Planning Committee – 11 February 2015
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 14 January 2015 as a correct record and authorise the chairman to sign.
4. Applications deferred from previous meeting for a site visit.
5. Major Planning Applications
6. Planning and other applications for determination by the committee.
7. Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Planning Enforcement Summary 2014.
8. Inner Scunthorpe Definitive Map and Statement. Report by the Director of Places.
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 Head of Development Management unless otherwise stated.
Minutes
PRESENT: – Cllr Bunyan (in the Chair)
Councillors Ali, Allcock, Bainbridge, Collinson, Grant, Marper, Poole, N Sherwood and Waltham.
Councillors Barker, Briggs, Bromby, Clark, Gosling, L Foster, T Foster, Ogg, Oldfield, Redfern, C Sherwood, Wells and Whiteley attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.37 (b).
The Committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.
1639 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 | 1642 (xi) | 2014/1230 | Knows applicant |
| Cllr Allcock | 1641 (i) 1641 (iii) 1640 (i) 1642 (viii) 1642 (ix) |
2013/0339 2014/0908 2014/0953 2014/1200 2014/1230 |
Member of CPRE Member of CPRE Knows agent Knows agent Knows agent |
| Cllr Collinson | 1642 (vii) | 2014/1161 | Knows applicant |
| Cllr Poole | 1642 (i) 1641 (ii) 1642 (vii) 1642 (viii) 1642 (xi) |
2013/0213 2014/0178 2014/1161 2014/1200 2014/1256 |
Knows applicant Former member of Ashby Decoy Golf Club Knows applicant Knows agent Knows agent |
| Cllr Waltham | 1642 (viii) 1642 (x) |
2014/1200 2014/1248 |
Knows agent Occasional customer |
In addition, the following member declared that they had been lobbied: –
| Member (s) | Minute (s) | Application/Item (s) |
|---|---|---|
| Cllr Ali | 1641 (i) 1642 (x) |
2013/0339 2014/1248 |
| Cllr Allcock | 1641 (i) 1642 (x) |
2013/0339 2014/1248 |
| Cllr Bainbridge | 1641 (i) 1641 (iii) |
2013/0339 2014/0908 |
| Cllr Bunyan | 1641 (i) 1642 (x) 1642 (xv) |
2013/0339 2014/1248 2014/1297 |
| Cllr Collinson | 1641 (i) 1642 (viii) 1642 (x) |
2013/0339 2014/1200 2014/1248 |
| Cllr Grant | 1641 (i) 1642 (viii) |
2013/0339 2014/1200 |
| Cllr Marper | 1641 (i) 1642 (x) |
2013/0339 2014/1248 |
| Cllr Poole | 1640 (ii) | 2014/0953 |
| Cllr N Sherwood | 1641 (i) 1642 (v) 1642 (x) |
2013/0339 2014/1116 2014/1248 |
| Cllr Waltham | 1641 (i) 1641 (iii) 1642 (v) |
2013/0339 2014/0908 2014/1116 |
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 | General | Member of Fire Authority and Member of Isle of Axholme & North Notts Water Level Management Board |
|
| Cllr Clark | 1641 (i) | 2014/0339 | Knows applicant and objector |
| Cllr L Foster | 1641 (ii) | 2014/0178 | Knows applicant |
| Cllr Redfern | 1642 (iii) 1642 (ix) 1642 (xv) |
2014/0533 2014/1230 2014/1297 |
Member of Epworth Town Council Member of Epworth Town Council Member of Epworth Town Council |
| Cllr C Sherwood | 1642 (x) | 2014/1248 | Occasional customer |
The following member attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared a disclosable pecuniary interest as follows: –
| Member (s) | Minute | Application(s) /Item |
Nature of Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cllr L Foster | 1641 (ii) | 2014/0178 | Current member of Ashby Decoy Golf Club |
The following member attending the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 1.37 (b) declared that they had been lobbied as follows: –
| Member (s) | Minute | Application(s) /Item |
|---|---|---|
| Cllr Clark | 1641 (I) | 2014/0339 |
| Cllr T Foster | 1642 (iv) 1640 (ii) |
2014/0689 2014/0953 |
| Cllr Redfern | 1642 (iii) | 2014/0533 |
| Cllr C Sherwood | 1641 (iii) | 2014/0908 |
| Cllr Wells | 1641 (I) | 2014/0339 |
1639 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 14 January 2015, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.
1640 (28) APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING – In accordance with the decision at a previous meeting, members had undertaken a site visit prior to the meeting. The Head of Development Management submitted a report.
(i) 2014/0673 by Mr R Young for planning permission to construct a new attached double garage with two bedrooms at first floor, and to convert an existing integral garage into a study, at 1 Pavilion Gardens, Scunthorpe.
An objector spoke on the application stating that the proposed extension would amount to a very large structure that is not in keeping with other properties in the vicinity, with a subsequent loss of amenity. The proposal include plans for a large, featureless gable wall which will dominate the area. Allowing such a development could potentially lead to others seeking similar structures, which would lead to significant overdevelopment of the site, which would be detrimental to the local street scene.
Cllr Gosling spoke on the application, stating that whilst he was pleased to see previous concerns about the height of the decking at the property had been resolved, he was still concerned that the proposed development was too large.
Cllr Collinson stated that he understood the concerns of the objector, and that the proposed development may be too large. Cllr Bainbridge echoed these concerns, stating that the proposal may be overdeveloped and damaging to the uniformity of the street scene.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the proposed conditions within the report.
(ii) 2014/0953 by Mr G Maycock for outline planning permission to erect a bungalow on land adjacent to Mayscroft, Ings Lane, Hibaldstow.
The agent for the application stated that the council’s policies were clear that affordable housing may be allowed in order to meet local need. The circumstances of the application reflect a genuine need to help the applicant support their elderly relative. Whilst the proposal is in the countryside, there are a number of other properties already in place, and it is beneficial to plan for a mix of property types.
Cllr T Foster stated that the relative in question currently lives alone, and has a range of needs. The proposal would therefore assist the whole family in staying together and not becoming a burden on the NHS and social care systems. Whilst there is an acceptance that the proposal is beyond the development boundary, it is sited in an existing row of housing.
The Head of Development Management advised the committee that individual circumstances should typically not inform planning considerations, and that the location of the proposed development is fundamental to the proposal in question. Currently there are a number of gaps between the properties on Ings Lane, and consistency should be a key consideration by the committee. There was a risk of setting a precedent for agreeing ‘in-fill’ housing.
Cllr Grant stated that it may be difficult to give a great deal of weight to the development boundary, as there were a number of properties outside of this. Cllr Bainbridge stated that, whilst she was originally reluctant to support the site, but viewing the proposal had changed her mind to some extent. However, she queried whether a four-bed bungalow was an appropriate site. Cllr Poole believed that the proposal represented an in-fill application, and would be happy to support the application.
Resolved – That the application be granted subject to the following conditions.
1. Approval of the details of the layout, scale, and appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called ‘the reserved matters’) shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced.
Reason
The application has been made under Article 3(1) of the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.
2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 above, relating to the layout, scale, and appearance of any buildings to be erected, the means of access to the site and the landscaping of the site, shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved.
Reason
The application has been made under Article 3(1) of the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.
3. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason
To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.
Reason
To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
5. No development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority and none of the dwellings shall be occupied until it is connected to the approved drainage system.
Reason
To ensure satisfactory drainage is provided in accordance with policy DS14 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
6. The design of the development shall incorporate all the mitigation measures identified in the agreed flood risk assessment received on 17 September 2014.
Reason
To reduce the potential impact of flooding in accordance with policy DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
7. No development shall take place until details of:
(i) the location and layout of the vehicular access; and
(ii) the number, location and layout of vehicle parking and turning spaces within the curtilage of the site;
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies T2 and T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
8. No loose material shall be placed on any driveway or parking area within 10 metres of the adopted highway unless measures are taken in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to prevent the material from spilling onto the highway. Once agreed and implemented these measures shall be retained.
Reason
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
9. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the vehicular access to it and the vehicle parking and turning space(s) serving it have been completed and, once provided, the vehicle parking and turning space(s) shall be retained.
Reason
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies T2 and T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
1641 (29) MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMITTEE – The Head of Development Management submitted reports 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. The Head of Development Management updated the reports orally where appropriate. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.
(i) WD/2013/0339 by Mr B Chapman, Villecom Ltd, for planning permission for restoration of a former chalk pit to a conservation afteruse including the import of construction, demolition and excavation wastes at the Former Chalk Pit, Thornton Road, Thornton Curtis.
The Head of Development Management summarised a letter received from Martin Vickers MP on behalf of local residents. Mr Vickers wrote that he shared the views of local people, and that he had concerns regarding drainage/flooding. As such, he expressed surprise at the officer’s recommendations and stated that he hoped the committee would reject the proposal. The Head of Development Management also identified two additional conditions that could be attached to the application, if members agreed. These centred around ensuring a badger survey is completed, and that the timing of deliveries be controlled.
The applicant addressed the committee, stating that the proposal was intended to restore the chalk pit to create a nature area. This is in accordance with the council’s policies and the officer’s recommendation within the report. Concerns about drainage were unsubstantiated, and there was no evidence of seepage into the water table. Some of the objectors’ concerns were without foundation, such as their assertion that the pit is 50 feet deep, when it is actually 19 feet, and in the applicant’s experience, there had only ever been a maximum of 3-4 feet of standing water within the pit. There was no intention to discharge anything harmful within the pit, whereas others had done this over the years. The applicant continued that there had been no professional objections, particularly around dust and the potential impact on badgers and other wildlife. The suggestion that 90,000 vehicles would access the site was a significant over-estimation, with the actual figure only around 8% of this. It was also true that the access/exit road would be structured in such a way as to make it impossible to turn into the village, with a number of appropriate warning signs. Because of attempts to reduce any impact, it was considered that residents’ objections were unwarranted or incorrect, and that the committee should deal with the facts in question.
An objector requested that the committee refuse the application. Residents’ concerns were set out in the report, and there would be an unacceptable impact on a peaceful part of the village. There was also a history of ‘stripping’ of the site. Whilst the guidance is clear that the social, economic and ecological benefits should be considered, only the applicant would benefit in this case, with the village impacted negatively. Whilst the site has a history of mineral extraction, this was many years ago, and there is no need to ‘refill’ a section of the pit. There is also evidence of great crested newts on the site, with an accompanying threat of harm if the development proceeds. Villagers are concerned that reducing the capacity of the pit would exacerbate the potential for flooding. In summary, the objector stated that the development was not required, would impact negatively on local people, and would harm the local environment.
A second objector stated that nobody within the village supported the proposals, and that the site didn’t fulfil the requirements of either a quarry or a modern industrial site. As such, the proposal is purely a landfill application. The objector queried whether there was an intention to completely fill the pit, or not to complete the suggested landscaping. It had not been made clear where the construction waste was likely to be sourced from, nor why it couldn’t be disposed of in any of the many existing sites within North Lincolnshire. Environmental Health had also expressed concerns about dust and noise caused by the proposed scheme. Noise was a common concern amongst local residents, and it was likely that there would be a huge rise in noise levels, with no detail of how it would be monitored or breaches of noise restrictions investigated and enforced. There would be no economic benefit to the area, and a number of potential problems had been identified throughout the report.
A third objector stated that they lived very close to the proposed site, and there had been a significant number of objections to the proposal. The Chalk Pit acted as a key element of a local interlinked drainage system. During the 2007 floods , much of the village suffered, although no houses were flooded because the floodwater had all flowed naturally into the pit. The pit was filled to around 1 metre from the top, which took a year to drain naturally. If the pit was not there, or if the capacity was reduced, then there would have been widespread flooding throughout Thornton Curtis. The subsequent Pitt Review into the floods identified that local knowledge was key to preventing future flood events, and villagers had worked with the Environment Agency to assist with flooding prevention. The objector summarised by stating that he was convinced that the pit reduced the risk of flooding, and as extreme weather events are likely to be more common in the future, filling in the natural sink for profit will inevitably damage the village and its residents. The committee should therefore reject the proposal.
A fourth objector began by saying that she fully supported the previous speakers, and that the site was currently an attractive haven for locals and wildlife. The objector stated that this was solely a money-making scheme that would cause harm. Highways had identified concerns about lorries travelling through Ulceby and other local villages, before questioning whether the proposed highways restrictions would actually go ahead or be ignored. There had been a number of accidents near this site in previous years. Anglian Water had identified concerns about potential pollution to the aquifer arising from the site. Similar schemes in North Lincolnshire had experienced similar problems, and the local Drainage Board had also expressed grave concerns. It was unclear how a condition on flooding would be acted upon Other conditions on noise could be put in place, but there wasn’t the staffing locally to monitor or enforce these.
A final objector stated that, whilst the proposal was flagged as a conservation scheme, it was actually commercial in nature. An independent botanist had identified rare trees, flora and fauna on the site, with mature trees, owls, buzzards and newts in evidence, all of which are protected by law. The site was therefore a current conservation area, and efforts to change this could be damaging. There had already been a history of the site being cleared with heavy machinery and chainsaws. A number of statutory consultees have said that they would not support the proposal, and there is good evidence that the proposal contravenes the Core Strategy and the council’s ecological policies. Similarly, new landfill sites should only be permitted when there is no alternative, which is not the case locally.
Officers from the council’s Environmental Protection Team were asked to comment on their response to the consultation. She contended that, in their view, the proposed condition will not be sufficient to remove the impact of noise. The area is very quiet and rural by nature, so even with full compliance, the noise could be 10 decibels above background levels, which would make complaints likely. These concerns about the likelihood of increased noise and impact on residents had led to their response.
Officers from the Integrated Traffic Team were also asked to contribute. Their view was that there was a degree of vagueness about the traffic proposals. Whilst this could be dealt with through the use of a condition, it would require unilateral agreement. Whilst there had been several accidents near the site, it could be managed.
Cllr Wells explained that a similar ‘sink’ system was also in place in Wootton, which also proved an effective natural drain-off for rain water. Part-filling these holes would lead to more flooding risk, particularly in areas with clay-like soil, which is the case around Thornton Curtis. Cllr Wells also expressed concern about the lack of timescales in the proposed conditions.
Cllr Clark stated that the application had taken two years to get to the committee, which was indicative with the local concerns and technical problems with the proposal. The proposal would also require a permit from the Environment Agency. Cllr Clark echoed the earlier concerns about the likelihood of monitoring and enforcing any breaches of conditions.
Cllr N Sherwood also summarised some of the concerns expressed previously, including highways and traffic, the likelihood of unwelcome noise as the pit is filled, concerns around potential contamination of the aquifer, increased risk of birdstrike at local airports. Cllr Sherwood stated that everyone seemed to be highlighting concerns, and that a small village is not a suitable site for landfill.
Cllr Poole believed that local knowledge is key, particularly around dealing with flood risk. This is a very quiet, rural area and any substantial activity would affect the residential amenity of the locality.
Cllr Waltham listed the concerns raised by statutory consultees and local residents, suggesting that many of them could be defensible reasons for refusal of the application. These included flooding risk, noise impact, drainage, highways issues, and the impact on neighbouring settlements. The report highlighted that there were five designated heritage assets within 1 km of the site, including the historic Grade 1 Church of St. Lawrence.
Cllr Marper also raised concerns about residential amenity, particularly in an area with such a high concentration of heritage sites. There appeared to be many more negative aspects to the development than positives.
Cllr Grant sought advice from officers on the potential impact on wildlife, particularly on the suggested newt population, stating that it would be remiss of the committee not to fully explore the evidence on both sides of the argument.
The Head of Development Management responded that there were five heritage assets in the vicinity, but there was no suggestion that the proposal would affect them in any tangible manner. There would inevitably be some impact on the local environment, particularly initially, but the newt population was sited in an unaffected area, and a condition on a badger survey would ensure that no harm came to them. All other concerns could be dealt with via the use of conditions, but the committee could realistically justify refusal if members agreed.
Cllr Allcock pointed out that construction and demolition waste was very different from soils and subsoils, and that it would require all loads to be carefully checked to ensure that there were no pollutants or foreign bodies within the loads. Failure to do this could lead to a major contamination incident.
Resolved – That planning permission be refused.
Reason:
1. The proposal is non-essential development in the countryside which would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of residential properties by reason of noise and disturbance from the transportation and spreading of infill material. The development is therefore contrary to policies DS1 and W20 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003 and CS2 and CS20 of the Core Strategy 2011.
2. The proposed activity associated with the transportation of infill material would be likely to have an adverse effect on nearby heritage assets and as such is contrary to policy CS6 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy 2011.
3. The proposed infilling of this area could pose a threat to the pollution of the aquifer and reduce surface water storage capacity increasing the risk of flooding to adjacent property. As such the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development.
(ii) 2014/0178 by Persimmon Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd for planning permission to erect 71 dwellings with associated access, open space, landscaping and infrastructure at land at Ashby Decoy Gold Club, Burringham Road, Ashby Parklands.
The Head of Development Management highlighted some minor changes to the report, specifically around one package of land close to the nearby public house, which was outside the application site.
The Agent for the applicant stated that the proposal would create no harm to the local area, and that all principles had been agreed. Action was planned to resite the existing bus stops to reduce any potential impact on vehicles, bus users and pedestrians walking along Burringham Road, and there was no archaeological impact to the site. The impact to Burringham Road would be relatively minimal with only one planned access and egress point. A Section 106 agreement had been negotiated,and ecological improvements would be made on the golf course.
An objector stated that the access and egress point would be 200 yards from the main roundabout, and that the road was regularly used by lorries and other heavy vehicles, and that the loss of the layby could cause significant problems. Local people are aware that many people do not comply with the “do not turn right” sign when leaving Asda onto Burringham Road, which would increase the risk of accidents. Placing a substantial housing development close to these hazards would be dangerous.
Councillor L Foster stated that there were many concerns, and that increasing traffic flows could lead to accidents. The road is already widely used as a ‘rat-run’ and this would exacerbate the problem. This view was shared by Cllr Oldfield.
Cllr Collinson requested clarity from officers over the proposed conditions, possible refinements, and the potential to minimise risks of traffic incidents.
Officers from the Integrated Traffic team explained that there were a number of entrances and exits in a relatively short length of road near the proposed site. Officers would be willing to look again at concerns around shoppers turning right from Asda. The number of recent accidents had been reviewed, and there had been three relatively small incidents in recent times, and that there were around 50 vehicle movements at the peak times. Highways retained some concerns about the siting of the bus stop, but this could be remedied by some level of resiting and improvements to footpaths. Officers were therefore content with the proposed conditions.
Cllr Waltham stated his concerns that this is already a cluttered stretch of road, and an additional entrance/exit would only worsen the situation. Cllr Waltham believed that the proposal would lead to more traffic through Gunness and Burringham, and that smaller, piecemeal sites are less favourable than larger proposals such as Lincolnshire Lakes.
The Head of Development Management advised the committee that the proposal was outside of the development limits, but the five-year Housing Plan had identified this site as an option for development. There were concerns that refusal would adversely impact on the housing allocations document and create additional pressures for housing elsewhere on unallocated sites. Options are available to provide a safe access to the site, as shown by the steps to resite the nearby bus stop, and that this would be a suitable and safe site for development.
Cllr Poole stated that, whilst he would be happy to see the site being brought into use, the number of vehicles on Burringham Road was at its safe limit. There was a need for a review of safe access to the proposed site, as the traffic tended to travel very quickly towards the roundabout. Cllr Poole suggested that, if the proposal is passed, it may be wise to review the speed limits on the relevant stretch of Burringham Road.
Cllr Grant suggested that there appeared to be no reasonable planning grounds for refusal, and that if the proposal is refused the applicant would be very likely to appeal successfully.
Cllr Marper questioned who would be liable to provide and maintain the proposed sustainable drainage element of the scheme, as a similar proposal in Messingham had resulted in North Lincolnshire Council having to maintain the site.
The Head of Development Management answered that Severn Trent Water would receive the initial feed, which would be fed back into the sustainable surface water reed bed and then discharged into the existing Burringham Road sewer at Greenfield run off rates. The proposal would be for a management company to take on responsibility.
Resolved – That planning permission be refused.
Reason:
It is considered that the proposed access arrangements may not be safe and could lead to confusion and road safety issues in relation to the adjacent access points as well as congestion on the public highway and in Burringham village.
(iii) 2014/0908 by Zebec Energy Ltd for planning permission for the installation of an anaerobic digestion plant and ancillary infrastructure at an existing waste management site including the installation of a 6.9k, pipeline (12.5cm thick) and compressor compound to export the resultant biomethane to the gas National Transmission System.
The Head of Development Management recommended an additional condition be added to control the timing of the delivery or removal of materials to and from the site.
The applicant explained that the system was to produce gas to be fed into the national gas grid system and agricultural fertiliser making more efficient use of the same waste sources that were processed at present. There would be no increase in the 75000 tonnes to be processed and no changes in existing traffic levels. The system would replace the present aerobic digestion process which would be shut down within 6 months of the new anaerobic plant being operational. Whilst this would be an industrial process, it would be an enhancement to the existing scheme. There would be a bund in place to prevent any spillage contamination and all wash waters would be processed, all aspects of the process would be within sealed units. The plant was approximately 1.5m higher than the present buildings and was similar to other agricultural plant steps were included in the plans to reduce the visual impact .The operator had taken a number of other actions in recent years to deal with complaints of odour, which had drastically reduced the number of complaints. The proposed gas piping would be of an industrial standard specification.
An objector expressed their concern that such proposals were greatly damaging to the natural landscape, leaving a poor legacy for future generations. There would be no economic benefit to the local area, and the proposals would involve more than doubling the existing site footprint. The Environment Agency had expressed concerns previously about the scheme, and the waste which powered the plant was no longer just local waste but would come from many miles away including Scotland, increasing pollution levels. The objector was also concerned about the construction noise, and stated that the security lighting would be obtrusive. The proposal had been put forward with minimal publicity, with no ‘mail drop’ to local residents. The objector’s view was that the application should be judged as retrospective, as the site has increased in size over the years. The site is in an unsuitable location, with food waste arriving from all over the country. The proposal would result in much taller structures which will not be screened and which would impact negatively on the visual amenity of the area. There had been a history of odour problems, and the limited highways in the area meant that there was no safe refuge for pedestrians or cyclists sharing the roads with the required lorries.
A second objector stated that the proposed scheme was the wrong process in the wrong place. The site had previously been poorly managed, and because the road was so narrow, the tankers cannot pass each other, which results in vehicles driving on the grass. As the proposed licence is for 75,000 tonnes per annum, this could equate to 20 large vehicles a day using a single track road. Local residents had in the past regularly complained about the odour released from the existing site, and improvements had only occurred due to local lobbying efforts and Environment Agency involvement. If North Lincolnshire had ambitions to market itself as an attractive place to visit or live, the objector’s view was that this proposal could only damage this. The large number of conditions outlined in the report was an illustration of some of the shortfalls in the application, of what would be a large industrial site one of the largest of its type in the UK and blighting local communities and the Wolds. Views of local people should be considered.
Cllr C Sherwood stated that he had previously attended a public meeting in Bonby, which unanimously rejected the proposal. Concerns had been raised about highways issues, odour and the visual amenity of the area. The road leading to the site was a ‘C Road’ which couldn’t realistically handle up to 75,000 tonnes per annum. Such proposals should be housed in industrial areas, and not agricultural premises. Cllr C Sherwood questioned whether the need for around 5 miles of pipework to join the national gas grid showed that the proposal might better be sited elsewhere. Local residents had previously opposed a wind turbine, with the Secretary of State agreeing that the proposed structure would cause an unacceptable level of harm. Whilst the odour problem had improved in recent times, it remained an issue. There were concerns whether the existing or proposed conditions could be enforced or monitored. The proposal also included an extension of the times where delivery activity could be undertaken, again, causing concerns to local residents.
The Head of Development Management confirmed that the existing licence is for 75,000 tonnes per annum. The Committee could add conditions if it felt appropriate.
Cllr N Sherwood stated that the site visit prior to the Committee meeting had shown that the road was very narrow, with members having to pull over onto the grass to allow access to a passing vehicle. It was felt that transporting 75,000 tonnes along a narrow single track road was not necessarily sustainable. Such schemes were of an industrial nature, not an agricultural one. The proposed site represented poor infrastructure and the wrong location, and the concerns around a lack of enforcement and monitoring were made particularly regarding timing of lorry movements.
Cllr Waltham also echoed these concerns, before asking whether steps had been taken to explore whether a financial contribution would be appropriate similar to community contributions from other renewable energy schemes. The travel plan referred to within the report was for the benefit of the applicant, and not the local community and, as such, he was unlikely to support the application.
Cllr Bainbridge stated that she had mixed feelings about the site, as the applicant was a long-standing operation which had made efforts to deal with residents’ complaints. However, she understood the complaints and asked about the likelihood of negotiating a Section 106 agreement to improve the highway.
Cllr Collinson stated that farmers were having to diversify to remain sustainable, and that it was of an agricultural scale and that the traffic issues were not beyond fixing.
Cllr Poole echoed the question about the possibility of exploring a Section 106 agreement to mitigate the effects of the proposal on the community and to improve the roads in the area. He also asked whether it would be possible to further limit the hours of operation.
The Head of Development Management clarified that the existing operations on site formed the starting point for the application . However, it would be possible to re-open negotiations for a Section 106 agreement if that was the Committee’s wish. However, this would require some level of agreement and possibly proof that the existing lorries delivering to the site were causing damage to the roads. It was also confirmed that the site works for 24 hours a day, and that any conditions would be enforceable as all vehicles go over a weigh bridge, and that records would be accessible.
Moved by Councillor Collinson and seconded by Councillor Grant –
That permission be granted for the application in line with the recommendations and proposed conditions within the report.
Moved by Councillor Poole and seconded by Councillor Marper as an amendment –
That permission be granted for the application subject to the successful negotiation of an appropriate Section 106 agreement and the agreement of further restrictions on delivery timings.
Amendment lost
Motion lost
Resolved – That planning permission be refused.
Reason – The proposal constitutes significant industrial development within the open countryside and insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this open countryside is the only appropriate location for the development. Due to its scale and industrial nature, the development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and as such is contrary to policies W17 and RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003 and CS2 of the Core Strategy 2011.
(iv) WD/2014/1291 by Merlin Renewables for planning permission to vary condition 17 on previously approved application WD/2012/1336 dated 01/03/2013 to ‘Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority, material shall be imported to or exported from the site only between the hours of 7am and 7pm on any day’ at Merlin Renewables Ltd, Redbourne Road, Hibaldstow.
The agent stated that the current site utilises crop biomass only, and not waste product. The restrictions in place had caused operational difficulties at times, as there had been occasions where the times had proved restrictive. The applicant was only suggesting a minor change to the conditions, and that they were content with all other conditions imposed by the planning authority. Suitable data was always available to aid any enforcement action.
Cllr Poole stated that the condition was only put in place some twelve months previously, in order to minimise the impact on local residents.
Resolved – That the proposed variation to the existing conditions be refused.
Reason – The prevention of deliveries to the site on Sundays and Bank Holidays is considered necessary in order to safeguard the amenities of the area and occupiers of nearby property and to comply with policy DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003.
1642 (30) 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) 2013/0213 by JHP for planning permission to erect three detached two-story dwellings and domestic garages and construct access onto High Street, adjacent to 95 High Street, Wootton.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and the conditions and recommendations contained within the report.
(ii) 2014/0419 by Mr K Embleton for planning permission for change of use to form guest house, an extension to the existing first-floor accommodation to form a bathroom and alterations within the existing front garden to form a small car park.
Cllr Allcock explained that the application had previously been deferred pending verification that consultation with Haxey Parish Council had been comprehensive and timely. This had now been resolved, and Cllr Allcock confirmed that Haxey Parish Council had no objections or comments.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
(iii) 2014/0533 by Ms L Garrett for outline planning permission to erect a detached dwelling with landscaping reserved for subsequent approval at 2 Hollingsworth Lane, Epworth.
An objector stated that there were concerns locally about highways and road safety issues, which would be exacerbated by the proposed development. Hollingsworth Lane was not a main road, although locals tended to use it as a ‘through-lane’ to the main road to Scunthorpe. The narrow road was only wide enough for one vehicle to pass, and there had been a history of drivers acting aggressively or dangerously whilst driving through the lane. The lane is therefore very busy at peak times with children, families and older people in the immediate vicinity, and a large development such as this could lead to accidents.
Cllr Redfern stated that the Highways team had raised concerns previously, and that visibility is restricted. This could be made worse by the proposed development, as Hollingsworth Lane was a very busy, narrow junction with the potential for accidents. Cllr Redfern suggested a site visit might be useful. This suggestion was echoed by Cllr Waltham.
Resolved – That consideration of this application be deferred to a future meeting and that members visit the site, prior to that meeting.
Reason:
To allow for a site visit and to observe potential issues with the impact on the street scene, decking and fencing issues, and the overall impact.
(iv) 2014/0689 by Mr D Shafer for planning permission for change of use of a café to a hot food takeaway and installation of an extraction flue.
The applicant stated that the decision had been a long time going through the planning process, and that objectors didn’t necessarily have concerns about the extractor unit as it was out of sight. No concerns had been raised regarding food hygiene, and a noise consultant had found that there were some minimal concerns regarding noise, but that these could be mitigated. The applicant was committed to taking the necessary steps to minimise the impact on local residents. The bins on the site would also be out of sight, and be of an industrial design. The proposed takeaway would not necessarily just sell unhealthy food, and a range of healthy options would be available, in line with consumer demand. Timings would be sympathetic and appropriate. The applicant would ensure that there were bins in front of the premises, with nightly ‘litter-picks’, and that any young people congregating in front of the premises would be asked to move on. Several systems would be in place to minimise odour, and there was support for the proposal from local businesses and the wider community.
Cllr T Foster spoke on behalf on an objector whose property adjoined the premises in question. Cllr Foster explained that many of the concerns had been highlighted by the applicant, and there was an additional worry that local school children would regularly come into the town on the lunchbreak and use the takeaway, with an associated risk of a rise in childhood obesity. Further concerns also existed that the odour control was insufficient.
Cllr Grant queried whether the potential impact on children could be a legitimate planning consideration, and Cllr Collinson asked what steps could be taken to minimise any noise and vibration from an extraction unit.
Officers from the Environmental Health team explained that the installation of the extraction and ventilation system and its siting on a single storey building proved difficult to mitigate the effects of noise and vibration as it has to be mounted on the wall of a neighbouring property. There had also been no evidence of odour mitigation submitted despite requests.
Cllr Marper mentioned that a recent scrutiny report had recommended that the impact of an application on health and wellbeing issues such as childhood obesity should be a material consideration within planning applications.
Cllr Bainbridge suggested that the application be deferred to seek local agreement, following the previous discussion.
Resolved – That the application be deferred to see if a satisfactory ventilation, extraction and odour control system can be achieved.
(v) 2014/1116 by Keigar Homes for planning permission to erect 6 dwellings (amendments to house types on previously approved permission PA/2013/0008) on plots 1-6 Bowmandale, Barton-upon-Humber
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
(vi) 2014/1122 by Mr and Mrs Marshall for planning permission to erect a two-storey extension, Vicarage Barn, Howe Lane, Goxhill.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
(vii) 2014/1161 by Mr S Quibell for planning permission to retain a single-storey rear extension, demolish an existing single garage and erect a detached double garage (resubmission of PA/2014/0028)
An objector stated that he was speaking on behalf of a number of local residents, who had concerns that the proposal was very large and out of keeping with the locality. A false impression had been given both within the original plans, and the paperwork that the committee had seen. The garage roof was actually more angled, and therefore taller than the submitted plans. This led to an application for retrospective planning permission, and a lack of clarity whether there was a breach. The suspicion of local residents was that the structure was actually a bungalow rather than a garage, as there were steel supports in the walls and insulation. There were also concerns about the siting of the garage.
The applicant stated that the roof is only marginally higher than the plans, with the difference being 5cm. This was due to the availability of some slightly different trusses that had been offered. The arguments around insulation and steel were without foundation, as the insulation was also spare from a separate job and the steel was required to ensure the garage is structurally sound. In addition, there was a large garage door on the structure.
Cllr Mrs Bromby stated that more than one objector had approached her about this application, and that she had been in discussions with planners regarding its compliance with the plans. The garage represented a large building which ‘loomed over the neighbourhood’ and which was of concern to residents in the local area.
Cllr L Foster stated that the structure was previously a derelict bungalow, and that there had been a history of neighbours complaining about any development in the area. In reality, this was an example of a resident improving the amenity of their, and the wider, vicinity, and complaints were a result of a neighbourhood dispute rather than concerns about planning considerations.
Cllr Poole queried whether an additional condition regarding the garage’s use would be appropriate. The Head of Development Management confirmed that this would not be required, as any use that was not ancillary to the main dwelling would likely require a separate planning permission.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
(viii) 2014/1200 by Mr J Kandappillai for planning permission to change the use of an existing house and erect a single-storey extension to form a convenience store with flat at first floor, at 2 Weeping Elm Way, Scunthorpe.
The agent for local objectors stated that the proposal would be in close proximity to housing, with associated activity from 5am to midnight. There would be the potential for significant levels of noise and disturbance due to customers, deliveries etc. Parking in the area was wholly unsuitable for such a business, and the on-street car parking would lead to a number of parking issues for local residents. Whilst it was acknowledged that the applicant had offered to pay for some double yellow lines, it remained unclear where they would be sited. There was a risk that customers may ‘risk it’ leading to a knock-on effect on parking issues. To summarise, the agent stated that the area was not suitable, there were concerns around noise and loss of amenity, and there was potential for a number of traffic and highways issues.
The agent for the applicant stated that this was a relatively modest proposal. The nearest convenience shop is a fair distance from the residential properties, and corner shops had long been a vital part of the national urban make-up, a factor which was supported by planning policy. Objectors have to demonstrate a loss of amenity which is not evident in this case. This is because the character of the area is unchanged, the proposed extension is a familiar housing application sited behind a high wall, and there would be no signage facing the road. There would also be only 7 deliveries a week via a small van, with bread and milk delivered three times a week, and 1 larger delivery a week. Timings would typically be during the day. In the wider area, there were a number of similar shops which had no concerns, and which supported local residents. Regarding the traffic issues, there were no restrictions on the road, and that the proposed double yellow lines would be guided by council officers. The clientele would be primarily walk-in at peak times, with very little passing trade.
Cllr Collinson said that he had heard many residents complain about this proposal, and that the committee should take note of local feeling. Cllr Waltham suggested that, while he always encouraged local businesses, the committee must balance this against residential amenity.
Resolved – That planning permission be refused in accordance with the recommendations within the report.
(ix) 2014/1230 by Mr L Ahmed, the Khyber Restaurant Ltd for planning application to vary condition 3 on planning permission 1999/0220 to allow Sunday opening for the hours between 4pm and 9:30pm
The agent for the application stated that the premises was a successful local business of long standing, providing services to Epworth. There had been no complaints on noise, odour or litter. Many other premises in the area had a license to trade for longer hours or on a Sunday, and a previous application for a similar proposal on the same street had proved successful. The premises is a non-residential setting, which would improve the local economy.
Resolved – That planning permission be refused in accordance with the recommendations within the report.
(x) 2014/1248 by J D Weatherspoon for advertisement consent to retain six signs with LED lights and lantern at the White Horse Hotel, Wrawby Street, Brigg.
Cllr C Sherwood acknowledged that Brigg Town Council had objected to the signage. However, his view was that this was a very good development, at the very edge of the conservation area. The signage was tasteful, and the lighting wasn’t too harsh. As ever, a balance had to be taken between conservation and supporting local business, and in his opinion, the impact was minimal and in keeping with the area. This view was echoed by Cllr T Foster.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application
(xi) 2014/1256 by Mr and Mrs B Mallinson for planning permission to erect a first-floor rear extension at 30 Sowers Lane, Winterton.
The agent for the applicant stated that there were no concerns with the scale and height of the proposal and measures had been taken to minimise overlooking. The proposal would have no impact on neighbours and would be constructed using materials sympathetic to the local area.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
(xii) 2014/1270 by Mr P Sipling for planning permission to vary condition 3 of previously approved application PA/2014/1821 dated 17/05/2004 to limit the occupation of the dwelling to persons employed in the kennel business at Heron Lodge, off Appleby Lane, Broughton.
The applicant stated that the current owner was moving towards retirement, and the existing condition prevented his son from taking over the family business.
The Chairman confirmed that Broughton Town Council had no real concerns about the proposal.
The Head of Development Management confirmed a minor amendment to the report was required, clarifying business needs.
Resolved – That permission is granted only after taking account of the particular business needs involved and therefore as an exception to policies CS3 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy and RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
(xiii) 2014/1271 by Mr J Lawton for planning permission to erect a detached bungalow (resubmission of PA/2014/0385) at land adjacent to 16 Bigby High Road, Brigg.
The Head of Development Management confirmed that a request had been made by the applicant to defer consideration of this item to a future date.
Resolved – That the item be deferred.
(xiv) 2014/1290 by Mr D Levitt for planning permission to erect first-floor and single-storey extensions to Northcliffe House, 4 North Cliff Road, Kirton-in-Lindsey
The Head of Development Management confirmed that a request had been made by the applicant to withdraw this application.
(xv) 2014/1297 by Mr C Savoury for planning permission to erect a detached double garage in the front garden of 94 Westgate Road, Westgate, Belton.
The applicant stated that he had acted upon advice throughout and that he had taken steps to address concerns. The proposed structure would be built with material fitting the local area and locally sourced. The garage was required to house his mini that he was renovating and would allow his current garage to accommodate a biomass boiler.
The Head of Development Management informed the committee that a letter had been received from a neighbour, querying the usage of the site. In addition, Belton Parish Council had objected regarding access and egress from the garage.
Cllr Redfern queried whether there were similar garages on this road, and queried whether it would be appropriate to resite.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
(xvi) 2014/1312 by Mr S Dewhirst for planning permission for a single storey extension to provide an annex at Elwiss House, Owston Ferry Road, Low Burnham, Haxey.
Resolved – That permission be granted for the application, subject to the conditions contained within the report.
1643 (31) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990. PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SUMMARY 2014 – The Head of Development Management submitted a report informing the Planning Committee of the facts and figures accomplished by the planning enforcement team in 2014, highlighting specific successes that had been achieved
Resolved – That the Planning Committee accept the report.
1644 (32) INNER SCUNTHORPE DEFINITIVE MAP AND STATEMENT – The Director of Places submitted a report recommending that the Planning Committee approve and adopt a definitive map for inner Scunthorpe.
Resolved – That the Planning Committee approve that henceforth the Glanford Brigg definitive map and statement incorporate Inner Scunthorpe and that a notice be published to that effect in a local newspaper.