Agenda and minutes

There was no susbtitutions.

The following member declared a general interest:

Cllr T Mitchell – Member of the Isle of Axholme Drainage Board.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied as follows:

Cllr Mitchell – PA/2022/1536

Cllr Poole – PA/2023/334 and PA/2021/103

Cllr Ross – Pa/2023/1145

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

Cllr Wells – PA/2022/2217 and PA/2023/1144

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 2023, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

Five objectors attended the meeting and spoke against the application.  They had various reason for objecting to the application.  These included the area not being the right location, and far too close to neighbouring properties that had four industrial waste bins situated near their houses. They stated they had to put up with increased noise, bad smells, increased traffic and additional lighting. In presenting their case, they urged the committee to refuse the application due to their loss of privacy and detrimental effects it was having on their quality of life. 

The agent outlined the application and background to the well established holiday park that had received a great deal of investment, and had brought benefits and business to the area.  He indicated that the applicant had worked with the Planning Officer for the best possible scheme and the officer had recommended approval. 

The applicant also addressed the committee indicating it would only be used for lodges rather than touring and camping. He stated that lodge owners were invested in the park and the area, and liked a peaceful location to live. The reception area was required for the business, and to have a location for point of interest to the residents. He also stated that the waste bins could be moved.

Cllr Mitchell spoke as the Local Ward member and indicted that whilst he was not totally against the lodges, he was against touring and camping on the site.  He felt that the residents were effected by the site and their quality of life was compromised. 

Cllr J Davison having visited the site felt it was far too close to the proximity of the neighbouring properties and was surprised the site had been given permission. He stated the access road was very narrow with no passing places, and he could not support the application due to its detrimental effects it would have on the landscape.

Cllr Grant said he had nothing against the site, but could not support the application due to its proximity to the local residents.

Cllr Bell stated that he was minded to grant permission with conditions, as there were risks by refusing it, and could attract more touring caravans if the lodges were not approved.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons –

The proposed development would adversely affect the character, appearance and setting of the historic landscape of the Isle of Axholme, a heritage asset of national significance, contrary to policies LC14, LC7, RD2 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and policies CS5 and CS6 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.

Also, the proposed development would not be in accordance with paragraphs 197 and 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework as it would not make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness, and would

detract from the significance of the historic landscape in this location. The proposals therefore fail the key  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2450.

Speaking against the application a resident stated that if the amendment was approved it would have an overbearing impact on their property, and was very controversial in Brigg. He said it had been designed to be an Air B&B and not a granny flat and had been used for this purpose previously.

The agent indicated that the property was to be occupied by an elderly family member, and until he could move in it was a short term holiday let, and he was now occupying the property. He stated that no conditions had been breached other than the location seeking approval in the application.

Cllr C Sherwood thanked the committee for taking time to visit the site as it had been ongoing for 18 months.  The property had moved south, however, the officer’s consider it an acceptable separation distance.

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

The agent outlined the application and requested permission to retain the boundary wall. He referred to neighbouring properties that had higher hedges on the boundary.

Cllr C Sherwood as the local ward member stated that he did not agree with the Highways departments concerns, and said there was other hedges and walls of the same size in the area.

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

That planning permission be approved in accordance with the following conditions:

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

- Location Plan Drawing No. CD/23/01

- Block Plan Drawing No. CD/23/02.

Reason

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

Informative

In determining this application, the council, as local planning authority, has taken account of the guidance in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Motion Carried.

Cllr J Davison said the site visit had been very useful, and being able to view it from the back.  He stated it was a very small garden and would lead to overbearing, loss of privacy and have an adverse impact.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

The proposed development would appear overbearing and result in a loss of privacy for occupants to the south of the site, in particular 69 Timberland, resulting in adverse impacts upon residential amenity contrary to policy DS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Motion Carried.

A resident from the next-door property addressed the committee in objection to the application.  She said the main concern was privacy, and when buying the property she was sold it on the basis that the room would be turned back to a garage.  She felt it was inappropriate for a linked property.

The agent stated it was a non- material amendment to retain the current room for a home office space. He indicated there would be no overlooking, as it was a ground floor room, so there would have no adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

Cllr J Davison implied he could not see a lot wrong with the application following the site visit, and no planning reason for refusal.

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

Cllr Wells felt that this was a good development. He stated it was a sustainable new build, a high design and had no statutory objections.

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

That planning permission be approved in accordance with the following conditions –

1.

The works 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:

- Drawing no: DRWG/PA/2022/2210/02 (Proposed Block Plan)

- Drawing no: N08/--/03 (Ground Floor Plan)

- Drawing no: N08/--/03 (Elevations).

Reason

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

3.

The development hereby permitted shall be completed in accordance with the external finishes schedule on Drawing no: N08/--/03 (Elevations).

Reason

In the interests of good design.

4.

The dwelling shall not be occupied until the vehicular access to it and the vehicle parking and turning space(s) serving it have been completed and, once provided, the vehicle parking and turning space(s) shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason

In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies T2 and T19 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

5.

If during development any odorous, discoloured or otherwise visually contaminated material is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until a written method statement, detailing how this

contamination shall be dealt with, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved method statement shall be implemented in full prior to any further development commencing on the site.

Reason

To protect human health

Informative

In determining this application, the council, as local planning authority, has taken account of the guidance in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Motion Carried.

The committee was informed that the applicant had requested that the application be deferred.

It was moved by Cllr N Sherwood and seconded by Cllr J Davison –

That the application be deferred.

Motion Carried.

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

The applicant gave a background summary to the business and how it was run and outlined the request in the proposal.  In doing so she stated that a traffic management plan had been provided as part of the submission, that the road was wide enough for two way traffic, and they had had no previous problems with any approvals for licences etc over the previous years.

Cllr Poole spoke as the local Ward Member and agreed the business has been successful, but had concerns about the traffic that backed up, and occasionally at busy periods blocked the road. He requested that the committee hold a site visit as he was not sure the traffic management plan was fit for purpose.

Cllr J Davison indicated that he was not familiar with the site and the build-up of traffic on car boot sale days. He felt without knowing the road and the layout, he was unsure if the traffic management plan would do the job to ease traffic build up, and therefore suggested a site visit.

Cllr Bell stated that the car boot had been taking place for years without any problems, and therefore approval should just be given.

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

That a site visit be held before a decision is taken, and the application be brought back to a future meeting.

An objector addressed the committee sated that two different applications and an amendment had been submitted, and the block plan showed a separate building which he stated did not exist.  He felt it was contrary to planning policies, would overshadow their property, loss of privacy, and was not in keeping with the original house.  He urged the committee to hold a site visit to see for themselves.

The applicant outlined the proposal and stated that there would be no overshadowing, as the building was not overbearing.

Cllr J Davison said there had been 15 objections received and felt it was a case for a site visit by the committee.

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

That a site visit be held before a decision is taken, and be brought back to a future meeting.

Motion Carried.

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

Cllr C Sherwood as the local Ward Member informed the committee that the static van was on an all year round site, therefore, permanent residency would not make any difference. He felt the officer’s reasons for refusal were very weak.

Cllr Ross agreed with the previous speaker and said she had no problem with the application.

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

That planning permission be approved with the following conditions –

1.

The use hereby permitted relates solely to the siting of the single static mobile home marked “1” on map number PRHP562912403840 (Proposed Block Plan) and the permission does not grant permission for any other permanent residential use whatsoever within the application site.

Reason

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

Informative

In determining this application, the council, as local planning authority, has taken account of the guidance in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Motion Carried.

An objector speaking against the application felt that the planning rules had deliberately been breach with the proposals.  In presenting the case against she stated that there was a risk to health from air pollution with the chimney being low, and an extra loss of green land.

The agent stated it was a material change for an extension with chimney, and if the owner was to move it would mean that they did not even have to apply for planning permission anyway. The Planning Officer had no issues with the application and attached relevant conditions if it was to be granted.

Cllr Ross agreed with the Planning Officer’s recommendations as she saw no problem with the application.

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

The agent informed the committee that specialist consultants had carried out further drainage information, and Severn Trent Water had been on site with the Local Authority having no objections. The Parish Council had drainage concerns but he saw no grounds for it to be refused.

Cllr Poole stated he had a number of concerns around flooding and the water course, and urged the committee to seek further clarification on certain aspects including ownership and responsibility for the dyke.

Cllr J Davison also felt he required more information before he could make a decision. He stated that the committee required more detailed worked up plans on the foul and surface water management/ownership and the application should be deferred until that is received.

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

That the application be deferred for additional drainage information to be received.

Motion Carried.

None.