Agenda and minutes

Councillor C Sherwood for Councillor Wells.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied:

Cllr J Davison – applications – PA/2023/311 & PA/2023/1146

Cllr Patterson – application – PA/2023/1146

Cllr Ross – applications – PA/2023/311, PA/2020/1482 & PA/2023/1146

Cllr C Sherwood – application – PA/2023/1146

Cllr N Sherwood – applications – PA/2020/1482 & PA/2023/1146

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2023, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

A resident who lived directly behind the proposal urged the committee to refuse the application.  She said the commercial aspect to the application would be detrimental to their quality of life, could devalue their property, and it was not a suitable location for such application.

Cllr Longcake spoke as the local Ward member and felt it was not in keeping with the area, and not acceptable to have a workshop so close to residential properties.  The noise and possible pollution coming from the garage should not be situated near dwellings.

Cllr J Davison having visited the site said it was a congested area situated near residential properties and a nursery and was not an ideal location for commercial activity.  The proximity to the neighbouring gardens was very close and the noise and fumes would be unacceptable. He said it would have an adverse impact on the area and felt it should be refused.

Cllr Bell agreed with the previous speaker and said it was in a very busy area and would have a negative impact on the residents.

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 result in inappropriate adverse impacts on the amenity of surrounding residents in terms of noise and fumes. The proposals are therefore contrary to policies DS1 and DS4 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and paragraphs 174 and 185 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Motion Carried.

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

The Planning Officer gave an update to committee.

Three objectors spoke against the application.  The areas of their concerned cover several issues.  These included, very little consultation had taken place in the village of Scawby, important open space provision that they did not wish to lose, surface water flooding issues, infrastructure would not be able to cope with the influx of people, access would be an issue along with road safety.  They felt it was too large a development and the village could not accommodate it with other developments already in progress, and it would change the character and landscape of the area.

Two speakers spoke in support of the proposal.  In doing so they indicated that they did not believe there was any concerns for flooding, and foul water issues had been closely looked at with Anglian Water.  They felt it would bring several benefits to the village along with several different bungalows and houses to accommodate all generations.  They said consultation with the village and Parish Council had taken place and residents wanted the development.

Cllr Ross said she had listened to the residents, and she was not against the principle of the development, it was just the design and layout that was causing concern. She said it was out of character and would cause harm to the locality.

Cllr J Davison stated that the land was not located within the development plan, and was designated LC11 open space, and he also had a lot of concerns about the surface water drainage.

Cllr Bell said he also had a number of concerns with the development, and it conflicted policy LC11.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

The proposed development would result in demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the designated Area of Amenity Importance. The proposals are therefore contrary to saved policies DS1, H5, H8 and LC11 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan (2003), policies CS2, CS5 and CS7 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy (June 2011), and government guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (September 2023).

Motion Carried.

An objector addressed the committee and stated that she had lived in her property for 23 years and the proposal would have a big impact on her life and her current views. She said there would be noise issues from the fans operating all the time, with the possible emerging fire risks.  It was too close to residential properties and the lorries visiting would spoil the area.

In support of the application, it was highlighted that it was vital for the energy supply in the UK.  These kinds of applications played a big role in the Country’s renewable energy source and meeting net zero targets. She said it would improve the landscape affects and they would continue to engage with the community, and it was fully policy compliant.

Cllr Ross had concerns about the narrowness of Chapel Lane and felt a site visit should be held.

Cllr Grant asked the Planning Officer to try and seek the Fire authorities views before the next meeting.

It was moved by Cllr Ross and seconded by Cllr C Sherwood –

That a site visit be held, and it be brought back to a future meeting of this committee.

Motion Carried.

The agent speaking in support of the application said that it was a good sustainable application, on a large site with no other practical use. It would be a small residential area and a good fit for the site that currently had no amenity value. It would also have a good mix of properties.

Cllr C Sherwood said the residents did not share the previous speakers views and felt that access and water drainage were a concern. So, he felt a site visit should be held.

It was moved by Cllr C Sherwood and seconded by Cllr Ross –

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

Motion Carried.

When addressing the committee an objector stated that she felt the site plan had been submitted on four occasions and was still in-correct. She also stated that there was inadequate parking, problems with the visibility splays, loss of residential amenity, overbearing, loss of privacy and light and it would not be in keeping with the area.

Cllr Hannigan spoke as the local Ward member raising his concerns with the application.  He stated that the size of the site had changed, and the current workshop fitted well within the small area. He felt that the impact would not be good on the neighbouring properties and urged the committee to take a look at it before making a decision.

Cllr Ross agreed with the previous speaker and felt a site visit would be beneficial.

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 this committee for a decision.

Motion Carried.

The applicant addressed committee and outline the proposal and in doing so highlighted that the dwelling would not be in open countryside, no historic agriculture and had received support from the Town Council.

Cllr Bell stated that looking at it on paper he would support the application as there had only been two objections and could not see an appropriate reason for refusal and suggested a site visit might be held.

It was moved by Cllr Bell and seconded by Cllr C Sherwood –

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 e approved in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.

An objector addressed the committee and stated that it was situated in open countryside and not a suitable location, that she felt would be harmful to the location.  She stated it was contrary to planning policies, would like to traffic problems on a single carriageway with no passing places, and urged the committee to refuse the application.

Cllr Rowson as the local Ward member also spoke against the applications after receiving several complaints from residents. She said it was in the open countryside and not suitable.

Cllr Bell said he sympathised with the objectors but sites like this were required, and it was in an isolated location. He stated that he felt permission should be granted due to lack of available sites and saw no problems with this proposal.

Cllr Ross said after listening to all the objections and the Ward member she did not feel this was the right location.

Resolved – That planning permission be refused 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.

Speaking against the application a resident stated he was speaking on behalf of 17 objectors.  He stated it was out of development boundary, and the location of the dwelling was closer to the water course and could impact on the drainage. He felt it was more suited to an agricultural setting, and not in the village where parking would also be an issue.

The agent spoke on behalf of the applicants and in doing so spoke about the positive benefits the application would have rather than the negative ones. He referred to the officer’s report that highlighted that it was acceptable in design terms within a suitable location.  He stated that the design whist subjective had been previously praised by planning officers.

Cllr C Sherwood questioned the size of the proposal, not the design. He said it was too large for the village setting and the street scene, along with the concerns associated with possible flooding.

Resolved – That planning permission be refused 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 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 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.

The agent spoke in favour of the application updating the committee on all the work and preparations that had taken place since last requested by the Planning Committee.  He stated that further consultation had taken place with both the planning department and flood authority, and that the water courses would be unaffected, and the sewers would be adopted by Severn Trent, with drainage issues covered by panning conditions and a recommended approval by the officer.

Cllr Poole spoke as the local Ward member with continuous concerns about the drainage system and possible surface water issues. He stated that the original reasons for refusal still applied as there was no adequate drainage system.

Cllr Ross stated that the info requested by the committee had still not come through as required, and therefore still had the same concerns about the drainage system being adequate.

Cllr Grant felt that the water survey had been carried out and that the committee had all the details necessary to decide.

Cllr Bell also felt that if the application was refused it would be detrimental to the Authority and sympathised with the residents.  He stated that the conditions would be sufficient to cover all concerns if approved.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reason –

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 the development would be safe from the risk of flooding 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.