Venue: Church Square House, High Street, Scunthorpe
Contact: Dean Gillon Email: dean.gillon@northlincs.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Substitutions Minutes:
There were no substitutes. |
|
Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and Personal or Personal and Prejudicial Interests, significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (Lobbying) and Whipping Arrangements (if any). Minutes:
The following member declared a personal interest –
Member: Councillor T Mitchell
Minute Number: 2770
Nature of Interest: Member of CPRE, The Countryside Charity and member of the Isle of Axholme Drainage Board.
The following members declared that they had been lobbied –
Member: Councillor N Sherwood
Minute Number: 2770 and 2771a (PA/2024/513 and PA/2024/740)
Member: Councillor D Southern
Minute Number: 2770 and 2771a (PA/2024/513 and PA/2024/740)
Member: Councillor J Davidson
Minute Number: 2770 and 2771a (PA/2024/513 and PA/2024/740)
Member: Councillor C Patterson
Minute Number: 2770 and 2771a (PA/2024/513 and PA/2024/740)
Member: Councillor D Wells
Minute Number: 2770 and 2771a (PA/2024/513 and PA/2024/740)
Member: Councillor C Ross
Minute Number: 2770 and 2771a (PA/2024/513 and PA/2024/740)
Member: Councillor M Grant
Minute Number: 2770 and 2771a (PA/2024/513 and PA/2024/740)
Member: Councillor M Bell
Minute Number: 2770 and 2771a (PA/2024/513 and PA/2024/740)
Member: Councillor T Mitchell
Minute Number: 2770 (PA/2024/513)
Member: Councillor D Robinson
Minute Number: 2770 (PA/2024/513)
Member: Councillor T Foster
Minute Number: 2771a (PA/2024/740)
|
|
Minutes:
Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings held on 18 December 2024, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Chairman. |
|
Applications deferred from previous meetings for a site visit. |
|
Additional documents: Minutes:
An objector addressed the Committee, stating that the application fell outside of the development boundary. The objector stated that application would increase the risk of flooding, and would also take trade away from the town centre, increasing traffic congestion. The objector also stated that the proposal would reduce the views of the nearby church, and lead to various issues with parking, road safety, and accessibility issues for those attending the surgery.
A second objector echoed the concerns about road safety, stating that the nearby A161 was very busy, yet narrow, and that the proposed access points were potentially dangerous. The objector felt that the S106 contribution was wholly inadequate. The objector stated that there would be a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties, including light pollution from supermarket signage. The objector concluded that the proposal contravened the council’s policies, and that developers shouldn’t be allowed to build on land that is important to the social history of the area.
A third objector also stated that the proposal would lead to a range of road and pedestrian safety issues near the site, and the proposal would negatively impact on local heritage land, which was central to the bid to be recognised as an area of outstanding natural beauty. The objector felt that the agreed S106 agreement was insufficient to address the concerns, and that a better outcome was possible.
A Highways Consultant addressed the Committee, stating that applicant had worked closely with highways officers in the local authority, who had made no objections to the proposal. The proposal had been fully assessed and deemed acceptable. The consultant stated that th impact at junctions would be negligible, and that the S106 contribution would assist in addressing any residual actions. The consultant concluded that proposal, if passed, would help avoid lengthy trips for residents to visit supermarkets.
A representative of the Health and Care Partnership stated that the proposal would assist greatly in delivering the government’s focus, as set out in the latest Darzi Report, of moving towards a preventative and community-led model of health provision. This proposal would ensure sustainability and help provide modern, accessible facilities, with increased capacity, for many years to come. The representative stated that current provision was not sustainable or accessible, which would impact negatively on residents.
The applicant addressed the committee, stating that the over-riding aim was to improve facilities and amenity for the residents of Epworth. The applicant stated that they had worked closely with planning and highways officers, and that there was a great deal of support for the proposal amongst residents. The applicant stated that many residents faced a 24 mile round trip to access a larger supermarket, and that there were serious concerns about the long-term sustainability of the current garden centre. It was claimed that the proposal would attract residents into Epworth, and ensure long-term, improved services for local people. The applicant stated that the proposal would also create many new jobs, whilst ensuring the sustainability of dozens of existing jobs.
The agent ... view the full minutes text for item 2770. |
|
Minutes:
The Development Management Lead submitted a written update to the Planning Committee.
An objector addressed the Committee stating that the current operation at the quarry was having a significantly detrimental impact on local residents. The objector stated that the large number of HGVs accessing the site, and driving through nearby villages, was leading to noise, dust, damage to roads and properties, and there was a risk to the safety of residents. The objector stated that the drivers didn’t utilise the nearby haul road, or use the required wheel wash equipment.
A second objector also raised concerns about the large number of HGVs in the area. The objector stated that the quarry was intended to provide quality stone, and should not operate as an aggregate facility, although that was its current primary work. The objector stated that if the proposal went ahead, it would grant a long-term license, with the resultant issues for residents.
The agent for the applicant stated that the proposal would ensure the sustainability of the site, which would be important for growth, safeguarding jobs, and the local economy. The agent stated that the site had a number of roles, including quality stone, aggregate and recycling. The agent stated that there would be no increase in traffic, and that HGVs would continue to use both the haul road and public roads, and there was no restriction on this. The agent stated that the quarry’s owners had worked with North Lincolnshire Council to markedly increase biodiversity and grassland in the area, and that officers had recommended that permission be granted.
Cllr T Foster thanked the objectors for their contribution, stating that the HGVs did not use the haul road, and the previous Inspector’s report meant that the council could not enforce this. Cllr Foster felt that the quarry was not providing quality architectural stone, as stated, and he stated that local knowledge showed that HGVs were not complying with the requirement not to access the site until 7am, nor using the wheel wash or undertaking the safety checks. Cllr Foster’s view was that the large number of HGVs were having a material impact on residents.
Cllr Ross stated that, during their previous site visit, it was apparent that some drivers were not acting safely or with consideration for residents.
Cllr Grant sought guidance from the Development Management Lead on recycling tonnage. Cllr Grant stated that he could not understand why drivers didn’t use the haul road.
It was then moved by Cllr C Ross and seconded by Cllr J Davidson –
That the application be deferred and considered at a future meeting to allow members to visit the site.
Motion Carried |
|
Planning and other applications for determination by the committee. |
|
Minutes:
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report. |
|
Minutes: Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report. |
|
Minutes:
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the officer’s report.
|
|
Any other items, which the chairman decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances, which must be specified. Minutes:
There was no urgent business for consideration at the meeting. |