Planning Committee – 7 November 2003
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 identify any persons wishing to speak in accordance with Procedure Rule 36 (e).
4. To take the minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2003 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.
PLANNING MATTERS
Applications deferred from previous meeting for site visits:-
(i) 03/0983 by Mr M Duffy for erection of a barn and a stable at Wyvern House, 18 Bracon, Belton.
(ii) 03/0514 by Mr T J Cole for the erection of a house and a bungalow on Plots 2 & 3, land north of Church Farm Mews, Burton – upon – Stather.
(iii) 03/1274 by Mr K Miah for the erection of extensions at 41 Vicarage Gardens, Scunthorpe
6. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
7. Appeals
8. Enforcement Update.
PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY MATTERS
9. Proposed diversion of Public Footpath 248 Kirton In Lindsey.
10. Proposed diversion of Public Footpath 57, Brigg.
11. Legal Event Orders.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
12. Public Speaking At Meetings Of The Committee – Joint Report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and the Head of Planning and Regeneration.
13. Any other items, which the chair 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, Kirk, Rocks, Waldron, Whiteley and Wood.
Councillors Briggs, Osborne, Rowson, Smith, attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b).
The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.
459 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 personal interest as follows
| Member | Minute | Item | Nature of Interest |
| Councillor Grant | 462 (i) | Application 2003/0983 | |
| 462 (vii) | Application 2003/1192 | Friend of the applicant | |
| Councillor Kirk | 462 (vii) | Application 2003/1192 | Friend of the applicant |
| Councillor Rocks | 462 (vii) | Application 2003/1192 | Friend of the applicant |
| Councillor Waldron | 462 (vii) | Application 2003/1192 | Friend of the applicant |
| Councillor Whiteley | 462 (vii) | Application 2003/1192 | Friend of the applicant |
| Councillor Wood | 464 (i) | Application 2003/1050 | Friend of the applicant |
Councillor Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b), declared that he had a prejudicial personal interest in relation to applications 02/1327 and 03/0438. Accordingly he would leave the meeting during the consideration of those applications.
The following members declared that they had been lobbied –
| Member | Application /Item | Lobbied By |
| Councillor Holgate | 2003/0983 | Objector |
| 2003/0514 | Objector | |
| Councillor Long | 2003/1049 | Objector |
| 2003/0514 | Applicant | |
| 2003/1204 | Applicant | |
| Councillor Wardle | 2003/1336 | |
| Councillor Wood | 2003/1050 | Applicant |
| Councillor Wood | 2003/1204 | Applicant |
460 REQUESTS TO SPEAK – PROCEDURE RULE 36(e) – It was reported that thirteen requests to speak had been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 36(e). The chairman stated that those speakers who were present would be able to address the committee prior to consideration of the respective applications.
MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 10 October, 2003, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.
(38) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken site visits earlier in the day. The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted reports and updated them orally.
(i) 03/0983 by Mr M Duffy for the erection of a barn and stable at Wyvern House, 18 Bracon, Belton.
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 was concerned at the proximity of the proposed buildings to neighbouring properties and the size of the barn which was 50 per cent wider than the existing barn on the site and with more windows than would be the norm.
The applicant stated that he already had outline permission for the site. He had altered the proposed location of the buildings on the site following discussions with officers.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(ii) 03/0514 by Mr T J Cole for the erection of a house and bungalow on Plots 2 & 3, land north of Church Farm Mews, Burton – upon – Stather.
Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).
The objector was concerned that the proposal would generate additional traffic on a narrow access road. The development would be out of keeping with surrounding building which were built in Jurassic stone. The proposed buildings would be too large for their surroundings.
Councillors Rowson and Smith, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38(b), spoke against the application. They were both concerned that the development would be out of character with its surroundings.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration reminded members that the proposed condition 11 required the approval of all external facing materials. There was an extant permission for three dwellings on the site. The present proposal was preferable to implementation of that permission.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(iii) 03/1274 by Mr K Miah for the erection of extensions at 41 Vicarage Gardens, Scunthorpe.
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 stated that the extensions would spoil a unique and architecturally interesting house. They would abut neighbouring properties and would have an overbearing impact on those properties. Extensions could be built to the rear of the house.
The applicant stated that the extensions would be professionally designed and would fit in with its surroundings.
Resolved – That permission be refused on the grounds that the extensions would be of an overbearing nature, and would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties and the street scene.
463 (39) 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.
Resolved – That the following applications be approved in accordance with the recommendations contained in the reports.
(Note: Councillor Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b), and having declared a prejudicial personal interest, left the room during consideration of the following application)
(i) 02/1327 by Ben Bailey Homes for the erection of 68 dwellings on the south side of Field Road, Crowle.
(ii) 02/1661 by Richard & Julian Crow Fernmoor UK Ltd for the erection of a 2.4m high galvanised steel perimeter fence at Fernmoor UK Ltd., Moor Road, The Moors, Crowle.
(The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the committee of the contents of a late representation from the Thorne and Hadfield Moors Conservation Society)
(Note: Councillor Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 38 (b), and having declared a prejudicial personal interest, left the room during consideration of the following application)
(iii) 03/0438 by Ben Bailey Homes for the erection of 52 dwellings with associated public open space on land off Station Road, Epworth.
(Note: The voting on this matter being equal, the chairman used his second and casting vote in favour of the motion)
(iv) 03/0748 by Mr J Huxford for the retention of a change of use from a domestic garage to an office at 1 West Square, Brigg.
(subject to an amendment to condition 2 to prohibit deliveries outside the hours specified for the use).
(Prior to consideration of this application, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e).
The objector was concerned at noise created by the use. He claimed that the applicant did not and never had lived at the site. The use had been taking place outside the hours specified in the proposed condition).
(v) 03/1108 by Mr M Nason for the erection of a detached house at 70 High Street, Belton.
(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 house would intrude into the setting of a listed building and would have an overbearing impact on its surroundings. The house would be sited in an old orchard of a type that used to be common in the Isle of Axholme but of which few remained.
(vi) 03/1175 by Mr and Mrs Irving for the erection of an extension at 2 Ashberry Drive, Messingham
(vii) 03/1192 by Mr A Ellerby for the continued use of a site as a Sunday market without complying with condition 6 (use of land for holding markets to be discontinued by 30/09/2003) of planning permission 2002/0777 dated 26/07/2002 to allow use to continue for three years on Field, Redbourne Mere, Kirton –in – Lindsey.
(viii) 03/1194 by Birchwood Developments (Lincs) Ltd for outline permission for residential development at rear of 54 –58 West Acridge, Barton – upon – Humber
464 Resolved – That it be noted that the following applications have been withdrawn
(i) 03/1050 by C Dawson for the change of use of a showroom to a dwelling at Forrester Street, Brigg
(ii) 03/1204 by Winteringham Properties Ltd for the erection of six houses and garages at Keepers Cottage, Manor Farm, North Carr Lane, Saxby – all – Saints.
465 Resolved – That consideration of the following applications be deferred until the next meeting and that members visit the sites prior to that meeting.
(i) 03/1049 by Victoria Rogers for the removal of condition 2 of permission 7/683/95 which required the need for screen walling at Stable Yard, Saxby Hall, Main Street, Saxby –all – Saints.
(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 stated that the walls had been required as a barrier against noise created by potential traffic to proposed houses on the site. The hedges currently in situ would not grow higher than four feet and did not cut out noise. If the objectors had known that the walls might not be built they would have grown higher hedges, but this would take many years.
The applicant stated that the development would not cause any loss of privacy to the objectors. The development was sympathetically designed.)
(ii) 03/1216 by Mr D A Revis for the retention of dwelling already sited in connection with agriculture at Approach Farm, Sandtoft Road, Epworth
(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 proposed dwelling was needed in connection with the agricultural business. There had been attempted break ins at the farm and, as there was expensive livestock on the site and problems with power cuts, there was a need for someone to be resident on the site.)
466 Resolved – That the following applications be refused in accordance with the recommendations contained in the reports
(i) 03/1314 by Mr P Bell for outline permission for the erection of a dwelling at Rose Cottage, 2 Northside, Haxey
(ii) 03/1336 by Chrysalis Homes Ltd for the demolition of existing works and the erection of 11 dwellings (siting and means of access not reserved for subsequent approval) on land between 23 – 37 Cherry Lane, Wootton
(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 stated that the site was “brownfield” and an infill plot. It was currently used as offices and workshops. The industrial use was out of character with its setting. The proposal would benefit the local community)
467 03/1115 by Mr N Oxenforth for outline permission to erect a dwelling at Carlton House Farm, Trentside, Derrythorpe.
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to standard conditions regarding siting, design, time scale and any conditions to be advised by the Highways Agency.
468 03/1350 by Mr K Buttrick for outline permission for the erection of a two – storey dwelling on Plot 2, adjacent to Apricot Lodge, Shore Road, Garthorpe.
(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 stated that the plot was the last of 4 on the site. Services were already in place. The neighbours were in favour of the proposal. There was no other use for the site. A 120 foot tractor shed had been built at the rear of the plot which was an “eyesore”. The house would improve the appearance of the site when viewed from the road.
Members agreed that the development was an infill plot would complete the street scene. Therefore permission should be granted.
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to standard outline and any appropriate highways conditions
469 03/1399 by the Director of Education, North Lincolnshire Council for the erection of a single – storey building for use as an adult community learning centre with associated parking at Brumby Adult Community Centre, Grange Lane North, Scunthorpe.
Resolved – (a) That the committee is mindful to grant permission for the development; (b) that the application be referred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in accordance with statutory procedures, to enable him to consider whether or not he wishes to intervene, and (c) that, in the event of the Deputy Prime Minister deciding not to intervene, the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to grant permission subject to the conditions contained in the report.
470 (40) APPEALS – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report informing members of the outcome of the following appeals: –
(i) Against the refusal of outline planning permission for a nursing home extension to provide residential units for the disabled at The Mount, Palmer Lane, Barrow – upon – Humber – Application 2002/1071 – Appeal Allowed.
(ii) Against the refusal of outline planning permission for 6 detached dwellings and garages with associated access road at The Horse and Cart public house, 185 Scawby Road, Scawby Brook, Brigg – Application 2002/1575 – Appeal Dismissed
Against the refusal of outline planning permission for a bungalow on land south of Shepherds Farm, Pump Hill, Cadney – Application 2002/1706 – Appeal Dismissed
Resolved – That the report be noted.
471 (41) ENFORCEMENT UPDATE – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a schedule giving details of progress in respect of matters on which the committee had authorised enforcement action.
Resolved – That the report be noted
472 (42) PUBLIC SPEAKING AT MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE – The Head of Legal and Democratic Services and the Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a joint report asking the committee to consider amendments to the procedure for public speaking at meetings of the committee.Since 1996 members of the public had been permitted to address this committee (formerly the Planning Sub – Committee). The procedure for this had subsequently been amended in the light of experience. Further amendments were now proposed to:
(i) change the period of time allowed for each speaker;
(ii) specify those matters on which people may address the committee;
(ii) vary the period of notice required by those persons wishing to speak; and
(iv) amend the administrative arrangements.
The current procedures were set out in the Council’s Procedure Rules and in the Code of Practice for Members and Officers Dealing with Planning Applications.
Since the procedure was last amended in September 2002 (Minute 211 refers) to reduce the period of notice required for people wishing to speak, there had been a significant increase in the number of speakers. This had led to some very long meetings. As a result some speakers had had to wait up to four and a half hours for their application to be reached.
The most common time limit applied by other councils that allow public speaking was three minutes. This was generally considered to be long enough for speakers to present a case. Adopting this time limit could however reduce the length of meetings.
The current Procedure Rule did not specify the matters on which people may speak. Members of the public had been allowed to speak on planning applications and rights of way issues. However, the committee now considered several other matters such as consultations on regional and national policy and other policy issues. It was suggested that the matters on which speaking was to be allowed should be specified.
When the procedure had last been amended in September 2002, the period of notice required had been reduced from five clear days to 24 hours. Sometimes more than one request could be received to speak for or against an application. In such circumstances Democratic Services staff attempted to contact the parties concerned and to put them in touch with each other. They could then agree prior to the meeting who would speak. However, the current rule allowed little time for this. Extending the period of notice to 48 hours would allow more time for this to be done without being too onerous for would be speakers.
The current procedure required the chair to identify speakers at the start of the meeting. This could be time consuming and could be avoided if speakers were instead asked to identify themselves to a representative of Democratic Services prior to the start of the meeting. This would require the removal of paragraph (ii) of the existing procedure.
Recommended to Council – That Council Procedure Rule 36(e) be amended in accordance with Appendix 2 to the report, with effect from 1 January, 2004.
473 (43) PROPOSED DIVERSION OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH 248, KIRTON – IN – LINDSEY – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report seeking the diversion of part of Footpath 248, Kirton – in – Lindsey.
The council had granted permission for residential development on the land over which part of the path ran. The proposal was the second so far following the grant of planning permission. The council had powers, under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to divert a footpath to enable development for which permission had been granted to take place.
The diversion was in accordance with government advice.
The relevant organisations had been consulted. Only one objection had been received, from the Ramblers Association, however, following a meeting between officers and representatives of the association it was hoped that this would be withdrawn.
Recommended to Council – (a) That an order be made to divert the path in accordance with the report: (b) that the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to confirm and certify the order in the event that it is unopposed; (c) that, if the order is duly confirmed and certified, a further order be made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the County of Lincoln. Parts of Lindsey (Glanford Brigg) Definitive Map and Statement; (d) that the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to take action to remove structures obstructing the present line of the path before the diversion takes effect, and (e) that a further report be submitted to the committee should the order be opposed.
474 (44) PROPOSED DIVERSION OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH 57, BRIGG AND PUBLIC FOOTPATH 75 , BIGBY– The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report seeking the diversion of a section of Footpath 57, Brigg and Footpath 75, Bigby.
The landowner had requested that an order be made to enable him to secure the paddock through which the present path ran. The public would also benefit as the path would be more clearly defined on the ground and there would be no structures to negotiate.
The relevant organisations had been consulted and there had been no objections.
Recommended to Council – (a) That an order be made to divert the path in accordance with the report: (b) that the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to confirm and certify the order in the event that it is unopposed; (c) that, if the order is duly confirmed and certified, a further order be made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the County of Lincoln. Parts of Lindsey (Glanford Brigg) Definitive Map and Statement, and (d) that a further report be submitted to the committee should the order be opposed.
(45) LEGAL EVENT ORDERS – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report seeking to update the definitive maps for North Lincolnshire by depicting certain changes (legal events) to the public – rights – of – way network that had occurred prior to North Lincolnshire’s inception.
Prior to consideration of the report, an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 36 (e). He claimed that the district councils responsible for making a number of the orders in question, had had no powers to confirm the orders. He also claimed that some of the paths had a higher status and that in making the Legal Event Orders the council would be downgrading those paths.
The Head of Service reported that all public rights of way were recorded in a definitive map and its accompanying written schedule (the statement). Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 required the Council to make modifications to the definitive map to take account of any events which had occurred before the Act came into force and thereafter to keep the definitive map and statement under continuous review These duties were discharged by making definitive map modification orders. “Events” fell into two categories: legal and evidential. A legal event was a change to a public right of way through diversion or extinguishment, or the creation of a public right of way. A modification order made as a result of a legal event was commonly known as a legal event order. The two principal definitive maps for North Lincolnshire both have a relevant date of 21 September 1953. This meant that the maps were an accurate record of what public rights of way existed at that time. When changes occurred, the maps in question recorded the change in an order called a definitive map modification order. When definitive map modification orders were made, these were then consulted in tandem with the map itself. This process was known as continuous review of the definitive map.
There had been a substantial number of changes to the public-right-of way network brought about by public path orders that had not had the respective definitive map modification orders made and hence are not recorded on the definitive map.
An investigation had revealed that North Lincolnshire Council were in possession of seventy five public path orders that required definitive map modification orders being made to bring the definitive map up to date.
Since North Lincolnshire Council’s inception in 1996, all legal event orders had been made as soon as practicable after being required.
With regard to the points raised by the objector, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised members that district councils did have concurrent powers to make orders relating to footpaths and to confirm them if unopposed. It was however the Highway Authority’s responsibility to make the changes to the Definitive Maps which resulted from any modifications to definitive Maps arising from the path orders. It was possible that some of the paths might have a higher status, but that was not a matter for the committee to consider at this stage.
Recommended to Council -. That definitive map modification orders be made in respect of outstanding legal events arising prior to North Lincolnshire’s inception as detailed in the appendix to the report.