northlincs.gov.uk

PRESENT: – Councillor Ellis in the chair.

Councillors Todd (vice-chair), Holgate, Long, Rocks, Mrs Simpson, Whiteley, Wardle and Wood

Councillors Mrs Redfern, Regan, Stewart and Swift attended the meeting under the provisions of Procedure Rule 38(b).

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

294 DECLARATIONS OF PREJUDICIAL AND NON-PREJUDICIAL PERSONAL INTERESTS AND DECLARATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) – The following member declared a non-prejudicial interest in the following matter

Member	Minute No	Subject and Nature of Interest
Councillor Whiteley	299 (x)	Application 02/1460 (Member of Bottesford Town Council)

295 REQUESTS TO SPEAK – PROCEDURE RULE 36(e) – It was reported that nineteen 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.

296 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 15 November 2002, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.

297 APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken site visits earlier in the day. The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted reports and updated them orally.

(48) 02/0592 by Mrs T M Nason for the retention of livery stables and riding school at Skyers Farm, Carrside, Epworth.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector and the applicant’s husband addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).

The objector stated that she and the other objectors were not opposed to the principle of the use. They had concerns over road safety. There was an alternative access to the north of the current access which would be safer. A public footpath ran down the track and the traffic generated by the business endangered walkers using the path.

The plan accompanying the report did not show passing places, unlike the report to the previous meeting. The number of vehicle movements would be considerably greater than stated in the report. Whilst Condition 4 stated that no horse riding/instruction should take place beyond the boundaries of the farm, the report suggested that, when the land was waterlogged, riders might have to venture onto the surrounding tracks, highways and private trails.

The applicant’s husband stated that he and his wife had run the business from the site since 2000. The site had been a working farm since 1620. The business was perfectly safe and provided a service to the local community. With regard to the objectors’ concerns, there was already a passing point on the access track. There was a sharp bend in Carrside south of the access track, which would ensure that traffic would slow down.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection indicated that the access issues had been thoroughly examined and were considered to be satisfactory. So far as the alternative access was concerned, part of this was not in the ownership of the applicant and she had no right of way over it. Passing places were now proposed on the part of the track within the applicant’s ownership.

Councillor Stewart, attending the meeting under the provision of Procedure Rule 38(b), addressed the committee. He asked that the application be deferred to enable further investigation of an alternative access.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.

298 (49) 02/1337 by Mr J Chadderton for the erection of a detached 5-bedroom house with garage on Plot 19 Park View, Barton-upon-Humber.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector and the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).

The objector contended that the dwelling should be reduced in height in order to fit in with Plots 17 and 21which were both bungalows. The proposed building would be too high and would adversely affect the amenity of nearby bungalows on Park View. He referred to a recent application for a house on Eastfield Road, which had been refused.

The applicant stated that the proposal would not adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring properties. There was only three upstairs windows facing the objector’s property, two of which would be obscure glazed. The applicant was willing to compromise but the objector had indicated that he was totally opposed to a house being built on the site. The application cited by the objector had been for a house where there were existing bungalows on both sides and to the rear and was therefore not relevant.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that, in his opinion, there would be adequate space between the properties. The dwelling would be in keeping with nearby properties.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.

299 (50) 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) 02/0664 by Haslam Homes Ltd for the erection of 76 dwellings with associated parking spaces and garages comprising 22 semi-detached 2-bedroom houses, 26 detached 3-bedroom houses and 28 semi-detached 3-bedroom houses on land off Windsor Road and Potts Lane, Crowle.

(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 claimed that the Director of Environment and Public Protection had misunderstood PPG3. There would be drainage problems. Also there was an enclosure hedge on the site and therefore the development could not legally go ahead. There should be an element of affordable housing in the scheme.

The applicant’s representative reminded members that there was previous extant permission for the site. All the issues now raised by the objectors had been addressed either at the time of the earlier application or as part of the current application. The scheme had been revised to comply with the requirements of PPG3 in relation to the density of development and to ensure the loss of only a minimal length of the enclosure hedge in order to accommodate the visibility splays. Whilst the council did not have an adopted policy on affordable housing, much of the development would consist of low cost housing.

Councillor Regan, attending the meeting under the provision of Procedure Rule 38(b), addressed the committee. He stated that the proposal would constitute over-development of the site. The enclosure hedge should be protected. He suggested that members should defer the application and hold a site visit.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that, in relation to the enclosure hedge, independent advice had been sought from Counsel as set out in his report. The committee was in a position to determine the application, however a planning permission would not override any protection given to a hedge given by the Enclosure Act. So far as affordable housing was concerned, whilst the council had a Policy in the Revised Deposit Draft Local, there was no published Supplementary Planning Guidance yet in place and so the mechanism for negotiation and provision of such housing was incomplete.

(ii) 02/1248 by Universal Salvage plc for construction of a processing and dismantling facility, consisting of a single-storey portal – framed building and external concrete hard standing at Universal Salvage plc, Sandtoft Road Industrial Estate, Belton

(subject to an additional condition relating to the carrying out of an approved landscaping scheme)

(iii) 02/1338 by Mr S P Green for the erection of a single-storey rear extension to a dwelling at 53 Bottesford Road, Scunthorpe.

(iv) 02/1395 by Mrs C Birkett for the creation of a new vehicular access at 2 Barrow Road, Barton-upon- Humber.

(v) 02/1415 by Keigar Homes Ltd for the erection of 22 dwellings with garages and access on land rear of 11-13 Marsh Lane, Barton-upon-Humber.

(subject to an additional condition relating to the carrying out of an archaeological survey)

(Prior to consideration of this application, a representative of the applicants addressed the committee. The application was for a mix of house types and the applicants had worked with officers on the design and materials. The site was within the development boundary for Barton and there had been no objections from statutory consultees)

(vi) 02/1449 by Blue Bell Bars Ltd for the retention of a split level wooden decking area and the closure of the Barrow Road vehicular entrance to the car park by the extension of the existing perimeter wall at The Blue Bell, 2 Whitecross Street, Barton-upon-Humber.

(Prior to consideration of this application and the following application 02/1544, an objector addressed the committee under the provisions of procedure Rule 36 (e). She was concerned that the access to the car park, next to her house, would be used more intensively as a result of closing the other access. Also the decking area attracted younger patrons who caused noise nuisance to neighbouring properties)

(vii) 02/1544 by Blue Bell Bars Ltd for Listed Building Consent for the extension of boundary wall along Barrow road in order to close off vehicular access at The Blue Bell, 2 Whitecross Street, Barton-upon-Humber.

(viii) 02/1455 by Birchwood Developments (Lincs) Ltd for the erection of one pair of semi-detached houses on plots 1 and 2, Victoria Drive, Barton-upon-Humber.

(ix) 02/1456 by Birchwood Developments (Lincs) Ltd for the erection of one pair of semi-detached houses on plots 3 and 4, Victoria Drive, Barton-upon-Humber.

(x) 02/1460 by Mr and Mrs L Welch for the change of use of a new garage into a commercial kitchen at 31 Quebec Road, Bottesford.

(Note: Councillor Whiteley, having declared a non-prejudicial personal interest in the above application, 02/1460, took no part in the discussion thereof or voting thereon)

(xi) 02/1487 by Mr J Lee for the erection of a collapsible amateur radio tower and aerials at Holly Lodge, Carrhouse Road, Belton.

300 Resolved – That in respect of the following applications (a) the committee is mindful to grant permission; (b) the applications be referred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (OPDM) in accordance with statutory procedures to enable him to consider whether he wishes to intervene, and (c) that, in the event of the OPDM deciding not to intervene, the Assistant Director (Regeneration and Planning) be authorised to grant permission and consent subject to the conditions contained in the reports.

(i) 02/0745 by North Lincolnshire Council for outline permission to erect a primary school on land at Horkstow Road, South Ferriby.

(ii) 02/1086 by North Lincolnshire Council for the erection of 420 place primary school (siting and means of access not reserved for subsequent approval and creation of a new public park (with visitor parking) and a playing field for St Bede’s School on land to the south of Lincoln Gardens, Scunthorpe.

(iii) 02/1360 by the Proudfoot group for alterations to form offices, workshops, museum, art galleries, visual media centre and auditorium together with associated car parking at The Ropewalk, Maltkiln Road, Barton-upon-Humber.

(iv) 02/1361 by the Proudfoot group for Listed Building Consent for alterations to form offices, workshops, museum, art galleries, visual media centre and auditorium together with associated car parking at The Ropewalk, Maltkiln Road, Barton-upon-Humber.

301 Resolved – That the following applications be refused in accordance with the recommendations contained in the reports

(i) 02/0297 by Reeve Bros. (Farmers) Ltd for the change of use of land for temporary storage of motor vehicles on land at North Killingholme Airfield.

(ii) 02/0895 by Railtrack plc for listed building consent to make alterations in connection with the refurbishment of a signal box at Elsham Signal Box, adjacent to B1206, Wrawby.

(iii) 02/0898 by Railtrack plc for listed building consent to make alterations in connection with the refurbishment of a signal box adjacent to B1207, Appleby.

(iv) 02/1162 by Snipe Property ltd for outline permission to erect four dwellings on land at rear of 7-10 Oxmarsh Lane, New Holland.

(v) 02/1345 by Mr and Mrs B Vessey for the erection of a detached garage at 27 Holme Drive, Burton-upon-Stather.

(vi) 02/1366 by Mr S Poppleton for the erection of a dwelling at 242 Wharf Road, Ealand.

(Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He stated that the application site was an infill plot. The Town Council supported the application and there were no objections from the Highways Team.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that Ealand was defined as a minimum growth settlement in the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan, the site itself was outside the development limits, and that circumstances had not altered significantly since the previous refusal and appeal to justify approval. Therefore the application should be refused on policy grounds).

(vii) 02/1388 by Mr J Davies for outline permission for erection of a detached bungalow at 5 trunk Road, Althorpe.

(Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He asked the committee to consider holding a site visit before determining the application

The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that Althorpe was defined as a minimum growth settlement in the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan, the site itself was outside the development limits, and that circumstances had not altered significantly since the previous refusal and appeal to justify approval. Therefore, the application should be refused on policy grounds).

(viii) 02/1453 by Mr M Hague and Mrs B A Till for the erection of stables and a food store and retention of a temporary shelter and a timber post and rail fence (1.35m high) at OS 5377, Moor Road, Crowle.

(ix) 02/1467 by Adam James Consultancy Ltd. for outline permission for the erection of three dwellings on site adjacent to Westwood Bracon, Belton.

(Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He contended that, whilst the site was designated as “greenfield” under Policy H3 of the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan, the council had in carrying out its calculations on the extent of commitment to development of brownfield land, defined “the locality” as the South Axholme area rather than just Belton. Also, not all of the extant permissions would be implemented. Therefore, the development was not contrary to the policy.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that the important issue to consider was at what stage “greenfield” land should be released for development. There was a sequential test to be applied and the present application did not meet the requirements. There were at present still some 80 plots in Belton itself with planning permission).

(x) 02/1502 by Mr H J Boddy for the temporary retention of a mobile home as a dwelling to be used in connection with an equestrian and horse breeding business at Common Farm, Mosswood, Crowle.

(xi) 02/1504 by Mr P Atkinson for the erection of one dwelling, with double garage and driveway to the road at Mawlands, Northfield Road, Messingham

(xii) 02/1523 by Mrs M Churchill for consent to fell a tree (within group A1) protected by a Tree Preservation (Messingham) Order 1955 at 10 Brigg Road, Messingham.

302 02/1451 by Mr and Mrs A Jenman for outline permission for the erection of one detached dwelling on land adjacent to 24 Brethergate, Westwoodside.

(Prior to consideration of this application, one of the applicants addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He stated that the site was within the body of the village and the frontage took up approximately half of the one remaining gap in a row of properties on Brethergate. The application was for accommodation for elderly relatives of the applicants and was supported by the parish council.

Councillor Stewart, attending the meeting under the provision of Procedure Rule 38(b), spoke in support of the application.

Moved by Councillor Ellis and seconded by Councillor Todd –

That permission be refused in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.

Moved by Councillor Holgate and seconded by Councillor Wardle as an amendment –

That consideration of the application be deferred until the next meeting in order to enable members to visit the site

Amendment Lost

Motion Carried

303 02/1428 by Mr K F and Mrs C E Glanfield for the erection of a dwelling on Plot adjacent to Millstone Cottage, Station Road/West End, Fockerby.

Prior to consideration of this application, a representative of the applicants addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He indicated that, whilst he was happy with the recommendation of approval, the requirement of Condition 1, that development commence prior to 27 January 2003, was unreasonable given that the application had been with the council for 12-13 weeks.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection advised members that the recommendation of approval had only been made on the basis that there was an extant outline permission for the site which was now designated as an area of amenity importance in the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan. This outline permission would expire on 27 January, hence the reason for using that date in the condition. He also reported that the Environment Agency had now withdrawn its objection.

Moved by Councillor Ellis and seconded by Councillor Todd –

That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the amendment of Condition 1 by the replacement of “January” with “February”.

Moved by Councillor Holgate and seconded by Councillor Wardle as an amendment

That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the amendment of Condition 1 by the replacement of “January” with “March”.

Amendment Carried

Substantive Motion Carried

304 (51) APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS FOLLOWING THE GRANT OF OUTLINE PERMISSION – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report informing members of applications for approval of reserved matters which were ready for determination. Outline planning permission had already been granted and the development had therefore been agreed in principle. Consideration was now required to the details of the siting, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping of the development (excluding any of these matters which were expressly approved at the time outline permission had been granted).

Resolved – That approval be granted for the following applications in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.

01/0559 by Mr and Mrs P Greenwood for approval of reserved matters following outline planning permission 1998/0044 dated 11/05/1998 for the erection of 17 dwellings and garages, including means of access and landscaping proposals, land rear of 109 High Street, Belton.

Prior to consideration by the committee, an objector and a representative of the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).

The objector informed the meeting that he was representing nine of the 12 properties on Millers Brook that would be affected by this development. Local residents are concerned that the new development will overlook their properties leading to a loss of privacy. The development will also cause traffic congestion onto the High Street. The access along the residential road is unsuitable and an alternative should be found. There are obstacles to providing the standard of junction with the High Street, which the outline permission requires.

A representative of the applicant informed the meeting that this application was submitted a long time ago. The application will mean only 17 properties being built on a three-acre site. The access to the site had been looked at closely, and alternative proposals have been explored. However, it was felt that access off Millers Brook is the best solution.

Councillor Mrs Redfern, attending the meeting under the provision of Procedure Rule 38(b), expressed her concern with the application.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection added that the highway issue was resolved to the extent that approval could be given on the basis of the current plans. If any significant variation was required, that would be likely to require another application.

02/1385 by the Executors of E Carnaby Esq. for approval of outline planning permission 99/0684 dated 24/09/1999 for the erection of 22 dwellings and garages and means of access thereto, Garden Village, North Killingholme.

(Prior to consideration by the committee, an objector and a representative of the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).

The objector informed the meeting that the residents were concerned over the loss of wildlife on the site and they would also like to be consulted over the species of trees that will be planted. Also, single storey dwellings would be more appropriate than two storey dwellings.

There was also concern that the plans contained no proposals to improve or maintain a length of private roadway serving existing dwellings near to the site, also owned by the applicants.

A representative of the applicant replied by stating that it is questionable whether or not neighbouring property house prices will fall as a result of the development. The types of housing are in line with the outline permission and the development will be good for the area.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection added that the application complies fundamentally with the terms of the outline permission and the layout plan referred to at that time. The issue about maintenance of the road could not be addressed here – it was not part of the application site, neither was the matter relevant to the development under consideration).

305 (52) APPEALS – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report informing members of the outcome of an appeal against the refusal of permission for the change of use of a former goods yard at Brocklesby Station, Ulceby into an area for the parking heavy goods vehicles. The appeal had been dismissed.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

306 (53) ENFORCEMENT UPDATE – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a schedule giving details of progress in respect of a matter on which the committee had authorised enforcement action.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

307 (54) PLANNING APPLICATIONS – DELEGATION SCHEME – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report inviting members to review the existing scheme of delegation for dealing with planning applications and associated matters.

The present scheme had been in place since September 2000. It was now proposed to amend the scheme in two respects. Firstly it was proposed that, where an objection had been received from a parish council and officers recommended refusal, the Director be given delegated authority to refuse the application. Secondly, it was proposed to include a specific statement in the scheme to make clear that the Director had delegated authority to take decisions on screening options required under the

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, as there had been cases elsewhere where councils had been challenged for not having this area of delegation clearly defined.

Recommended to Council – (a) That the following amendments be made to the scheme of delegation (i) an addition to Paragraph 2 of “Extent of Delegation” to refer to screening options required by the Environmental Assessment Regulations, and (ii) an amendment to Item 5 of the exceptions to the scheme to read “Applications subject to a parish council objection on valid planning grounds where the recommendation is to grant permission or applications specifically supported by the parish council where the recommendation is to refuse; (b) that the scheme of delegation as amended be incorporated into Part 3 of the council’s constitution, and (c) that the form for use by members to require that applications be brought to the committee for determination be amended to provide space for reasons to be specified.

(55) CROWLE MOORS – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report informing members of the making of the North Lincolnshire (Crowle) Discontinuance Order 2002. The Order had been submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation. Objections under Schedule 9 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 could be made by no later than 16 December.

So far one objection had been received. It was possible that compensation would be payable to the owners and occupiers of the land.

Resolved – That the action taken be confirmed.

309 (56) PUBLIC FOOTPATH 74, STARCROSS, EPWORTH – Further to Minute 243, the Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report inviting members to consider making an order to divert part of this path.

At the July 2002 meeting the committee had resolved to defer the matter and “that a further report be submitted to the committee once the issue of land ownership has been resolved or in six months time, whichever is the earlier”.

The Land Registry had now amended its records. There was now no conflict between its records and the applicant’s title deeds and therefore it was recommended that an order be made.

Prior to consideration by the committee, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). She contended that it was inappropriate for the committee to consider the matter at this time, as the six month period had not yet expired and there were major issues still unresolved. If the land in question was not owned by the applicant, the likely owner was Epworth Town Council which was intending to hold a special meeting to discuss the issue once advice had been obtained on this matter. If the owner could not be established they could not be consulted on the proposal. The present route was historically significant and the proposed diversion would not be in the interests of the public.

The Director of Corporate Affairs confirmed he was reasonably satisfied that the applicant had title to the drain banks. Also, agreement would need to be reached with the applicant regarding future maintenance of the bridge before any order was made.

Recommended to Council – (a) that an order be made to divert Public Footpath 74, Epworth at Starcross 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 (Isle of Axholme) Definitive Map and Statement by adding the new line of the path and deleting the line it replaces, and (d) that in the event that an objection to the order is received, a further report be submitted to the committee.

310 (57) PUBLIC FOOTPATH 248, KIRTON-IN-LINDSEY –The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report inviting members to consider making an order to divert part of this path in order to enable development for which permission had been granted to take place.

Informal consultations had been carried out and there was no indication that an order would attract any objections.

Recommended to Council – (a) that an order be made to divert Public Footpath 248, Kirton-in-Lindsey in accordance with Appendix 2 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 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.

311 (58) PUBLIC FOOTPATH 196, BOTTESFORD – Further to Minute 212, the Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report inviting members to send the Definitive Map Modification (Public Footpath 196, Bottesford) Order 2002(1) to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

The order had attracted one objection which appeared not to be relevant. However, the council as order-making authority was unable to determine the validity of an objection. Therefore as the objector would not withdraw his objection, it would be necessary to refer the order to the Secretary of State.

Prior to consideration by the committee, the objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He contended that the report contained factual inaccuracies. In his opinion the path should appear on the List of Streets.

Recommended to Council – That the order be sent to the Secretary of State with a request that it be confirmed.