Planning Committee – 23 April 2004

Chairman: Councillor Wardle
Venue: Council Chamber, Pittwood House, Scunthorpe
Time: 2pm

AGENDA

1. Substitutions.

2. Declarations of prejudicial or non-prejudicial personal Interests, and significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (lobbying), if any.

3. To take the minutes of the meeting held on 26 March, 2004 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.

PLANNING MATTERS

4. Applications deferred from previous meeting for site visits:

(i) 2004/0067 by Chrysalis Homes for outline planning permission to erect 9 dwellings including the demolition of existing works (re-submission of 2003/1336) on land between 23-37 Cherry Lane, Wootton.

(ii) 2003/1731 by J Wharton (Shipping) Ltd for the change the use of land to extend storage facilities in connection with existing wharf, together with internal access roads and creation of landscaped recreational area on land adjacent to Grove Wharf, Neap House Road, Gunness.

5. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.

6. Applications for approval of reserved matters.

7. Appeals.

RIGHTS OF WAY MATTER

8. Claimed Public Right of Way, Church Town, Belton.

9. Any other items, which the chairman decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances which must be specified.

Note: Reports are by the Head of Planning and Regeneration unless otherwise stated.

Minutes

PRESENT: – Councillor Wardle in the chair.

Councillors Long (vice-chairman), Bunyan, England, Grant, Holgate, Ishaq, Rocks, Waldron, Whiteley and Wood.

Councillors Briggs, Eckhardt, Oldfield, Osborne, Mrs Redfern, Regan and Sherwood attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b).

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

551 DECLARATIONS OF PREJUDICIAL AND NON-PREJUDICIAL PERSONAL INTERESTS AND DECLARATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) – The Head of Legal and Democratic Services read a statement to members of the committee in relation to the requirements of the Code of Conduct and the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether it was necessary to declare a personal or a personal and prejudicial interest in an application.

The following members declared non-prejudicial personal interests as follows

Member
Minute
Item
Nature of Interest
Councillor Grant n/a Application 03/1119 Member of Bottesford Town Council
Councillor Wardle n/a Application 04/0067 Knew owner
Councillor Whiteley n/a Application 04/1119 Member of Bottesford Town Council

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Member
Application/ Item
Lobbied By
Councillor Bunyan 03/1731 Objectors –Gunness Action Group
Councillor England 03/1731 Objectors and Councillor Regan
Councillor Grant 03/1731 Objectors
03/1771
Councillor Holgate 03/1731 Objectors
Councillor Long 04/0174 Objectors
Councillor Wardle 03/1731 Objectors and Councillor Regan
03/1357 Applicant
Councillor Wardle 03/1918 Applicant (asked for advice on meeting etc.)
Councillor Wardle 04/0174 Objectors (parish council)
Councillor Waldron 03/1731 Objectors
03/1771
Councillor Wood 03/1731 Objectors

Mr M Welton, Business Manager (Development Control) declared a non–pecuniary interest in application 04/0295 (Minute 553(xv)).

552 MINUTESResolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 26 March, 2004, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

553 (91) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken a site visit earlier in the day. The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted reports and updated them orally.

(i) 04/0067 by Chrysalis Homes for outline permission to erect 9 dwellings including the demolition of existing works (re-submission of 03/1336) on land between 23 – 37 Cherry Lane, Wootton.

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

(i) 03/1731 by J Wharton (Shipping) Ltd. for the change of use of land to extend storage facilities in connection with existing wharf, together with internal access roads and creation of landscaped buffer zone on land adjacent to Grove Wharf, Neap House Road (north of village), Gunness

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 35 (e).The objector questioned the advice of the planning officer and stated that the proposal was not in accordance with the Local Plan. He referred to the large number of objectors to the application on the grounds of noise, pollution and loss of visual amenity.

He disputed the advice that the development did not come any closer to the village. There was other land in the applicant’s ownership that could be utilised without encroaching towards the village. The increased storage would have an impact on ramblers and horse riders, being adjacent to a public footpath. The applicant’s representative stated that the company was seeking to increase commercially and needed more storage space. Therefore, it had applied to extend to the south.

It had originally proposed to provide a sports facility to demonstrate that it would not develop any further in that direction at any time in the future.

However, as there had been opposition to these sports facilities the company had now withdrawn that proposal and replaced it with a 30-acre woodland to provide a sound and visual screen from the village.

Most of the objections related to light and noise at night. In response to those complaints, working hours were to be restricted to prohibit night-time working. Screening would also be provided.

Shipping movements had reduced over the years. The capacity of vehicles had increased so that less vehicles now came to the Wharf. Lorries could not go through the village because of a weight restriction. An independent traffic assessment had been carried out which raised no objections. Similarly, an independent noise survey had concluded that the proposal was acceptable. The steel and timber storage could not be seen from outside the perimeter of the site.

With regard to health and safety, the site was completely sealed and was not open to the public at all. The Local Plan supported the natural development of the Trent Ports. The proposal would have no commercial impact on Corus.

Councillors Regan and Oldfield, attending the meeting on accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b) spoke against the application.Councillor Regan stated that there had been a significant change in circumstances since the approval of the previous application on the site in 2001, in that the North Lincolnshire local Plan had now been adopted. This application went directly against a fundamental element of that plan as it took greenfield land. The committee should consider the environmental, social and economic implications of the proposal.

It was not good environmental practice to allow the use of prime agricultural land for industrial purposes to continue, thus encroaching upon residential property. This application would increase this problem. From an environmental point of view, the application was entirely unjustified.

From a social perspective, the residents of Gunness were already subjected to an unreasonable level of noise and disruption from the activities of this business.

There were no economic benefits in this application to the people of North Lincolnshire. Warehousing did not create employment. Councillor Oldfield drew members attention to a public footpath which was not shown on the plan attached to the report. He went on to say that the business had increased by over 50 per cent. Under the Humberside Structure Plan, there was a requirement for land in built up areas and land allocated for industrial purposes to be used first before agricultural land.

Where such development was permitted, it should be on a site of the lowest agricultural quality. That of the present site was of the highest grade. There was land to the north of the Wharf which better fitted this criteria.

Councillor Oldfield quoted Policies IN10, RD1, RD2, DS1 and ST1 of the North Lincolnshire Plan. He stated that the application contravened all of these policies.

With regard to the issues raised, the Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the nearest point of the steel stock building was no nearer to the nearest dwelling in the village than the nearest point already. Part of the application site was closer to the village but this was the landscaped buffer zone which meant that the actual steel storage area would be no nearer.

The bund would be included as part of the application. Reference had been made to how close the actual site boundary was to the north end of the village. He had checked this on the application drawing and there was a slightly smaller buffer area outside the application area immediately north of the village

There were numerous policies within the Local Plan relevant to determining this application. The committee needed to balance potentially conflicting policies. The over-riding policy, a policy which had been applied to the previous two applications on the site, was IN10. That related to wharf and jetty extensions. By their very nature, these had to be associated with the river frontage. Whether the proposal should be treated as a substantial departure from the development plan was for the committee to decide.

Moved by Councillor Holgate and seconded by Councillor England –

(a) That the committee is mindful to grant permission for the development subject to the completion of a formal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to off-site landscaping works; (b) that the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to grant permission on completion of the agreement subject to the conditions contained in the report, and (c) that if the obligation is not completed by 30 June 2004, the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to refuse the application on grounds of adverse environmental impact on the village of Gunness through noise nuisance and visual intrusion.

At the request of members a recorded vote was taken. The names of members voting for and against the motion are as follows –

FOR: Councillors Bunyan, England, Holgate, Long, Wardle, and Wood.

AGAINST: Councillors Grant, Ishaq, Rocks, Waldron and Whiteley.

Motion Carried

554 (92) PLANNING APPLICATIONS – The Head of Planning and Regeneration 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.

(i) 03/1357 by Joanne Burns for the erection of a block of 10 stables for a livery business at Woodcote, Thornton Road, Goxhill.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration updated the report indicating that the applicant had now amended the application to remove the reference to retention of a caravan for staff accommodation. This addressed the objection from Goxhill Parish Council.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the deletion of Condition 2.

(ii) 03/1771 by Hunshelf Developments for the erection of a leisure complex comprising five two-storey units for purposes falling within Use Classes A3 and D2 (Food and Drink and Assembly & Leisure) at Telegraph House, 20-28 Doncaster Road, Scunthorpe.

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 35 (e).

The objector referred to an objection by Humberside Police. The Police believed that the proposal would lead to noise nuisance and would exacerbate existing public order and vandalism problems in the vicinity. The objector stated that the proposal would not enhance the town.

The applicants’ representative stated that the applicants had worked closely with the council’s officers to achieve an appropriate scheme for the site. The council was seeking to improve the area around Britannia Corner and the scheme accorded with this objective. There was a large unmet demand for bars and pubs in the Scunthorpe and Bottesford area. The existing public order problems were associated with venues aimed at the 18–25 year olds market. The present proposal was for venues catering for a mix of ages and administered by national companies who had a responsible attitude to the management of their premises.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration suggested that, in addition to the conditions recommended in the report, an hours condition should be imposed in order to satisfy the provisions of Policy S9 of the local plan.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to an additional condition restricting opening hours to between 9 am and 11 pm on Mondays to Thursdays, 9 am to 11.30pm on Fridays and Saturdays and no Sundays or Bank Holiday opening,

(iii) 03/1844 by SITA (UK) Ltd for the construction and operation of a temporary waste management facility at Corus landfill

The Head of Planning and Regeneration reported that the Environment Agency had now withdrawn its request for additional conditions to be attached to the application.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the deletion of condition 3.

(iv) 03/1918 by Mr A Atkin for the change of use of and making of extensions to a building to form a dwelling on plot rear of CTS Motor Services, Ferriby Road, Barton-upon-Humber.

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

(v) 03/1919 by PT Hart NSD Ltd. for the change of use of land to extend the existing outside storage area, including the installation of one full portal crane and associated ground tracks at NSD Ltd., South Park Road, Bottesford.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He claimed that the council’s Environmental Health and Highways officers had not properly considered the proposal. As a result, the noise and traffic studies were flawed. The local residents would be happy to work with the applicants and with the council to find an acceptable solution to problems experienced on the site, especially noise, and felt this could be done by imposing restrictions on the hours of working.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration reminded members of the history of the site. The applicants had received planning permission for the construction of a new building and four overhead cranes on appeal after the council had refused permission in 2002. That development was now proceeding. The present application was for a small extension in a similar format to the earlier application. Given the inspector’s decision in relation to that application it would be difficult to justify refusal. The condition imposed by the inspector had been replicated in the recommendations.

Moved by Councillor England and seconded by Councillor Wood –

That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report

Moved by Councillor Bunyan and seconded by Councillor Ishaq as an amendment –

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

Amendment Lost
Motion Carried

(vi) 04/0043 by Mr R H Dunford for the erection of a detached dwelling (means of access not reserved for subsequent approval) on land off Gilliats Close, Wrawby.

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

(vii) 04/0105 by Mr G Withers for the construction of a new field access on Field Nos. 246, 247 & 248, land north side of Upperthorpe Hill, Westwoodside.

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

(viii) 04/0131 by Beechgrove Farms Ltd. for the removal of condition 2 of 2001/1627 (requiring the planting of a hedge along northern boundary) at Beech Grove Farm, Barrow Mere, Barton – upon –Humber.

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

(ix) 04/1047 by Miss N Sultana for the variation of condition 3 of permission 199/0220 to allow Sunday opening at The Khyber Restaurant, 1 Church Street, Epworth.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He was concerned that the proposal would lead to noise nuisance arising from customers entering and leaving the premises.

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

(x) 04/0159 by Mr K Abell for the erection of a 6-bedroom detached house with integral triple garage (including demolition of existing bugalow) at 70 Doncaster Road, Westwoodside.

Resolved – That it be noted that this application has been withdrawn.

(xi) 04/0174 by Mr C Fletcher for the erection of 3 bungalows with integral garage at The Wishing Well, Top Road, Worlaby.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to enable officers to investigate apparent discrepancies in the drawings.

(xii) 04/0210 by Mr and Mrs J McArthur for the erection of extensions to a dwelling at 30 Vicarage Gardens, Scunthorpe.

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

(xiii) 04/0221 by Mr Whapham for the erection of a conservatory at Rose Cottage, 4 Justice Hall Lane, Crowle.

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

(xiv) 04/0258 by S Poppleton for outline permission to erect one house at 242 Wharf Road, Ealand.

Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that there were already 3 other dwellings outside the development limit. The natural development limit was Wharf Road.

Councillor Briggs, attending the meeting on accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b) spoke in support of the application. He also referred to the fact that there were existing nearby properties outside the development limit.

The Head of Service reminded the committee that permission had previously been refused in 2002. Subsequently an inspector had dismissed an appeal against that decision. In doing so he had considered whether there were material considerations which could override the housing policies contained in the local plan and had concluded that there were not. Nothing had changed since then.

Members however felt that the site was a natural infill plot and that the proposed house would finish off the street scene.

Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the standard outline condition and to any conditions requested by the Highways Team.

(xv) 04/0291 by Mr B Lally for the erection of a garage at 4 Avenue Fontenay, Scunthorpe.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He was concerned that the garage would be large and overbearing and would adversely affect the value of the objector’s property, would remove his view and the potential for commercial use.

The Head of Service pointed out that property values and views were not relevant planning considerations. The garage would not be any larger than many other domestic garages. He pointed out that Condition 3 would prevent the garage being used other than for domestic purposes.

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

(xvi) 04/0295 by Mr Coupland for the erection of an extension to a dwelling at 75 Weymouth Crescent, Scunthorpe.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector and the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e).

The objector was concerned that the proposal would adversely affect the nature of the locality. It would prevent him from carrying out routine maintenance to his own property and would block light to the objector’s property.

The applicant stated that the application met all necessary requirements. The officer’s report was a fair assessment.

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

(xvii) 04/0409 by Mr J Spittlehouse for the erection of a dwelling (including demolition of existing farm buildings) opposite Spittle House, The Farm Yard, Main Road, Gunthorpe.

Prior to consideration of this application, a representative of the applicant addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that the proposed development would improve the appearance of the site. The existing buildings were in a poor condition.

Moved by Councillor Grant and seconded by Councillor Waldron –

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

Motion Lost

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

That permission be granted subject to standard outline condition, any conditions requested by the Highways Team and a condition relating to the investigation of possible contamination

Motion Carried

In coming to this decision the committee considered that the site was a brownfield site and the development would improve the locality.

(93) APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS FOLLOWING THE GRANT OF OUTLINE PERMISSION – 03/1934 by Mr M Nason relating to Outline Permission 2003/1108 for the erection of a two-storey detached house on land adjacent to 70 High Street, Belton – The Head of Planning and Regeneration 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).

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

556(94) APPEALS – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report on the outcome of the following appeals.

(i) Against refusal to grant listed outline planning permission for residential development (resubmission of 2002/1735 ) – 03/0568 – Barndale, 11 Nethergate, Westwoodside – Appeal Dismissed.

(ii) Against refusal to grant planning permission to erect a two-storey extension and form a pitched roof over an existing garage – 72 Wiltshire Avenue, Burton–upon-Stather – 03/0810 – Appeal Allowed and permission granted subject to details of materials being submitted for approval.

(iii) Against refusal to allow work to a sycamore tree protected by a tree preservation order at 1 Enderby Road, Scunthorpe –03/0850 –Appeal Dismissed.

(iv) Against the refusal to vary condition 3 of 02/0145 to open a takeaway on Sunday 6.30pm to 9pm – ground floor of 48 High Street, Epworth –03/1018 –Appeal Dismissed.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

(95) CLAIMED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY –CHURCH TOWN, BELTON – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report seeking approval to make a modification order to add a 90 metre-long public footpath to the County of Lincoln –Parts of Lindsey (Isle of Axholme) Definitive Map and Stratement.

Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that the path was not needed and would cause distress to an elderly couple living in Wisteria Cottage

The Head of Service reported that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 obliged surveying authorities to record all known public rights of way in a legal register known as a definitive map and its accompanying written schedule known as a definitive statement. These must be kept up to date by the making of legal orders called modification orders. When, for example, evidence came to light to show that a way not presently recorded in a definitive map should be so recorded, an appropriate modification order must be made as soon as practicable thereafter.

Belton Parish Council had asked this council to modify the Map and Statement by adding an approximately 90-metre-long footpath. The claim was on the basis of historical documentary evidence provided by the parish council, which was supported with in excess of twenty years of user evidence.

The landowner had been given the opportunity to provide evidence in rebuttal of the application.

The issues raised by the objector were not a consideration under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 but any landowner was at liberty to apply for a subsequent Path Order under the 1980 Highways Act to alter a route.

Resolved – (a) That an order be made under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the definitive map and statement by adding a public footpath along the course of Belton Fields Road, Church Town, Belton, in accordance with the route indicated in Appendix 1 to the report; (b) that, if no objections are duly served following advertisement of the order, the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to confirm the order, and (c) that if objections duly served are not withdrawn, a further report be submitted to this committee.