Agenda and minutes

No substitutions.

The following member declared a personal interest:

Cllr Wells – PA/2021/2165 – Member of the Parish Council

The following members declared that they had been lobbied:

Cllr Poole – PA/2021/1788

Cllr Southern – PA/2021/1891

That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 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.

Speaking against the application on behalf of a neighbouring property, the objector stated that the site was very narrow for the size of the proposal. It would have significant impact on neighbouring properties due to the size with very little separation.  He said it would be out of character with the area, would be overbearing and overshadow next doors dwelling.

Speaking in support of the application it was highlighted that the application was compliant with planning policies, it was within the development limit, and the officer had recommended approval in his report. He also stated that there was already large dwellings situated either side of the proposal and it would not affect the street scene.

Cllr Hanngian was satisfied with the officers report and happy to move grant permission.

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 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.

Speaking in support of the application a speaker informed the committee that there were no grounds to refuse the application. It would be a high quality development, contributions to open space, no consultee objections and no significant harm to the village. He said it would boost the supply of housing required with no substantive reasons to refuse.

Speaking on behalf of the applicant working for the developers, the gentleman felt there was a need for new homes in the area with a great deal of support from local residents.  He highlighted the S106 contributions to local education facilities, and felt the development would allow people to grown up and stay in Kirton to live.

Cllr Poole speaking as the local ward member referred to the officer’s report and recommendation relating to the Local Plan, and the fact that the proposal felt outside the development boundaries within the local plan for Kirton. He said the officer’s recommendation had taken this into consideration and recommended refusal.

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

Cllr Davison said the location was out of the development boundary in the open countryside, and was documented through consultation in the Local Plan. Therefore could not support the application.

Resolved  - That planning permission be refused for the reasons stated in the officer’s report.

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.

The applicant referred to the officer’s report and felt he had covered all the areas well. He stated that previous permission had been granted one for 6 dwellings, and one for 3 dwellings. He said this would replace those previous permissions.

Cllr Hannigan had concerns about the flood risk for 3 storey dwellings on a small site.  He said there would be a big problem with overlooking and other residents would be at a disadvantage, and felt he could not support the application.

Cllr Wells said it was not in keeping having 3 storey dwellings overlooking neighbouring properties, and was contrary to DS1.

Cllr Bainbridge had her reservations but felt having the integral garage at the bottom sorted any flooding issues out, and it was well planned out.

Cllr Grant sated that the principal of housing development was already present on the site, and the ground floor would be a non-inhabitable space so he supported the application.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

The proposal entails three-storey dwellings, due to its location within flood zone 2/3a tidal, in an area characterised by single and two-storey dwellings. As such, the proposal would be out of keeping with and harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to policy CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and policies H5 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

                                                                        Motion Carried.

A neighbour spoke against the application with a number of concerns. He felt their privacy would be lost, possible flooding issues, scale of development larger than stated. Their garden was elevated so would make their 6ft fence more like a 3ft fence which would de-value their property due to the overlooking.

The applicant stated it was outline permission and further details would come. She did not fell there would be any loss of privacy to the neighbours, no trees would be removed and the committee would be welcome to visit the site if they wished to see for themselves.

Cllr Davison reiterated it was outline permission at this stage and could not see any problems with it. He asked the drainage team present if there was any current issues, and they were not aware of any.

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.

Cllr Davison referred to the site visit and how he benefitted from having the opportunity to view the site and location. He had a number of concerns about the narrow road, the car parking and the lack of green space for potential family dwellings.  He said there was no amenities and it was over development and could not support the application.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

The proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site because the provision of two dwellings necessitates the use of the modest external area as car parking space, with a resultant lack of private amenity space contrary to saved policy H5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

                                                                                    Motion Carried.