Planning Committee – 7 March 2012
Chair: Councillor Bunyan
Venue: The Council Chamber, Civic Centre, 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 8 February 2012 as a correct record and authorise the chair to sign.
- Applications deferred from previous meeting for site visit.
- Major Planning Applications.
- Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
- Enforcement Update.
- Public Footpath 54A, Goxhill – Report of the Director of Infrastructure Services.
- Any other items, which the chairman decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances, which must be specified.
Note: All reports are by the Head of Development Management unless otherwise stated.
MINUTES
PRESENT: Councillor Bunyan (in the chair).
Councillor Wardle (Vice–Chairman), Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Collinson, England, Grant, Rowson and N Sherwood.
Councillors Briggs, Gosling, Kirk, Oldfield, Mrs Redfern and Wilson attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.36 (b).
The committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.
1420 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 a personal interest:
| Members | Minute | Applications/Item | Nature of Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cllr Collinson | 1423 (i) | 11/1008 | Member of Scunthorpe and Gainsborough Water Management Board |
| Cllr Collinson | 1424 (vi) | 12/0015 | Member of Bottesford Town Council |
| Cllr Rowson | 1424 (iv) | 11/1537 | Knew applicant |
| Cllr Wardle | 1424 (iii) | 11/1475 | Knew applicant |
The following members declared that they had been lobbied:
| Members | Minutes | Application/Item |
|---|---|---|
| Cllrs Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Bunyan, Collinson, England, Grant, Rowson, N Sherwood and Wardle. |
1423 (i) | 11/1008 |
| Cllrs Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Bunyan, Collinson, Rowson, N Sherwood. |
1422 (i) | 11/0578 |
| Cllrs Allcock, Bainbridge, Bunyan, England, Rowson and N Sherwood. |
1422 (ii) | 11/0601 |
| Cllr Allcock | 1424 (vii) | 11/0021 |
| Cllrs Bainbridge and Collinson | 1423 (ii) | 11/1310 |
The following members attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.36 (b) declared a personal interest:
| Member | Minute | Application /Item |
Nature of Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cllr Mrs Redfern | 1424 (ii) | 11/1453 | Member of Epworth Town Council |
The following members attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.36 (b) declared that they had been lobbied:
| Member | Minute | Application/Item |
|---|---|---|
| Cllrs Briggs, Kirk, Oldfield, Mrs Redfern and Wilson | 1423 (i) | 11/1008 |
1421 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 8 February 2012, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.
1422 (51) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decisions at a previous meeting, members had undertaken a site visit on the morning of the meeting. The Head of Development Management submitted reports and updated them orally.
(i) 11/0578 by Mr J and Mrs K Anderson for the change of use from residential to hotel and residential with associated alterations and erection of a detached garage at Cleatham Hall, access road to Cleatham Hall, Cleatham.
Prior to consideration of this application the applicant and an objector addressed the committee.
The applicant stated that the proposal would result in a sustainable future for the buildings which had been falling into disrepair over the last twenty years. The proposed use was for a modest number of weddings with associated bed and breakfast accommodation for guests. He was happy to comply with the requirement for passing places. The proposed marquee had now been removed from the application.
The objector lived in the neighbouring property. She believed that the application was contrary to Policy R 14 of the Core Strategy as it would have a detrimental impact on neighbours. The building would not be large enough to accommodate the likely number of visitors. Catering would be done in a marquee. Smokers would congregate outside the building causing noise disturbance to neighbours. She would have to close her windows during the summer to keep out noise. The proposal would create additional traffic that could not be accommodated by the narrow road to the site.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(ii) 11/0601 by Mr J and Mrs K Anderson for Listed Building Consent for alterations to include new wall, railings, garage and orangery at Cleatham Hall, access road to Cleatham Hall, Cleatham.
Resolved – That consent be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
1423 (52) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS – The Head of Development Management submitted a report containing details of major applications for determination by the committee including a summary of policy context representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications. In accordance with Procedure Rule D1.34 (i) (a), members had undertaken site visits on the morning of the meeting. The Head of Development Management updated the report orally. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.
(i) 11/1008 by Simons Developments Limited for the demolition of Trent Valley Garden Centre and its associated structure (including three residential properties) and the erection of a retail park with associated access roads, car parking, servicing areas and hard and soft landscaping at Trent Valley Garden Centre, Doncaster Road, Gunness.
Members had previously been sent an addendum to this report and all confirmed that they had received and read this.
Prior to consideration of this application, five objectors, a representative of the applicants and four supporters addressed the committee.
The first objector stated that the development would be in an unsustainable location. The council had not properly applied the sequential test as required by PPS 4. Alternative sites had been put forward. Any economic benefits would accrue to the individual businesses trading on the site and not to people in the local area.
The second objector, who was a local resident, was concerned at the amount of traffic that the proposed development would generate, which would be exacerbated by football traffic on match days. The traffic problems on that stretch of Doncaster Road between Berkley Circle and the M181 roundabout were such that no scheme would be able to solve them. The traffic would provide a danger to children walking and cycling to school. The acoustic fence on the eastern boundary of the site would be unattractive. A town centre site would be more sustainable.
The third objector, a local resident and shopkeeper stated that any economic benefits of the scheme would be at the detriment of Scunthorpe town centre. The development would be contrary to local and national planning policies. The site suggested by “Keep Scunthorpe Alive” would have excellent pedestrian and public transport access. The present scheme was marketed on the basis of Marks and Spencer’s occupying one of the units. However a building had been built to that company’s specifications in the town centre and it had subsequently pulled out.
The fourth objector was a shopkeeper in the town centre. He had expanded his business but now had concerns over the viability of the town centre. The present site was not the only viable one for Marks and Spencer’s.
The fifth objector represented the owners of the Parishes shopping centre. He stated that the council had adopted its Core Strategy in July 2011. Policy CS4 was aimed at protecting town centres. Scunthorpe town centre was in decline. There was suitable land available in the town centre which was in the ownership of the council and there had been numerous expressions of interest in developing that land
The applicant’s representative stated that the company delivered quality retail developments. The present scheme presented a huge opportunity for investment in the town. Currently £43 million of expenditure a year leaked from the Scunthorpe area to other shopping centres. A legal agreement would protect town centre businesses by restricting such businesses from relocating to the new site in the next five years. There would be extensive highway improvements in the vicinity of the site. The small number of water voles on the site would be relocated.
The first supporter, representing Marks and Spencer’s, stated that the company’s position remained unchanged. It would only develop sites that it considered viable and there were no such sites in Scunthorpe town centre. Contracts had been exchanged with the applicant company and the obtaining of planning committee was the only remaining obstacle to the development going ahead.
Two supporters, who were both potential shoppers at the site, stated that Scunthorpe town centre was currently dying. The present proposal would help the town centre by drawing shoppers into Scunthorpe and keeping local people shopping in the area rather than going elsewhere. It would provide new jobs at a time when jobs were being lost elsewhere. There was a short window of opportunity.
The fourth supporter, who was the manager of a company in the town centre, stated that the proposal would bring investment into the town. People had freedom of choice as to where they shopped and many preferred to shop out of town rather than in town centres.
Councillors Oldfield, Kirk Gosling, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.36 (b), spoke on this application.
Resolved – (a) That the committee is mindful to grant permission for the development; (b) that the application be referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with statutory procedures to enable him to consider whether or not to intervene;(c) that in the event of the Secretary of State deciding not to intervene, the Head of Development Management 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 off-site highway improvements, Scunthorpe town centre protection, protected species translocation and maintenance and a contribution towards improving the existing footpaths in the vicinity of the site, and to the conditions contained in the report, and (c) that if the obligation is not completed by 7 June 2012, the Head of Development Management be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds of the adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of Scunthorpe town centre, adverse impact upon highway safety and levels of congestion within the locality, adverse impact upon protected species and their habitat, and non-compliance with Policy EC16 of PPS 4, policies T2 and T6 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and policies C14, C25 and CS 17 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.
(the voting being equal on the above matter, Minute 1423 (i), the chairman used his second and casting vote in favour of the motion)
(ii) 11/1310 by SSE Renewables Development (UK) Ltd for a minor material amendment to WF/2003/1630 dated 31/03/2005 increasing the diameter of the consented turbine rotor dimension up to 101m (maximum tip height to remain at 125m) at Keadby Power Station, Trent Side, Keadby.
Prior to consideration of this application a representative of the applicants’ addressed the committee. He stated that his company had acquired the site in 2011.Permission had been granted by the Secretary of State in 2008. Since that time there had been vast improvements in turbine technology The proposal would increase the diameter of the blades by 11m, however the height of the turbine tips above the ground would remain unchanged. Therefore the change would have no significant impact.
Councillors Barker and Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.36 (b) spoke on this application.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the amendment of Condition 9 by the addition of the villages of Eastoft, Luddington and Swinefleet.
1424 (53) PLANNING AND OTHER APPLICATIONS – The Head of Development Management 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 Development Management updated the reports orally where appropriate. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.
(i) 11/1169 by Ms E C Styles for the erection of a single-storey front and side extensions and a new pitched roof to the rear of the Whistle and Flute, Railway Street, Barnetby.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(ii) 11/1453 by Mr I G Spencer, Mr D Hardman, Mr M Linley and Mr R Cooper to retain the change of use of land into residential (private gardens) at 2,4,6 and 8 King Oswald Road, Epworth.
Councillor Mrs Redfern, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.36 (b) spoke on this application.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(iii) 11/1475 by Mr and Mrs D Cutts for the erection of a two-storey extension at Courtyard Cottage, Barrow Road, Goxhill.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(iv) 11/1537 by Mrs P Grant for the erection of a detached house and detached domestic garage and alterations to the access on land adjoining 22 Silver Street, Winteringham.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(v) 11/1564 by Mr S Majara for the extension and alterations to existing care home and change of use of 253 Ashby Road from a domestic dwelling to a care home at Gresham Lodge Care Home, 255 Ashby Road, Scunthorpe.
Prior to consideration of this application an objector and the applicant’s representative addressed the committee.
The objector referred to previous refusals for similar extensions and the dismissal of subsequent appeals to the Secretary of State. He stated that the site was too small for the proposed development and too close to his own property. The part of the proposal that would be adjoining his property was to be a dementia unit and no adequate sound screening was proposed.
The applicant’s representative stated that the development was needed to meet the needs of residents with dementia. Parking provision would be increased and access and egress would be improved. The living space would all be single-storey. The development would have no adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbours.
Councillors Gosling and Wilson, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.36 (b) spoke on this application.
Resolved – That permission be refused for reasons relating to the adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and its impact on the amenities of a neighbouring property.
(vi) 12/0015 by Mr Kendall for the erection of a single-storey extension at 42 Cambridge Avenue, Bottesford.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
(vii) 12/0021 by Mr and Mrs L Gunn for the erection of four dwellings (two pairs of semis) with appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for subsequent approval at rear of 37 Church Street, Haxey.
Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee. He stated that there was an existing permission for three dwellings on the site. Whilst a previous application for four dwellings had been refused the council’s Core Strategy now allowed for four dwellings on the site subject to a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing.
Resolved – (a) That the committee is mindful to grant permission for the development; (b) that the Head of Development Management 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 a commuted sum of £16,119.36 for the provision of off-site affordable housing, and to the conditions contained in the report, and (c) that if the obligation is not completed by 7 June 2012, the Head of Development Management be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds that the development would not make any provision for affordable housing on the site which would be contrary to Policy CS9 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy
425 (54) ENFORCEMENT UPDATE – The Head of Development Management 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.
426 (55) PUBLIC FOOTPATH 54A, GOXHILL –The Director of Infrastructure Services submitted a report inviting the committee to determine an application for the addition of a route in Goxhill to the definitive map and statement between Greengate Lane and Westfield Road.
The parish council had submitted eight evidence-of-use forms to support its application and these were summarised in an appendix to the report. Other evidence forms had been submitted with an earlier application. Further documentary evidence, including extracts from the 1775 Enclosure Award and Map, had also been submitted.
The route must have been used without force, secrecy or permission. Permission from landowners had not been required. The current landowners had acknowledged this. Although they had not actively encouraged use, it appeared that they had acquiesced to its use.
Resolved – (a) That a modification order be made, on the basis that the evidence lodged is sufficiently reasonable to allege that the route exists as a public right of way; (b) that if no objections are lodged the order be confirmed, and (c) that if objections to the order are duly lodged and not withdrawn, a report be submitted to the committee to establish what the council’s stance should be prior to the submission of the order and objections to the Secretary of State.