Agenda and minutes

Cllr O’Sullivan for Cllr Southern

Cllr L Foster for Cllr Bainbridge.

The following member declared a personal interest –

Councillor Mitchell

Application: PA/202/225

Nature of Interest: Member of the Isle of Axholme Drainage Board.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Cllr Evison – PA/2020/1628

Cllr L Foster – PA/2021/970 and PA/2020/1628

Cllr Grant – PA/2020/1628

Cllr Hannigan – PA/2021/970 and PA/2021/1742

Cllr Ross – PA/2020/1628

Cllr N Sherwood – PA/2020/1628

Cllr Wells – PA/2021/970

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2022, 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 site visits on the morning of the meeting.  The Group Manager – Development Management submitted reports and updated them orally.

The applicant addressed the committee outlining the development and proposals. He indicated that this was the final phase of the development, it was well placed, in a sustainable location, provisions of bungalows and a substantial Section 106 contribution.

Cllr J Davison stated that the site visit had been useful, and was satisfied that the concerns of the Parish Council had been covered, and the site was good.

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.

A resident member speaking in support of the proposal and on behalf of a resident group indicated the significance of having the statue, and specifically the location close to the school, due to the aspirations it would providing the young people. He stated it would be near the school gate that children would pass daily and the message was to ‘aim high, the sky is the limit’, and that it was not just another piece of street art.

Cllr Ogg spoke as the local ward member sating that he was not sure that it was the most appropriate site, and awaited the feedback from the committees site visit.

Cllr Ross felt that the statue, design, materials were out of character within the conservation area, and contrary to planning guidance.

Cllr J Davison did not feel it was the right location for the statue, it was close to the footpath and could be easily vandalised. He felt there was other locations that would be better.

Cllr Gant support the application and felt the children would respect the statue, and would not vandalise it outside the school.

Cllr O’Sullivan stated there was a statue in the Crosby and Park Ward that had never been vandalised on and old school site, and felt the proposal should be supported.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

The proposed statue, by virtue of its design and materials, is considered to be out of character and appearance with the Winterton Conservation Area. The statue would not preserve or enhance the conservation area and would have an

adverse impact on it. The development is therefore contrary to guidance in Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment; policies CS5 and CS6 of the Core Strategy; policies HE2 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and the council’s Winterton Townscape Analysis.

                                                                                                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 applicant informed the committee that this was the final phase of the development.  He indicated it was a sustainable development with good transport links, and great facilities.  He stated it was allocated land for development and an ongoing site.

Cllr Evison spoke as the local ward member and whilst he was no objecting to the development he queried the flooding and drainage documentations. He had concerns with the drainage capacity and the service liability of the drains.

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

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 reports orally where appropriate.  Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

Cllr Poole spoke against the application as the local wad member. In doing so he queried the business case for the expansion as there was no establishment of need, and was in the open countryside. He stated it was allocated on a flood one, there was no detail for the floor height finish to prevent future flooding. He stated it was two thirds of a mile with no public footpath and no street lighting that meant there was no link to the infrastructure for the leisure facilities.

Cllr T Foster also spoke as the ward member reiterating what Cllr Poole had stated, and was also very concerned that there was no business plan available.

Cllr J Davison having listened to the ward members concerns he did not understand why they needed chalets there.  He said the drainage and flood issues were a concern and no details had been provided on the proposals.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in an increased risk of flooding to the site or the adjacent land and properties. In particular, the applicant has failed to provide an adequate surface water drainage scheme. The application does not fully consider SuDS nor has an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development been explored. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy and policies DS14 and DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

                                                                                  Motion Carried.

Cllr Hannigan stated he was not against the application, however, had received concerns from local residents whose gardens were to the rear, as to the height and colour of the chimney.  He moved that a condition be attached to the approval along with the chimney being black instead of silver.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the officer’s report with the following amendment to condition 7 –

7.

The flue from the extraction chimney shall terminate at a minimum height of 1m above the roof ridge and should be black in colour. Details of any changes proposed to the flue shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to implementation.

Reason: To protect residential amenity.

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 recommendation’s 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 approved in accordance with the recommendations contained in the officer’s report.

Cllr Mitchell spoke as the local ward member and was very concerned with the application and the lack of detail with regard to the drainage. He indicated there had been no assessment made and the drainage was not feasible, and not suitable for the development. He also had concerns surrounding the highways that would lead to loss of amenity for neighbouring properties. He stated it filed to comply with planning policies and should be deferred for further details or refused.

Cllr Hannigan felt that the applicant had failed to submit a suitable flood assessment, and the committee was aware of how good/bad the drainage might be. He also stated it was against a number of planning policies.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in an increased risk of flooding to the site or adjacent land. In particular, the application has failed to provide an acceptable flood risk assessment and principle drainage strategy. This should outline all sources of flooding and proposals to mitigate this, including preliminary drainage layout plans, topographical survey and outline hydraulic calculations, including an indicative discharge rate for a 1 in 100 year storm event plus climate change which should be based on the current National Guidance and on SuDS principles, including adoption/maintenance proposals. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS18 and CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, policy DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and paragraphs 159 to 169 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

                                                                                             Motion Carried.

The Group Manager – Development Management Lead submitted a report outlining an application for reserved matters.

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