Agenda and minutes

Cllr K Vickers for Cllr Ross.

The following member declared a pecuniary interest in the following:

Cllr Wells     PA/2022/1852        Property close to the application site.

The following member declared that they had been lobbied on the following applications:

Cllr Wells    PA/2022/2217 and PA/2022/443

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2023, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

Cllr Wells having declared a pecuniary interest left the meeting for the consideration of this application.

A speaker in support of the application addressed the committee reiterating what was outlined at the last meeting, and further highlighted that there was a desire for further development in Barnetby, the site should have been in the Local Plan as there was no other practical use for site.  

Cllr Waltham spoke as the local Ward Member and mentioned the railway underpass being an issue as well as flooding, and the drainage system would not be able to cope as it does not work under the current pressure.  He also stated that the access considerations were poor and it was in open countryside.

Cllr J Davison having visited the site stated that it had been very informative as was both sides of the argument.  He was concerned with the flooding issues and the design proposed was worrying as he could not understand why they would build downwards towards the railway line.  He stated it was in open countryside and outside the development boundary with no benefit to the village.

Cllr Bell said the site visit had been constructive and disagreed with the thoughts of the previous speaker.  He referred to the officer’s report recommending approval and highlighted that there was houses already on that road, and he did not believe it was in open countryside.

Cllr Grant also felt the application should be approved as it would tidy up the area, there was a need for housing.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

The proposal is outside the defined development limit, within the open countryside. It is therefore unacceptable in principle. It is not considered to present benefits which would outweigh the departure from policy and is contrary to policy RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, policies CS2, CS3 and CS8 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Motion Carried.

Cllr Wells returned to the meeting.

Speaking on behalf of a Resident Group an objector outlined what they felt would be the impact on the area.  Stating that it was a back land plot, incomparable with any other properties in the area and a loss of residential amenity, privacy and light.

The agent felt it was a perfectly good site, within boundary and an infill site, and submitted due to the previous approval that had lapsed.  Boundaries within legal ownership it was an outline application with lots of consideration given to privacy of neighbouring properties.

Cllr Hannigan spoke as the local Ward Member and said on paper the application seemed perfect.  However, that was not the feeling of the residents in the area and the proposals were not appropriate for the area.  The two storey houses would be very overbearing and affect surrounding properties with car parking and access very tight.

Cllr Wells said that after looking at the site as it was, the proposal would be overbearing in a rural setting, with the application not in keeping with the area. Adverse effects with cramped living.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

The proposal would result in significant adverse impacts on the quality of the built environment by creating a cramped form of development. Furthermore, it would be likely to result in inappropriate living conditions due to the cramped nature of the site. While it is noted that matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for future consideration, it is not considered that an appropriate scheme could come forward at the reserved matters stage that would be acceptable in these respects without having a harmful impact on the quality of the built environment and the living conditions of future occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies DS1, H5 and H7 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, policy CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Motion Carried.

An update was provided by the Development Management Lead.

An objector addressed the committee who lived directly opposite the proposed site and state that he was worried about the safety and proximity of the dwellings and the gas power station. There would be increased noise, traffic, and light pollution. With the biggest fear from the safety risks of the batteries.

Two speakers spoke in support of the application and outline the safety regulations and concerns of fire risk. They outlined the sites already in operation along with the Fire and emergency services responses, and the real-life noise assessments that had been carried out.

Cllr Reed spoke as the local Ward member on behalf of the residents.  In doing so she had concerns around the safety of the batteries and the number of energy developments already in the vicinity.  She stated that the village profile could not cope with all the extra traffic, streets already heavily parked, along with possible noise vibrations.

Cllr J Davison stated that he had sympathy with the residents but looking at all the concerns he felt that they had been addressed by and conditioned.

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

Prior to the commencement of any above-ground works pursuant to the development hereby permitted, an emergency response plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The emergency response plan shall be developed using best practice guidance as detailed and required in the published Grid Scale Battery Energy Storage System planning - Guidance for FRS published by NFCC National Fire Chiefs Council. The development shall be carried out and thereafter operated only in accordance with the approved emergency response plan.

Reason

To ensure appropriate emergency procedures are in place for the lifetime of the development.

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

Three speakers spoke against the application, and the applicant spoke in support.

Cllr Hannigan addressed the committee as the local Ward member urging them to visit the site before they made a decision.

Cllr Wells having listened to all parties and the local ward Member he felt that a site visit would be beneficial.

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

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

Motion Carried.

The Development Management Lead provided an update following further responses being received.

Speaking in favour of the application on behalf of the applicant it was outlined that the housing development would only be of benefit to the town, respecting the local area and character of the site. The development would lead to more open space provisions, play area, tree planting, drainage scheme and highways improvements.

Cllr Garritt spoke as the local Ward Member and whilst supported the development in principle, he was concerned for the sustainability of the community, queries the S106 agreement, and stress it would place on the local infrastructure.

Cllr J Davison referred to the permission that was granted in 2017 for fewer houses, and this was a re-submission. He felt that most objections had been addressed with some amendments and conditions added following the debate at the meeting.

Cllr Grant queried the S106 and felt that it must be valuable and adhered to.

Cllr Bell felt it would increase pressure on local residents and agreed that the S106 had to be viable and paid by developers.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report with the following amendments and addition condition –

Drawing number in condition 43 be amended to ‘Proposed Site Phase One P4481SPA-XX-ZZ-DR-A-20 023 Rev P’

The word ‘two-way’ be removed from conditions 5 and 55 (original numbering).

Construction of the proposed development shall be in accordance with recommendations made in report reference RPS, Former RAF Kirton In Lindsey, Noise Impact Assessment, Dated 02 May 2023, Reference JAJ03353.

Reason

To safeguard the residential amenity of occupiers of the development in accordance with policies DS11 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and CS5 of the Core Strategy, and to safeguard adjacent business and community uses in accordance with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Following installation of the mitigation measures detailed within condition XX above, a verification assessment report, that includes the technical specifications of mitigation measures incorporated and demonstrates the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, shall be undertaken. The verification assessment report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason

To safeguard the residential amenity of occupiers of the development in accordance with policies DS11 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and CS5 of the Core Strategy, and to safeguard adjacent business and community uses in accordance with paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Cllr K Vickers knowing the area well had concerns about the development, and especially the parking.  He felt the committee would benefit from holiday a site visit before making a decision.

It was moved by Cllr K Vickers and seconded by Cllr Patterson –

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

Motion Carried.

Cllr K Vickers requested that a site visit be held as he had concerns about the application.

It was moved by Cllr K Vickers and seconded by Cllr Patterson –

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

Motion Carried.

Cllr Patterson having read the report and looked at the plans felt she qould benefit from having a site visit.

It was moved by Cllr Patterson and seconded by Councillor K Vickers –

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 within the officer’s report.

The applicant addressed the committee and outlined the need for the application to support her business and the issues surround it.

Cllr Hannigan as the Ward Councillor also supported the application. In doing so he said he would like to see a 12 month extension provided as it was vital for the owner to support her business, and the local residents were all in favour.

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

That planning permission be granted with the following conditions –

1.

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

- Drawing number LCGO 002 (Location Plan)

- Drawing number LCGO 004 (Proposed Site Plan)

- Drawing number LCGO 001 (Caravan Detail).

Reason

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

2.

The use hereby permitted shall be for a limited period of one year from the date of this decision. The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued, the caravan shall be removed from the land and the land shall be restored to its former condition on or before 16 January 2025.

Reason

Permission is granted for a temporary period only. Given its nature and design, the development would not be appropriate for permanent permission in this open countryside location.

Motion Carried.

Resolved – That reserved matters be approved as outlines in the officer’s report.

Report of the Director: Communities.

Resolved – That the report be noted.