Democracy | Planning Committee – 25 September 2013

Planning Committee – 25 September 2013

Chair: Councillor Bunyan
Venue: The Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Scunthorpe
Time: 2 pm

AGENDA

1. Substitutions.

2. Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and Personal or 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 28 August 2013 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.

4. Major Planning Application.

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

6. Confirmation of the Stather Road, Burton Upon Stather Tree Preservation Order 2013.

7. 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).
Councillors England (Vice-Chairman), Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Collinson, Grant, Rowson, N Sherwood and Wardle.

Councillors Briggs, T Foster, Marper, Ogg and Redfern attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b).

The committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.

1539 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND 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 as follows: –

Member (s)	Minute	Application(s) /Item	Nature of Interest
Cllr Ali	1542 (i)1541 (i)1542 (ix)	13/061613/057813/0893	Application in Ward Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant
Cllr Allcock Cllr Bainbridge Cllr Bunyan Cllr Collinson	1541 (i)1542 (ix)1541 (i) 1542 (ix) 1541 (i) 1542 (ix) 1542 (vi)	13/057813/089313/0578 13/0893 13/0578 13/0893 13/0841	Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Member of Bottesford Council
Cllr England	1541 (i)1542 (ix)	13/057813/0893	Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant
Cllr Rowson	1541 (i)1542 (ix)	13/057813/0893	Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant
Cllr N Sherwood Cllr Wardle	1541 (i)1542 (ix)1541 (i) 1542 (ix)	13/057813/089313/0578 13/0893	Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant

The following members declared personal and prejudicial interests as follows:

Member (s)	Minute	Application(s) /Item	Nature of Interest
Cllr Ali	1542 (iii)1542 (iv)	13/071013/0726	Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant
Cllr Collinson	1542 (ix)	13/0893	Public account of personal differences

The following members declared that they had been lobbied:

Member (s)

Minute (s)

Application/Item (s)

Cllrs Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Bunyan, Collinson, England, Grant, Rowson, N Sherwood and Wardle. Cllr Rowson

1541 (i)1542 (iii)

1542 (iv)

1543

13/057813/0710

13/0726

TPO – Burton upon Stather

The following member attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared a personal interest as follows:

Member (s)	Minute	Application(s) /Item	Nature of Interest
Cllr Briggs	1541 (i)1542 (ix)	13/057813/0893	Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant
Cllr T Foster	1541 (i)1542 (ix)	13/057813/0893	Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant
Cllr MarperCllr Ogg Cllr Redfern	1541 (i)1542 (ix)1541 (i) 1542 (ix) 1542 (ii) 1541 (i) 1542 (viii) 1542 (vii)	13/057813/089313/0578 13/0893 13/0701 13/0578 13/0866 13/0851	Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant Knows the Applicant

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

Member (s)	Minute	Application/Item
Cllr Marper, Ogg and Rowson	1543	TPO – Burton Upon Stather

1540 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 28 August 2013, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

1541 (11) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATION – The Head of Development Management submitted a report containing details of a major application for determination by the committee including a summary of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the application. In accordance with Procedure Rule D1.35 (i) (a), members had previously undertaken a site visit.

(i) 13/0578 by Mr Harry Collins, Kirton Park Limited for permission to change the use of the land to site 30 Leisure lodge units.

The Head of Development Management updated the report orally with the following information:-

“This verbal update has been prepared following receipt of a letter dated 17 September 2013 from N.D Boughey agent for the scheme which was circulated to all members of the Planning Committee along with an Opinion from Hugh Richards of No 5 Chambers.

I wish to clarify that the application was submitted with a substantial amount of supporting information all of which has been carefully considered.

The information included the following reports-

1-A Planning Report

2-A sustainability report.

3-A Tourism Plan

4-An Economic Appraisal

5-A sequential Study

6-A transport Assessment

7-A landscape /visual assessment

8-Phase 1 Desk top study re possible contamination.

The application must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan is the North Lincolnshire Local Plan Saved Policies and the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy 2011. A material consideration is clearly the NPPF which came out after our policy documents and since determination of the previous appeal. This must be taken into account. Also material is the Inspectors recent decision to dismiss the appeal relating to 49 lodges on this site.

We do not think that there is anything in the NPPF that contradicts the Councils adopted policies.

Paragraph 28 of the NPPF which is mentioned in our report requires LPAs to- “support sustainable rural tourism and leisure development that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres”

Policy R12 of the NLLP requires new caravan and camping facilities to be “closely associated with existing or proposed recreational and tourist attractions and suitably screened by existing landforms or a scheme of landscaping.( by definition these lodges will be covered by caravan legislation)

Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy encourages sustainable development and notes that in the countryside only development that is essential to the functioning of the countryside will be allowed which might include development that will contribute to sustainable tourism.

Policy CS15 supports sustainable tourism particularly which focuses on the areas built and natural assets.

We have considered the evidence presented and do not believe that this is a sustainable location for 30 luxury chalet holiday lodge units. The applicant has indicated that between 6-7000 holiday visitor trips to the site may be made in a year if the site is successful. Although he indicates that visitors will be encouraged to make use of train bus cycle and taxi services we believe a large majority of visitor trips will be by car and that makes the location unsustainable and contrary to the development plan. There are no good reasons to set aside this policy objection.

Our report also makes it clear that we believe the development will have an adverse effect on the appearance of the countryside and that the landscaping proposed will not mitigate the adverse effect with any screening taking many years to have any real effect. This harmful effect on the countryside would be contrary to The NLLP, The NLCS and the NNPF.

Corrections proposed to reasons for refusal as RD 12 should be Policy R12 in reason 1 and although the applicant has submitted a series of reports he has not convinced officers that this is a sustainable form of development appropriate to this location.

Amended reasons for refusal-

1-The proposed leisure lodge site would not be closely linked to an existing or proposed tourist or visitor attraction and as such there is no justification for the establishment of a leisure lodge site in this location .The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies R12 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and CS2 and CS15 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.

2-The proposed leisure lodge site due to its size and location would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the open countryside, and the applicant has not demonstrated that the open countryside is the only location for the proposed use. Furthermore due to its design, siting and materials the proposed use would have a harmful urbanising effect on the character of the open countryside and the proposed mitigating landscaping would itself in years to come form an uncharacteristic feature in an area which is characterised by open fields and hedges. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DS1, RD2 and LC7 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and CS3 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.

3-As reason 3 on main agenda.”

Prior to consideration of this application five representatives of the applicant and two objectors addressed the committee.

The first representative explained that he had prepared the design for the proposed site which at present was classed as open countryside. He advised that the North Lincolnshire Landscape Visual Impact Assessment recommended that replanting of hedges and woodland blocks be encouraged, and that this scheme would see these recommendations initiated.

The committee was advised that the woodland block that had been proposed for the site would take approximately 5 years to develop.

The second representative had been asked by the applicant to consider the commercial aspect of the application, how this could link to the tourist attractions and businesses within the area.

He advised the committee that Brigg and Kirton in Lindsey had seen a 13% increase in visitors in 2012/2013, however due to a perceived lack of overnight accommodation the retention rates were low. The aim of the lodges was to attract people to the area and encourage them to stay longer.

Details of the proposed income generation for the local economy were discussed as well as the opportunity to provide local employment.

The third representative had been asked to assist the applicant with sustainability issues and policy compliance. She advised the Committee that the aim was to develop a low impact site that worked well with developing tourism, with the Kirton in Lindsey Community and businesses.

Further details about patronage proposals, local events and the introduction of an Eco bus were also discussed.

The fourth representative for the applicant explained that it was proposed to increase art events in the community and that the site would produce an events brochure and use local facilities to host these. Specific reference was made to a similar site in Leicestershire and the success that had been achieved there.

The agent for the applicant summed up, advising the committee that according to the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, the site would be sustainable and that Kirton in Lindsey was an ideal location to develop further tourism.

Specific reference was made to the Inspector’s report from the last appeal, and that the principle of the woodland was more acceptable proposal.

The first objector stated that the area was one of long uninterrupted views and that the proposal would significantly alter the landscape and was contrary to policy.

Concerns were raised about the lack of footpaths adjacent to the site, the impact that this could have on neighbouring agricultural land and crops if visitors opted to exercise or walk through the fields.

The second objector represented the landowners. He reminded the committee that the Inspector at the last appeal had previously dismissed the application as being contrary to the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and questioned what difference this application was apart from a smaller number of lodges.

It was considered that the site would be alien to the area, it was situated within a green field site and requested that local planning policies be adhered to.

Again concerns were expressed about visitors to the site using the adjacent fields as short cuts, and the potential damage to the land and crops.

Councillor T Foster, attending the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on this application and confirmed the lack of support from the town council and residents of Kirton in Lindsey. Members considered that the changes made to the application were not significant to warrant an approval.

Further questions were asked by members about the usage of the site and whether there would be permanent residency. Concerns were also raised about the excessive amount of late new information that had been submitted by the applicant and responded to by officers.

It was suggested that the application be deferred for one month to enable members the opportunity to consider all information submitted.

Resolved – That permission be refused in accordance with the recommendations made within the report and the amendments proposed in the oral update provided by the Head of Development Management.

1542 (12) 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) 13/0616 by Mr Gurch Singh, RGC Properties Ltd for consent to erect five one bedroom chalet style terraced bungalows, including the provision of car parking on land to the rear of 1-17 Berkeley Street, Scunthorpe.

The agent for the applicant spoke to the Committee and of the need for regeneration in the area. It was explained that amendments had been made to the previous plans that had been refused and dismissed on appeal (PA/2012/0656), and the number of dwellings and overall height had been reduced.

Moved by Councillor Bainbridge and seconded by Councillor Rowson –

That members of the Planning Committee visit the site.

Motion Lost

Moved by Councillor Grant and seconded by Councillor Collinson –

The permission be granted against the recommendation of the planning officers, subject to the condition that there be provision for one bedroom only in the roof space and only south facing windows be permitted to this space. The reason given for approving the development being that it would provide needed new housing and assist with the regeneration of the area.

Motion Carried

(ii) 13/0701 by Mr David Powell, Powell Engineering UK Ltd to erect two detached dwelling houses and two detached domestic garages, High Street, Belton.

Councillor Redfern, 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.

At this point, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Councillor Ali left the meeting and took no part in the discussion or decision of the next two applications (PA/2013/0710 and PA/2013/0726).

(iii) 13/0710 by Mr Khoyru Miah for the change of use to a restaurant and takeaway, the Old Institute Building, 8 High Street, Winterton.

The Head of Development Management recommended that the application be deferred for further information regarding the access for disabled persons, means of escape from the first floor, bin storage arrangements and arrangements for extraction and ventilation of cooking fumes.

An objector to the application expressed concerns over smell and noise pollution and also the impact of car parking, specifically after 6pm.

The applicant explained that the property had been vacant for a number of years and had deteriorated. The aim was to bring it back to life and provide Winterton with a quality restaurant and takeaway.

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

Resolved – That the application be deferred for further information.

(iv) 13/0726 by Mr Khoyru Miah for advertisement consent to display an illuminated facia sign on the Old Institute Building, 8 High Street, Winterton.

Resolved – That the application be deferred for further information.

Councillor Ali returned to the meeting.

(v) 13/0825 by the Cooperative Bank to install a 24-hour ATM cash machine at the Cooperative, 20 High Street, Haxey.

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

(vi) 13/0841 by Mr Paul Clague to erect a two-storey and single-storey side extension to 45 Quebec Road, Bottesford.

Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report, subject to amendment of condition 2 that the drawing number be amended to G.

(vii) 13/0851 by Mr Christopher Cawte to retain wooden fence panels in an existing brick wall at 52 High Street, Belton.

The applicant presented his case to the committee and confirmed that he was not aware of any objections from neighbours.

Councillor Redfern, 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 recommendations contained in the report.

(viii) 13/0866 by Miss D Moore for a single-storey rear extension to form a bedroom, shower room and conservatory at 60 Fieldside, Epworth.

An objector representing the neighbour expressed concerns that the proposed extension would be too big for the plot and would block natural daylight into the neighbouring property and also approximately 40% of the garden.

The committee was advised that the property was sold subject to contract, and therefore the proposed extension could potentially not benefit the current occupant.

Councillor Redfern, 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 to a future meeting and that members visit the site prior to that meeting.

At this point, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Councillor Collinson left the meeting and took no part in the discussion or decision of the next application (PA/2013/0893).

(ix) 13/0893 by Mr R Waltham for alterations and extensions to an existing dwelling including raising the height of the roof to provide extra living accommodation at first floor level to 36 Bigby High Road, Brigg.

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

Councillor Collinson returned to the meeting.

1543 (13) CONFIRMATION OF THE STATHER ROAD, BURTON UPON STATHER TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 2013 – The Director of Places submitted a report which sought consideration of whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) made on trees at the front of Kings Ferry Wharf, Stather Road, Burton-upon-Stather.

The Planning Committee was advised that after several telephone calls had been received from members of the public and local councillors about the imminent removal of several trees from the frontage of Kings Ferry Wharf, Stather Road, Burton-upon-Stather, a council representative had visited the site.

To stop the trees being removed and to allow proper assessment of the trees a temporary tree preservation order (TPO) was made on the trees on 9 April 2013. This was an Area Order and had no details of the number of trees, where they were on the site or what species were there.

It was considered good practice after making an Area Order that the trees be properly looked at in regard to condition and visual amenity before the order be confirmed, and that changes be made to take account of this information. A Council tree officer had looked at the trees and reported that the 3 Willow, 2 Lime and the Silver Birch had visual amenity and were worthy of the order. The other 3 trees on the site were more insignificant and in poorer condition and the order would not protect them.

Resolved – That the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed with modifications to protect a group of 3 Willow and three individual trees, namely 2 Lime and 1 Silver Birch.