Planning Committee – 5 January 2005

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

AGENDA

1. Substitutions.

2. Declarations of Personal and Personal and Prejudicial Interests, and significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (Lobbying).

3. To take the minutes of the meeting held on 1 December, 2004as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.

PLANNING MATTERS

4. Applications deferred from previous meeting for site visits: –

(i) 04/1764 by Birchwood Developments (Lincs.) Ltd for the erection of three bungalows with access off West Acridge, on land adjacent to and rear of 36 West Acridge, Barton-upon-Humber.

(ii) 04/1797 by Mrs M Gilbey for the erection of two dwellings on land adjacent to Rockywal, Vicarage Lane, North Killingholme.

(iii) 04/1762 by Mr A Harrison for the erection of 2 dwellings at 33 West End Road, Epworth.

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

6. Appeals.

7. Enforcement Update.

8. Confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order at 28 Stone Lane, Burringham.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY MATTERS

9. Submission of Orders to Secretary of State – Green Lane, Barton.

10. Public Path Diversion Order – Public Footpath 312, Winteringham.

11. Cut – Off Date for Adding Byways Open To All Traffic to the Definitive Map and Statement.

12. Proposed Closure of Public Footpath 32, Barton – upon – Humber and Proposed Diversions of Public Footpath 35, Barton – upon – Humber.

13. Response to two papers issued for consultation by DEFRA on Public Rights of Way.

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

Note: Extracts from the relevant legislation in respect of Items 9 – 12 are available upon request from Colin Wilkinson, Church Square House, Scunthorpe. Telephone 01724 297391.

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

Minutes

PRESENT: – Councillor Wardle (Chairman in the chair ).

Councillors Long (Vice – Chairman), Bunyan, Eckhardt, England, Fordham, Glover, Grant, Kirk, Waldron and Whiteley.

Councillors Mrs Bromby and Holgate attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37 (b).

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

644 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL AND PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AND DECLARATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) –The following members declared personal interests as follows: –

Member
Minute
Application
Nature of Interest
Councillors Grant and Whiteley 647 (ix)647 (xii)647 (xiv) 04/1881
04/1948
04/1974
Members of Bottesford Town Council
Councillor Eckhardt 647 (xv) 04/2016 Member of Haxey Parish Council
Councillor England 647 (x) 04/1896 Resident of Westfield Drive.
Member of Messingham Parish council
Councillor England 647 (xiii)
647 (xvii)
04/1960
04/2057
Knew Applicants

Councillor Bunyan declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application 04/1945 (Minute 647 (xi)) as a friend of the applicant.

The following member declared that he had been lobbied –

Member
Application
Lobbied By
Councillor Glover 04/1945 Applicant and objectors

645 MINUTESResolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 1 December, 2004, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

646 (65) 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) 04/1764 by Birchwood Developments (Lincs) for the erection of three detached bungalows with access off West Acridge, on land adjacent to and rear of 36 West Acridge, Barton-upon-Humber

Prior to consideration of this application a representative of the applicants addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e).He stated that Barton was a selected growth area. The site was a garden and therefore “brownfield”. There were no objections from immediate neighbours. The development would not cause any traffic or parking problems as it would use the existing access to 36 West Acridge. It would not create any on-street parking.

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

(ii) 04/1797 by Mrs Marie Gilbey for Outline permission for the erection of two dwellings on land adjacent to Rockywal, Vicarage Lane, North Killingholme

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

(iii) 04/1762 by Mr A Harrison for the erection of two dwellings at 33 West End Road, Epworth

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, whilst the plot was outside the development limit for Epworth, it was an infill site. It was currently an operational coal yard. Removing the coal yard would be a planning gain. The site was brownfield and surrounded by housing. There would be no loss of privacy to neighbouring properties as the proposed dwellings would be sited to avoid this. The Environment Agency had withdrawn its objection.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration confirmed that the Environment Agency had withdrawn its objection. He accepted that the proposal could amount to planning gain. Nevertheless the site was well outside the development limit.

Councillor Holgate, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37(b), spoke in support of the application. He stated that the removal of the coal yard would improve the street scene.

Moved by Councillor Whiteley and seconded by Councillor Fordham –

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

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 Fordham, Grant, Kirk, Waldron and Whiteley.

AGAINST: Councillors Bunyan, Eckhardt, England, Glover, Long and Wardle.

Motion Lost

Moved by Councillor Bunyan and seconded by Councillor Glover –

That permission be granted subject to standard outline conditions, any conditions requested by the Highways Team and conditions relating to a flood risk assessment, surface water drainage, landscaping and pollution.

Motion Carried

In coming to this decision members considered that the proposal would be a planning gain and would improve the street scene. This outweighed the policy reasons for refusing the application.

647 (66) 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) 03/1522 by Guardian Care Homes (UK) Ltd for the erection of four new buildings to provide space for 19 residents, making of alterations to an existing storage building to form a new link corridor and construction of a new car park at Barrow Hall Nursing Home, Wold Road, Barrow – upon – Humber.

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

The objector stated that there was no provision in the Local Plan for such development. The report interpreted a number of policies very loosely. Granting permission would make a mockery of the planning system.

The applicants’ representative stated that the development was necessary to meet the needs of residents.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the applications had been submitted some time ago. Discussions with the applicants had been ongoing for some time to find an acceptable scheme. English Heritage had been consulted and had no problem with the application. in principle, although it had some concerns which could be dealt with by conditions. As the hall was a Grade 1 Listed Building, the final decision was not the committee’s. The application would have to be referred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

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 ODPM deciding not to intervene the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(ii) 03/1523 by Guardian Care Homes (UK) Ltd for listed building consent for demolition of outbuildings in order to erect new buildings and make alterations to existing buildings at Barrow Hall Nursing Home, Wold Road, Barrow-upon-Humber

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 ODPM deciding not to intervene the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(iii) 04/0291 by Mr B Lally for the erection of a new 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 35 (e). He stated that the proposal would lead to a loss of privacy for himself as it would overlook his bedroom and conservatory. It would be over development of the site which would be out of keeping with its surroundings.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to an additional condition requiring the window to be obscure glazed.

(iv) 04/1650 by Mr J Thompson and M Winter for the erection of three dwellings on land to the rear of 7, 9 and 11 Main Street, Kirmington

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

He stated that he did not object to development of the site in principle but he considered that more weight should be given to the impact on neighbours who would suffer a loss of privacy. The site had not been used for industrial purposes for some years. The site could be developed in a more sympathetic manner.

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

(v) 04/1665 by Presslers Solicitors for listed building consent to retain a fire door in rear elevation

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

(vi) 04/1798 by Mr J Griffiths for the erection of a two-storey extension, part two-storey rear infill extension, conservatory and a triple detached garage with room over at 4 Haytons Lane, Appleby

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

(vii) 04/1823 by S Richardson and L Czabaniuk for the erection of a storage building and retention of a shed and lean-to building on Field no. 6632, The Turbary, Epworth

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

(viii) 04/1848 by JA & MP Lindley for outline permission for the erection of farm buildings, a dwelling and associated structures in connection with the relocation of a farm complex on site adjacent to Hill Crest Farm, East Lound Road, Owston Ferry

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant’s agent addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that the proposal was to relocate the farm outside of the village. The present site was close to residential properties and involved the storage of straw close to houses. Stock was being damaged.

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

(ix) 04/1881 by Mr and Mrs P Harrold for the retention of a conservatory at 36 Blenheim Court, Scunthorpe

Councillor Mrs Bromby, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 37(e), addressed the committee. She was concerned that the application was retrospective. The conservatory would be very close to a neighbouring property and would have an overbearing effect on that property.

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

(x) 04/1896by C Masterson for the erection of a single and two-storey extensions and a detached garage (re-submission of 2004/0996) at 38 Butterwick Road, Messingham

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

(Note; Councillor Bunyan, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application, 04/1945, left the meeting at this point)

(xi) 04/1945 by Mr T Dobson – T Dobson Ltd for the extension of a cul-de-sac turning head at south eastern end of The Blackthorns, Broughton

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 proposal would lead to traffic coming within twelve feet of his property. It did not respect or enhance the development and failed to meet the requirements of policy DS1 in the local plan.

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

(Note: at this point Councillor Bunyan returned to the meeting).

(xii) 04/1948 by Mr and Mrs Bournes for the erection of a two-storey domestic extension at 9 Waddington Road, Bottesford

Resolved – That this application be withdrawn from the agenda on the basis that the third party request to address the committee has been withdrawn.

(xiii) 04/1960 by Dr and Mrs GM Jacques for outline permission to erect 6 dwellings on land on the west side opposite 82 South Cliff Road, Kirton-in-Lindsey

Prior to consideration of this application the applicants’ agent and an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). The agent stated that the applicants had submitted another application for a sports facility which would be benefit to local residents and Huntcliff School. The present application was in accordance with the spirit and objectives of policies in the local plan.

The objector stated that the site was an inappropriate site for development and should be retained as open space. The proposal was contrary to the local plan.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services reminded members that they should consider the application on its merits and should disregard what had been said about another application

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

(xiv) 04/1974 by Mr M Pepperell and Ms S Rushby for the erection of a two-storey extension and sun lounge to the side of a dwelling at 197 Valley View Drive, Bottesford

Resolved – That this application be withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

(xv) 04/2016 by Mr Ellis Kynman for outline permission for the erection of a dwelling on land adjacent to 116 Akeferry Road, Graiselound.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicants’ agent addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that although the site was outside the development limit it was an infill plot. The development would not encroach into the open countryside.

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

(xvi) 04/2019 by JA Lindley for the change of use of barns to a dwelling and erection of a new garage (re-submission of 2004/1734) at Manor Farm, Main Road, Gunthorpe, Owston Ferry.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant’s agent addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that, although the barn had not been actively marketed for six months, it was obviously more suitable for residential than commercial use.

Moved by Councillor Eckhardt and seconded by Councillor England –

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 Kirk and seconded by Councillor Fordham –

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

Motion Carried

(xvii) 04/2057 by Dr and Mrs GM Jacques for outline permission to erect a dwelling on land to the south of Park Farm South Cliff Road, Kirton-in-Lindsey

Prior to consideration of this application the applicants’ agent and an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). The agent stated that the site was adjacent to an existing farmhouse. Whilst it was just outside the development limit the development was otherwise in accordance with the local plan. The applicants had submitted another application for a sports facility which would be benefit to local residents and Huntcliff School

The objector reminded members that they should disregard the reference to a separate application in determining the present one. There would be problems with access and egress to the site.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration updated his report by advising that the town council had indicated that it had no objection to the application. He advised that the site was a “greenfield” site and the proposal would therefore be contrary to policy even if it was inside the development limit. In fact it was some distance outside the limit.

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

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

Reference
Subject
Result
2004/0004 Replacement windows at 27 Fleetgate, Barton Appeal dismissed.
2004/0041 Change of use of shop to hot food takeaway at 10 The Precinct, Westcliff, Scunthorpe Appeal allowed subject to conditions relating to opening hours and fume extraction, and requiring the use to cease within 3 years of the date of permission
2004/0295 Extension to dwelling at 75 Weymouth Crescent, Scunthorpe Appeal dismissed.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

649 (68) 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. He updated the report by informing members that appeals had been lodged against two notices served in respect of land at Limber Road, Kirmington

Resolved – That the report be noted.

650 (69) CONFIRMATION OF A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AT 28 STONE LANE, BURRINGHAM

Prior to consideration of this matter an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that the tree’s roots were lifting his patio and growing through his lawn.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report inviting members to decide on whether to confirm a tree preservation order placed on a poplar tree in the rear garden of 28 Stone Lane, Burringham.

The owners of the tree had contacted the Council, stating that they believed that it was a Populus nigra var. betulifolia (Black Poplar), a rare tree within the area that should be protected against possible removal.

A temporary tree preservation order (Section 201) had been placed on the tree to allow the Council the time to investigate and confirm exact species of the tree.

An expert had been consulted who had decided that the tree, although a Poplar was not a Populus nigra var. betulifolia. There had been numerous objections to the placing of a tree preservation order on the tree from properties in Meadow Close, Burringham due to the proximity of the tree, and alleged effects of roots on the properties and drains. Letters had also been received from solicitors acting on their behalf.

For these reasons if was not considered expedient to confirm the order.

Resolved – That the order is not confirmed.

651 (70) SUBMISSION OF ORDERS TO SECRETARY OF STATE – GREEN LANE, BARTON-UPON-HUMBER

Prior to consideration of this matter an objector addressed the committee in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 35 (e). He stated that Green Lane should be a publicly maintainable highway The footpath was a pavement to the road.

Further to Minute 593, the Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report inviting members to decide on whether to submit two definitive map modification orders to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

Two definitive map modification orders had been made, in accordance with Minute 593, on 2 September 2004, one in relation to the main body of the route between Barrow Road and Beck Hill, via Green Lane and the southern side of St. Peter’s Church, and the other in relation to a connecting spur of a considerably shorter length along the eastern side of St. Peter’s Church also to Beck Hill.

The orders had been advertised in the Scunthorpe Telegraph on
17 September 2004, following which two objections had been duly lodged. One of these objectors had since withdrawn his objection in writing. However, the other objector had not done so.

In response to the objector the Head of Service reminded members that they had a duty to keep the Definitive Map under continuous review. Part of Green Lane was on the List of Streets. The Definitive Map recorded certain types of minor highway. Publicly maintainable highways were recorded on the List of Streets.

Resolved – That the “Definitive Map Modification (Public Footpath 38, Barton-upon-Humber) Order 2004(1)” and “Definitive Map Modification (Public Footpath 38A, Barton-upon-Humber) Order 2004(1)”be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation as made.

652 (71) PUBLIC PATH DIVERSION ORDER – PUBLIC FOOTPATH 312 WINTERINGHAM – Further to Minute 543, the Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report inviting members to decide on whether to submit a public path diversion order to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

An order had been made, in accordance with Minute 543, and advertised and had attracted one objection. The objector had subsequently indicated that he was prepared to withdraw the objection, but had not done so formally.

Resolved – (a That the order be submitted to the Secretary of State with a recommendation that the order be confirmed as made, and (b) that if the order is confirmed, a further order be made under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the definitive map in consequence of the diversion.

653 (72) CUT-OFF DATE FOR ADDING BYWAYS OPEN TO ALL TRAFFIC TO THE DEFINITIVE MAP AND STATEMENT – The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report informing members of the likelihood that Government would introduce a cut-off date for adding new byways open to all traffic to the definitive map and statement either this year or next and the implications arising therefrom.

Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 a deadline was to be introduced beyond which new public rights of way would be precluded from entry upon the definitive map. Nor would it be possible to record greater rights over the line of an existing path or way (e.g. the reclassification of a bridleway as a byway open to all traffic).

The deadline, or cut-off date, was 1 January 2026. Any public right of way that was in existence before 1949 and was not recorded in a definitive map by the cut-off date would cease to exist.

Since the Act had enacted, the Government had consulted on the prospect of bringing forward the cut-off date to take effect during 2005/06 with respect to byways open to all traffic only. The cut-off date in respect of footpaths and bridleways would be unaffected.

The Act would also require surveying authorities, such as North Lincolnshire Council, to compile and maintain a register of applications made by members of the public to modify the definitive map. It was understood that this requirement would take effect during 2005. Any applications so recorded would then be processed to a conclusion.

There were currently only two such byways recorded in North Lincolnshire. However it was possible that other routes should be so recorded

Resolved – That the report be noted.

654 (73) PROPOSED CLOSURE OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH 32, BARTON-UPON-HUMBER AND PROPOSED DIVERSION OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH 35, BARTON-UPON-HUMBER The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report seeking approval to stop up part of Public Footpath 32, Barton upon Humber, and divert part of Public Footpath 35, Barton upon Humber.

The proposed stopping up of Public Footpath 32 and part diversion of a section of Public Footpath 35 would support a planning application for a managed realignment scheme at Chowder Ness in the inner Humber Estuary. Planning permission had been granted to realign existing sea defences and create new intertidal habitats on existing agricultural land.

In order to create a new intertidal mudflat to replace mudflat habitat that will be lost as part of proposed port development schemes at Immingham and Hull, it was proposed to remove the existing sea defences and to construct new defences to the landward boundary of the proposed site.

Public Footpath 32 ran along the crest of the existing sea defence. As part of the scheme it was proposed to close a section of this footpath. Access along the Humber shoreline would be transferred to the existing and diverted sections of Public Footpath 35, proceeding first along the southern, then western boundary of South Cliff Farm before joining the new sea defences. The width of the newly created footpath along the new sea defences would be a minimum width of four metres.

It was envisaged that the works would be undertaken over a period of two years, in a number of stages. The first stage would be the construction of the new flood bank. This would require a temporary closure of Public Footpath 35. On completion of the flood bank Public Footpath 35 would be diverted in part to follow the newly constructed flood bank.

The second stage would be to remove the existing sea wall. This would be undertaken in several stages involving the overall lowering of the embankment. This stage would require Public Footpath 32 to be stopped up.

Resolved – (a) That the two orders be made as described in the report; (b) that the Head of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to confirm the orders if they are unopposed; (c) that should the order be confirmed as unopposed 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. Following the certification of the orders, and (d) that a further report be submitted to the committee should either or both of the orders be opposed.

655 (74) NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL RESPONSE TO TWO PAPERS ISSUED FOR CONSULTATION BY DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA) ON PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY –The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report seeking approval for submitting to the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responses to two papers concerning public rights of way.

These related to: a) registers of definitive map modification order applications; and Highways Act 1980 applications and declarations; and b) consultation on joint orders and the power to include modifications in other orders.

Appendices to the report detailed the Council’s suggested responses.

Resolved – That the responses contained in Appendices One and Two to the report, be submitted to DEFRA.