Agenda and minutes

Councillor C Sherwood substituted for Councillor J Davison and Councillor K Vickers substituted for Councillor D Wells.

The following member declared a personal and prejudicial interest –

Member: Councillor N Sherwood

Planning Application: PA/2021/1611

Minute: 2500

Nature of Interest: Member and trustee of the Boat Club.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Councillor M Bell

Planning Application PA/2022/1702

Minute 2487a

Councillor M Grant

Planning Application PA/2022/1702

Minute 2487a

Councillor C Patterson

Planning Application PA/2022/1702

Minute 2487a

Councillor C Ross

Planning Application PA/2022/1702 and PA/2023/311

Minutes 2487a and 2489

Councillor C Sherwood

Planning Application PA/2022/1702

Minute 2487a

Councillor N Sherwood

Planning Applications PA/2023/439, PA/2022/1702 and PA/2023/311

Minutes 2485 and 2487a and 2489

Councillor D Southern

Planning Application PA/2022/1702

Minute 2487a

Councillor K Vickers

Planning Application PA/2022/1702

Minute 2487a

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

The Committee considered several applications that had been deferred at the previous meeting to allow members to visit the site.

Councillor Ross informed the Committee that following the site visit, she had no objections to the application.

Councillor Bell agreed with the previous speaker and stated that the application would improve the street scene.

It was then moved by Councillor C Ross and seconded by Councillor C Sherwood –

That planning permission be granted, subject to the inclusion of the following conditions -

1.

Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called 'the reserved matters') shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason

The application has been made under Article 5(1) of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

2.

Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 above, relating to the layout, scale and appearance of any buildings to be erected, the means of access to the site and the landscaping of the site, shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved.

Reason

The application has been made under Article 5(1) of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

3.

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason

To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

4.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason

To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

5.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing number 1009-20 (Location and Block Plans).

Reason

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

6.

All reserved matters applications for access required by condition 1 above shall include the following details:

(i) the location and layout of the vehicular access; and

(ii) the number, location, layout and materials of vehicle parking and turning spaces within the site and, if loose materials are proposed within 10m of the adopted highway, details of measures to prevent the material from spilling onto the highway; and

(iii) an effective method of preventing surface water run-off from hard paved areas within the site onto the highway and from the highway onto the developed site.

Reason

In the interests of highway safety and 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 policies T2, T19 and DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, policies CS18 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2483.

Prior to consideration of the application, an objector addressed the committee.  He informed members that he lived directly opposite the development site.  He was concerned that the living room was in the wrong location.  The site was not in the heart of the village and, were it to be approved, would adversely impact the surrounding properties.  There were insufficient car parking spaces identified at the site, with any extra vehicular movements adding to an already congested area.  There were concerns also about on street parking and additional noise from the site. 

The applicant’s agent also addressed the committee.  He informed the members that the Memorial Hall already had a licence to sell alcohol in the village.  The applicant had no intention of turning the micropub into a public house.  The hours the premises would be open would not cause any issues at school leaving time.  Additional noise from the site would also be minimal.  The applicant had agreed to reduce the operating hours on a Wednesday and Thursday and the council’s Environmental Health department had not objected to the application.  To improve visibility, the applicant would also consider removing the brick wall at the front of the property. 

Councillor C Sherwood stated that the site visit had been extremely useful.  The site was within close proximity to a road junction and as a result he could appreciate the objectors’ concerns.  However, were the application to be granted, it would improve the area.  The applicant had also agreed to reduce his opening hours to minimise any disruption to residents. 

Councillor Grant too could appreciate the concerns of residents.  However, in his opinion, the application should be granted as there was no planning basis to refuse the application.  The opening hours had been dramatically reduced and the capacity at the site was such that noise disruption would be kept to a minimum.

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

Councillor R Waltham MBE addressed the committee and stated that there were no objections to the application from Highways or the Environment Agency.  He continued that the site was within a sustainable location.  Over £20 million pounds had been invested on the infrastructure to minimise any future flood risk.  Precedent had also been set as there were other properties that had been built beyond the boundary.

Councillor C Ross informed members that she had found the site visit extremely useful.  It was clear to see that there were other properties that had been built further south of the site.  There were also no objections from Highways of Environment Agency.

It was then moved by Councillor C Ross and seconded by Councillor C Patterson –

That planning permission be granted, subject to the inclusion of 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:

- Plans and Elevations as Proposed (Revision J)

- Site Plans (Revision J).

Reason

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

3.

No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. It shall also include details of how the

resulting completed scheme is to be maintained and managed for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime so that flood risk, both on and off the site, is not increased. SuDS must be fully considered in accordance with current PPG guidance. Reference should be made to North Lincolnshire Council's SuDS and Flood Risk Guidance Document.

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, policies CS18 and CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and paragraphs 159 to 169 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.

The drainage scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under condition 3 of this planning permission, completed prior to the occupation of any dwelling or building within each phase or sub-phase of the development on site, and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the scheme for the life of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2485.

Prior to consideration by the Committee, an objector addressed the members.  He was concerned that the development would block light entering his property and grounds and other surrounding properties.  The site was on a significant slope which would only make loss of light worse.  The installation of a balcony would lead to a further loss of privacy.

The applicant’s agent addressed the committee.  He respectfully requested that councillors support their planning officer’s recommendation.  He confirmed that, in his opinion, the development would not have a negative impact on the neighbours.  The application had been amended to reduce the height of the roof slopes to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties.  The development would enhance the street scene.

Councillor C Sherwood stated the site visit had alleviated his concerns over the size of the development.  It would not be as intrusive as the plans suggested. 

Councillor M Grant disagreed and stated that the development would result in a reduction in natural light available to neighbouring properties.  The balcony was also overlooking neighbouring properties.

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

The Committee considered several planning applications that had been submitted and determined to be major applications.

Prior to consideration of the application, an objector addressed the Members. He was concerned that the modification to the section 106 agreement would result in a reduction in financial contribution of £1.2 million.  The developers concern as to its rising viability costs was not a sufficient reason to modify the agreement.  Developers had a responsibility to ensure they supported their local communities.  There was no support from any of the signatories to the modification. 

A second objector shared his concerns as to the rationale for the additional financial survey.  The developer had a duty to ensure it invested in the local community, not look for ways to reduce its financial contribution.  Were the modification agreed, council taxpayers would have to share the burden of the cost of the development, which was wrong.  In addition, the development was designed with no mains sewerage. 

The applicant’s agent spoke at the meeting and confirmed that the financial survey was commissioned by an independent company.  The recommendations contained with the survey only re-enforced previous survey findings.  The cost of the development had increased dramatically.  In addition, the land had reduced in value.  However, the section 106 agreement was still workable.  If the modification was agreed, then development would start early in 2024.  The development would generate additional employment and monies for supply industries.  The traffic regulation order would see the costs borne by the developer and not the council, which had to be positive.

Councillor L Foster confirmed that he had opposed the development since it was first submitted as it was not an attractive proposition for this particular piece of land.  Over three years had now passed before the developer had applied to modify the section 106 agreement, stating that it was not viable.  The profits of the developer were not a matter for the Committee.

Councillor C Ross stated that the matter needed to be resolved to allow the development to commence.  After considering the application, she was minded to support the modification, subject to the clawback mechanism being utilised.

Councillor M Grant stated that he was against the modification as the financial burden would be passed on to local council taxpayers.  The financial affairs of the developer were not a matter for the committee.  Any loss of affordable housing was a major concern.

Councillor M Bell was deeply concerned that £1.5 million would be removed from the section 106 agreement.  Council taxpayers would ultimately be required to contribute to the development, which was wrong.

Councillor Southern was concerned that the modification would allow the developer to increase its profit, whilst council taxpayers would be required to fund the shortfall.

Resolved – (a) That the Section 106 be modified, including a clause to allow North Lincolnshire Council to re-evaluate every twelve months the viability if market conditions improve prior to the completion of the development, and (b) that a highways contribution of £2,000 be included in the Section 106.

At the request of members, the names of members voting for, against and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2487a

Councillor C Ross informed the meeting that the applicant had took no notice of what was requested.  Consequently, she was minded to refuse the application.

It was then moved by Councillor C Ross and seconded by Councillor C Patterson that the planning application be refused for the following reasons -

The drainage strategy fails to demonstrate whether the development would result in an acceptable method of surface water drainage disposal, whether infiltration would be feasible on the site and subsequently whether it would result in flooding to the development or increase flood risk elsewhere. The application is therefore considered contrary to policies DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and CS18 of the adopted Core Strategy, and paragraphs 159 to 169 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Motion Carried

Prior to consideration of the planning application, the council’s Development Management Lead updated the Committee on an additional letter of representation that had been submitted.  The letter requested that the community asset be kept and not demolished for housing.  The Development Management Lead confirmed that the issue raised had been addressed in the main report and did not change the planning officers recommendations.

An objector then addressed the committee, stating that the property was currently an eyesore.  It was derelict and had been heavily vandalised.  This the objectors believed was part of a concerted effort to grant the application.  The patrons at the Lincoln Imp were one big family, and the loss of the iconic venue would be devastating for the local community.  It was once the third best music venue and a building that people would travel many miles to visit.

The applicant’s agent informed Members that the development would provide twenty affordable apartments, which were desperately needed locally.  It would also provide an outdoor space for the apartments, which was a huge selling point.  There were several public houses less than ten minute walk away.  For a public house to remain open, it needed to be viable.  The Lincoln Imp required circa £300,000 investing in it to allow it to re-open.  The pub had been closed since August 2022.  It had been on the market since it closed but there had been no offers to purchase it.  It had also been designated as an Asset of Community Value but no bid had been received.  No tenants had lived at the premises since 2013.  Every reasonable step had been made by the owners to sell the Lincoln Imp without any success.

Councillor H Rayner, local ward member informed the meeting that there was significant public interest in this planning application.  The Lincoln Imp was at the heart of the community and had historical and social importance.  It was a unique venue and all avenues must be explored to ensure it remained as a public house.

Councillor T Gosling, local ward member was disappointed that the premises owner had allowed the building to fall in to such a poor state of repair.  There had been no investment or maintenance at the premises for a long time.  The planning application would result in over development at the site.  There were insufficient car parking spaces too.  Nothing had changed since the previous application was submitted and ultimately refused by the Committee.

Councillor R Waltham MBE addressed the Members.  He reminded the Committee that he spoke against the development of the site previously and was going to do so again as nothing had changed.  The meeting had heard that Admiral Taverns had allegedly marketed the premises, but there was no evidence to support that statement.  The application was akin to building 20 rabbit hutches which was not acceptable.  This application should again be refused.

Councillor C Ross was disappointed that the Committee was again being asked to consider the development of the site,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2487c

The Planning Committee considered several applications that, in accordance with the scheme of delegation, required the Members to determine.

Prior to consideration of the application, the council’s Development Management Lead updated the Committee on an email that had been received after the agenda had been published by the council’s Planning department regarding the noise impact assessment submitted by the applicant.  The email was copied to all Members.  In the view of the objector, the noise impact assessment was not suitable or sufficient, and as a result the application should be rejected.  Members heard that initially the applicant did not submit a noise impact assessment to be assessed by the council’s Environmental Health department.  The department commented that they did not have sufficient information from the applicant to assess the impact of noise.  They therefore requested a noise impact assessment.  The requested noise impact assessment was submitted and reviewed by the Environmental Health and the department concluded that the resultant noise impact was low and therefore recommended an operational hours condition.  The condition had been applied to the decision notice.  Having considered the additional information received, this did not change the planning officers recommendation.

An objector addressed the Committee and stated that she could hear everything that occurred at the store room from her back garden.  The premises could not be used for storage as it was not secure.  The application would generate lots of extra traffic and noise.  The road leading to the site had double yellow lines and cycle lanes.  The car park was also not big enough to cater for the number of vehicle movements.  Safety was paramount and with it being a school route, this was a real concern. 

Councillor C Ross informed members that she believed the Committee would benefit from a site visit top better appreciate the proposed site.

It was then moved by Councillor C Ross and seconded by Councillor C Paterson –

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

Motion Carried

Prior to consideration of the application, the council’s Development Management Lead updated the Committee on a letter of objection that had been received from the Parish Council after the agenda had been published.  The Parish Council wished to inform the Planning Committee that -

·        Outline application had expired.

·        Parish Council was not informed of change the development boundary.

·        Access and traffic issues.

·        Overlooking.

·        Overbearing.

·        Loss of light.

·        Dwellings would be very visible for all areas of the village as well as immediate neighbours.

·        Biodiversity impact assessment was inaccurate.

·        Bat boxes to be installed on all four walls but no mention of avoiding over doors and windows.

·        No similar developments in Luddington.

·        Out of character.

·        Would not contribute significantly to the council’s housing land supply.

·        Loss of amenity land.

·        Noise and disturbance during construction.

·        Exclusive community proposed by the design.

·        Development not for local people.

·        No benefits to the community of Luddington.

In addition, a letter of objection from a previous objector had been received, and raised the following issues –

·        Rear gardens would not gently slope down to the rear borders.

·        Drainage issues.

·        Overbearing.

·        Loss of amenity, light and privacy.

·        Out of character.

The Development Management Lead confirmed that the issues had largely been addressed in the main report.  The location of bat boxes on the site would be dealt with through the recommended biodiversity planning condition.  Therefore, having considered the additional information received this did not change the planning officer’s recommendation.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee and informed Members that in 2017 outline planning permission had been granted.  The planning officers report was fair, and the recommendations proportionate.  Detailed negotiations with stakeholders had resulted in the amended application being considered by the Committee.  Strict conditions could be attached to the application to protect residents’ amenities. 

Councillor C Ross stated that there were no objections from any of the statutory consultees.  Therefore, the application should be granted.

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.

Prior to consideration of the application, the applicant addressed the Committee.  He explained that the application was to allow family members to live close by. 

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

Prior to consideration of the application, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.  He stated that the planning officer had recommended approval.  The building was required to house a small tractor and hay bailing equipment.  There would be no loss of amenities as a result of the application.

Councillor C Ross stated that she would support the application were an additional condition be attached to the application specifying the type of cladding to be used.

Resolved – That planning permission be approved in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report, subject to the inclusion of an additional condition to replace existing condition 3 -

3.

Notwithstanding the hereby approved plans condition (condition 2 above), the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be either wooden cladding (natural colour) or a green metal cladding and shall be retained as such unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

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.

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

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

Councillor C Sherwood believed that a site visit would assist Members in determining the application.

It was moved by Councillor C Sherwood and seconded by Councillor C Patterson –

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

Motion Carried.

The Chairman having declared a personal and prejudicial interest left the meeting for consideration of the following item (PA/2021/1611). Councillor Ross was Chairman for the following application.

Prior to consideration of the application, a representative of the Boat Club addressed the Committee.  He stated that the building was to house a mobile crane.  The Boat Club Committee were unaware that they required planning permission.  The structure was steel-framed and had a roller shutter door.  The construction was basic, which allowed for natural ventilation.  There were no workshop facilities within the structure.  The building was constructed over a landfill area.  There were no contamination issues on the site.

Councillor Patterson stated that it had been useful to visit the site prior to considering the application.  After visiting the site, the application should be granted.

Councillor M Bell had no reservations about the application and suggested that the land contamination conditions be removed.

Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report, subject to the removal of condition 1.

There was no urgent business for consideration at the meeting.