Planning Committee – 27 April 2011

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 6 April 2011 as a correct record and authorise the chair to sign
  4. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee
  5. Residential development In Goxhill – moratorium update
  6. Planning statistics: January to March 2011
  7. Town And Country Planning Act 1990. Town And Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) – Article 4. Article 4 Direction – Confirmation Procedure – Consideration of Representations. Report of the Director of Infrastructure Services
  8. Interim Planning Guidance – South Humber Gateway Transport Contributions. Report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning

Note: All reports are by the Head of Planning unless otherwise stated.


PRESENT: Councillor Collinson (in the chair).

Councillors Whiteley (Vice-Chair), Ali, Bainbridge, Barker, B Briggs, Carlile, Eckhardt, England, O’Sullivan, C Sherwood, N Sherwood and Wardle.

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.


The following member declared a personal and prejudicial interest:

Nature of interest
Cllr N Sherwood 1341 N/A Shop owner in the Brigg Conservation Area

The following members declared a personal interest:

Nature of interest
Cllr Eckhardt 1338 (ii) 11/0142 Knew applicant
Cllr England 1338 (iv) 11/0255 Possibly knew applicant
Cllr Wardle 1338 (vi) 11/0312 Knew the agent and possibly the applicant

The following member declared that he had been lobbied:

Cllr Barker 1338 (i) 11/0130

1337 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 6 April 2011, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.

1338 (61) 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) 11/0130 by Mr J Murray for the erection of two-storey and single-storey extensions at 21 Lindsey Drive, Crowle.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report subject to an additional condition requiring a ground floor window on the western elevation to be obscure glazed.

(ii) 11/0142 by Mr and Mrs R Duke for the erection of a detached dwelling on land adjacent to 11 The Nooking, Haxey.

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

(iii) 11/0177 by Mr and Mrs P Jackson for the erection of a single-storey extension to side and rear and raising of roof height at 1 Bird Lane, Belton.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee. He was concerned that the extension would exceed the twenty per cent rule under Policy RD2 of the Local Plan. It would have a higher roof than the existing building and would be too large for the plot.

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

(iv) 11/0255 by Mr DRS Churchill for the formation of a new field access on land between 4 and 2A, North Cliff Road, Kirton-in-Lindsey.

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

(v) 11/0286 by Mr and Mrs P Burnett for the erection of a detached single-storey dwelling and domestic garage (re-submission of PA/2011/0063) on land off Cherry Lane, Wootton.

Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He said that the family had been living there for three generations and would looking to build sustainable low energy homes in the village. The proposal was in accordance with national planning policy.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report subject to additional conditions requiring any block paving to be of permeable material.

(vi) 11/0312 by Mr and Mrs G Maddison for the erection of a dwelling (re-submission of PA/2010/0785) on land adjacent to The Elms, 13 Abbey Road, Ulceby.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee. The application would allow his daughter and family to continue to live in the village. The site would not be readily visible from Abbey Road. There was other backland development on Abbey Road.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred pending receipt of a satisfactory ecological survey.

1339 (62) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN GOXHILL – MORATORIUM UPDATE – The Head of Planning submitted a report updating members on progress by Anglian Water regarding a solution to overcome sewerage and drainage issues in Goxhill and the position with respect to the current moratorium on new residential development within the village.

Anglian Water had advised that survey work for ecology, archaeology, ground condition and ordnance was starting imminently. Subject to the above being satisfactory, the work on site would start in September and would take six to eight months to complete. (Exact timing would depend on survey findings.)
At the present time all new planning applications within the settlement of Goxhill were required to show conclusively that residential building, if permitted, would not exacerbate existing drainage issues within the village. Usually this had involved the applicant providing full details of how foul and surface water would be disposed of including, in some instances, on-site storage capacity to ensure no overload of the existing system. Unless such confirmation was provided, applications had been held in abeyance or refused. Approval had only been recommended for schemes where there was a clear engineering solution to any capacity problem.

At present the moratorium was still council policy with respect to Goxhill and consideration needed to be given, in light of Anglian Water’s commitment to undertaking the suggested improvements, as to whether or not the moratorium should be lifted.

All planning applications for residential development in Goxhill were referred to Anglian Water for comment and their views were incorporated in any report and recommendation on each individual application. Furthermore, engineers within Highways and Planning assessed the proposals against the information and detail that the council had put together following the flooding in 2007. This combined advice formed the basis on which any recommendation was then put forward as to whether the application should be supported.

There was a choice to be made as to whether the moratorium was to remain in place until such time as the actual works had been completed or alternatively that the moratorium be lifted.

Resolved – (a) That, in view of the information provided by Anglian Water the moratorium be extended for a further 18 months, that is until the end of October 2012, and (b) that a further review be undertaken once a firm finish date for the works is known.

1340 (63) PLANNING STATISTICS: JANUARY – MARCH 2011 – The Head of Planning submitted a report containing details of the numbers of applications received and determined, broken down by category, in the period January to March 2011. The report showed an improvement in the time taken to determine all types of application.

Resolved – That the report be received with pleasure.

Prior to consideration of the following item (Minute 1341 refers) Councillor N Sherwood, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the matter left the meeting.

1341 (64) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995 (GPDO) – ARTICLE 4 DIRECTION – CONFIRMATION PROCEDURE – CONSIDERATION OF REPRESENTATIONS – Further to Minute 1271, the Director of Infrastructure Services submitted a report bringing to members’ attention a representation made in connection with this Direction and seeking instructions as to whether the Direction should be confirmed.

Prior to consideration of this item, the objector addressed the committee. He was concerned that the Direction would prevent him from carrying out necessary works to his house including dealing with invasive tree roots.

The Director of Infrastructure reported that the council had already agreed a programme of Article 4 Directions (Minute 1271 refers).

The Direction for Brigg had been advertised by means of site notices placed throughout the area and by a public notice in a locally circulating newspaper. This had resulted in one letter of representation from a person resident in the Brigg conservation area. This was appended to the report.

Provisions within the General Planning Development Order required that any representations made during the period within which the intention to make a Direction was advertised must be considered and taken into account in any decision on whether or not to confirm the Direction.

Moved by Councillor C Sherwood and seconded by Councillor Wardle –

That the Direction is not confirmed

Motion Lost

Moved by Councillor Bainbridge and seconded by Councillor Ali –

That having taken into consideration all representations the Article 4 Direction be confirmed as made.

Motion Carried

Councillor N Sherwood returned to the meeting.

1342 (65) INTERIM PLANNING GUIDANCE – SOUTH HUMBER GATEWAY TRANSPORT CONTRIBUTIONS – The Head of Regeneration and Planning submitted a report informing members of the production of Interim Planning Guidance for South Humber Gateway Transport Contributions.
The South Humber Gateway was part of the largest port complex in the UK, and had seen significant economic growth over recent years. With large areas of available development land surrounding the ports there was considerable potential for this growth to continue and an increased need to deliver new infrastructure to support it.

The council was keen to support the continued development of the area and to ensure that the necessary infrastructure was planned, designed and delivered to facilitate this growth in a joined-up manner using an area-wide approach.

In order to achieve this and allow the Gateway’s full potential to be realised a Transport Strategy had been developed in 2008 (and updated in 2010) to look at upgrading the local infrastructure to meet the forecast levels of future demand over the next 15 to 20 years. The next stage in the process looked at defining and securing the necessary finances to deliver this transport infrastructure and maintain the existing internal highway network.

Therefore the council had commissioned consultants to produce interim planning guidance to secure transport contributions for development on the South Humber Gateway. This would enable infrastructure to be provided to serve the whole of the area and not piecemeal to serve individual developments. As well as also ensuring that any maintenance that would be required as a result of new development could be secured, it would also take into account contributions that may be required through the Travel Planning process for sustainable travel options. These options would have been identified through individual developer travel plans and the South Humber Gateway Framework Travel Plan and would ensure that initiatives serve the whole area and are again, not piecemeal in their approach. The guidance would set out a mechanism for securing these financial contributions from new developments.

The area would be developed over a long period of time and it was critical that support was provided and a strategy developed to deliver transport infrastructure that best served the entire area and not just individual piecemeal development. This would also seek to deliver major pieces of infrastructure at the earliest possible opportunity.

Any development proposal that fell within a certain catchment area would be required to contribute a financial contribution. For the smallest developments however it was unlikely to be reasonable or cost effective to insist on it being applied to them. A threshold of 10 additional peak hour trips would be applied. Developments exceeding this threshold would be required to contribute through a consistent and robust mechanism of calculation.

This interim planning guidance set out how financial contributions would be calculated and secured against individual development that occurred within the South Humber Gateway. The financial contributions would be negotiated at the time of submission of a planning application and secured through a legal agreement related to the planning permission under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

The objective of the contribution system would be to generate sufficient funds to deliver the elements of the overall transport strategy described in section 5 of the report. The collection of funds would be conducted in a manner that was fair and equitable to development and apportioned contributions to reflect the respective impacts of individual development on the transport network.

The interim guidance would also include an overview of the schemes that were included in the Transport Strategy and thus the schemes the secured contributions would deliver and how these would then be prioritised by the council. The policy would also outline contributions for maintenance and sustainable travel options (through the travel planning process).

Consultation had been undertaken with a wide range of organisations present or looking to invest on the South Humber Gateway. The findings from this consultation had been used to influence the content of the document and the methodology for the commuted sum calculation. The consultation process had endorsed this approach of securing transport contributions as consultees could see the benefits of a consistent approach being applied which avoids piecemeal development.

Recommended to council – That the Interim Planning Guidance to secure transport contributions for development on the South Humber Gateway be adopted.