Agenda and minutes

Councillor C Sherwood for Councillr Davison, and Councillor Longcake for Councillor Hannigan.

The following members declared a personal and prejudicial interest –

Councillor Ross

Application – PA/2021/1755

Nature of Interest – Knew the applicant

Councillor C Sherwood

Application – PA/2022/1408

Nature of Interest – Knew the applicant

The following members declared a personal interest –

Councillor Grant

Application –  PA/2022/829

Nature of Interest – Business user

The following members declared they had been lobbied –

Councillor Grant

Application: PA/2021/1703

Councillor N Sherwood

Applications: PA/2021/1755 and PA/2021/1359

Councillor Wells

Applications: PA/2022/1411 and PA/2022/1158

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 September, and the October 2022, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

The applicant stated that there was hundreds of solar farms already established nationally and internationally, and that this application was on a very small scale.  He also highlighted that it would not adversely affect any other sites, and had significant bio-diversity achievements and a good landscaping scheme to protect the site. With the vast majority of the community in support of the application along with the officer’s report recommending approval.

Cllr Waltham spoke as the local Ward Member and stated that whilst he was in support of solar farms and energy sustainability, it had to be in balance with the landscape and location. He felt this was the wrong location and would have a negative impact on the area, and urged the committee to refuse the application.

Cllr Ross said the application would have an adverse effect on the open countryside as it was a flat site and could not be disguised, with an open landscape. It was not in keeping with the area and contrary to a number of planning policies so could not support it.

Cllr Southern was in favour of green energy, said it was in the middle of nowhere and felt we should be leading on the green agenda.

Cllr Grant also felt it was in the middle of nowhere and was a valuable site for renewables.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

The development would have significant adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the open countryside and the proposal would represent a large and significant new feature in an open landscape. The construction and landscaping proposals are not in keeping with the local landscape or biodiversity priorities for the Ancholme Valley. Therefore, the proposals are contrary to policies LC7, RD2, DS1 and DS21 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, CS2 and CS5 of the Core Strategy, and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

                                                                                                Motion Carried.

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

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

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

An objector addressed the committee stating that the site was very tight, even when no vehicles are parked there. He said it was contrary to a number of planning policies, and should not have even come to committee. It was backland development and outside the development line. If it was approved the objector ask that the committee place a reasonable working time condition on the application.

Cllr Ross having visited the site and read the reports and conditions she stated that access would be suitable with two may movement manageable, and would like to see it granted with an extra condition applied for the working hours.

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

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the officer’s report, with the addition of the following condition –

Construction, demolition and site clearance operations shall be limited to the following days and hours:

- 8.30am to 5pm Monday to Friday.

No construction, demolition or site clearance operations shall take place on Saturdays, Sundays or public/bank holidays.

HGV movements shall not be permitted outside these hours during the construction phase without prior written approval from the local planning authority.

Installation of equipment on site shall not be permitted outside these hours without prior written approval from the local planning authority.

Reason

To define the terms of the permission and in the interests of safeguarding residential amenity.

                                                                                  Motion Carried.

Cllr Ross having declared a personal and prejudicial interest left the meeting for this item.

An objector speaking on behalf of concerned residents living adjacent to the site raised a number of issues on their behalf.  In doing so, she raised material planning concerns indicated a level of identified harm that should tip the application towards refusal. She also stated it was outside the development boundary in the open countryside with several objections, including one from the local Parish Council. It was felt that the lack of a 5 years housing land supply did not justify approval and the adverse impact the development would have.

The agent spoke in response and indicated that a great deal of positive work had taken place on the application. They had taken into consideration additional work and assessments and amended the plans accordingly. She stated the development was an infill site and would be in keeping with the character of the village, providing bungalows and dwellings with less impact on neighbouring residents.

Councillor T Foster spoke as the local Ward Member and stated it was outside the permitted development area, and was nt in keeping with the character of the area.

Councillor Ross felt it was over development in a little village, it was outside he building line on a greenfield site. She also had concerns about the surface water with no substantial justification, and felt it was against a number of important panning policies.

It was moved by Councillor Ross and seconded by Councillor Longcake –

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.

The site is located in the open countryside. The proposed development, due to its siting, design and layout, is considered to be out of character with the area and would result in demonstrable harm to the amenity of the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to policies DS1, H5 and H8 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and CS5 and CS7 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.

Motion Carried

Cllr Ross returned to the meeting.

Speaking against the application on behalf of a number of residents, the objector had a number of concerns on the proposal. These included the possible odour releases into the village, possible contamination of the water supply and the adverse effects this could cause residents in the village.

A speaker spoke in support of the application stated that the area would be screened by a fence with limited views from any public views points. That the spreading would be carried out within legal guidelines, odours would be minimal as the lagoon would be covered, and that the village was already surrounded by farming communities using fertilisers.

Cllr K Vickers speaking as the local Ward Member bringing forward a number of concerns from local residents. These included the fact that this was the second time the application had been brought to committee, and the concerns surrounding the odour and drinking water was still the same, and the application should be refused.

Cllr Ross having listened to both sides said the application was no different to the one previously refused, and the possible contamination was still a large concern and could not support it.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons –

1.

The proposed lagoons have the potential to generate odour over large distances to the detriment of residential amenity. As a result, the proposal has the potential to result in loss of amenity to residents by virtue of increased odours and therefore the proposal is contrary to guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework and policies DS1, DS11 and RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

2.

The site is within a source protection zone (SPZ 2), located upon a principal aquifer outcrop and within a safeguard zone, designated for nitrate issues at Barton public water supply. The proposed lagoon has the potential to cause a detrimental impact to groundwater quality as inadequate information has been submitted in relation to how the risk posed by the development to groundwater can be satisfactorily managed. The proposal is therefore contrary to guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework and policies DS11 and DS15 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Motion Carried.

Cllr Ross stated that the plans were not clear enough, and felt the committee should hold a site visit before making a decision.

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

That a site visit be held before a decision is made.

                                                   Motion Carried.

Cllr C Sherwood having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application, left the meeting.

Three objectors spoke against the application. The areas of concern that they covered were that it was outside the development plan, the area was prone to flooding, access being poor already, amenities in Kirton already saturated, traffic concerns with an extra 50 cars, there are other sufficient sites in the area, and it was just not the right site and should be refused as it was previously.

Three speakers spoke in support of the application. They felt that it would be a boost to the area, no adverse impacts, lack of objections from statutory consultees, high quality scheme providing jobs for the area, important to embrace new development especially for the younger generation looking to remain living in Kirton, and felt the Section 106 contributions would add ore benefits to the area.

Cllr T Foster spoke as the local Ward Member and stated it was desirable for the rea and there was a lot of other developments already taking place. It was the wrong application in the wrong location, and was the developers third time of trying and should be refused again.

Cllr Ross said she had listened to all speakers but agreed with the local Ward member that it was out of character and would not fit in with the area, it was against a number of policies and detrimental to the open countryside, and no acceptable.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

The proposals would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, they would conflict with the requirements of policies CS2 of the Core Strategy and RD2 of the local plan. These policies state that planning permission will only be granted for development provided that it would not be detrimental to the character or appearance of the open countryside or a nearby settlement. These policies accord with paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires developments to be sympathetic to local character, and the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. In this regard, the proposals would conflict with the relevant provisions of the Framework. Overall, the proposed development is not considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the character

and appearance of the area and as such the proposals would be contrary to policies H5, RD2, LC7, LC12 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and policy CS5 of the Core Strategy.

Motion Carried.

Cllr C Sherwood returned to the meeting.

Cllr T Foster spoke as the local Ward Member with concerns about the proposals, especially for residents on the Windmill estate. He highlighted that neighbourhood services also had concerns and if it was to be approved could there be a condition to have a drainage flood risk assessment.

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

Cllr Ross stated that the application was in the pen countryside, and it was not clear enough from the plan to make a decision.

Its was oved by Cllr Ross and seconded by Cllr Longcake –

That a site visit be held before a decision is taken.

Motion Carried.

Cllr Armiger spoke as the local ward member and highlighted concerns her and the residents had about the development being two minutes away from the junction, where numerous business operate from and houses turning to business take business away from the business establishments, and causes parking issues in residential areas.

Cllr Ross stated that she thought the committee should hold a site visit before making a decision and look at the situation.

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

That a site visit be held before a decision is taken.

Motion Carried.

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

An objector addressed the committee and indicated there had been 34 objections to the proposal and none received in support.  He felt it was not the right site, and would cause problems with more traffic on the highway, with the entrance and parking being a contentious issue.

The applicant stated that they had listened to feedback following a previous application on the site, and offered a wide variety of houses which would improve the area. They had worked on the character of the area, and any drainage concerns would be addressed within the conditions.

Cllr Wells felt the access was very narrow, with no detailed water surface scheme, no consideration for the environment, and not in keeping with the local area.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons –

1.

The proposed development would constitute an overdevelopment of the application site and would result in a cramped form of development that would be out of the character with the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies DS1, H5, H7 and H8 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and CS5 and CS7 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.

2.

The proposed development would result in a poor standard of residential amenity for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings due to the small private garden areas and overshadowing from trees located adjacent to the south-west boundary of the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies DS1 and H5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and CS5 of the Core Strategy.

                                                                        Motion Carried.

Resolved – That planning permission be approved in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report, with the addition of the following condition –

The extension hereby permitted shall be finished in a colour to match the external appearance of the existing buildings on site and once constructed it shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: To define the terms of the permission and in the interests of visual amenity.

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

An objector who shares a drive with the proposed development had major concerns about the work on the proposal stating that it had been refused previously, and was back once again at committee. Speaking about concerns of damage on the private driveway, skips being left on the driveway, and private hedges being removed. She said her life has already been affected by the development and she wanted to see the application refused.

Cllr Rayner spoke as the local Ward member stating it was over development for the site with three properties using the same drive, and five properties having to use the same access, and if the application was to be granted that would increase to seven.  That would be around 7 – 14 vehicles using one private driveway that would cause havoc.

Cllr Wells having listened to the speakers felt the committee needed to take a look at the site before making a decision.

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

That a site visit be held before a decision is taken.

Motion Carried.