Agenda and minutes

There was no substitutions.

The following members declared a personal interest –

Councillor Sherwood

Councillor J Davison

Councillor Wells

Councillor Ross

Councillor Hannigan

Application: PA/20211875

Nature of Interest: Application by a Councillor.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Cllr Hannigan – PA/2021/970

Cllr Robinson – PA/2021/1417 & PA/2020/1990

Cllr Wells – PA/2021/803

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 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 decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken site visits on the morning of the meeting.  The Group Manager – Development Management submitted reports and updated them orally.

The agent addressed the committee thanking the committee for the site visit in the hope it reiterated how the application related well to the village setting.  He stated it was in a sustainable location, fit well within the area, and would be developed quickly in 12 months for the needs of the local people. I was the best use for the land and would improve housing within the area.

Cllr Robinson spoke as the local Ward Member in support of the application indicating it was an in-fill opportunity, and a good use for the land and the area. He felt there was no challenge to the street scene and would be good housing need for local people.

Cllr J Davison felt that following the site visit the development would not be in keeping with the street scene, and was outside the development boundary, it was a long way from local facilities and occupant’s wold need to use a car.

Resolved – That planning permission be refused in accordance with the reasons recommended in the officer’s report.

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.

Speaking at the meeting the Agent urged the committee to approve the application as it was vital to employment in the area, and the expansion would safeguard and create many more jobs. He indicated that a good infrastructure was in place along with the funds required. A drainage strategy had been submitted.

Another speaker spoke in support of the application indicating that the expansion would improve security on the site, as they had previously had problems with theft. The yard needed to be bigger with the lorries being made more secure. There was enough land and it would improve the area.

Another speaker supported the application updating the committee on the ecological issues, and following extensive assessments felt it would secure the continuation of the habitat on the site.

Cllr Robinson spoke as the local Ward member in support of the application.  He stated it would benefit the area, retain and create much needed jobs, there was a need for expansion and felt the applicant had a credible case for expansion.

Cllr J Davison supported the jobs and the need to create more jobs, however, he did have a problem with lorries overtaking the countryside. He said he agreed with the officer’s report for refusal as there was significant encroachment on the countryside.

Cllr Grant having visited the site felt it was an unsafe site for the amount of big vehicles that would be using the roads.

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

The agent spoke in support of the application highlighting the significance of the building within the area, and they would like to bring it back to its former glory, and create a new head office with further employment in the area.

Cllr Hannigan felt there was many merits to the application and would be a good re-use for the lovely old building, but would like a condition to change the office windows and doors to aluminium.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report, with the replacement of condition 19 with the following conditon –

The development hereby approved shall be finished in the natural slate for the roof and aluminium windows and doors for the new office block.

The agent outline the application and stated it was good natural growth for the area. He stated it was well placed within the area, good amenities, in a sustainable location.  There would be bungalows as part of the provision and a good deal of contributions to affordable housing.

Cllr Hannigan had concerns with regard to the road safety and the access and felt a site visit would be beneficial before the committee made a decision.

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

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.

An objector addressed the committee and urged them to refuse the application. He stated the development was outside the boundary and there was enough land available inside the boundary. He said the proposal would spoilt the view of number 30, there was lack of footpath and traffic safety issues.

The agent spoke on behalf of the applicant who stated it was agricultural land surrounded by other residential properties and commercial buildings.  There would be no adverse impact on the area, it was sustainable and it had been appropriately consulted on with highways and drainage.

Cllr Waltham the local Ward member spoke in objection to the application. In doing so he felt the proposal did not fit into the site located, it was not within the allocation document and there was better areas of land available in the Town.

Cllr J Davison having listen to the objectors said he agreed with their arguments. He said it was out of the area development limit, in the open countryside, did not meet local needs and stated a number of policies it was contrary to.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

The application site is located beyond the development boundary of Brigg, within the countryside. The proposal amounts to unjustified windfall residential development in the countryside that is not essential to the functioning of the countryside, does not meet identified local needs, does not result in additional community benefits and, due to necessary highway improvements, would result in the loss of the site frontage hedgerow that makes an important contribution to the character and amenity of the site and the surrounding area contrary to policies CS2, CS3 and CS8 of the Core Strategy, and RD2 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

                                                                                            Motion Carried.

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

Speaking against the application an objector stated that the proposal would not bring any employment to the area, I would only bring disruption for residents, including noise and a lot of problems with parking. The fear was the property would be used for a house of multiple occupancy, it was a very busy junction and would cause problems.

A letter from the local MP was read out also in objection to the proposal.

Cllr Gosling spoke as the local Ward Member also against the application.  He stated he had been working with residents who had great concerns with the proposal and urged the committee to refuse the application.  He said there would be parking problems, traffic problems and safety issues.

Cllr Hannigan had concerns with the application, and what it might be in the future.  He said the parking issues were worrying and was against a number of planning policies.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons –

1.

The proposed hotel/guesthouse is located within a primarily residential area and whilst the proposal includes adequate parking provision, insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that adequate space can be provided within the site for service vehicles and deliveries to the site. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policy T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

2.

The proposal would result in the loss of a community facility within the settlement of Scunthorpe. The council does not consider that it has been adequately evidenced that there is no longer a need for the building as a community facility or there is an acceptable alternative means of meeting such need. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to paragraph 92 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS22 of the Core Strategy.

                                                                                            Motion Carried.

Cllr Grant requested that a site visit be held to look at the location close before a decision was taken.

Resolved – That the item be deferred to allow a site visit to be held and brough back to a future meeting.

Cllr Ogg spoke as the local Ward member indicating that the proposal was in a conservation area, and also had worries that the structure would survive all weathers with the possibility it could go rusty. He did not feel it was in keeping with the local area, and the site was very close to a number of listed buildings. He requested the committee held a site visit before making a decision.

Resolved – That the item be deferred for a site visit to take place and be brought back to a future meeting.

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.

There was no other items to discuss.