Agenda and minutes

Cllr L Foster for Cllr Bainbrindge

The following members declared a personal interest –

Councillor Rose

Application: general

Nature of Interest: Chair of the CPRE for North Lincolnshire and Yorkshire and Humberside.

The following member declared a personal and prejudicial interest –

Cllr Wells

Application : PA/2021/667

Nature of Interest: Relatives application.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Cllr T Foster

Application PA/2021/1210

Cllr Hannigan

Application PA/2020/903

Councillor Lee

Application PA/2021/411

Councillor N Poole

Application: PA/2021/1210

Councillor D Robinson

Application: PA/2021/1417

Councillor Ross

Application: PA/2021/411

Councillor N Sherwood

Applications: PA/2021/1286 and PA/2021/411

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2021, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Chairman.

In accordance with the decision at the previous meeting, members had undertaken a site visit on the morning of the meeting.  The Group Manager – Development Management submitted reports and updated them orally.

The applicant addressed the committee indicating that the dwelling would become a four bedroom family home.  He stated it had been historically used as a farm with a mall bungalow on site, however, it had come into poor disrepair and was in a dilapidated state.  He felt the proposal would increase the amenity quality and would be sympathetic to the area.

Cllr J Davison stated that the site visit had been very helpful and it was clear it was a stark bungalow and not very attractive to the area. He felt the proposal would improve the landscape and was minded to approve the application with permitted development rights removed.

It was moved by Cllr J Davison and seconded by Cllr Wells –

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the following conditions:

1.

The development must be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason

To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

2019-ID-37 LOC Location Plan

2019-ID-37-PL003 Planning Drawing

2019-ID-37-SURV001 Existing Site and Survey Drawing

2019-ID-37-PL001 Planning Drawing

2019-ID-37-PL002 Planning Drawing

FRA July 2020; 20020-13-T-E Topo Survey.

Reason

For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, C, D, E and G of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (2015), or any order re-enacting that order with or without modification, no other extensions, buildings or enclosures shall be erected on the site or installed on the building other than those expressly authorised by this permission.

Reason

To protect the historic landscape in accordance with policies LC14 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and CS6 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.

Motion Carried.

The Group Manager – Development Management submitted a report containing details of major applications for determination by the committee, including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications.

The agent addressed the committee indicating that the location and dwellings would meet the needs of the local community, was the best use of the land, and it would also support the local community. He stated that Highways, Environmental and flood authorities had no objections to the application.

Cllr Robinson spoke as the local ward member in support of the application.  He said it was a good infill opportunity on two sizeable housing plots, and there was a shortage of such available housing in the area.

Cllr Hannigan having listened to the speakers agreed thee homes were required in rural areas, although he had concerns with the proposed layout and felt the committee would benefit from holiday a site visit.

It was moved by Cllr Hannigan and seconded by Cllr Ross:

That the application be deferred to the next meeting to allow the committee to visit the site.

                                                                                            Motion Carried.

Cllr Poole spoke as the local Ward Member and was concerned that the site was only 2 months into a 6 month monitoring assessment for surface and foul water, so he did not believe the committee had enough information and data on the assessment to take a decision, and urged them to either defer it to wait for more data or refuse the application.

Cllr T Foster also spoke as the local Ward Member and reiterated what Cllr Poole had said.  He did not feel it was a reasonable measure and there was not enough data before the committee.

Cllr J Davison indicated that he had concerns at the last meeting due to the lack of design for the drainage system, and it had returned to committee within a month with no further information. He said there was insufficient information to be able to make an accurate decision.

Cllr Grant felt it was too late to refuse that application and the proposals had already been present to committee back in February 2020, and the committee would be delaying for no reason.

It was move by Cllr J Davison and seconded by Cllr Hannigan:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.

Insufficient information has been submitted to determine that the proposed layout is acceptable in relation to the provision of an adequate surface water drainage scheme. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy and policies H5, DS1, and DS14 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

                                                                                            Motion Carried.

The Group Manager – 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 applications. The Head of Development Management updated the reports orally where appropriate. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

The Planning officer gave an update following a late objection received from Environmental Protection.

An objector addressed the committee and urged them to refuse the application as it was not suitable next to residential property.  He indicated they had suffered from noise, loss of amenity and continued disturbance to their life due to not being able to use some of the rooms in his house especially during summer, and unable to sit in their garden due to the smell and fly infestations.

Cllr Hannigan felt he had heard compelling evidence from the objector and the Environmental Protection Team that residential amenity was compromised and was unacceptable.

It was moved by Cllr Hannigan and seconded by Cllr Ross –

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.

The retrospective stable block, by virtue of providing 12 horse/pony bays, results in over-intensification of the development, which currently prejudices the existing amenities of the adjacent neighbouring property to the south-west known as Holly Lodge through increased odour and noise, and is inappropriate development in the open countryside. As such, the retrospective stable block conflicts with policies DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and CS3 of the Core Strategy.

                                                                                  Motion Carried.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.

Addressing the committee an objector had a number of concerns with the proposal. He felt there was no requirement for another shop, and the community would only be left with one Public House. He said the pub was the heart of the community and the shop would cause unnecessary disruption for local residents with more deliveries required.

The applicant submitted a statement stating that the pub over the last eight years of ownership had made substantial losses and was no longer sustainable. He stated that if the application was unsuccessful the pub was likely to close its doors in January 2022 and be boarded up.

Cllr Lee the local Ward Member indicated that the application was controversial within the community, and they had already lost one pub in the village. She felt it would be a big loss to the community and the majority were against losing the facility to a shop, and felt it would have a bad effect on the street scene and was against a number of planning policies.

Cllr Ross also felt it was against a number of planning policies, and the design would significantly harm the street scene, and therefore could not support the application.

Cllr Grant was in support of the application, and stated that if it was not approved then the pub would close anyway so nothing would be achieved for the community by refusing the application.

It was moved by Cllr Ross and seconded by Cllr Hannigan:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.

The proposed front extension is considered to be an unduly prominent and poorly designed addition that would harm the significance of this non-designated heritage asset and the character and appearance of the street scene, contrary to policies CS5 and CS6 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, policy DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and paragraphs 130 and 203 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

                                                                                            Motion Carried.

( Cllr Wells having declared a personal and prejudicial interest left the meeting for  the following item).

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report)

(Cllr wells returned to the meeting).

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report)

The Planning Officer gave an update to committee following a comment received from the applicant.  The officer clarified that the report did not reflect that the property was up for sale and had been since June 2021, and was still for sale.

The applicant informed the committee that it had been six months since he was last at committee with the application and since then the pub had been up for sale with no interest at all. Then the Haxey group a week before the committee date put in an offer £400k below the asking price which was totally unacceptable, and they had had four years to raise the funds. He stated he had continually lost money on the pub over the last 10 years and the accounts had been presented to back this up. The pub was now in bad repair and was only going to get worse, and would be better for the community if it was a detached house.

Cllr Rose spoke as the local Ward member against the application. He stated the pub had a long standing history within the community and would be a great loss.  He felt the property was significantly over valued, and there was no adequate evidence that it was not a viable business.

A letter was received and read out to the committee against the application from Andrew Percy the local MP.

Cllr J Davison stated it was a difficult decision, however, there was strong opposition from the community at the loss of the amenity.  He did not feel there was enough evidence provide to highlight that it could not be a viable prospect in future. He could not support approval as he said it was against a number of planning policies.

Cllr Grant believed it was the applicants right to be able to sell the property. He stated that the applicant had been to committee with the application five times, and it was apparent the pub was not going to open again so would be better for the street scene if it was a dwelling.

Cllr L Foster felt the applicant had made obvious attempts to make it viable but it just was not happening, he believed he had tried everything over the last 10 years and unfortunately the use of Public Houses in communities had changed.

Cllr Southern sympathised with the applicant as he had tried everything and put it up for sale six months ago, he felt he should be allowed the permission requested.

It was moved by Cllr J Davison and seconded by Cllr Hannigan:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.

The proposal will result in the loss of a valued facility/service within the rural settlement of Haxey. The council does not consider that it has been adequately evidenced that the facility is not economically viable and that all options for its continuance have been fully explored, and that there is no longer a need for the building in any form of community  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2162vi

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.

The Planning Officer provided an update to the committee informing it that a holding objection had been received with regard to the heritage significance. He recommended if the application was approved that a suitable condition be attached.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report with the addition of the following condition:-

The reserved matter(s) application shall include a statement of heritage significance.

Reason: To ensure heritage interest at the site is properly assessed in accordance with policy CS6 of the Core Strategy.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.