Agenda and minutes

Councillor N Poole substituted for Councillor D Wells and Councillor C Sherwood substituted for Councillor R Hannigan.

The following members declared that they had a personal interest in the following items –

Councillor J Briggs

Application: PA/2022/92

Nature of Interest: Member of Humberside Fire Authority and Member of the Isle of Axholme Water Management Board.

Councillor D Rose

Application: PA/2022/830

Nature of Interest: Chair - Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (North Lincolnshire) and Chair of Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (Yorkshire and Humberside)

Councillor C Sherwood

Application: PA/2022/897

The following members declared that they had been lobbied on the following applications –

Councillor S Bainbridge

Application: PA/2021/1087 and PA/2022/799

Councillor J Davison

Application: PA/2021/1087 and PA/2021/1180

Councillor M Grant

Application: PA/2021/1180

Councillor T Mitchell

Application: PA/2022/653

Councillor J Read

Application: PA/2022/92

Councillor D Rose

Application: PA/2022/444

Councillor C Ross

Application: PA/2021/1087 and PA/2021/1180

Councillor N Sherwood

Application: PA/2021/1087 and PA/2021/1180

That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 July 2022, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

The councils Development Management Lead 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

Prior to consideration of the application, the Development Management Lead updated the committee on a proposed addition to the conditions stated in the report, concerning the static caravans.

The applicant then addressed the committee.  He explained that the application was a re-submission, following the refusal of the previous application.  Addressing the committees’ concerns, the badger set would now be protected.  Additional steps would also be implemented to mitigate additional concerns expressed by members previously. 

Councillor J Davison stated that following the committee’s refusal of the previous application, which the planning inspector supported, the applicant had ensured that the badger set would be protected.  Therefore, the application could, in his opinion, be granted.

It was then moved by Councillor J Davison and seconded by Councillor C Ross –

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report, subject to the inclusion of the following condition –

None of the proposed static caravans shall be brought into use until the entrance to the caravan site has been tarmacked, which shall be retained thereafter.

Reason:

To mitigate any impact from dust pollution.

Prior to consideration of the application, an objector addressed the committee.  They informed the members that residents were opposed to the application as it was overbearing and against a number of planning policies.  The development would generate additional noise and affect existing residents’ quality of life.  The new homes would tower over the bungalows, resulting in an invasion of privacy and a loss of light.  The surrounding area was prone to flooding.  In addition, the drainage infrastructure was insufficient.  The field was used as a recreation ground by many people, which would be a great loss.

A second objector expressed their concern about the risk of flooding that the application may generate.  The water table was, in the objector’s opinion, higher that the figures referred to in the report.  In the winter, the field indirectly became a natural flood plain.  Soakaway drainage would also make things worse.

Councillor J Briggs, local ward member informed the committee that he was supporting the residents and objecting to the application.  The height of the buildings were taller than existing properties, and they were out of character.  The area was already prone to flooding.  The officers report made no reference to the playing field of the fact there were three other sites close by that were more appropriate for this development.

Councillor J Reed, local ward member also spoke against the application, stating her concerns over the flooding implications that may arise were the application to be granted.  The site had been flooded twice in the previous five years.  The loss of the children’s play area was also a real cause for concern.

Councillor J Davison informed the committee that he shared the reservations stated so articulately by the two objectors and local ward members.  The application would result in over development, have a detrimental impact on nearby properties and be liable to flooding.

It was then moved by Councillor J Davison and seconded by Councillor C Ross –

That the application be refused for the following reason –

1.

The proposal, by virtue of its layout, siting and design, and the overall height of the proposed dwellings, would create a cramped form of development out of character with the surrounding residential area, and would result in overlooking and an overbearing impact on adjoining properties. It is therefore contrary to policies H5, H8 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan; CS2, CS5 and CS7 of the Core Strategy; and paragraphs 130 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

                                                                                                      Motion Carried

The Development Management Lead 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.

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

The Development Management Lead informed the committee that the applicant had respectfully requested that consideration of the application be deferred to a future meeting.

Resolved – That consideration of planning application PA/2021/891 be deferred.

Prior to consideration of the application, an objector addressed the committee.  They informed members that the original application was for two dwellings, yet this application was for three.  The height of the dwellings would infringe on the existing road kerb and were too close to the highway.  There were already too many properties on the road and were not in keeping with a street consisting of bungalows.

The applicant informed the committee that his application had been considered by numerous planning officers, who had inferred that the application met all planning requirements for approval.  The application was well designed, with each dwelling having sufficient space for a garden.  The dwellings were north-east facing and would have no impact on the light of the existing properties.  The development would improve the area and there were no flood risk concerns.  There were no objections from the Highways Authority and the street scene was like many other areas of Barton.

Councillor J Davison expressed his concerns that the access road was inadequate for the development.

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

Prior to consideration of the application, local ward member Councillor J Longcake addressed the committee.  The application would have a detrimental affect on the community.  There would be an increase in the number of cars along Manor Road, which was an already busy road.  The local surface water drainage infrastructure could not cope with this development.

Councillor J Davison was concerned that the development was close to the junior school.  He believed that a site visit would assist members in their deliberations.

It was then moved by Councillor J Davison and seconded by Councillor C Ross –

That a site visit be held and the application be brought back to a future meeting of the committee.

  Motion Carried

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

Prior to consideration of the application, the applicant’s agent addressed the committee.  He informed members that there were no objections to the application from any of the statutory consultees.  The National Planning Policy Framework supported the application.  The applicant had submitted a statement of need.  Additional information requested by the planning authority had also been submitted.  However, that information had not been published on the council’s planning portal or referred to in the planning officers report.  The applicant and his parents would live at the site.  The likelihood of any theft occurring at the site would be reduced were the applicant living on site.

Councillor T Mitchell, local ward member spoke in support of the application.  This application was, in his opinion, essential to the site and to the local economy.  The applicant needed to live on the farm.  An agricultural condition could be attached to the application if that would alleviate members concerns.

Councillor Ross acknowledged that the development site was outside of the development boundary.  However, it was an agricultural site.  An agricultural condition attached to the licence would, in her opinion, be appropriate.

It wad then moved by Councillor C Ross and seconded by Councillor C Sherwood –

That the application be granted, subject to the inclusion of the following conditions and reasons –

1.

Approval of the details of the layout, scale, and 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 has 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 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 has 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 is the later.

Reason        

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

5.

The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture or in forestry, or a widow or widower  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2249.

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

Prior to consideration of the item, an objector addressed the committee and informed members that he was a concerned local resident who lived very close to the site.  The village was in a conservation area and the proposed application was, in his opinion, not in keeping with similar properties in the village.  The application should be reduced to single storey.  There was concern that the development would eventually become an annex which would set a precedent for the village.

The applicant’s agent also addressed the committee.  He suggested that the garage was in keeping with neighbouring properties that had been previously granted planning permission.  The applicant had listened to the concerns of local residents and revised the scheme to alleviate their concerns, particularly around the size of the dwelling and the positioning of windows.  The applicant had also worked closely with the council’s conservation team to ensure the application was in keeping with the village.  There would be no adverse impact on trees and a condition could be attached to the notice restricting the use of the development.

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

Prior to consideration of the item, Councillor J Davison suggested that in order to understand the impact the application may have on the site, members may benefit from a site visit.

It was then moved by Councillor J Davison and seconded by Councillor C Ross –

That a site visit be held and the application be brought back to a future meeting of the committee.

  Motion Carried

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

The Development Management Lead circulated a report that informed the committee about applications for approval of reserved matters which were ready for determination

Prior to consideration of the item, Councillor J Davison suggested that in order to understand the impact the application may have on the site, members may benefit from a site visit.

It was then moved by Councillor J Davison and seconded by Councillor C Ross –

That a site visit be held and the application be brought back to a future meeting of the committee.

  Motion Carried

There were no urgent items for consideration at the meeting.