Agenda and minutes

There were no substitutions at the meeting.

The following members declared a personal interest –

Councillor J Briggs

Application: general

Nature of Interest: member of the Fire Authority and the Isle of Axholme Water Management Board.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Councillor J Davison

Application: PA/2021/1287

Councillor N Poole

Application: PA/2021/1210, PA/2021/1034 and PA/2021/1240

Councillor D Robinson

Application: PA/2021/1033

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 October 2021, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Chairman.

In accordance with the decisions at the previous meeting, members had undertaken site visits on the morning of the meeting.  The Group Manager – Development Management submitted reports and updated them orally.

The agent addressed the committee and referred to the officers report that he felt was an accurate refelction on the application to recommend approval. He indicated that there was no objections from Highways, there was no heritage value on the land, and that the application would only provide gains all around.

Cllr K Vickers spoke as the local ward member as he was concerned about the loss of the archaeology heritage on the land, and felt that substantial harm would be caused to the historic heritage. He stated it was against a number of planning policies, and said the access was not acceptable and urged the committee to refuse the application.

Cllr Hannigan referred to the site visit, and the concerns with regard to archaeology, and stated that this was not to be underestimated, and felt that once the site was excavated there would be no assurance that the valuable remnants would not be lost forever. He stated a number of planning policies to which the application did not adhere, he said it was out of character, over development and the road safety was another issue.

Cllr Grant felt that the officers report and conditions covered everything required, and the Highways felt it was safe to proceed.

It was moved by Cllr Hannigan and seconded by Cllr Wellls –

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons –

1.

The proposed development would result in a substantial level of harm to archaeology of national importance that is of demonstrably equivalent significance to a scheduled monument and thus should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. The lack of an appropriate mitigation strategy that makes adequate provision for excavation and recording before and during development and is capable of delivery, together with the lack of any justification for the substantial harm to the heritage asset, run contrary to paragraphs 190, 193, 194, 195 and 199 of the NPPF, and to policy CS6 of the Core Strategy and saved policies HE8 and HE9 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

2.

The proposed development would constitute an overdevelopment of the application site and result in a cramped form of development at odds with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposals are therefore contrary to policies H5 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and policies CS5 and CS7 of the Core Strategy.

3.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed access would not be to the detrimental safety of both existing and future users of the highway. The proposal would lead to residual cumulative impacts upon the existing road network and is contrary to policy T2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

                                                                                                Motion Carried.

Members please note that the applicant has revised the proposal from three additional residential units to two, removing one of the apartments and extending the landlord accommodation and remaining first-floor apartment. No external amendments have been made. The report has been updated in relation to the lesser impact the revised proposal would have on parking provision on the site.)

Cllr Briggs spoke as the local Ward Member who was in support of the Public House, but had concerns about the low provision for parking on the site.  He did not feel the flats were in keeping with the character of the village, and the access/egress to the site would cause problems.  He felt it was over development and could not support the application in its current form.

Cllr J Davidson said the site visit had been very informative and the dilapidated old pub was a large waste of space.  He felt the development would bring like back to the village and there was adequate parking.

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

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

A neighbour who was objecting to the proposal addressed the committee with several concerns. These included, loss of privacy, overshadowing, out of keeping with the neighbouring cottages, it was an overbearing proposal and possibly two and a half times larger than an average house.  He said their quality of life would be disrupted and urged the committee to refuse the application.

The agent referred to the site visit allowing the committee members to see the full extent of the site itself.  He indicated that the plot extended to over one acre, and there was many large properties within the same area. He stated it satisfied planning policies and the planning officer who had recommended to grant permission.

Cllr Hannigan stated it was a very large site and felt it could accommodate the proposal as it would fit on the plot, and would be the same height as the previous property.

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

The Group Manager – Development Management submitted a report containing details of major applications for determination by the committee, including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications.

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

Speaking as a local Ward member Cllr Poole raising concerns around drainage issues, and felt that a full plan on the drainage and surface water should be drawn up before a decision is taken on the application.

Cllr Hannigan agreed that with the climate changing the committee needed full plans and assurance from the Drainage Team that the scheme is fit for purpose before a decision is taken.

Resolved – That the application be deferred in order for the drainage condition attached to outline planning permission PA/2018/1716 to be considered and discharged.

The Group Manager – Development Management submitted a report incorporating a schedule containing details of applications for determination by the committee including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of applications.  The Head of Development Management updated the reports orally where appropriate.  Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested.

Cllr Briggs addressed the committee with some concerns as the local Ward Member.  He stated that the residents also had concerns about the development and the affects it would have on the character of Garthorpe.

Cllr J Davison felt the proposal was a reasonable request on a derelict piece of land, and detailed matters would be considered at a later date.

Cllr Grant was against the proposals as he felt that the big field behind could be used as an infill plot, and parking issues would become a problem.

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

The agent informed the committee that the owners wanted to create a four bedroom home that would improve the character of the site, removing the dilapidated outbuildings that were currently there and in disrepair.

Cllr J Davison having looked at Google Maps stated he found it difficult to envisage what the development would like, and would like a site visit to take a look before making a decision.

It was then moved by Councillor J Davison and seconded by Councillor Grant

That the application be deferred to the next meeting to allow the committee to visit the site.

Motion Carried

Speaking to the committee the agent outlined the application and in doing so highlighted that the Parish Council was in support of the application, and there was also significant local support.  He stated that it was best use of the land and very sustainable. The application had been reduced substantially from 13 to 5 dwellings in a residential area that would only benefit the area, and supply affordable housing.

Cllr J Davison referred to previous applications on the site that had been refused due to road access, and he felt nothing in the application hand changed on those grounds and therefore felt it should also be refused.

Cllr Grant said there was problems with access/egress and was also on a main bus route, therefore, the original reasons for refusal still stood.

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

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

An objector attended the meeting and spoke against the application.  The site was situated on a narrow, hazardous road.  Emergency services would be restricted and may encounter difficulties were they to access the site.  The application would have a detrimental impact to the safety of all road users.  Granting the application would add additional stress to the drainage infrastructure.  There would only be three car parking spaces available, with potentially 12 cars requiring places to park.  Noise from customers accessing the site would adversely impact the amenities of local residents.  The village was unable to cope with businesses of this type.

The applicant responded and detailed for the committee his extensive career in hospitality and saw this as a semi-retirement project in a village setting.  He indicated there would be limited opening hours, not a lot of deliveries to the site, it would mainly be based on afternoon tea and piano music playing in the background.  He stated there would be 10 parking spaces available which wold be ample for the proposal.

Cllr Robinson addressed his concerns to the committee and felt it would breach planning regulations.  He said it was situated on a corner plot where parking is an issue and it would cause more problems, along with daily school parking also in that vicinity. 

Cllr J Davison having visited the site was concerned with it being on the corner of a congested area, along with the school being in close proximity to the proposal.  He didn’t feel the parking was adequate and there would be highway safety implications.  He said it was contrary to a number of planning policies and was against approval of the application.

Cllr Grant Felt double yellow lines around the area could solve the parking issues, and there was other take always within the area so he could not see what the problem was as parking was provided.

Cllr Bainbridge supported the application as did the Parish Council.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons –

1. 

By reason of the provision of a proposed parking arrangement, and the consequent potential impact resulting from on-street parking on Westgate Road, the proposal would cause highway safety impacts on this residential street. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies T19 and S9(ii) of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.  

2. 

The proposal would have an adverse impact on residential amenities and would therefore be contrary to policies S9(i) and DS4 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan which apply to proposals for restaurants, cafés and hot food takeaway establishments and changes of use in residential areas.  

Motion Carried.

Cllr Poole addressed the committee as the local ward member as he had concerns after reading the officer’s report that there was no travel plan included, and queried it with the relevant officer present.

The Highway’s representative informed the committee that the scale of the development did not warrant a travel plan.

Cllr Hannigan stated that he knew the site very well and felt it was suitable for the development.

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

The agent spoke on behalf of the applicant and informed the committee that the applicant no longer run the holiday cottages and a family member wished to use them as family homes, and requested that the condition restricting that be removed.

Cllr J Davison felt that the holiday lets had been the original reason why permission was granted, and there should be no reason to allow amendments.

Cllr Grant stated that had the application requested permission for a permanent family home in the initial application it would have been granted, and therefore he saw no reason why the application should not be granted permission.

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

That planning permission be refused.

It was moved by Cllr Grant and seconded by Cllr Bainbridge as an amendment-

That planning permission be granted.

                                                                                    Amendment Lost

 Motion Lost

It was then moved as a further motion by Cllr N Sherwood that permission be granted and seconded by Cllr Ross –

That planning permission be granted.

                                                                                                Motion Carried.

A neighbour spoke in objection to the application, outlining that the business was fully operational 6 days a week, with increased traffic flows, and could possibly be converted into anything they chose to do. He also said it could lead to them having to sell their property in the future as the opening hours to 7pm were unacceptable, with no privacy.

The applicant stated that due to family circumstances changing it meant someone had to be at home, but also had to earn a living. In speaking to the committee he referred to many other hairdressers working this way with no problems, and that he had consulted all the appropriate authorities and certified to the appropriate standards. 

Cllr Longcake spoke as the local Ward Member on behalf of a number of local residents who had concerns. She was worried that standards had not been met, and potential parking issues along with the privacy of neighbouring properties.

Cllr Hannigan appreciated times had changed and businesses were now running from home, but did have concerns about the opening times stipulated. He felt that that the application should be approved but with more suitable opening hours

Resolved – That planning permission be approved in accordance with the officer’s report and the addition of the following condition:

1.

Hours of operation shall be limited to:

- 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday; and

- 9am to 1pm on Saturdays.

The hairdressing salon shall remain closed on Sundays and public/bank holidays.

No electrical equipment shall be operated or deliveries received outside the operating hours outlined above.

Reason

To regulate and control the use on the site, which is located in a residential area, to protect the amenity of neighbours in accordance with policy DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control submitted a report outlining applications for reserved matters.

Speaking in objection to the application a local resident felt that the proposal was not appropriate, would have a negative impact on the area, and had great concerns regarding the drainage and maintenance of a pipe that runs through the problems that would be problematic.

Cllr Poole spoke against the application with great concerns over the drainage and surface/foul water discharge.  He indicated that they had had problems in this area previously with standing water and residents unable to flush their toilets. He urged the committee to defer the application until a full complete plan had been developed to manage the drainage and surface water discharge.

Cllr J Davison agreed with the last speaker and requested the application be deferred until they had sight of a full scheme for the surface and foul water discharge.

Resolved – That the application be deferred until more detailed informative is provided.

An objector raised a number of concerns on the applications and urged to committee to refuse the application.  She raised a number of issues including no drainage scheme being available, flooding issues, traffic safety and the detrimental effect that it would have on the area.

The agent felt that all aspects had been addressed by the conditions. The drainage issues would be solved through soakaways as land was available, and highlighted that the access had been deemed appropriate by the highways Authority with no loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.

Cllr Poole as the local Ward member felt that there was a lack submission on the drainage implications, and queried how the committee could take a decision when they did not have sufficient details to do so.  He urged the committee to defer the application for further detail.

Cllr J Davison indicated that Redbourne had had previous flooding issues, and any future scheme needs to be adequate and a professional opinion obtained. He said the full scheme needed to be produced before they could make a decision.

Resolved – That the application be deferred for further information to be obtained.

Resolved – That the Worlaby Parish Neighbourhood Plan be adopted and referred to Full Council for approval.

No further items to discuss.