Planning Committee – 9 December 2009
Chair: Councillor Collinson
Venue: The Council Chamber, Pittwood House, Scunthorpe
Time: 2pm
AGENDA
- Substitutions.
- Declarations of Personal and Personal and Prejudicial Interests, significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (Lobbying) and Whipping Arrangements (if any)
- To take the minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2009 as a correct record and authorise the chair to sign
- Applications deferred from previous meeting for site visits
- Major planning applications for determination by the committee
- Planning and other applications for determination by the committee
- Enforcement update.
- Request for modification of planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
- Update on WF/2008/0900 – Joint report of the Service Director Legal and Democratic and Service Director Highways and Planning
- Any other items, which the chair decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances, which must be specified.
Note: All reports are by the Head of Planning unless otherwise stated.
Minutes
PRESENT: Councillor Collinson (Chair).
Councillors Armitage, Barker, Bainbridge, B. Briggs, Carlile, Eckhardt, England, Glover, Grant, Mrs Redfern, N Sherwood, and Whiteley.
Councillors J Briggs, J Bromby, T Foster, Poole and Swift attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b)
The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.
1196 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) AND WHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS (IF ANY)
The following members declared personal interests: –
| Members | Minute | Applications | Nature of Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cllr Bainbridge | 1200 (ix) | 09/1229 | Knew applicant |
| Cllr Collinson | 1200 (x) | 09/1253 | Member of Bottesford Town Council |
| Cllr Eckhardt | 1200 (ix) | 09/1229 | Knew applicant |
| Cllr England | 1198 (i) | 09/1120 | Knew the applicant |
| Cllr England | 1200 (ix) | 09/1229 | Applicant was fellow councillor |
| Cllr Glover | 1200 (ix) | 09/1229 | Knew applicant |
| Cllr Grant | 1200 (x) | 09/1253 | Member of Bottesford Town Council |
| Cllr Mrs Redfern | 1200 (i) | 09/0244 | Member of Belton Parish Council |
| Cllr Mrs Redfern | 1200 (vi) | 09/1166 | Member of Belton Parish Council |
| Cllr Mrs Redfern | 1200 (ix) | 09/1229 | Applicant was fellow councillor |
| Cllr N Sherwood | 1200 (ix) | 09/1229 | Applicant was fellow councillor |
| Cllr Whiteley | 1200 (x) | 09/1253 | Member of Bottesford Town Council |
The following members, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared personal interests as follows: –
| Members | Minute | Applications | Nature of Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cllr J Briggs | 1200 (ix) | 09/1229 | Applicant was fellow Conservative councillor |
| Cllr T Foster | 1199 (i) | 09/0915 | Member of Messingham Parish Council |
| Cllr Poole | 1199 (i) | 09/0915 | Member of Messingham Parish Council |
The following members declared that they had been lobbied: –
| Members | Minute | Application/Item |
|---|---|---|
| Cllr Armitage | 1199 (i) | 09/0915 |
| Cllr Armitage | 1203 | Update on WF/2008/0900 |
| Cllr Bainbridge | 1199 (i) | 09/0915 |
| Cllr Barker | 1199 (i) | 09/0915 |
| Cllr Barker | 1200 (xii) | 09/1260 |
| Cllr Carlile | 1199 (i) | 09/0915 |
| Cllr Carlile | 1203 | Update on WF/2008/0900 |
| Cllr B Briggs | 1203 | Update on WF/2008/0900 |
| Cllr B Briggs | 1199 (i) | 09/0915 |
| Cllr B Briggs | 1198 (ii) | 09/1137 |
| Cllr Collinson | 1200 (xii) | 09/1260 |
| Cllr England | 1199 (i) | 09/0915 |
| Cllr England | 1200 (xii) | 09/1260 |
| Cllr England | 1203 | Update on WF/2008/0900 |
| Cllr N Sherwood | 1198 (ii) | 09/1137 |
| Cllr N Sherwood Cllr D Whiteley Cllr D Whiteley |
1200 (xii) 1200 (x) 1200 (xii) |
09/1260 09/1253 09/1260 |
The following members attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared that they had been lobbied:
| Member | Minute | Application/Item |
|---|---|---|
| Cllr J Briggs | 1200 (xii) | 09/1260 |
| Cllr T Foster | 1199 (i) | 09/0915 |
| Cllr Poole | 1198 (i) | 09/1120 |
| Cllr Poole | 1199 (i) | 09/0915 |
The following officer declared a clear and substantial non-pecuniary interest
| Officer | Minute | Item | Nature of Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr M Welton: Head of Planning | 1203 | Update on WF/2008/0900 | Decision had been taken against his professional advice. |
1197 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 11 November 2009 having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.
1198 (46) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken site visits on the morning of the meeting. The Head of Planning submitted reports and updated them orally.
(i) 09/1120 by Ian Fowler and Co for the conversion of traditional farm buildings into two residential properties and reinstatement of partly demolished building for use for storage purposes at barns adjacent to Cleatham Hall Farm, B1400 between Cleatham and Messingham, Cleatham.
Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee. He stated that the site was at the centre of a small hamlet. The application would enhance the setting of a listed building. There were good public transport links from the site. Therefore the site was sustainable. Permission had been granted elsewhere in North Lincolnshire for the conversion to more than one dwelling in similar locations.
Councillors T Foster and Poole, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke in support of the application.
Moved by Councillor England and seconded by Councillor Eckhardt –
That permission be granted
Motion Lost
Moved by Councillor Armitage and seconded by Councillor Bainbridge –
That permission be refused in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
Motion Carried
(ii) 09/1137 by Cedar Medical Practice for the erection of an extension to an existing medical practice at 275 Ashby Road, Scunthorpe.
Prior to consideration of this application one of the applicants and an objector addressed the committee.
The applicant stated that the proposal would provide space for the training of two additional GPs. If it was not able to go ahead the practice could lose its status as a training practice. The extension would provide access and toilets for persons with disabilities which the existing practice did not have. It would not detract from the amenities of neighbours. As the extension would be for training purposes only it would not generate any additional traffic. As it would be to the north of the objector’s property it would not affect sunlight to that property.
The objector was concerned at the scale and mass of the proposed extension. It would not comply with the provisions of policies DS1 or DS5 of the Local Plan. A previous application for an extension had been refused. The applicant had not explored alternative layouts. The extension would reduce his privacy and result in overlooking of his property. It would also reduce sunlight and daylight. There was inadequate car parking provision.
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report.
1199 (47) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS – The Head of Planning submitted a report incorporating a schedule containing details of major applications for determination by the committee including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications.
(i) 09/0915 by North Lincolnshire Council for the carrying out of alterations and extensions in connection with combining infant and junior schools (re-submission of PA/2009/0304) and installation of an external lighting scheme at Messingham Primary Infant School, Briggate Drive, Messingham.
Prior to consideration of this application an objector and two supporters of the application addressed the committee.
The objector was concerned that the proposal would cause traffic congestion and potential road safety hazards for young children around the school. Vehicular access was via narrow cul-de-sacs. At school opening and closing times local residents were sometimes unable to get in and out of their properties in their cars and emergency services would have difficulty gaining access.
The supporters believed that the school was at the heart of the local community. It was a good school and highly regarded locally. The Northfield Road site was unsustainable and had safety and security issues. Children were being taught in temporary classrooms with no disabled access or toilets. The school had been built before the nearby houses and it had always been intended to combine the site, therefore objectors would have been aware of this when they purchased their homes. The amount of time during which children would be going to and from the school was very small.
Councillors T Foster and Poole, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b), spoke on the application.
Moved by Councillor Armitage and seconded by Councillor Bainbridge –
That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report
Moved by Councillor England and seconded by Councillor N Sherwood –
(a)That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the removal of the words “construction-phase” from Condition 2, and (b) that the Cabinet Member for Highways and Planning be asked to make a Traffic Regulation Order prohibiting stopping on West Green, School Drive and Briggate Drive between the hours of 8am and 9am and 3pm and 5 pm on school days.
Amendment Lost
Motion Carried
(ii) 09/1096 by Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd for the erection of 12 dwellings (substitution of house types for plots 5-16 inclusive) on land off Tofts Road, Clipson Close, Barton-upon-Humber
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report.
1200 (48) PLANNING AND OTHER APPLICATIONS – The Head of Planning 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.
(i) 09/0244 by Mrs L Jobling for the retention of a building to be used as a shelter for poultry and storage of hay on land north of Gares Lane, Belton.
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report.
(ii) 09/0743 by Keiger Homes Ltd for the erection of five detached houses and two pairs of semi-detached houses (resubmission of planning permission PA/2007/2011) on land off Mill View, Barton-upon-Humber
Resolved – That it be noted that this application has been withdrawn.
(iii) 09/1094 by Mr H Patel for minor alterations to previously approved application PA/2009/0222, to include widening access and changes to existing boundary treatments at 12 Greenhill, Broughton
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report.
(iv) 09/1109 by Mrs K Shepperson for rear two-storey and single-storey extensions at The Hawk, New Holland Road, Barrow-upon-Humber.
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report.
(v) 09/1112 by Mr J Nuttall for variation of conditions 1 and 2 of PA/2001/0396 relating to the height of storage and particle size at North Killingholme Storage, Lancaster House, Lancaster Approach, North Killingholme.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the conditions contained in the report. subject to the amendment of Condition 1 to read” No loose materials, other than desulphogypsum, of less than 3mm particle size shall be…….”
(vi) 09/1166 by Powell Engineering UK Ltd for the erection of two detached dwellings and two detached domestic garages at rear of 91 High Street, Belton.
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report.
(vii) 09/1180 by Mr K Peart for retention of a change of use of agricultural land to domestic garden and the erection of a fence at 56 Bigby Road, Brigg.
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report.
(viii) 09/1192 by Albion Assistance Ltd for variation of Condition 4 of PA/2009/0595 to extend opening hours to 8 am to 6pm on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays at Albion Assistance Ltd., Ferry Road, Barton-upon-Humber.
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report.
(ix) 09/1229 by Mr D Wells for replacement of a flat roof with a pitched roof at 21 Kings Road, Barnetby le Wold
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report.
(x) 09/1253 by Telephonica O2 UK Ltd for determination concerning prior approval for the erection of a 15 metre high column and equipment cabinet on grass verge outside The Dolphin Inn, Messingham Road, Bottesford.
Councillors Mrs Bromby and Swift, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b), spoke against this application.
Resolved – That prior approval be refused for reasons relating to loss of visual amenity and road safety.
Councillors Eckhardt, Mrs Bromby and Swift left the meeting.
(xi) 09/1254 by The Salvation Army Trustee Company for change of use of a public house to a Salvation Army Hall at The Carnival Inn, 114 Tofts Road, Barton-upon-Humber.
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report.
(xii) 09/1260 by RES UK and Ireland Ltd for the siting of ten 80m high anemometer masts on land north and south of Keadby Grange, access road to Pilfrey Farm and Keadby Grange, Crowle and Keadby.
Prior to consideration of this application a representative of the applicant and an objector addressed the committee.
The applicant’s representative stated that the company was working to agree a Traffic Management Plan. It already had consent for a number of such masts. However additional masts were required to assist with calibrating the turbines on site. The traffic impact would be negligible.
The objector believed that consideration of the application should be deferred pending approval of a Traffic Management Plan.
Councillor J Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b), spoke against this application.
Resolved – That permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report.
1201 (49) ENFORCEMENT UPDATE – The Head of Planning submitted a schedule giving details of progress in respect of matters on which he had taken enforcement action under delegated authority.
Resolved – That the report be noted.
1202 (50) REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF PLANNING OBLIGATION UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – The Head of Planning submitted a report regarding a request from a developer to modify an obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to the provision and maintenance of an area of public open space and local area of play within a housing estate at Barton-upon-Humber.
Planning permission reference PA/2006/0782 for the erection of 45 dwellings with associated garages and allocated parking on land at Barrow Road, Barton upon Humber had been granted to Haslam Homes Ltd (now known as Keepmoat Homes Ltd) on 8 February 2007. In conjunction with this application a Section 106 Agreement had been entered into which required the developer to provide affordable housing, to pay an education contribution and to provide a public open space and local area of play, along with a financial contribution for future maintenance of the public open space and area of play.
The agreement required the provision and landscaping of an area of local space and the provision of a local area of play, to be equipped in accordance with details as set out in Schedule II of the planning obligation.
The agreement also required a recreation contribution of £22,971.00 to be paid to the council within 12 months of provision of the public open space and local area of play.
The public open space had been provided on the site and the local area of play had been completed in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The only outstanding aspect of the Section 106 in relation to the public open space/local area of play was the payment of the financial contribution to the council to be used for future maintenance.
The developer had requested modification of the planning obligation to allow non-payment of the financial contribution to North Lincolnshire Council and to allow the future maintenance of the local play area and public open space to be undertaken by Greenbelt Group Ltd which was a private management company.
Resolved – That the request be refused.
Mr M Welton, having declared a clear and substantial non-pecuniary interest in the following item (Minute 1203) left the meeting.
1203 (51) UPDATE ON WF/2008/0900 – Further to minute 1133(i), the Service Director Highways and Planning and the Service Director Legal and Democratic submitted a joint report inviting members to re-assess the reasons for refusal of this application, which was the subject of an appeal, in the light of recent advice.
Prior to consideration of the matter, an objector addressed the committee. He stated that other issues had been raised by third parties and that these should also be considered as additional reasons for refusal. He referred to noise, the proximity of the proposed turbines to an existing animal waste incinerator and the potential impact on a family with a member whose health problem could potentially be exacerbated by the proposal. He also referred to a late objection by the Ministry of Defence.
Councillor J Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b), spoke on this item
The Service Director Legal and Democratic reported that an appeal had been lodged against the refusal of permission. A public inquiry was to be held on 23-26 February and 2-3 March 2010. A barrister had been instructed to put forward the council’s case. He had considered the evidence and advised that the council needed to re-assess its position prior to the inquiry, especially since the publication of the Renewable Energy Strategy by the Government in July 2009.
This strategy stated “We need to radically increase our use of renewable electricity, heat and transport. This strategy explains how and why we will do so. It sets out the path for us to meet our legally-binding target to ensure 15% of our energy comes from renewable sources by 2020: almost a seven-fold increase in the share of renewables in scarcely more than a decade.
This strategy will help us tackle climate change, reducing the UK’s emissions of carbon dioxide by over 750 million tonnes between now and 2030. It will also promote the security of our energy supply, reducing our overall fossil fuel demand by around 10% and gas imports by 20-30% against what they would have been in 2020. And it will provide outstanding opportunities for the UK economy with the potential to create up to half a million more jobs in the UK renewable energy sector resulting from around £100 billion of new investment. In parallel with energy saving, nuclear and carbon capture and storage, this is a key element of our overall transition plan for setting the UK on the path to achieve a low-carbon, sustainable future that helps address dangerous climate change.”
This strategy was reflected by the planning policy cascade from national through to regional and local policies and the report set out the relevant provisions contained in the Supplement to PPS1 (Planning and Climate Change), PPS 22 (Renewable Energy), the Regional Spatial Strategy, the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance 13, Wind Energy Development.
The factors against siting the wind turbines were set out in the reasons for refusal. Members now needed to re-assess the factors in favour of and against the siting of the turbines and reconsider whether all reasons for refusal could be substantiated.
Members had been advised at previous planning committees that if a reason for refusal was considered weak, costs could sometimes be awarded against the authority for failure to defend that reason even though the appeal may be dismissed. It was therefore sometimes better to drop one of the reasons for refusal and concentrate on the others.
It was considered that the first and second reasons for refusal were still valid. Evidence would be presented at the inquiry as to the impact of the surrounding area, in particular the escarpment woodland, and the undesirable cumulative impact of the turbines in such a small geographical area.
It was considered that the third reason was enhanced by the negative impact of noise on the residents of Burton-upon-Stather.
It was considered that the fourth reason for refusal was the least likely to be substantiated owing to the specific advice contained in PPS 22.
Failure to fully substantiate any reason for refusal at the inquiry could lead to an award of costs being made against the council.
Resolved – (a) That, having re-assessed the balance between the benefits of renewable energy and the harm that this scheme could cause, the committee remain satisfied that the harm outweighs the benefits, and (b) that, in the light of up-to-date advice, the fourth reason for refusal is not defended and officers be instructed accordingly.