Agenda and minutes

No substitutions.

The following members declared a personal interest in the following:

Cllr Grant – General interest as a member of the Anglin Club.

Cllr Mitchell – General interest as a member of the Isle of Axholme Drainage Board.

The following members declare that they had been lobbied on the following applications:

Cllr J Davison – PA/2023/279, PA/2022/1628 and PA/2022/1702

Cllr Poole – PA/2022/2027

Cllr Ross – PA/2023/279, PA/2022/1628, PA/20221702 and PA/2022/1857

Cllr N Sherwood – PA/2023/67 and PA/2022/1884

Cllr Southern – PA/2022/1628

Cllr Wells – PA/2023 279

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2023, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

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

Cllr Poole spoke as the local Ward member in favour of the application. He referred to the officer’s report and recommendation to refuse due to the light intrusion.  He stated it was an idea area that was safe and confined, and should be granted for a limited time of two years to obtain if there would be any light intrusion.

Cllr J Davison said it was a very remote location, with no likely intrusion and felt that granting permission for a 2-year period, to then be reviewed was acceptable.

It was moved by Cllr J Davison and seconded by Cllr Wells –

That planning permission be granted with the following conditions –

1.

The development must be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason

To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

- 1:500 scale plan labelled "Proposed Secure dog park" (serial no. 251713); and

- details of fencing, floodlighting and CCTV cameras contained within the document "Proposed Secure Dog Walking Park" by Mr C D and Mrs L J Haley received by the local planning authority on 13 January 2023.

Reason

For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.

The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the parking area/spaces have been provided and the parking area/spaces shall be retained thereafter.

Reason

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

4.

The use hereby approved shall be discontinued on or before the expiration of two years from the date the use first takes place, unless before that date an application has been made and permission granted by the local planning authority for an extension of the time limit imposed by this condition.

Reason

To enable the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed use and ensure there will be no unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of the area.

Motion Carried.

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 owner of the adjoining property spoke at the committee against the application.  He stated that the proposal was on a unique street of Victorian buildings, in a conservation area and the proposal would alter the character of the current building, and would not be in keeping with the area. He felt the high wall surrounding the property was insufficient to protect the character, and would cause a threat to the rest of the buildings.

The agent spoke in support of the application and said the development was hidden away from public view by a very high wall, and It was only a small single extension. He felt there would be no detrimental effect on the conservation area, and no harm to the street scene.

Cllr Ross stated that the site visit had been interesting, and also confirmed that the wall surrounding the property was high enough to screen the view and preserve the street scene.

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

Three objectors who live next to the proposed site addressed the committee with their concerns, and in doing so urged the committee to refuse the application.  Their concerns included; large scale development, detrimental effect on the area, the country lane with increased traffic and speeding issues, potential flooding, the smell from commercial bins affecting their properties, less wildlife, and the increase in anti-social behaviour.

Cllr Mitchell speaking as the local Ward Member indicated he was not totally against the whole application, but did have concerns with touring caravans and camping on the site.  He said there has been increased general bad behaviour on the site, loud music and thefts, and was concerned with the lack of amenities available with no hot water or hand washing facilities.

Cllr Ross said having listened to all the concerns she felt the committee needed to go visit the site before making a decision.

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

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

Motion Carried.

Two objectors attended the meeting and spoke against the application.  They raised a number of concerns with the proposal and these included the access being very close to the development, and could cause problems with traffic in the area as it was already problematic getting out of the junction.  They felt it was not in the right area being so close to the container company, and it was out of character with the area.

Speaking on behalf of the applicants the agent highlighted that the application was for reserved matters and access details was a matter for the permission granted at outline stage.  He said it was a sustainable location with all the technical and policy detail compliant.

Cllr L Foster spoke as the local Ward member opposing the development. He stated that he had object to it at outline stage and for the same reasons he was objecting now.  He raised concerns about the surface water, and the foul water management along with the public right of way that was adjacent.  He said it was a bad development in the wrong area.

Cllr Longcake also spoke against the proposals.

Cllr Ross said she felt for the speakers and understood their concerns, but felt this was an application for reserved matters and on planning grounds had to go with the officer’s recommendations.

Cllr J Davison said he could not support the application due to the layout and the issues around the safety and access road.

Cllr Grant said he was not 100% in favour of the development, however, the issues he had had already been passed at the outline stage.

Cllr Bell was disappointed at the lack of social housing, and took on board the locals concerns, and having listened to the issues suggested a deferment to get a water management report.

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

In addressing the committee, four objectors raised many concerns and their unhappiness regarding the request to modify the S106 agreement. They felt it was a very dangerous precedent and a burden to the public.  In their statements, they felt that another viability report should be undertaken as the scheme was financially viable, and the problem was with the developer’s designs. They felt that it was just a way for the developers to make more profit.

The agent stated that the permission was approved 3 years ago and since then the site has some viability problems.  He said that covid had increased abnormal costs, and 7 million of abnormal costs had been spent on drainage and foul surface water, along with a negative land value.

Cllr J Davison felt there was a great deal of technical aspects to this, and the viability assessments, and the outline was granted with the S106 agreement.  He said there was sufficient doubts on the numbers, and wanted to see an independent assessment so the application at this point should be deferred.

Cllr Grant said it should be rejected outright.

Resolved – that the application be deferred to seek another independent review of viability appraisal.

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

In addressing the committee, an objector raised a number of concerns regarding the accuracy of the application and drawings submitted, and stated that the distance to the boundary line was incorrect, and it was built in the wrong place. He felt that a new application should be submitted,

Cllr C Sherwood spoke as the local Ward member and indicated it was no a material amendment.  He said the site had been very controversial for the last 18 months, and the siting of the flat was in the wrong position.  He urged the committee to visit the site before making a decision.

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

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

Motion Carried.

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

The agent speaking on behalf of the applicants highlighted that on first visit to the site the Highways and Planning officer had no objections.  Highways were then requested to re-visit, and consequently made a height objection on the wall, which in turn led to the Planning Officer changing the recommendation. He said the objections were not warranted, and the height of some boundary hedges in the street were the same size.

Cllr C Sherwood indicated he had received a significant amount of contact with regard to the application. He stated that the photographs did not justify the effect, and the committee should hold a site visit to see the highway safety.

Cllr J Davison having listened to the speakers suggested a site visit be held.

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

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

Motion Carried.

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

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

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

Cllr J Davison having read the report and look at the plans felt that it looked overbearing on other properties, and would need to view the area before making a decision.

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

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

Motion Carried.

Objection to the application was a representative from the adjoining driveway as they were a linked attached property.  In doing so she stated that origionally she was informed when she bought the property that the garage, used for the site office would be put back to the garage door/wall. She felt that if it was not put back to the original garage it would cause massive privacy issues.

Cllr Ross said she knew the site well and felt the committee needed to look at the proposal before making a decision.

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

That a site visit be held and the application be brought back to a future meeting for a decision to be made.

Motion Carried.