Agenda and minutes

Cllr C Sherwood substituted for Cllr J Davison.

The following members declared a personal interest –

Councillor Grant

Application – PA/2022/1206

Nature of Interest – Previously engaged with applicant

Councillor Mitchell

Application – PA/2022/1206

Nature of Interest – Member of Axholme Drainage Board

Councillor Rose

Application – PA/2022/1101

Nature of Interest – Chairman of CPRE Northern Lincolnshire & CPRE Yorkshire & the Humber

The following members declared they had been lobbied –

Councillor Hannigan

Application: PA/2022/858

Councillor Mitchell

Application: PA/2022/1206

Councillor Rose

Application: PA/2022/1101

Councillor N Sherwood

Applications: PA/2022/858

Councillor Wells

Applications: PA/2022/1703 and PA/2022/858

The Director: Governance and Communities highlighted a minor typographical error at minute 2304a.  This minute should have recorded that the motion to refuse the application was made by Cllr C Sherwood and seconded by Cllr Wells, and not by the members listed in the draft minute.

Resolved – That, subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2022, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Chairman.

Two objectors spoke against the application, stating that the issues at the site were having a detrimental impact on residents.  Concerns were raised about air pollution, caused by the burning of wet material, damage to agricultural land, and an adverse effect on equestrian training.

The applicant stated that this was a long-standing business with permission to store wood on the site.  All licences were in place, and there had been substantial efforts to make the site as green and energy efficient as possible.

Cllr C Sherwood sought clarity from officers on the use of biomass material.

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

An objector spoke against the application, stating that there would be overlooking of their garden, and that the proposed dwelling would block views and not be in keeping with the area.  The objector stated that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on utilities, public safety, and property values, and that the application fell outside of the development boundary.

The agent for the applicant stated that there would be many positives with this development, and that concerns around utilities, access, or structural concerns could be addressed, or they were not planning considerations.  There was also the potential to allow development on the site if it met local need.

Councillor Hannigan agreed with the objector, stating that there were no services locally, and there would be a detrimental impact on residents.

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

The applicant spoke on the proposal, stating that this would promote a local business which served residents, and that there would be minimal impact on neighbours.

Cllr Hannigan spoke in favour of the application, stating that the conditions covered any concerns, and that this would promote the applicant’s business.  Cllr Grant discussed whether a condition on parking would be beneficial.

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

An objector who shared 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 Ross stated that, after visiting the site, they had a number of concerns.

Cllrs Gosling and Rayner spoke as the local Ward members, stating that the application was overbearing, against various planning policies, and that it was over development for the site, with a large number of properties using the same drive, with associated parking concerns.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

By virtue of its siting and design, the proposed development would create a cramped appearance on the site that would be out of the character with the surrounding area and would have an overbearing impact on the adjacent neighbour to the north. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies DS1, H5, H7 and H8 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and policies CS5 and CS7 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.

Motion carried

Three objectors addressed the Committee, highlighting various concerns.  These included issues with drainage, biodiversity, the loss of a heritage asset on Station Road, and a view that the proposal was not in accordance with the character of a historic town. Concerns around flooding were also raised.

The agent for the applicant stated that the proposal would improve the roads and footpaths around the area, and would provide a substantial financial investment into the town.  The agent stated that the proposal was on a brownfield site, and that there had been substantial efforts by a minority of residents to oppose the application.  Given that surveying was not possible during the winter, the agent requested that the application be deferred until further work could be completed.

Cllr Mitchell, as Ward Councillor, stated that this was a purely speculative application that was not supported by residents. Cllr Mitchell echoed the concerns around flood risk and a negative impact on amenities.

Cllr Hannigan stated that they had listened to all evidence and concluded that there was no reason to oppose the officer’s recommendation.  Cllr Grant agreed with this view, stating that there were few positives to the application.

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

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

The Development Management Lead, Economy and Environment, updated the Committee on proposed conditions around surface water.  The agent for the Applicant responded accordingly.

Resolved – That planning permission be approved in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report, and the additional conditions listed below:

1.

No development shall take place until details showing an effective method of preventing surface water run-off from hard paved areas within the site onto the highway have been approved in writing by the local planning authority. These facilities shall be implemented prior to the access and parking facilities being brought into use and thereafter so retained.

Reason

In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, CS18 and CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and paragraphs 159 to 169 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.

No development shall take place until details showing an effective method of preventing surface water run-off from the highway onto the developed site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These facilities shall be implemented prior to the access and parking facilities being brought into use and thereafter so retained.

Reason

To prevent the increased risk of flooding to themselves and others, to improve and protect water quality, and to ensure the implementation and future maintenance of the sustainable drainage structures in accordance with policy DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, CS18 and CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and paragraphs 159 to 169 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

An objector spoke against this application, stating that residents’ concerns remained unaddressed.  The objector highlighted issues with noise, access, lack of disabled facilities and staffing, and concerns around highways and parking. 

The applicant stated that the property was close to local amenities, and there was no intention to change the external structures.  Parking was available and sufficient, and there were no concerns around access.  The applicant stated that there was a large demand for safe and secure facilities for children and young people, and that this application was a genuine attempt to meet this need.

Cllr Hannigan stated that children were at the heart of everything that the local authority did, but that, in his view, there were genuine planning reasons why the application should be refused, such as highways safety, the character of the area, and that the application was contrary to various planning policies.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

The proposed children’s care home would have an impact on the character of the area by introducing a commercial enterprise into an area which is predominantly residential in character and is considered to be detrimental to residential amenity through noise and disturbance. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to be detrimental to highway safety due to there being inadequate space on the highway, or within the site, for parking and a dropping-off zone, which allows vehicles to park without causing a hazard to other users on the highway. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies C4 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, CS1, CS2 and CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy and guidance contained within the Interim Planning Policy for Residential Care Homes/Institutions.

It was then moved by Cllr Southern as an amendment and seconded by Cllr Bainbridge that a site visit be undertaken.

Amendment lost

Motion carried

An objector spoke against this application, stating that the proposal would not be of benefit to residents or neighbours.  The applicant believed that the application would be structured more like a house of multiple occupancy, and that there would be issues with parking and waste.  The applicant stated that the owner was trying to force this change by threatening to board up the property if the application was unsuccessful.

The agent for the applicant stated that there would be no major change related to this application, and that concerns around becoming a house of multiple occupancy were addressed in the proposed conditions.  Following a poor CQC report in 2021, and a lack of demand for care homes, this would be an opportunity to bring the building back into public use.  If the application was successful, the building would be professionally refit and managed, and that there were lots of positives related to the proposal.  No statutory consultees had raised objections.

Cllr Gosling, as ward member, stated that parking would be a concern, and that there was a need to protect the nearby bus stop and grass verges.

Cllr Hannigan stated that there was little evidence to grant the application, and that there were legitimate concerns around emergency access, the potential for delivery, and that the application was contrary to planning policy.

It was moved by Cllr Hannigan and seconded by Cllr Ross

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

1.

The proposed hotel/guesthouse is located within a primarily residential area and whilst the proposal includes adequate parking provision, insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that adequate space can be provided within the site for service vehicles and deliveries to the site. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policy T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

2.

The proposal would result in the loss of a community facility within the settlement of Scunthorpe. The local planning authority does not consider it has been adequately evidenced that there is no longer a need for the building as a community facility or there is an acceptable alternative means of meeting such need. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to paragraph 92 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS22 of the Core Strategy.

Motion carried.

The Development Management Lead, Economy and Environment, updated the Committee on the status of a wall at the property. 

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

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

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

The applicant for the agent stated that the proposal would support local amenities and that the site was already developed.  The applicant had worked with the case officer to make the application as beneficial as possible, and in line with the development plan.  There were no highways issues identified, a low risk of flooding, and there would be no detrimental effect on the area.  The applicant suggested that a site visit may prove useful for the Committee.

Cllr Rose, as ward member, spoke on the application, stating that there was substantial resistance from residents to this proposal, with 200 residents objecting.  The strength of this feeling was outlined in the case officer’s report.  Cllr Rose stated that the proposal was outside the development boundary, was contrary to a number of planning policies, and that there were a host of other reasons why the site and the proposal generally were unsuitable.

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

The agent for the applicant stated that this was a special school which met all Ofsted standards and was accredited.  The building would be fit for purpose, open to pupils in need, and with relatively low numbers.  Staff had been sourced and transport links put in place, reflecting that pupils would not be walking to school.  The agent stated that concerns raised by the planning officer had been addressed and that there would be no noise nuisance.

Cllr O’Sullivan stated that they were concerned that various information was not made available.

Cllr Hannigan stated that they wished to see good schools in the area, but they were concerned that this was an unsuitable site, and that there were other significant concerns.

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

it was moved by Cllr Ross and seconded by Cllr Wells -

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

Motion Carried.

The agent for the applicant stated that policy allowed for small developments that were in keeping with the surroundings, and that the site was not in a Conservation Area or listed.  The proposal would create a small cluster of dwellings that would have no adverse impact on the area or on amenities. 

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

There were no other items for consideration.  The Chairman wished everyone a pleasant Christmas and New Year.