concerned at the scale of the proposed building. He considered that the extension would be too large and would adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring properties. It would have an overbearing effect on the area and would cause a loss of privacy and view. The existing dwelling was on a large plot and therefore it would be possible to site the extension to the south of the plot. This would be acceptable.
The applicants’ representative accepted that the existing property and the proposed extension were both quite large. However, they were not visible from the highway. The proposed siting in the north – eastern corner of the site was the best option. The effect on neighbouring properties had been considered and there would be no loss of light or amenity to those properties.
Before either party spoke, the Director of Environment and Public Protection amended his report to correct some figures relating to distances from neighbouring properties. Whilst the figures in the report were inaccurate, the corrected figures did not change his assessment of the application, as this had been undertaken on the basis of detailed, scaled drawings. The Director said that the applicants’ architect had produced supporting information which showed that the proposal met the criteria contained in Supplementary Planning Guidance which had been used in the assessment of the proposal.)
(iii) 02/1603 by D M Stewart MBE for planning permission to retain a replacement agricultural building at Hollytree Farm, Sandtoft Road, Epworth.
(subject to a condition requiring that the building be used for agricultural use only and not for any other purpose)
(The Director of Environment and Public Protection updated the report in respect of additional correspondence received from the applicant’s agent and from an objector.)
(Councillor Rocks wished to be recorded as dissenting from the above decision (Minute 315 (iii))
(iv) 02/1618 by Mr and Mrs D Capes for the erection of a single – storey domestic extension at 12 Brankwell Crescent, Bottesford.
(v) 02/1653 by Mr M Robinson for the erection of aground floor extension to a dwelling at 10 Furlong Croft, Epworth.
316 Resolved – That the following applications be refused in accordance with the recommendations contained in the reports
(i) 02/1189 by Mrs Tsang for advertisement consent to display a static internally illuminated shop sign at 42 Wrawby Street, Brigg.
(ii) 02/1536 by Mr E Bilge for change of use of an off – licence to a pizza/kebab takeaway at 45 Holme Hall Avenue, Bottesford.
(Note: Prior to consideration of this application, a representative of the applicant addressed the committee under the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). She stated that it was difficult to attract tenants to the parade of shops. The only objections had come from a rival business. The objections made by the Town Council were not relevant planning considerations. Other takeaways had been approved elsewher in Bottesford, for example in Eton Court.
The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that there were already two takeaway food outlets here, and, in his opinion, a further takeaway at this location would have an adverse effect on nearby properties. The site was much closer to residential properties than the takeaways in Eton Court referred to by the supporter.
Councillor Mrs Bromby, attending the meeting under the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b), addressed the committee. She objected to the proposal on the basis that it would excacerbate existing problems with groups of youths congregating. The empty part of the parade was an eyesore and the proposal would make it worse.
317 Resolved – That consideration of the following applications be deferred until the next meeting and that members visit the site prior to the meeting.
(i) 02/1439 by SPI NDT Ltd for the erection of a detached house with conservatory and a detached double garage on Plot 3, land off Vicarage Lane, Scawby.
(Note: Prior to consideration of the above application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He welcomed the amendments that had been made to the application but considered that the proposed house would be too close to his own property and would cause him a loss of privacy. The house would be better situated in the north -west corner of the site.)
(ii) 02/1597 by Miss H Thornton for the erection of an extension and making of alterations to an existing barn to form living accommodation and the construction of new stables at Slate House Farm, Crowle Road, Eastoft.
(Note: Prior to consideration of the above application, the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). She stated that the removal of breezeblock stables from the site would improve the appearance of the area. The proposed extension would match the appearance and character of the existing barn.
The Director of Environment and Public Protection reminded members that the policy on residential properties in rural areas was restrictive. There had to be exceptional reasons to allow this, for example if the existing building on a site was of architectural merit and suitable for conversion. This was a small barn with attached stables and was of little intrinsic architectural merit.
Members, however, felt that they should see the existing buildings before determining the application).
318 (60) TEMPORARY TREE PRESERVATION (LAND AT AND ADJACENT TO 34 STATHER ROAD) ORDER 2002 – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report inviting members to consider whether to confirm this Order. He updated the report by advising that as six months had now elapsed since the temporary order had been made this was not now possible. The committee could, however, make a further order in relation to some or all of the trees on the site, if it felt that there was any threat to the trees. He reported that, following negotiations with the land owner, the trees were now under sound aboricultural management and therefore he did not consider that they were now under threat.
Resolved – That no further order be made as there is currently no threat to the trees on this land.
319 (61) PROPOSED DIVERSION OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH 177, FLIXBOROUGH – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report seeking approval to divert part of this public footpath.
The present section of footpath was temporarily closed to ensure public safety during ongoing work by the council’s Land Reclamation Team, This work would continue for a further five years. The proposed route would enable the path to remain open and usable.
Recommended to Council – (a) that an order be made to divert Public Footpath 177 Flixborough in accordance with Appendix 1 to the report; (b) that, in the event that the order is unopposed, the Director of Environment and Public Protection be authorised to confirm and certify the order; (c) that two further orders be made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the County of Lincoln – Parts of Lindsey (Glanford Brigg) Definitive Map and Statement by adding the new line of the path and deleting the line it replaces; (d) that the Director of Environment and Public Protection be authorised to take appropriate action to secure the removal of existing obstructions before the diversion takes effect, and (d) that, in the event that an objection to the order is received, a further report be submitted to the committee.