Democracy | Planning Committee

Planning Committee – 8 February 2012

Chair:  Councillor Bunyan
Venue:  The Council Chamber, Civic Centre, 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 11 January 2012 as a correct record and authorise the chair to sign.

4. Application deferred from previous meeting for site visit.

5. Major Planning Applications.

6. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.

7. Enforcement Update.

8. Planning Statistics – October to December 2011.

9. Any other items, which the chairman decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances, which must be specified.

Note: All reports are by the Acting Head of Planning 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, Evison and Waltham attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule T.36 (b).

The committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.

1412 HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT – The Chairman introduced Phil Wallis the recently appointed Head of Development Management. He thanked Bill Hill for his support during his time as Acting Head of Planning.

1413 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 Allcock	1416 (i)	09/0600	Member of Humber Joint Group, Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy Member of Humber Estuary Coastal Authorities Group Member of Environment Agency – Anglian (Northern) Regional Flood and Coastal Committee
Cllr Allcock	1417 (viii)	12/0004	Knew the applicant
Cllr Bunyan	1417 (ix)	12/0012	Knew the speaker
Cllr Bunyan	1416 (ii)	11/0734	Knew one of the speakers
Cllr Collinson	1417 (v)	11/1417	Knew the applicant

The following members declared that they had been lobbied: –

Members	Minute	Application/Item
Cllrs Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Bunyan, Collinson, England, Grant, Rowson, N Sherwood and Wardle	1416 (ii)	11/0734
Cllrs Allcock, Bunyan, Collinson, England, Grant, Rowson, N Sherwood and Wardle	1417 (ix)	12/0012

The following members attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.36 (b) declared that they had been lobbied:

Members	Minute	Application/Item
Cllr Evison	1416 (ii)	11/0734
Cllr Waltham	1416 (ii)	11/0734
Cllr Poole	1417 (i)	11/0578
Cllr Poole	1417 (ii)	11/0601

Mr S Whittemore (Regulatory Support Officer) declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 11/0734 (Minute 1416 (ii) refers) as he knew one of the speakers.

1414 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 11 January 2012, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

1415 (46) APPLICATION 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 Acting Head of Planning submitted reports and updated them orally.

(i) 11/1340 by Pro Truck Auctions Ltd. for the change of use of 5 hectares of land to the storage/parking of HGVs and plant at Protruck Auctions Ltd., Sandtoft Industrial Estate Road 1, Belton.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He stated that there would normally be more vehicles on the existing auction site than when the site visit had taken place, due to the weather conditions and the fact that it had been in the middle of an auction cycle. The application was intended to improve traffic flows and therefore reduce congestion. There had been no objections either from the council’s Highways Team or from the parish council.

Resolved – (a) That the committee is minded to grant permission, (b) that the reasons for wishing to grant permission contrary to policy are (i) that the development is reasonable to consolidate the operations on the site and to fit the local circumstances in relation to existing problems; (ii) that the applicants represent a major investment in the area and the development will result in further employment in the area, and (iii) that the site is scrubland and the development would tidy up the area and not adversely impact on the surrounding countryside; (c) that the application be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in accordance with statutory procedures to enable him to consider whether or not he wishes to intervene, and (d) 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 conditions relating to highways, materials, drainage, boundary treatment and removal of permitted development rights in relation to lighting;

1416 (47) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATION – The Acting Head of Planning 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 Acting Head of Planning updated the report orally. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

(i) 09/0600 by Able UK Ltd for the erection of buildings and use of land for purposes within Use Classes A3, C1, B1, B2 and B8 for port-related storage and associated service facilities together with amenity landscaping and habitat creation, including flood defences, new railway siding, estate roads, sewage and drainage facilities, floodlighting, waste processing facility, hydrogen pipeline spur and two 20 metre telecommunication masts (in accordance with those additional details and plans contained within the addendum to the Environmental Impact Assessment dated April 2011 received by the Local Planning Authority on 20 April 2011) on land off Skitter Road, East Halton.

Prior to consideration of this application a representative of an objector addressed the committee. His clients were concerned about loss of view, light pollution, noise pollution, traffic congestion, urbanisation and disturbance that would arise from the proposed development. The council had a duty to mitigate the adverse impacts. He asked the committee to consider a reduction in the height of the lighting towers, an increase in the size of the proposed landscaped strip, the moving of the buffer zone to the east and the sealing off of the rear entrance to the site.

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 for the sum of £1,255,000 to secure highway improvements in the vicinity of the proposed development necessitated by the development, and confirmation being received from the Environment Agency that Able UK have completed the legal agreement in respect of land drainage consent for the flood wall works, and to the conditions contained in the report , and (c) that if the obligation is not completed and confirmation received by 30 June 2012 the Head of Development Management be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds of the adverse impact such a significant development would have on an unimproved/upgraded highway network.

(ii) 11/0734 by RWE Npower Renewables Ltd for the erection of 18 wind turbines and associated infrastructure and services including 3 anemometry masts, site roads, crane pads, site office and grid connection building and temporary construction compounds on land west of Brigg Road, Horkstow.

Prior to consideration of this application five objectors, two representatives of the applicants and two supporters addressed the committee.

The first objector, representing the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and a resident of Horkstow welcomed the officers’ recommendation, especially the suggested inclusion of a reason for refusal relating to landscape, which had been reported orally prior to her speech. The site was tranquil and of significant landscape value. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the Viking Way.. She suggested that the designation of the Lincolnshire Wolds as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty should be extended to the Humber.

The second objector was a resident of Appleby. He was concerned at the impact the proposed development would have on the landscape. The turbines would present a danger to birds. Turbines would not generate electricity all the time and would need to be supplemented by other forms of electricity generation.

The third objector, who was a resident of Bonby questioned the methodology employed by the applicants in measuring noise levels.

The fourth objector stated that the application was opposed by eight parish and two town councils. He welcomed the recommendation and the suggested additional proposed reason for refusal. He was concerned at the impact on the landscape especially for walkers and cyclists using the Viking Way. The turbines would be 125 metres high and would tower over natural landscape features, the escarpment being only 80 metres high at its highest point.

The fifth objector questioned the noise level measurements. He stated that the committee had a duty to take into account the views of local communities and their representatives.

The applicant’s first representative stated that the proposal had been sensitively designed and had addressed the concerns of local residents. The applicants were offering to reduce the number of turbines from 18 to 16. The development would provide £12,000,000 of investment in North Lincolnshire and would benefit local businesses and provide employment for local people. A survey had shown that 65 % of respondents in North Lincolnshire wanted to see more renewable energy.

The second representative of the applicants addressed the proposed reasons for refusal. The applicants had now agreed with Natural England a network of refuge sites for pink footed geese and therefore this issue could be addressed by means of a Section 106 Agreement. In relation to noise, the company had offered to remove two turbines closest to residential properties. Noise could be controlled by a condition. A scheme had been put forward for access to construction traffic which would avoid crossing the Viking Way. The visual impact of the turbines was subjective. He suggested that the application could be deferred to allow the economic benefits of the scheme to be weighed against the landscape impact.

The first supporter was from Grimsby Institute. He stated that the development would provide training opportunities for young people. Renewable Energy was critical for the economic development of the area.

The second supporter spoke of the economic benefits of the scheme and the contribution that onshore as well as offshore wind energy production could make to the economy.

Councillors Waltham, Briggs and Evison, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.36 (b) spoke on this application.

Resolved – That permission be refused in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to the deletion of proposed reason 3 and the substitution of the following “The proposed development would introduce very substantial industrial structures into an area of significant natural beauty, which is largely unspoilt, on the highest and most prominent point in North Lincolnshire, where the landscape is characterised by gently rolling agricultural land within the Wolds. In this area vertical structures of the size and scale proposed would be particularly harmful to the visual amenity of wide areas of North Lincolnshire and beyond. The landscapes which would be adversely affected are particularly highly valued locally and this development would be contrary to paragraph 24 of PPS7. The proposals are therefore contrary to policies DS1, DS21 and LC7 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, policy CS18 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, policy 2 of the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Planning for Renewable Energy’, PPS7 and PPS22, and policy ENV10 of the Regional Spatial Strategy.”

1417 (48) PLANNING AND OTHER APPLICATIONS – The Acting 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 Acting Head of Planning updated the reports orally where appropriate. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

(i) 11/0578 by Mr J and Mrs K Anderson for the change of use from residential to hotel and residential with associated alteration and erection of a detached garage at Cleatham Hall, access road to Cleatham Hall, Cleatham, Manton.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred until a future meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting.

(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, Manton.

Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred pending the site visit in respect of application 11/0578.

(iii) 11/1411 by Mrs S Broadbent for retention of a full width extension with a porch to the front elevation and erection of a rear single-storey extension at Trickle Brook Cottage, 125B, Station Road, Keadby.

Prior to consideration of this application the applicant’s agent addressed the committee. He stated that the objections to the application had been addressed. The brickwork for the porch would be reclaimed redbrick. Other properties in the vicinity also had porches with contrasting coloured brickwork. There were no objections from neighbours.