Planning Committee – 30 June 2010

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

AGENDA

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 2 June 2010 as a correct record and authorise the chair to sign.
4. Applications deferred from previous meeting for site visits.
5. Major applications for determination by the committee.
6. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
7. Incomplete Development – West Street, West Butterwick.
8. Proposed temporary stopping up of Public Bridleway 34 and proposed creation of extra bridleways, Kirmington And Croxton.
9. Interim policy on interim planning policy relating to climate change and energy – consultation in relation to new buildings.
10. Planning Policy Statement 3.

Prior to the following item, Ian Goldthorpe (Principal Planner – Environment) will give a presentation on the Historic Environment.

11. Planning Policy Statement 5 – Planning for the Historic Environment.
12. 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 (in the chair).

Councillors Whiteley (Vice-Chair), Ali, Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, B. Briggs, Eckhardt, England, Grant, C Sherwood, N Sherwood and Wardle.

Councillors Cawsey, Mrs Redfern, Mrs Sidell, Mrs Simpson and K Vickers attended the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b)

The committee met at Pittwood House, Scunthorpe.

1249  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	1253 (xiii)	10/0520	Knew the applicant
Cllr B Briggs	1251 (i)	10/0317	Knew applicant
Cllr Eckhardt	1254	N/A	Had known former landowner
Cllr England	1253 (i)	09/1088	Knew applicant
Cllr England	1253 (xiii)	10/0520	Knew applicant
Cllr Wardle	1253 (ii)	09/1416	Knew applicant
Cllr Wardle	1253 (vi)	10/0431	Knew applicant and objector
Cllr Wardle	1253 (vii)	10/0452	Member of Barrow Parish Council
Cllr Wardle	1253 (xiii)	10/0520	Knew applicant

The following members, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared personal interests:-

Members	Minute	Applications	Nature of Interest
Cllr Mrs Sidell	1253 (iv) & (v)	10/0406 &  10/0428	Member of Barton Town Council
Cllr K Vickers	1253 (iv) & (v)	10/0406 &  10/0428	Member of Barton Town Council
Cllr Mrs Redfern	1251 (i)	10/0317	Knew applicant and objectors

The following members declared that they had been lobbied:-

Members	Minute	Application/Item
Cllr Ali	1252 (ii)	10/0503
Cllr Ali	1253 (iv)	10/0406
Cllr Bainbridge	1253 (iv)	10/0406
Cllr Bainbridge	1252 (ii)	10/0503
Cllr B Briggs	1252 (ii)	10/0503
Cllr B Briggs	1253 (iv)	10/0406
Cllr B Briggs	1253 (ix)	10/0461
Cllr Collinson	1253 (iv)	10/0406
Cllr Collinson	1252 (ii)	10/0503
Cllr Collinson	1253 (ix)	10/0461
Cllr Collinson	1254	Incomplete Development  -West Butterwick
Cllr England	1253 (ix)	10/0461
Cllr England	1253 (iv)	10/0406
Cllr Grant	1252 (i)	10/0329
Cllr Grant	1253 (iv)	10/0406
Cllr C Sherwood	1253 (iv)	10/0406
Cllr N Sherwood	1253 (iv)	10/0406
Cllr N Sherwood	1253 (ix)	10/0461
Cllr Wardle	1253 (iv)	10/0406

The following members, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared that they had been lobbied:-

Members	Minute	Application/Item
Cllr Mrs Redfern	1251 (i)	10/0317
Cllr Mrs Sidell	1253 (iv)	10/0406

The following officer declared a clear and substantial non-pecuniary interest interest:-

Officer	Minute	Application	Nature of Interest
Mr S Whittemore Regulatory Support Officer	1252 (i)	10/0329	Friend of the applicant

1250  MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 2 June, 2010, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chair.

1251  (3) 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) 10/0317 by North Lincs Property Holdings Ltd for the removal of a 2 metre strip of part of railway embankment land to be incorporated into rear gardens and construction of a 3.2 metre high retaining brick wall at former embankment, west of Harris View, Epworth.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee.
The objector referred to an earlier application that had been granted on appeal and suggested that the applicant was following an incremental approach with a view to taking the whole of the embankment. He was concerned that vegetation would be removed from the embankment and that the retaining wall at the side of the site would not be adequate.

The applicant’s agent stated that the proposal would look no different to the proposal for which permission had already been granted. The embankment formed a physical barrier between Epworth and the open countryside. The proposed new dwellings would benefit by having larger gardens.

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

Moved by Councillor Grant and seconded by Councillor Ali –

That permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the report and extra conditions relating to the removal of spoil from the site.

Motion Lost

Moved by Councillor Barker and seconded by Councillor Briggs –

That permission be refused on the grounds that the application would be contrary to Policy LC14 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, would through incrementalism further erode the appearance and character of the area and would have an adverse impact on the historic landscape and biodiversity.

Motion Carried

(ii) 10/0291 by Miss S Chittenden for the erection of a 1.8 metre front boundary wall at Kinder House, King Street, Winterton.

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

The objector was concerned that the wall would obstruct the line of site for motorists leaving the church car park.

The applicant stated that the wall was required to protect the physical safety and privacy of the children attending the nursery.

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

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

1252  (4) 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. The Head of Planning updated the reports orally where appropriate. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

Prior to consideration of the following application, 10/0329, Mr S Whittemore having declared a clear and substantial non-pecuniary interest left the meeting.

(i) 10/0329 by Mrs K Spavin for the replacement of an extant outline permission (PA/2007/0110 dated 30/03/2007) to erection dwellings on land off Crowberry Drive, Scunthorpe.

Resolved – (a) That the committee is mindful to grant permission for the development; (b) that the Head of Planning be authorised to grant permission subject to the completion of a formal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 providing for a commuted sum for the refurbishment and improvement of the adjacent public open space and its play equipment, (c) that if the obligation is not completed by 30 December 2010, the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds of non – compliance with policies in the North Lincolnshire Local Plan requiring financial contributions and the provision of open space.

Mr Whittemore returned to the meeting.

(ii) 10/0503 by Kapil Care Homes for the erection of a two-storey care home, including the demolition of the existing church and manse (resubmission of PA/2010/0096) on site of St Andrews Church and Manse, Old Brumby Street, Scunthorpe.

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

The objector stated that the proposal would extend in front of the “building line”. It would create demand for further car parking that could not be accommodated on site. It would lead to the loss of protected trees.

The applicant’s representative stated that the application was the result of lengthy consideration. Consultants had been commissioned to consider the traffic issues. The roof would be considerably lower than the existing church and would be a “green roof”.

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

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

1253  (5) 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) 09/1088 by J K and D Costello for the erection of a detached dwelling (including demolition of existing building) at The Smithy, West Street, Hibaldstow.

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

(ii) 09/1416 by Keigar Homes ltd. for the erection of four dwellings at 61 West Street, Winterton.

Prior to consideration of this application, the applicant addressed the committee. He stated that the applicant company had offered to provide a sum of money towards play equipment. However the size of the application was below the threshold for which a contribution would be required. Approval had already been granted for demolition of a dormer bungalow on the site. The dwellings would be constructed with traditional materials and would enhance the Conservation Area. The proposal complied with all national and local policies.

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

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

(iii) 10/0331 by Mrs F Cousins for the erection of a summer house and shed to rear of dwelling at Laurel Bank, Church Street, Amcotts.

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

(iv) 10/0406 by MJH Engineering for the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings and detached double garages (re-submission of PA/2009/0825) on land on corner of Butts Road, Barton-upon-Humber.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee. She stated that the proposal would benefit the wider community by tidying up the site and providing an improved visibility splay. The application was fully supported by the town council and local residents. Two other applications had been approved nearby on sites that were of greater risk of flooding. The site had never flooded.

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

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred until a future meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting The reason for the site visit is for members to acquaint themselves with the site and its setting.

(v) 10/0428 by Mrs E Miller for the demolition of an existing building and the erection of a two-storey dwelling with integral garage at B 2 B, Ferriby Road, Barton-upon-Humber.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee. He stated that the applicant did not own the access to the site. The access was currently used by HGVs. The yard was a commercial area and was padlocked after 5pm.Drainage could not be connected without the objector’s approval.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred until a future meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting The reason for the site visit is for members to acquaint themselves with the access to the site.

(vi) 10/0431 by Mr P Stead for the erection of a detached dwelling on plot adjacent to 8 Palmer Lane, Barrow-upon-Humber.

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

The applicant stated that there was an existing permission for the site. The windows in the dwelling would be 10 feet away from the neighbour’s property. The proposal would utilise room in the roof space.

The objector was concerned that the dormer window would compromise the setting of her property. She suggested that an additional condition could be attached to any permission to require the planting of trees to act as screening.

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

(vii) 10/0452 by Birchwood Developments (Lincs) Ltd. for the erection of a detached house and detached domestic garage , including demolition of existing garage on land rear of Birchwood Cottage, High Street, Barrow-upon-Humber.

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

The objector stated that the proposal constituted “garden grabbing” and referred to the recently issued amended PPS 3. He believed that the proposal was contrary to the PPS as it would constitute tandem development. It was in a conservation area with an Article 4 Direction.

The applicant’s agent stated that the objectors had made a number of inaccurate comments. The proposal would have less impact than the previous use. There would be no loss of amenities to occupiers of adjoining properties. There had been no objection from the highways team. Similar applications had been approved in the village recently.

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

(viii) 10/0453 by Mr D Scratcherd for the erection of a single-storey rear extension at 16 Sargents Way, Hibaldstow.

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

(ix) 10/0461 by RWE Renewables for the erection of a single 80 metre anemometry mast for a temporary period of three years on land east of Eastoft Moors Road, Eastoft

Prior to consideration of this application an objector addressed the committee. He was opposed to the application because he believed that an application for a windfarm would follow. The mast would be very close to people’s homes. The mast would present a risk to aeroplanes.

Resolved – That permission be refused on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the landscape and lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity for nearby residents.

(x) 10/0464 by Mr A Graves for the erection of pig sties (resubmission of PA/2009/1496) at Holland Place, Marsh Lane, New Holland.

Prior to consideration of this application an objector and the applicant’s wife addressed the committee. The applicant’s wife stated that she was interested in the welfare of the animals. The pigs were already on the site which had been inspected by DEFRA. Neighbours had no objection.

The objector stated that a virtually identical application had been refused under delegated powers. The only difference was that the pig sties had been moved further from one property but nearer to another. If permission were to be granted the conditions should be firmed up.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report subject to an amendment to condition 4 removing the words “every week”.

(xi) 10/0465 by Prime Life Ltd. for the variation of condition 3 of PA/2008/1089 dated 17/09/2008 to require timber windows in the main building and the retention of UPVC windows in the outbuildings at The Manor House Residential Home, Whitton Road, Alkborough.

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

(xii) 10/0490 by Mr A Worsman for the retention of the use of land as a market on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays (resubmission of PA/2009/1046 dated 21/10/2009) at Slate House Farm, Holme Lane, Holme.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He stated that the application had been amended to reflect the concerns of officers. He asked that the use be permitted on Sundays.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the deletion of condition 3 and the amendment of condition 4 to include Sundays.

(xiii) 10/0520 by Mr and Mrs P Kirk for the erection of a single-storey extension at 68 Scotter Road, Scunthorpe

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

1254  (6) INCOMPLETE DEVELOPMENT – WEST STREET, WEST BUTTERWICK – The Head of Planning submitted a report informing members of the issues surrounding a major housing development that had been commenced in West Butterwick but which had not been completed within a period considered satisfactory or reasonable by the local planning authority.

Prior to consideration of the report an objector and a representative of the developer addressed the committee.

The objector claimed that there had been procedural irregularities in the handling of the original application. He stated that no work had taken place on the site during the last seven years. There was no evidence on the ground of work having started. The Environment Agency had asked for a Flood Risk Assessment to be carried out. There was a danger to existing properties should the development be completed.

The applicant’s representative stated that the committee did not have sufficient information to consider whether the development was likely to be completed in  a reasonable time. Prior to the report being placed on the agenda for this meeting the landowner had not been approached for information as to when the development was likely to be completed. He explained the recent history of the site. The Environment Agency had not asked for a Flood Risk Assessment to be carried out.

Reports had been submitted to previous meetings (Minutes 1210 and 1228 refer) explaining what options were available to the council where development had been commenced but not completed.

The present incomplete development was on land off West Street, West Butterwick for which outline planning permission had been granted for residential development in 1999 under reference PA/1998/1295, and subsequent reserved matters for the erection of 31 dwellings in 2003 under reference PA/2001/1162.

Officers were satisfied that development had been properly implemented under the provisions of Section 56 of the Act and within the period allowed in which to commence works and therefore the permission was extant and could be completed at any time by the landowner. Implementation had occurred as a result of discharge of relevant conditions and the subsequent provision of a visibility splay as required and by the construction of pile foundations in respect of plot 31. The existence of the pile foundations had been clarified by the council’s Building Control section.

When outline planning permission had been granted, the relevant local planning policy document had been the South Axholme Local Plan. The Boothferry Borough Local Plan Deposit Draft and the North Lincolnshire Local Plan (Pre-deposit Draft) had also been considered. At that time the site was wholly within the defined development limit for West Butterwick in the South Axholme Local Plan and met with the residential allocation Policy R12; outline planning permission had subsequently been granted for the site on 8 January 1999.

When the application for reserved matters had been approved, the relevant local planning policy documents had been the Humberside Structure Plan, South Axholme Local Plan, Boothferry Borough Local Plan and North Lincolnshire Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

Were a new planning application to be submitted for a similar scheme under current local planning policy (North Lincolnshire Local Plan), and national guidance, then the development would fail several of these policies and be recommended for refusal.

The developers of this site were under no obligation to comply with current policies relating to, for example, affordable housing and flood risk, having already implemented a permission that did not require them to do so.

The options open to the council were (i) to serve a completion notice under Section 94 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; (ii) to revoke or modify the permission, or (iii) do nothing and allow the developers to lawfully develop the site as and when considered appropriate by them.

Service of a completion notice under Section 94 was regarded as being mosteffective where a planning permission related to the large-scale construction of new dwellings or industrial units. In essence, if the notice was served and confirmed, it gave the developers a finite date at which time all development on that site must cease, whether properties, infrastructure, landscaping etc were complete or incomplete. Although this course of action would not resolve the issues of non-compliance with current policies, it would terminate the development and remove the uncertainty surrounding it. The service of such a notice would clearly signal to the developers that it was the council’s view that this site should be developed and completed as quickly as possible otherwise the permission would be lost.

Revocation or modification of the permission by the local planning authority would (under Section 107 of the Act) lead to a claim for compensation by the developers. Such a claim would be substantial and would be based on any loss of development value for any unimplemented units. In view of this it was not considered that the service of a revocation order would be cost effective or appropriate.

By not serving a completion notice under Section 94 or Section 97 the site could be developed in accordance with the approved consents in perpetuity at a pace decided entirely by the developers.

Moved by Councillor Wardle and seconded by Councillor England –

That consideration of the application be deferred to enable members to visit the site and to seek further information. 

Motion Lost

Moved by Councillor Grant and seconded by Councillor B Briggs  –

That the council serves notice under Section 94 of the Town and Country Planning Act, the period of compliance being 12 months. 

Motion Carried

(Councillor Wardle wished to be recorded as dissenting from the foregoing decision (Minute 1254)).

1255  (7 ) PROPOSED TEMPORARY STOPPING UP OF BRIDLEWAY 34 AND PROPOSED CREATION OF EXTRA BRIDLEWAYS, KIRMINGTON AND CROXTON – The Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report inviting members to determine an application from Singleton birch Quarry to temporarily stop up a section of Public Bridleway 34 Kirmington and to create extra public bridleways in the area.

The section of Public Bridleway 34 to be temporarily stopped up (under sections 257 and 261 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) proceeded in a north-westerly direction from the north side of the A180 for 528 metres. New bridleway routes were proposed to be created under section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 and would be created concurrently with the stopping up order. The new bridleway routes, if created, would be added to the “County of Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey (Glanford Brigg)” definitive map and statement in consequence of the dedications.

The stopping up order was necessary for the implementation of Planning Application MIN/2007/1129. The Planning Application granted permission for Singleton Birch Quarry to seek the release of additional reserves of chalk through extraction by surface working.

Public Bridleway 34 Kirmington currently crossed the land affected. In order for the operations to continue, therefore, it was necessary that this bridleway was closed. Safe alternative bridleways were proposed to be created using a combination of existing farm tracks and newly created field edge paths in and around the perimeter of the site.

Singleton Birch Quarry wished for the temporary closure order to run for a period of 50 years, or until the works were completed, whichever were to be the sooner.  A period of 50 years was required to extract the full area of land if production demands unexpectedly fell.

Work is proposed to commence on site in early 2011. The confirmation of the closure order, if made, would take effect just prior to the commencement of work.

The owner of the land in question, was agreeable to the application and for the bridleway to be temporarily stopped up and for further bridleways to be created over land within the Estate’s ownership.

As the stopping up was temporary, the definitive map and statement would not have to be modified in consequence. The new bridleway creations would be added to the definitive map and statement under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, section 53(2)(b) and (3)(a)(iii)), prior to the commencement of work in early 2011.

Resolved – (a) That an agreement be entered into with Brocklesby Estate under section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 to create the 4,464 metres of new bridleway outlined in this report;(b) that the new bridleways be added to (1) the “County of Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey (Glanford Brigg)” definitive map and statement (as soon as reasonably practicable after creation) and (2) the list of streets (the register of highways maintainable at public expense held and kept under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980); and that this be done before Singleton Birch Quarry begin executing the part of their planning permission that affects Public Bridleway 34; (c) that, in the interests of safety, a 310-metre-long horse margin is created within the western highway verge adjacent to the B1211 north and south of the A180 underpass; (d) that, strictly conditional upon an agreement under section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 having been entered into first, an order under sections 257 and 261 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 be made temporarily stopping up approximately 528 metres of Kirmington and Croxton Public Bridleway 34; the length leading north west from the north side of the A180 Moreover, that the duration of the closure be for a period of either 50 years or until mineral extraction by surface working over the land covered by the bridleway ceases, whichever be the sooner; (e) that the Service Director Highways and Planning confirm the order should it be unopposed, and (f) that should objections be received without prospect of retraction a further report be submitted to the committee.

1256  (8) INTERIM PLANNING POLICY RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY CONSULTATION IN RELATION TO NEW BUILDINGS – The Service Director Highways and Planning and the Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development submitted a joint report seeking approval, following consultation, to adopt development control policies (i) requiring all new housing sites above ten dwellings built within North Lincolnshire to comply with the Code of Sustainable homes level 3 and above on a sliding scale as outlined in the report, and (ii) to require all industrial and commercial premises greater than 1000m ².

The development of the policy was a key part of the council’s adopted Climate Change Action Plan, the Local Area Agreement (LAA) and the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) action plan. The interim policy would be amended by Policy CS18 (Sustainable Use and Climate Change) of the emerging Local Development Core Strategy that was currently the subject of a final stage of public consultation.

In March 2007 the council had adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (Minute 639 of Cabinet refers) following its pledge to take action on Climate Change by signing the Nottingham Declaration in 2003. One of the actions in that plan tasked the local planning authority with delivery of sustainable houses against a sliding scale of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

Central Government’s commitment to reducing the carbon emissions of residential development was clear. It had asked the housing industry to sign the ‘green pledge’ to make zero carbon housing a reality within 8 years. The pledge not only set out that all new houses would be zero carbon rated by 2016 but that in the interim, new houses would be built to increasingly higher environmental standards. Overall houses accounted for 25% of all the carbon emissions within North Lincolnshire based on 2005 figures from DEFRA.

Planning Policy Statement No. 1 Supplement Planning and Climate Change set out how the Planning System should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilizing climate change. Where proposals were inconsistent with the key objectives set out in the PPS, consideration should be given as to how the proposal could be amended to make it acceptable or where this was not practicable, whether or not planning permission should be refused.

A number of Local Planning Authorities had already started to address this issue in relation to the consideration of planning applications, notably the London Boroughs of Merton and Croydon. In both these areas developers of major residential or commercial/industrial schemes were required to show how their scheme had been designed to minimise carbon emissions and or provide for on site renewable energy production.

Policy LCF8 of the Draft PPS planning for a Low Carbon Economy made it clear that there was a need to drive decentralised renewable energy. The document in considering the need for localised targets stated that until the coming into force of the 2013/2016 revised building regulations the Secretary of State would support the application of authority wide targets where these were included within the development plan (policy CS18 in the core strategy).

Whilst the Government’s pledge with the construction industry was not legally binding, the present softly, softly approach was being replaced by regulation within a clear time frame. The Code for Sustainable Homes (CFSH) had been introduced in April 2007 and provided the present and future framework by which all new house building was to be judged. Up until April 2009 all new development by Registered Social Landlords had had to be built to level 3 of the Code if it was to receive funding. Social housing built to the code standard brought lower running costs as homes had lower fuel and water bills helping to reduce fuel poverty. From April 2009 this had increased to level 4. The Code had also come into force during May 2009 as far as private sector housing was concerned.

Developers needed to embrace this process, as the energy aspects of CFSH would in due course become mandatory under the Building Regulations. There would be a requirement under the Building Regulations, to meet level 4 of the code by 2012 and level 6 by 2016.

There was a huge advantage to local homeowners, house builders and architects and designers by taking up the requirements of the Code thereby reducing future carbon emissions as a result. However, the scheme was not without costs, both in adapting premises now to meet the future challenges, i.e. future proofing new houses as best as possible, and in meeting the costs of the assessment regime. These costs would have to be borne by the developer and ultimately the occupiers.

The Committee at its meeting held on 27 May 2009 (Minute 1143 refers) had approved a consultation process to be carried out on the introduction of an interim Development Control Policy relating to Climate Change and on site renewable energy production. Extensive consultation had been carried out, although the response rate had been poor.  Concerns had been expressed during internal consultation that the policy, by driving up the cost of development, either directly or through land valuations, could make North Lincolnshire a less attractive place to develop compared to neighbouring authorities and reduce any capital receipt to the council from the sale of land However following discussions between the authors and the chief executive it had been agreed to progress with the policy whilst creating flexibility to smaller developers to deliver to a lesser standard if they were able to justify this approach.

The following requirements were therefore proposed: –

Year	Residential			Commercial
	Level 3	Level 4	Level 5
2010	20%	40%	40%	20% of the annual predicted energy consumption through on site renewables until the code for buildings is applied nationally
2013 2016	20%	40%	40% 100%

Recommended to Council – That the policies set out above be approved and adopted for development control purposes.

1257  (9) PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 3 (PPS 3): HOUSING– The Hhead of Strategic regeneration, Housing and Development and the Head of Planning submitted a joint report informing members of changes made to PPS 3. The definition of previously developed land now excluded gardens associated with residential properties. The minimum density target of 30 dwellings per hectare for new housing development had now been deleted.

The revised PPS had been issued by the new government in May 2010 and was intended to address the issues of development on garden areas and over-development resulting from the national minimum density target for new housing development. These commitments formed part of the new government’s policy to decentralise decision making to the local level.

The changes made to the PPS meant that the local planning authority would be able to have greater control over development on gardens associated with private residential properties, particularly where local communities objected and wished to protect the character of their neighbourhoods. However this did not mean that local residents would be prevented from making extensions to their homes.

The removal of the national minimum density target of 30 dwellings per hectare would allow local planning authorities, working in conjunction with local communities, to exercise greater flexibility in applying housing densities which better reflected their needs and local circumstances.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

1258  (10) PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 5 (PPS 5): PLANNING FOR THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT – The Service Director Highways and Planning submitted a report on the implications for heritage asset management in North Lincolnshire of the introduction of PPS 5.

Heritage protection was a material planning consideration to be responded to in development plan and supplementary policymaking and, more widely, in development management and regeneration decision-making.

The Department for Communities and Local Government had released Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment, in March 2010 [PPS5]. This document replaced two previous Planning Policy Guidance documents (PPG 15: Planning and The Historic Environment PPG 16: Planning and Archaeology).

The new policy statement treated all historic assets as part of the same system.  Thus distinctions evident in the previous guidance between built heritage and archaeological remains had been removed. By establishing a clear national policy base to inform the management and control of heritage assets it required that decision makers identified the historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest attributable to a given asset.

Heritage assets differed from other features of the environment because they had meaning for people over and above their practical use – heritage significance. It was this significance that justified additional protection in planning decisions. The PPS policy sought to conserve the intrinsic significance of assets; emphasised the need for proper funding, and; the development of a greater understanding of an area’s heritage assets.

The PPS contained twelve policies to be read alongside a Practice Guide that supported the policies but added no new policies.  These were summarised in the report.

The PPS and the Practice Guide carried governmental weight and were material consideration in planning terms.  There is now a clear policy statement that proposals for works to all heritage assets will be considered against the same criteria as set out in the PPS.  A balanced assessment of the significance of heritage assets within a wider planning balance is called for.

Whilst the PPS introduced new policy concerning the management of heritage assets the remit of heritage asset management and control remained the same i.e. the PPS had primacy in plan making and individual planning decisions. Both it and the Practice Guide carried governmental weight and were material consideration in planning terms.

There was now a clear policy statement that proposals for works to all heritage assets would be considered against the same criteria as set out in the PPS.  A balanced assessment of the significance of heritage assets within a wider planning balance was called for.

Policy and guidance on the historic environment were now clearly separated, making them both easier to use and understand.

Resolved – (a) That the council supports the new clarity brought to heritage asset management by the policy provision of PPS 5 and the explications of that provision contained in the accompanying Practice Guide, and (b) that the committee notes the various implications arising from that policy provision for plan making, the manner in which applications for consent are dealt with; and the management of heritage assets.