Planning Committee – 5 June 2013
Chair: Councillor Bunyan
Venue: The Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Scunthorpe
Time: 2.00 pm
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 3 July 2013 (copy enclosed) as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.
4. Major Planning Applications.
5. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
6. 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.
PRESENT: – Councillor Bunyan (in the Chair).
Councillors Allcock, Bainbridge, Barker, Collinson, Glover, Grant, Rowson,
C Sherwood and N Sherwood.
Councillors Briggs, Evison, Marper, Mrs. Redfern and Waltham attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b).
The committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.
1521 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: –
|Nature of Interest|
|Cllr Allcock||1523 (i)||WF/2011/0528||Member of Campaign for Protection of Rural England. (CPRE)Knew speaker representing CPRE|
|Cllrs Allcock, Bainbridge, Barker, Bunyan, Glover, Rowson,
C Sherwood and
|1524 (v)||13/0353||Knew the applicant|
|Cllrs Barker and Rowson||1524 (ii)||13/0156||Knew the applicant|
The following members declared that they had been lobbied: –
|Member (s)||Minute (s)||Application/Item (s)|
|Cllrs Allcock, Bainbridge, Bunyan, Collinson, Grant, Rowson, C Sherwood and
|Cllrs Allcock, Bainbridge, Bunyan, Collinson, Glover, Rowson, C Sherwood and
|Cllrs Rowson, N Sherwood||1524 (ii)||13/0156|
The following members attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared a personal interest as follows: –
Nature of Interest
|Cllr Marper||1523 (i)||WF/2011/0528||Had attended meetings of Winterton against Inappropriate Turbines.|
|Cllr Oldfield||1524 (iii)||13/0243||Member of Gunness Parish Council|
|Cllr Mrs Redfern||1524 (i)||13/0005||Member of Epworth Town Council|
|Cllr Mrs Redfern||1524 (vi)||13/0392||Member of Epworth Town Council|
The following members, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared that they had been lobbied: –
|Cllr L Foster||1524 (iii)||12/0243|
|Cllr L Foster||1524 (v)||12/0353|
|Cllr Evison||1523 (ii)||13/0283|
1522 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 8 May 2013, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.
1523 (1) 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 D1.35 (i) (a), members had previously undertaken site visits. The Head of Development Management updated the reports orally. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.
(i) WF/2011/0528 by FCC Environmental (UK) Ltd for the siting of three wind turbines and associated infrastructure, including a temporary access from Top Road at Winterton landfill site, off Coleby Road, West Halton and Top Road, Winterton.
Prior to consideration of this application five objectors and two representatives of the applicants addressed the committee.
The first objector referred to a detailed objection submitted by Winterton Against Inappropriate Turbines (WAIT). He was concerned about the safety implications of the development given its location adjacent to a waste tip and claimed that key safety issues had not been addressed. He was also concerned at the possible impact on heritage assets at West Halton. He considered that the requirement for bird scaring at the landfill site could lead to fatalities in wild birds as they would fly into the turbines.
The second objector stated that the turbines would be detrimental to the health of local residents. The turbines would produce infrasound which led to headaches, fatigue and sleep disturbance. The nearest residence was only 630 metres from a turbine.
The third objector expressed concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on landscape and on a scheduled ancient monument. She considered that the harm to the landscape would not be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.
The fourth objector considered that the consultation carried out by the applicants had been inadequate, concentrating on West Halton rather than Winterton. No proper risk assessment had been carried out.
The fifth objector was concerned at the cumulative impact of the proposal in the context of he number of turbines built, consented and proposed in North Lincolnshire. She referred to comparisons often made with pylons and stated that the movement of turbines drew the eye in a way that the static pylons did not.
The first representative of the applicants stated that the development was an appropriate one at this location. One turbine had been removed from the original scheme. Local contractors would be used for the construction of the turbines and a contribution of £14,000 would be made to a community fund. Objections made were not on the basis of planning policies and there were no objections from statutory consultees. There were therefore no reasons to refuse the application.
The second representative of the applicants stated that the application had been submitted following lengthy dialogue with planning officers. The turbines would produce enough electricity to meet the needs of 4000 typical homes. There would be no significant effects on landscape and the visual impacts were reversible in the long term. Natural England had noted some impacts on protected species but felt that they were acceptable. The site’s location next to a waste tip meant that it was less sensitive in terms of impact on landscape that elsewhere. He felt that the silent majority supported wind energy.
Councillors Marper and Waltham, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on this application.
Resolved – That permission be refused for reasons relating to (i) impact on hazardous waste operations and associated risk; (ii) impact on the setting of and outlook from heritage assets;(iii) adverse impact on the amenities of nearby residents, including noise and disturbance; (iv) impact on the visual amenity of the area, including cumulative impact, and (v) adverse effect on ecology and biodiversity.
(ii) 13/0285 by Carlton Education and Enterprise for the conversion of existing commercial buildings to 17 affordable flats and a warden’s flat to provide starter accommodation for single young persons and to construct parking facilities, cycle and motorcycle storage, a bin storage/recycling area and external lighting (including part demolition of existing buildings and full demolition of existing garages on site on site adjacent to Ferriby Road, Barton – upon – Humber.
Prior to consideration of this application two objectors and the applicant’s representative addressed the committee.
The first objector questioned whether the site was an appropriate one for residents to be integrated into society, as it was an isolated site with poor access.
The second objector was concerned at the introduction of a number of young people into an area predominantly occupied by older people. He considered that the proposed buildings would be of poor quality and the units too small. The site had permission for one dwelling however the current proposal was of a much greater scale and would constitute overdevelopment of the site.
The applicant’s representative stated that the applicants were committed to working with the local community. They had looked at a number of sites, the present one met the relevant criteria for attracting grant funding. The development would be sustainable and met building regulation requirements. The buildings would be maintained to a high standard. A warden would maintain and monitor the site.
Councillor Evison, 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 Collinson –
That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
Moved by Councillor C Sherwood and seconded by Councillor Allcock –
That permission be refused as the proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site creating unsatisfactory accommodation and with adverse effects on neighbouring properties and road safety.
(iii) 13/0455 by Messrs Lovell, Crosby, Knowles, Lee, Mitchell, Tapsell, Price, McElvaney, Farrow, Miller, Jones and Jones for the retention of change of use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential occupation with associated works to include land raising, hard standing, amenity blocks, fencing and landscaping (set out in 12 plots for occupation by Gypsy/Traveller families) (resubmission of PA/2012/0456) on plots 1-12 Mill Lane, Brigg.
Prior to consideration of this application an objector and a representative of the applicants addressed the committee.
The objector referred to the decision of a Planning Inspector on a previous application for the site in 2009. The Inspector had refused a similar development on the site on the grounds of flood risk. The objector believed that these grounds were still relevant. He also questioned whether the present occupants of the site were all from the local area.
The applicants’ representative stated that there had been a change of circumstances since the earlier appeal decision. A scheme for the alleviation of flood risk had now been agreed with the Environment Agency. He also referred to the committee’s recent decision to withdraw the reasons for refusal at the forthcoming appeal hearing on the advice of counsel. The site would provide 50% of the identified need for traveller accommodation for the period to 2016. The applicants agreed to comply with the conditions suggested in the officer’s report. This was an opportunity to make a decision locally and avoid the costs associated with the pending appeal.
In response to questions from members, the Assistant Director – Legal and Democratic strongly advised against refusing the application for the same reasons as application PA/2012/0456 as the committee had previously agreed that these reasons could not be substantiated with the necessary evidence and to do so could be seen as unreasonable behaviour.
Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred pending the outcome of the appeal in relation to application PA/2012/0456.
(Note: the voting on the above matter, Minute 1523 (iii) having been equal, the Chairman used his second and casting vote in favour of the motion)
1524 (2) 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) 13/0005 by North Lincs Property Holdings Ltd for the removal of condition 3 of planning permission PA/2000/0482 to allow unrestricted occupation of a dwelling (resubmission of PA/2012/0502) at Far Scawcett Farm, Scawcett Lane, Epworth.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to an amendment to the reasons for approval as suggested by the Head of Development Management
(ii) 13/0156 by T C Brears & Sons for a lawful development certificate for the storage and distribution/ transportation of a maximum of 3000 tonnes per annum of hay and straw.
Prior to consideration of this application the applicant addressed the committee. He stated that his business was part of and supported the local community. It had not knowingly broken any laws. He had taken steps to minimise nuisance from the spillage of hay and straw by purchasing a road cleaner.
Councillor Briggs, attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) spoke on this application.
Resolved – (a) That the committee is mindful to grant a certificate of lawful use for the development;(b) that the Head of Development Management be authorised to grant permission subject to the completion of a unilateral undertaking providing for street cleaning, for the reason contained in the report and (c) that if the unilateral undertaking is not completed by 5 December 2013 the Head of Development Management represent the application to the committee for further consideration.
(iii) 13/0243 by Simons Developments Ltd., Costa Ltd and Subway Realty Ltd for the erection of a drive – through restaurant (class A5) a restaurant unit (class A3) with associated access roads, car parking, servicing areas and landscaping on land to the rear of Trent Valley Garden Centre, Doncaster Road, Scunthorpe.
Prior to consideration of this a representative of the applicants and an objector addressed the committee.
The applicant’s representative stated that there would be a minimal impact on Scunthorpe town centre as a result of the development. It would not go ahead unless the development approved under application PA/2011/1008 also took place.
The objector stated that the application would further damage Scunthorpe town centre. The Section 106 Agreement attached to PA/2011/1008 only protected A1 retailers in the town centre. He believed that it had been the committee’s intention that it should also include A3 and A5 uses.
Councillors L Foster and Oldfield, 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, subject to an additional condition restricting the use to A3 and A5 and to a change for reasons for approval as suggested by the Head of Development Management.
(Note: the voting on the above matter, Minute 1524 (iii) having been equal, the Chairman used his second and casting vote in favour of the motion)
(iv) 13/0287 by Carlton Education and Enterprise for conservation area consent to demolish building D and part of building C on site adjacent to Ferriby Road, Barton – upon – Humber.
Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred.
(v) 13/0353 by Mr and Mrs N Poole for change of use of existing tea room to a mixed use (Classes A3 and A4) as a tea room with drinking establishment at 46 High Street, Messingham.
Prior to consideration of this application the applicants’ agent addressed the committee. He stated that the application complied with all relevant national and local planning policies. The application did not change the size of the establishment or the hours of opening.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to an additional condition restricting opening hours to 9 am to 11 pm and to an amendment to the reasons for approval as suggested by the Head of Development Management.
(vi) 13/0392 by Epworth Baptist Church for the variation of condition 5 of PA/2006/0363 dated 04/05/2006 to allow a loudspeaker address system to be used in the church at The Baptist Church, Station Road, Epworth.
Prior to consideration of this application a representative of the applicants addressed the committee. He stated that the PA was necessary to allow elderly and hard of hearing people to participate in services and other events.
Resolved – That permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.
1525 (3) REVISIONS TO PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PROCEDURES – The Head of Development Management submitted a report advising the committee of new regulations that had come into force on 30 May 2013 which gave additional permitted development rights for alterations, extensions and changes of use of certain property for a limited period of three years.
On 9 May 2013 the Government had published Statutory Instrument 2013 No 1101 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013 which had come into force on 30 May 2013. This substantially amended permitted development rights for a period up to 30 May 2016 with the aim of boosting the economy, particularly the construction industry.
The new Order expanded what was currently allowed as permitted development and introduced new procedures for the local authority to manage and administer the process. The main changes were summarised in the report.
Local authorities were not able to charge for the new service of determining whether proposals were permitted development or subject to the new prior approval regime. The new legislation was intended to remove the need for planning applications to be submitted in a number of cases, which would impact on the amount of application fees submitted to this authority.
Substantial administration and officer time would be required to monitor, register and analyse proposals made under the new procedures. This should be possible from existing resources.
Resolved – (a) That the report be noted; (b) that procedures be put in place to administer the new requirements, and (c) that training on this issue be arranged for members.
1526 (4) PUBLIC FOOTPATH NO. 5, ALKBOROUGH – The Director of Places submitted a report inviting members to consider two contested orders.
The former Director of Infrastructure Services had authorised the making of two orders on 26 May 2011 relating to Public Footpath No.5 at Alkborough Details of the orders were contained at Appendix 2 to the report. The council had subsequently made the orders on 31 October 2012 and advertised them on 22 November 2012. The orders in question provided for (i) deletion of the existing route of Public Footpath No.5, and (ii) application of a new route of the path.
The orders had been made with a view to modifying the definitive map for Alkborough. Two objections and one formal representation had been received to the orders. One objection related to both orders, the other only to the order to delete the existing route. Details of all the representations were summarised in the report and included in as Appendix 3 to the report.
Contested orders had to be referred to the Secretary of State for determination.
Resolved – That the orders be referred to the Secretary of State and that he be asked to consider them concurrently and confirm both as made.