Agenda and minutes

There were no substitutions at the meeting.

The following members declared a personal interest –

Councillor J Briggs

Planning Application: General

Reason: Member of Humberside Fire Authority

Councillor C Ross

Planning Application: PA/2021/1869

Reason: Fellow North Lincolnshire Councillor planning application

Councillor N Sherwood

Planning Application: PA/2021/1869

Reason: Fellow North Lincolnshire Councillor planning application

Councillor D Wells

Planning Application: PA/2021/1968

Reason: Member of Parish Council

Planning Application: PA/2021/1869

Reason: Fellow North Lincolnshire Councillor planning application

The following members declared that they had bene lobbied –

Councillor J Briggs

Planning Application: PA/2021/1891

Councillor R Hannigan

Planning Application: PA/2022/75

Councillor N Poole

Planning Application: PA/2021/1330

Planning Application: PA/2021/2341

Councillor D Wells

Planning Application: PA/2022/21

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 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.

Prior to consideration of the application, Councillor N Poole spoke as the local ward member.  He referred to the previous application that was refused and indicted that this application was just the same as the old one and should also be refused.  He stated the only difference was the reduction in density, but it was still to be developed on amenity land outside of the local plan.

Councillor R Hannigan had concerns following the site visit as it was the last piece of undeveloped land in Messingham, and would have a significant impact on the surrounding properties.  He stated it was against several planning policies and felt permission should be refused.

It was then moved by Councillor R Hannigan and seconded by Councillor C Ross –

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.

The applicant had failed to demonstrate that a sufficient level of amenity existed for future residents.  Furthermore, there was potential that local businesses may have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of the proposed development. The proposal was therefore contrary to saved policies DS1 and DS11 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, policy CS5 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

                                                                                            Motion carried

Prior to consideration of the application, the applicant addressed the committee and stated that the development was not located in the open countryside and it was in keeping with neighbouring properties.  He referred to a recent application that had been approved for 27 dwellings nearby in open countryside.  He felt it would be an improvement to the street scene.

Councillor R Hannigan, following the site visit, felt that the proposal would be of no detriment to the area, and it was only slightly out of the development boundary.  He stated that the impact on the area would be zero, and it was a sustainable development.

It was moved by Councillor R Hannigan and seconded by Councillor D Wells –

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

1.

Approval of the details of the layout, scale and external 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 had been made under Article 5(1) of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

2.

Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 above, relating to the layout, scale and external 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 had been made under Article 5(1) of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

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 was the later.

Reason

To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

5.

Development shall proceed in accordance with the following approved drawing: LDC3731-PL-01A (site location plan only).

Reason

For the sake of clarity and in the interests of proper planning.

6.

No dwelling on the site shall be occupied until the vehicular access to it and the vehicle parking and turning facilities serving it had been completed in accordance with the reserved matters approval(s) and, once provided, the vehicle parking and turning facilities shall be retained.

Reason

In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies T2 and T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

7.

No loose material shall be placed on any driveway or parking area within 10 metres of the adopted highway unless  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2217b

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.

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

Prior to consideration of the item, Councillor Ross stated that having read the application for the change of use, she felt it would be beneficial to view the site before making a decision.

It was then moved by Councillor C Ross 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

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

Prior to consideration of the item, an objector attended the meeting on behalf of a resident in a neighbouring property to the application site.  In addressing the committee he raised concerns regarding the significant impact it would have on their dwelling, loss of residential amenity due to the size, scale and mass or the proposal.  He stated it was overdevelopment of the plot, out of character with the area and detrimental to the street scene.

Speaking in support of the application the speaker referred to the Planning Officers report and recommendations indicating that the application should be granted, and that all issues had been addressed and seemed acceptable.  He stated it was a vacant plot of land, and along with the attached conditions would only bring improvements to the area.

Councillor J Briggs spoke as the local ward member and asked the committee to take a look at the site before making a decision.

Councillor R Hannigan stated that having heard two completely different views on development and looking at the drawings it was hard to make a conclusion, and felt a site visit would be beneficial.

It was then moved by Councillor R Hannigan 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

Prior to consideration of the item, the applicant’s agent attended the meeting and outlined the proposal.  In doing so he stated that this was just an extension of the existing site by four dwellings.  He indicated that the planning officer had recommended approval and there was no problems with drainage or highways.

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

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

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

Prior to consideration of the item, an objector addressed the committee and expressed his concerns about the application and urged the committee to refuse permission.  He stated that the applicant was running a commercial workshop on site which was detrimental to their living conditions next door.  He stated that there was enforcement action on the site and had previously been refused by planning.  He said the noise was a problem coming from a generator, plant and equipment to carry out maintenance work.  He also said there was a tractor on site and the noise levels were so bad they had to stay indoors with the doors closed.

Councillor R Hannigan referred to the previous application where it had been unanimously refused in December 2021.  He said there had been detrimental evidence presented to refuse the application and no submission from the applicant.  He felt there was unauthorised development in place that the authority was dealing with and felt that this would prejudice other properties.  He could not support the application.

It was then moved by Councillor R Hannigan and seconded by Councillor D Wells –

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

The retrospective hay barn was related to an unauthorised stable block which meant that it was unjustified and inappropriate development in the open countryside and would prejudice the existing amenities of the adjacent neighbouring property to the south-west known as Holly Lodge through increased odour and noise. A s such, the proposal conflicts with policies DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and CS3 of the Core Strategy.

                                                                                                            Motion Carried

Prior to consideration of the item, an objector addressed the committee.  He stated that he had real concerns with the proposal and felt it would devalue properties in the area, lead to increase in noise, traffic and parking issues.  He had general concerns around commercial waste, and felt it was out of character within the area.

Councillor N Poole, speaking as the local ward member, said it was in the open countryside and outside the development boundary.  He stated it was agricultural land, a very small site and little provisions within the area.  He said it was unjustifiable development in open countryside and not a sustainable location.

Councillor R Hannigan stated that it was a cramped site, it would not function effectively on the area located in the open countryside and was against a number of planning policies so would have to refuse permission.

It was then moved by Councillor R Hannigan and seconded by Councillor D Wells –

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

The proposal was unjustified development in the open countryside, away from settlements and in an unsustainable location.  Furthermore, it would result in a cramped form of development with a lack of amenity space for the occupiers and children and would harm the character and appearance of the countryside.  The proposal was contrary to policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS5 and CS10 of the Core Strategy; policies LC7 and RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan; and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

Motion Carried.

There was no urgent business for consideration at the meeting.