Agenda and minutes

There was no substitutions.

The following member declare and personal and prejudicial interest –

Cllr N Sherwood – PA/2021/1611 – Member and trustee of the Boat Club.

The following member declared a personal interest –

Cllr Waltham – PA/2021/1611 – Chairman of the Users Group.

The following member declared he had been lobbied –

Cllr Wells – PA/2023/424

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

Cllr J Davison having visited the site, and listening to the Ward members concerns he felt that through the traffic management plan, and Highway conditions within the report there was no problems with approving the application.

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

An objector addressed the committee and stated that he occupied a neighbouring property that would lead to loss of privacy, overshadowing, loss of light and amenity if the application was to be approved. He stated that the block plans in his opinion were incorrect, the outbuildings mentioned did not exist, and the proposals would not be in keeping with the original design. He also referred to 15 objections also received from local residents.

Cllr J Davison following the visit to the site stated that he felt for the neighbouring property and the impact the proposal would have on their loss of amenity and privacy. He said the original approved application for a single storey was in keeping, but this proposal was over bearing, and not in keeping with the area.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

The proposed development, by virtue of its size and massing, would have an adverse overbearing impact upon the residential amenities of the immediate adjoining dwelling and would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies DS1 and DS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and policy CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.

Motion Carried.

Cllr Bell requested a site visit be held to get a view for the committee if the plot is an infill plot or not.  He felt the committee needed all the facts before they could make a decision.

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

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

Motion Carried.

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

An objector speaking on behalf of himself, and several residents affected by the proposal as it was 25feet from their boundary. He stated they did not need two pubs in the village, and there were more objections for it then there was support. He said it would affect residents quality of life with the noise, cars and visitors and said it was not the right place for a pub.

Speaking in support of the application the agent stated that a micro pub was very different to a traditional pub.  It did not have gas pumps or the need for cooling systems so there would be no noise or need for extraction systems.  It would have quite table games, allowing for a social drink and chat and would not have any music.  She said they would use local people for the business and had huge support for it in the village.

Cllr Wells felt it was situated in the wrong location, and the village hall already supplied a venue for social drinks and gatherings and had ample car parking.  He felt the micro pub would not have enough car parking spaces and would impact on the Highways in the vicinity of the proposal.  He urged the committee to hold a site visit.

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.

Motion Carried.

Cllr Waltham addressed the committee and outlined a number of responses highlighted in the Officer’s report and stated that there had been no objections from the consultation responses, no adverse comments from the Parish Council, and that the development had a number of merits to it, including allowing families to continue to live in the village.  He urged the committee to hold a site visit.

Cllr Ross having listened to the previous speaker felt it would be beneficial to hold a site visit.

It was moved by Cllr Ross 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.

A neighbour attended and objected to the proposal, and informed the committee that the position of the proposal would have a big impact on their property and the street scene. He felt it was out of keeping with the area, parking would be an issue, and the recommended conditions did not consider the impact on the neighbours.

Cllr Ross having read the report, and bearing in mind it was for outline she had no problem with the application.

Cllr Bell stated that the report was in line with planning policies that the committee had to adhere to.

Cllr wells stated he would be voting against the application.

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

An objector spoke against the application as he said it would be overbearing and out of character with the street scene.  He also had concerns with the finished floor levels, and the height of the house discrepancy with the drive was a real issue.

The agent responded stating the most suitable use for the shop was a new dwelling.  He highlighted that the Planning Officer was happy with the application, and it was 50 % smaller than originally planned.  He also stated that the flood assessment and floor height had be agreed as better for all involved.

Cllr Ross said the site was dilapidated and felt the proposal would benefit the area.

Cllr J Davidson felt that the committee should seek further clarification on the floor levels in consultation with the Environment agency.

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

That the application be deferred to allow the agent to provide additional information regarding floor levels as plans do not incorporate Environment Agency raised floor levels; and allow the agent to make amendments.

Motion Carried.

In objecting to the application, the resident from the neighbouring property explained to the committee that there would be considerable loss of light to his property if the dwelling was approved.  He said everyone had a right to light in their house from 9a, until 3pm of which they are at work during those hours. He stated that the roof height was slightly above their heigh and not within the street scene, and the proposed full-length balcony would have views straight into their patio with a loss pf privacy.

The agent in response stated it was a large, detached bungalow with only one objection and an objection from the Parish Council.  He also referred to the Planning Officer’s report recommending approval following a reduction in height and scale.  He highlighted that the roof would slope away from the bungalow to reduce any impact on privacy and loss of light to the neighbouring property.

Cllr Ross having listened to the debate felt that the committee would benefit from having a look at the site.

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

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

Motion Carried.

The Chairman having declared a personal and prejudicial interest left the meeting for the following item.   Cllr Ross was Chairman for the following application.

The agent addressed the committee outlining the application and asked them to approve the retrospective permission as they were unaware, they required planning permission.  He stated it was constructed over a land infill area and did not impose and problems.

Cllr Waltham spoke as the local Ward Member indicating his support for the application.  He stated it was previously a tip site, with a very small proportion being used, therefore the pre-commencement condition was seen as a step too far when considering the context of how and when it will be used. He urged the committee to visit the site.

Cllr J Davison reminded the committee it was retrospective, and the building was already up, therefore, they should go look for themselves.

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

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

Motion Carried.