northlincs.gov.uk

PRESENT: – Councillor Ellis in the chair.

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

Councillor Barkworth attended the meeting under the provisions of Procedure Rule 38(b).

The committee met at the Crowle Community Centre.

340 DECLARATIONS OF PREJUDICIAL AND NON-PREJUDICIAL PERSONAL INTERESTS AND DECLARATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) –

The following members declared non -prejudicial personal interests in the items listed below.

Councillor Wardle declared that he had been lobbied in relation to application 02/1814 (Minute 343 (ii) refers) by both the applicant and objectors.

341 REQUESTS TO SPEAK – PROCEDURE RULE 36(e) – It was reported that four 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.

342 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 7 February 2003, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.

343 (72) 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) 02/1323 by Mr F M Wilson for the retention of the use of land as a

trial ground for events and practising for two – wheeled and four -wheeled motor vehicles at Barton Cliff Quarry, South Cliff Farm, Far Ings Road, Barton – upon – Humber.

(Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). The objector asked why the description of the development had been changed to refer to “retention” of the use. He stated that that the use had been taking place unlawfully. The use would require access over the objector’s land. The land was within an area of high landscape value and the use was not sustainable.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection reminded members that there was provision within the planning legislation for “retrospective” applications to be made and that these should be considered on their merits. It was for the applicant to negotiate the acquisition of access rights. With regard to the noise and impact on surroundings, the council’s ecologist and English Nature had examined the application and considered that there were no grounds to justify refusal. The site was considered to be a good location for the use.

(ii) 02/1814 by Mr and Mrs G E Fisher for the retention of 1m high posts and gate erected at the side of property at 11 Manchester Square, New Holland

(iii) 03/0032 by Mr R Dent for the construction of a two -storey extension to form two bedrooms, a utility and garage and a conservatory at 77 Caistor Avenue, Bottesford.

(iv) 03/0043 by Mr J J Hughes for the retention of the use of part of a building as an office at The Old Vicarage, Beck Hill, Barton – upon -Humber

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

(i) 01/1349 by Mr Al Murad for the change of use of a bingo hall into a decorators and ceramic tile retailers, and a restaurant at Gala Social Club, Doncaster Road, Scunthorpe

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

He stated that the applicant currently traded from a site outside the centre of Scunthorpe. The proposal would bring the business to a site closer to the town centre. The use was not suitable for a town centre site as the goods were bulky. There were no vacant sites in the town centre that met the applicant’s criteria.

Councillor Barkworth, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b), spoke against the application. He was concerned at the volume of traffic that would be generated by the proposal. He considered that there would be danger to road users and to children going to the nearby school.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection stated that refusal was recommended on policy grounds. There were vacant properties nearer to the town centre).

(ii) 02/1895 by Bottesford Avenue Development Company for the erection of a two – storey dwelling on Plot 3a, Cliff Drive, Burton -upon – Stather

345 02/1351 by Mr J Pearson for outline permission to erect 5 dwellings and garages with private driveway, including the demolition of 56 High Street on land to the rear of 56 High Street, Broughton.

Resolved – (a) That the committee is mindful to grant permission; (b) that the Assistant Director of Environment and Public Protection (Planning and Regeneration) be authorised to grant permission subject to (i) the conditions contained in the report, and (ii) the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, providing the provision of off-site highway works, and (c) that if the obligation is not completed by 31 July 2003, the Assistant Director be authorised to refuse the application on road safety grounds.

346 02/1624 by Mr F D and Mrs S A Cutforth for the erection of 6 town houses including demolition of existing premises at 49 – 51 High Street, Messingham.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee ion accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He stated that the access and parking arrangements were insufficient for the number of dwellings proposed. The proposed dwellings would not be suitable for elderly people or families with small children. If the development was to take place it should have its own access.

Moved by Councillor Wood and seconded by Councillor Wardle –

That consideration of the application be deferred until the next meeting, and that members visit the site prior to that meeting.

Motion Lost

Moved by Councillor Ellis and seconded by Councillor Todd –

That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.

Motion Carried

347 02/1823 by North Lincolnshire Council for the erection of a single – storey bedroom and shower room extension at 29 Hawthorn Avenue, Brigg.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection advised that refusal was recommended on the basis that the extension would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of adjoining houses and was contrary to the design guidance contained in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for house extensions.

The extension was intended to provide bedroom and shower/WC lobby on the ground floor for the occupant who was unable to manage the stairs. The application was supported by the Director of Social and Housing Services and there were no objections from neighbours. On this basis members decided that the needs of the occupier should on this occasion be given more weight than the policy reasons for refusal.

Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the standard time limit condition.

348(73) APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS FOLLOWING THE GRANT OF OUTLINE PERMISSION – 01/1162 relating to Outline Permission 1998/1295 for the erection of 31 dwellings – Amended Scheme – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report informing members about this application for approval of reserved matters which was 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).

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). She stated that whilst she had no objections to dwellings proposed at the rear of her own property, she did object to those proposed on the eastern boundary. She stated that her property would be overlooked by three of the dwellings. She felt that as the only person adversely affected by the development, her views were not being given sufficient weight. She sought clarification as to whether additional screening was proposed to minimise the effect on her property.

The Director of Environment and Public Protection reminded members that the principle of development had been established by the grant of outline permission. The existing hedge on the boundary with the objector’s property would be protected during the period of construction works. In response to a question from a member of the committee regarding flood risk, the Director stated that the Environment Agency had recommended that the applicant should carry out a flood risk assessment.

Resolved – That approval be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report, subject to an additional condition requiring the provision of screening on the site’s boundary with the objector’s property.

349(74) APPEALS – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report informing members of the outcome of the following appeals: –

(i) Against the refusal of permission for the change of use of agricultural land to an area for the use as a motorcross practice area in OS Fields 5056 and 5445, Gunthorpe Road./Gypsy Lane, Gunthorpe, Owston Ferry – Reference 01/0492 – Appeal Dismissed.

(ii) Against the refusal of outline permission for residential development on land at Hunters Lodge, High Street, Haxey – Reference 01/1608 – Appeal Dismissed.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

350 (75) TREE PRESERVATION (‘SOUTHFIELD’, WESTFIELD ROAD, OXHILL) ORDER 2002 – The Director of Environment and Public Protection submitted a report inviting members to consider confirming this order.

The order had been made in November 2002. Objections had been received and it was now for the committee to consider whether to confirm it. The owners of the land had objected on the basis that the trees protected by the order presented a safety hazard in relation to their property and the highway. They wished to remove one tree and prune and reduce the height of the other two.

The council’s Environment Officer had re-examined the trees and confirmed the good health of all the trees and that they met the relevant criteria required for a TPO. He considered that the works proposed by the objectors would be detrimental to the character of the area.

Resolved – That the order be confirmed.