Planning Committee – 25 August 2010

Chair: Councillor Collinson
Venue: The Council Chamber, Pittwood House, Scunthorpe
Time: 2pm


  1. Substitutions
  2. Declarations of Personal and Personal and Prejudicial Interests, significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (Lobbying) and Whipping Arrangements (if any)
  3. To take the minutes of the meeting held on 29 July 2010 as a correct record and authorise the chair to sign
  4. Applications deferred from previous meeting for site visits
  5. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee
  6. Enforcement update
  7. Planning statistics – April–June 2010
  8. Residential development in Goxhill – moratorium update
  9. Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) – Article 4 direction programme
  10. Interim Affordable Housing Policy – report by head of strategic regeneration, housing and development
  11. 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.


PRESENT: Councillor Collinson (in the chair).

Councillors Whiteley (Vice-Chair), Ali, Bainbridge, Bunyan, Carlile, L Foster, B. Briggs, Eckhardt, Glover, Grant, C Sherwood, and Wardle.

CouncillorJ Briggs attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b)

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.


The following members declared personal interests:-

Nature of Interest
Cllr Grant 1267 (i) 10/0448 Member of Bottesford Town Council
Cllr Collinson 1267 (i) 10/0448 Member of Bottesford Town Council
Cllr L Foster 1267 (i) 10/0448 Member of Bottesford Town Council
Cllr Whiteley 1267 (i) 10/0448 Member of Bottesford Town Council
Cllr Wardle 1267 (iii) 10/0640 Knew the applicant.

1265 MINUTESResolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 29 July 2010, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.

1266 (14) 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) 10/0443 by Mr A Smith for the retention of a single-storey extension (re-submission of PA/2010/0315) at 45 Fulford Crescent, New Holland.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee.

The objector owned the adjoining property. She stated that the extension was now almost completed. It contravened the 45° rule in terms of loss of light. She was concerned that water could run into her own conservatory from the guttering on the extension. She would have difficulty carrying out any necessary repairs to her conservatory due to the small distance between the two buildings. A previous fence between the properties had only been five feet high.

The applicant’s agent stated that the extension was of a similar scale and nature to the objector’s.

Moved by Councillor Wardle and seconded by Councillor Glover –

That permission be granted

Motion Lost

(The voting being equal on the motion the chair used his second and casting vote against it).

Moved by Councillor Grant and seconded by Councillor L Foster –

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

Motion Carried

(The voting being equal on the motion the chair used his second and casting vote in favour of it).

(ii) 10/0578 by Mr A Ellison for the erection of a single-storey and two-storey extension to the rear at Jalna, Barton Road, Wrawby.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee. He stated that the proposal would not cause any additional loss of light to neighbouring properties as there was an existing conifer hedge that blocked light until mid–afternoon. The size of the top-storey element had been reduced from a previous application.

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

1267 (15) 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. The Head of Planning updated the reports orally where appropriate. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

(i) 10/0448 by Mr D Brown for the erection of a conservatory to rear of 33 Ogilvy Drive, Bottesford.

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

(ii) 10/0492 by Miss S Nothard for the change of use of a former Methodist chapel to a dwelling (re-submission of PA/2008/1577).

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee. She stated that the Environment Agency seemed intent on thwarting the proposed development. She had complied with all of its requirements but the Agency was still objecting.

Councillor J Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b), spoke on this application.

Members raised concerns regarding the objection from the Environment Agency which referred to Land Drainage Byelaw 18.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to a future meeting to enable clarification to be sought regarding Byelaw 18 and that members visit the site prior to that meeting.

(iii) 10/0640 by Mr R Dawson for the erection of a field shelter at ButterswoodFarm, Soff Lane, Goxhill.

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

(iv) 10/0665 by Mr D A Knapp for the retention of a 2 metre high brick wall and pillars with close-boarded timber infill panels on the front boundary at 3 Ermine Street, Broughton.

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

(v) 10/0680 by Mrs J Bramble for the erection of a detached 4-bedroomed dwelling and garden store on land adjacent to 83 Burnham Road, Epworth.

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

(vi) 10/0723 by Mr S Smithy for the replacement of an existing workshop (re-submission of PA/2010/0344) at 21 Thinholme Lane, Westwoodside.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant and an objector addressed the committee.

The applicant stated that he had had three temporary permissions on the site. He had a dairy business there and was hoping to live on the site in the future. The proposal would be an improvement on the existing timber workshop. There had been no problems with noise from the site. The building would be further from existing properties than the existing workshop.

The objector questioned the validity of the application and claimed that the business had been operating unlawfully prior to 2008. There had been a number of breached of conditions on the existing permission The proposed building would be larger than the existing and closer to the objector’s property.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report subject to an additional condition making the permission personal to the applicant.

1268 (16) 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.

1269 (17) PLANNING STATISTICS: APRIL TO JUNE 2010 – The Head of Planning submitted a report containing details of the numbers of applications received and determined, broken down by category, in the period April – June 2010.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

1270 (18 ) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN GOXHILL – MORATORIUM UPDATE – Further to Minute 1128, the Head of Planning submitted a report updating members on progress by Anglian Water with regard to a solution to overcome sewerage and drainage issues in the settlement of Goxhill and updating the position with respect to the current moratorium on new residential development within the village.

In 2008, the committee had agreed that a moratorium be placed on new residential development within the defined development boundary for Goxhill until such time as Anglian Water had investigated and reported upon the issues surrounding sewerage capacity. New residential permissions were to be held in abeyance or refused if it was considered they would exacerbate known existing drainage and flooding issues. The moratorium on such development was to be reviewed when the results of Anglian Water’s sewerage and drainage survey was known.

Anglian Water had now fully investigated the issues surrounding surface water flooding within the village and had confirmed that they proposed to invest an estimated £2 million in implementing a flood alleviation scheme for the village. The scheme would involve the construction of a new surface water sewer around part of the village together with the improvement of storage capacity at the pumping station and the upgrading of some of the bottlenecks that existed in the existing sewerage system. Anglian Water the had indicated that there was an intention on their part to complete the work hopefully within two years as it was now fully clear as to what work needed to be done to improve the capacity of the sewerage system in the village. The works that were needed were significant and as such there were detailed design and costings that still needed to be carried out before work can commence on site.

At the present time Anglian Water had indicated that they anticipated that, subject to detailed design and costing, work on the scheme could commence in late spring 2011 with a completion date of spring 2012. The precise details relating to the new sewer alignment and the associated works had yet to be finalised.

There was a straightforward choice to be made in relation to the contents of this report, namely that the moratorium remained in place until such time as the actual works have been completed or alternatively that the moratorium be lifted.

The retention of the moratorium for a further period of time pending completion of the works needed to be reassessed. Any planning application for residential development that was refused or appealed against non-determination within the appropriate timescale had to be defended at appeal. Clearly, if applicants could show that their proposals would not exacerbate existing drainage facilities within the village, then that would be a difficult decision to defend. Furthermore, applicants would, in due course, clearly be able to show that arrangements were in place to address issues of drainage by the statutory undertaker which again weakened the local authority’s case for refusal. It should also be borne in mind that, due to the fact that Goxhill was a minimum growth settlement, council policy H1(iii) in the adopted local plan restricted the number of buildings to a maximum of three on any individual site.

The moratorium in Goxhill had now been in place for some 30 months, in other words since February 2008, and had certainly impacted on the scale and frequency of new residential development within the village. In this respect the moratorium had proved successful and generally applicants and developers had accepted that the problems within Goxhill justified such a radical approach. However, as Anglian Water had now tabled a scheme which identifies ‘hot spots’ within the village where flooding is a real issue, together with a scheme to alleviate the problems for the village, it was now an appropriate time to review the moratorium.

Resolved – (a) That Anglian Water be thanked for their extensive assessment of the flood issues relating to Goxhill and for notifying the council of their intentions to address these problems by constructing a new sewer to serve the village together with upgrading storage capacity and removing bottlenecks in the existing drainage system; (b) that Anglian Water be asked for confirmation of when the proposed works would be carried out, and (c) that the moratorium be maintained pending the works being carried out.

1271 (19) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 -TOWN AND COUNTYR PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995 (GPDO) – ARTICLE 4 DIRECTION PROGRAMME – The Head of Planning submitted a report advising members of the making of a series of Article 4 (Paragraphs (1) and (2)) of the GPDO as required by resolution of the committee.

The council currently had 17 special areas that contributed significantly to defining its character as a place.Of historic and architectural importance these areas had been designated as conservation areas.

It was important that the council managed these areas with a view to their special status and it had a duty to pay special attention to preserving the character and appearance of them when making planning decisions.

The special character and importance of these areas as distinct places that local people readily identified with had been confirmed during 2001 to 2005 when the character of each area had been assessed and management plans developed.

This process had highlighted two concerns. Firstly, it had been found that Development Control practice and procedure relating to the control of works to none family dwellings and other buildings did not necessarily reflect the special nature of these areas. Applications for permission to carry out what might be termed “minor works” to such buildings appeared not to be being requested on a consistent basis.

Secondly, it had been found that “minor works” on single occupancy (family), dwellings were also eroding the character and appearance of these areas and the council authorised the making of Directions under Article 4 (2) of the GPDO as part of a management strategy (see references to minutes at the end of this report).

Issues around the control of minor works to other than family dwellings could be resolved through the adoption of agreed guidelines concerning when the planning authority would require planning applications for such works.

On family dwellings, such works could be controlled by means of directions withdrawing permitted development rights as specified by classes of works in the GPDO. Which classes should be controlled in each conservation area however, needed careful consideration.

For resource reasons it had not been possible to arrange for the needed review. This had been resolved in 2009 when consultants had been employed to advise on the classes to be specified and thus the form of Direction to be made in order to meet with existing council resolutions on this matter.

Circular 9/95 stated that permitted development rights had been endorsed by Parliament and consequently should not be withdrawn locally without compelling reasons. Generally, they should only be withdrawn in “exceptional circumstances” where there was a “real and specific threat” that the permitted development could damage an interest of acknowledged importance and which therefore should be brought within full planning control in the public interest.

The consultants had also been asked therefore, to further review the condition of the council’s conservation areas five years on from the last appraisal.

The findings and recommendations of the consultants were set out in the report.

Resolved – That a programme for reordering of Article 4 controls throughout North Lincolnshire as outlined in the report, including as necessary the revocation of existing Article 4 Directions, be implemented.

1272 (20) INTERIM POLICY RELATING TO THE DELIVERY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING – The Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development submitted a report seeking approval to adopt an interim development control policy on affordable housing.

The national planning policy framework for the delivery of affordable housing was set out in Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3). Together with the Yorkshire and Humber Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 (RSS) the two documents had provided the relevant national and regional policies in terms of setting out what is required in terms of delivering housing at a local level within sustainable communities. They also reflected the previous government’s commitment to aiding the supply of housing for all members of the community and the improvement of the affordability of housing.

On 6 July 2010 however, the Secretary of State had announced the revocation of RSS with immediate effect, with a view to returning decision making powers on housing and planning back to local councils. National guidance set out in PPS3 would, however, continue to remain in force until it is replaced by the National Planning Framework.

The decision to abolish RSS would inevitably result in a policy vacuum which needed to be urgently addressed. The existing planning policies relating to the delivery of affordable housing contained within the North Lincolnshire Local Plan (2003) were not ‘saved’ policies. In the absence of an adopted local policy on affordable housing, officers, had had to rely on national and regional guidance when assessing planning applications for affordable housing requirements.

Whilst PPS3 set out the national policy framework towards the delivery of affordable housing, it could not be solely relied upon in the decision-making process, as it did not reflect local circumstances and only provided the broad parameters for affordable housing delivery.

It was therefore important for the council to have a clear interim planning policy framework in place to secure the delivery of affordable housing. In due course, this policy would be replaced by the statutorily adopted policy within the council’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

Recommended to Council – That the Interim policy on the delivery of affordable housing, as set out in Appendix A to the report, be approved to guide development control decisions for securing the delivery of affordable housing.