Agenda and minutes

Cllr R Ogg substituted for Cllr C Ross and Cllr C Sherwood substituted for Cllr J Davison.

The following members declared a personal interest –  

Councillor Ogg

Application: PA/2021/2070

Cllr N Sherwood

Application : PA/2021/2201

Cllr Wells

Application: PA/2021/1826

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Cllr Bainbridge– PA/2020/894

Cllr Hannigan – PA/2021/894 and PA/2020/1826

Cllr Grant – PA/2020/894

Cllr N Sherwood – PA/2021/894

Cllr Southern – PA/2021/894

Cllr Wells – PA/2021/894 and PA/2022/21

Resolved - That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2022, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

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

Cllr C Sherwood having read the officer’s report had concerns about the entrance being so close to the B1400, and ongoing flooding issues in Messingham with no mention of surface water system within the report.  He felt the committee should visit the site before making a decision.

It was then moved by Councillor C Sherwood and seconded by Councillor D Wells –

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

Motion Carried

The Group Manager – Development Management submitted a report for determination by the committee including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of applications.  The Head of Service updated the reports orally where appropriate.  Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

An objector stated that he was speaking on behalf of a number of residents who would be affected by the proposals, and highlighted there had been just under 100 objections on the planning portal.  He said there would be no benefit to the community from the proposals and there was not a need for it in the area due to their being similar outlets within the vicinity.  He said they were also concerned about the increase in traffic and noise on what was already a busy junction.

The agent responded and thanked the officer for a comprehensive report. He highlighted the land had been allocated for housing but nobody was able to find a suitable option that would work.  He stated the land hand been vacant for 10 years and was untidy.  He said the investment would clean up the area and bring many more jobs with it, and there was no other site acceptable. He mentioned two trees would have to be removed in the process but a further four would be planted to replace them, and a good landscaping scheme would enhance the character of the street scene.

The Chairman read out a letter of objection from the local MP Holly Mumby-Croft.

Cllr Waltham MBE felt the location was a prime location for development but not of this kind. He was concerned that the commercial proposal would take away business from the Town Centre and there was more suitable locations available.  He said the area was a residential area, not commercial and would have a great impact on nearby residents.  Also concerning was the loss of the well-established trees on the site. He urged the committee to refuse the application.

Cllr Wilson spoke as the Local Ward Member. Knowing the area very well and the land that had been vacant for 10 years, and the trees on the site that had always been there. He said it would be a great loss if they were to be removed, and felt it was an inappropriate development for the site and location.

Cllr C Sherwood stated he had serious concerns about the application and the speakers against it only reinforced those concerns.  He disagreed with the Highways comments in the report and felt it was a busy junction and could cause problems if approved as Ashby Road was already very congested. He also disagreed with the sequential assessment which accompanied the application as he didn’t agree that some of the sites assessed were unsuitable, particularly the Ashby market site.  The loss of the trees were also a concern for him.

Cllr Bainbridge, Grant and Southern also had concerns about the application as they felt it was the wrong place, and the wrong development.

Clarification was sought from Cllr C Sherwood as to the reasons for refusal and it was confirmed to be that the application was contrary to policies LC12, CS16 and S8.

It was moved by Cllr C Sherwood and seconded by Cllr Wells –

That planning permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2206.

The agent addressed the committee informing it that the application was significantly different to the previous one that was refused.  She indicated that it would harmonise the village, provide more affordable housing along with four bungalows for local people.  She stated that it would enhance the appearance on entrance to the village.

Cllr Hannigan felt there was already enough housing provision within the village, with seven new builds and only one occupied.  He stated it was in open countryside, outside the development limit and not within the local plan for development.

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

The agent stated that there had been no statutory objections to the application, and just one objection that was concerning the colour of the mobile home.  He informed the committee that the mobile home was a standard size and was necessary for lambing season, and the occupants required a permanent presence on site for the security of the livestock.

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

An objector who live adjacent to the site spoke against the application. In doing so she shared a number of concerns and these included: the site was within the historic landscape, there would be loss of amenity, the development was large in size, would overshadow her property and they would also loose privacy.

The applicant responded and stated that they had received a lot of support within the village for the proposal, that it was an infill plot and would only benefit the character of the area in the future.  She stated it would blend in with the current dwellings, they had Parish Council support and felt it would only enhance the privacy of the neighbouring property.

Cllr Wells could not see any concerns with the application, and agree with the officer’s recommendations.

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.

An objector representing a community group within the village addressed the committee and urged them to refuse the application.  He informed the committee that the group had been working to retain the pub and had raised £107K to put a big together to purchase the pub, however, the bid was refused as the bid was not high enough.  He stated that there was a community consultation and 76% of the respondents wanted the pub to remain in the village. He said it would be a great community loss to the village if it was no longer a public house.

The agent referred to the officer’s report that recommended approval.  He informed the committee that a great deal of further information had been produced and submitted to the council enhancing the reasons to sell the pub. He stated the business was not viable or sustainable and all the accounts had been submitted.  He said the valuation for the sale of the pub was from the Estate Agents and plenty of time had been provided for reasonable bids.

Cllr Waltham MBE spoke as the local Ward Member following representations received from a number of residents. He informed the committee that there was a great appetite within the community for the retention of the pub and to keep it open. He felt that there it was a narrow commercial enterprise that was offered previously, and that the new proposal would be over development for the area and not sustainable.

Cllr C Sherwood did not think the application was any different to the one previously refused and there was still the need for the facility within the village. He felt that six houses would be over development and contrary to a number of planning policies.

Cllr Grant felt the owners should be allowed to sell the property they own, but was against the proposal for six houses on the site.

It was moved by Cllr C Sherwood and seconded by Cllr Wells –

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

The proposal would result in the loss of a valued facility/service within the rural settlement of Bonby. The council does not consider it has been adequately evidenced that there is no longer a need for the building in any form of community use. In addition, there is no alternative means of meeting such a need, as there is no accessible replacement facility in Bonby. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to paragraph 93 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CS22 of the Core Strategy and saved policy C2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Motion Carried.

The applicant addressed the committee and outlined the reasons for submitting the application. He informed the committee that the family wished to remain in the village and make a positive contribution.  He felt the application met the requirements of planning policy, and that the last application was refused due to the scale and the current application was much more modest in scale.  He said it had been stated that it is outside the development limit, however, it lays within the garden of the house, and has had no objection from neighbouring properties.

Cllr Wells felt that a site visit was required to get a better picture of the site before making a decision.

It was then moved by Councillor D Wells and seconded by Councillor D Southern –

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

Motion Carried

There were no urgent items for consideration at the meeting.