Agenda and minutes
Venue: Church Square House, High Street, Scunthorpe
Contact: Tanya Davies Email: tanya.davies@northlincs.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Substitutions Minutes: Councillor C Sherwood substituted for Councillor R Hannigan. |
|
Minutes: The following member declared personal interests –
Councillor N Sherwood Planning Application: PA/2021/618 (Minute: 2131iii) Nature of Interest: Knew applicant
Planning Application PA/2021/901 (Minute: 2132v) Nature of Interest: Knew applicant |
|
Minutes: Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on the 28 July 2021, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Chairman. |
|
North Lincolnshire Council Five Year Housing Land Supply Report PDF 319 KB Minutes: The Director: Business Development submitted a report that informed the committee of the councils published five-year housing land supply assessment of deliverable housing sites.
The committee heard that North Lincolnshire Council was required to deliver a continuous five-year supply of housing land to meet its future housing requirement as part of its role as the Local Planning Authority.
The report set out the council’s position in relation to a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites in North Lincolnshire taking into account the requirement of the revised National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance. The five-year housing land supply document covered the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2026.
Members discussed the content of the report with the Director.
Resolved - That the council’s position and published five-year land supply statement be noted. |
|
Applications deferred from previous meetings for a site visit PDF 80 KB Minutes: 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. |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: An objector addressed the committee and stated that, in their opinion, the application could not be classed as infill. The site had a high landscape value and was of historical importance to the village. There were other plots of land and properties that were available in the village this removing the need to grant this application. Were the application to be granted, it would set a precedent in the village, and would not provide any benefits to the local residents.
The applicant’s agent thanked members for attending the site visit, and stated that, in his opinion, it confirmed that there were no reasonable grounds to disagree with the Planning Officers recommendation. Attaching conditions to the application would address any concerns over the access to the site.
The development would benefit from an extensive driveway and turning area.
Councillor C Sherwood disagreed with the applicants agent, and stated that the access issues had nor been addressed. The site was on an incline and close to a sharp bend. A 3.9 metre wide access road was not sufficient. The access and egress to the site was, in his opinion, not safe. The site was also outside of the development boundary.
Councillor J Davison agreed with the comments of Councillor Sherwood, and reiterated that the site was to close to a blind bend.
Councillor S Bainbridge was of the opinion that the application did fit within the village curtilage. However, it was a large development on a large site.
Councillor M Grant confirmed that other developments in the village sat outside of the development boundary. The site visit had been very useful, as it allowed members to view the location of the site and its proximity to a blind bend.
It was then moved by Councillor C Sherwood and seconded by Councillor J Davison
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons –
1. The proposal was located within the open countryside and was considered unacceptable in principle. No specific need had been demonstrated to meet any of the exceptions to the wider presumption against development in the countryside outlined in policy RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan. The proposal was therefore contrary to policy RD2 of the local plan and policies CS2, CS3 and CS8 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, which seek to restrict such development.
2. Due to its location on a narrow rural road, the proposed vehicular access to this proposal failed to demonstrate that safe access and egress can be achieved. The proposal would therefore have an adverse impact on highway safety and was contrary to policies T2 and H5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
Motion Carried |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: An objector attended the committee and spoke against the application. The application was, in his opinion, contrary to policy DS5 of the local plan. Local neighbours would suffer a loss of privacy and natural light. The application was not sympathetic to the needs of residents. It would fundamentally alter the street scene and character of Tee Lane. Neighbours were also concerned that there were no restrictions in place on the hours builders could work on the site.
The applicant’s agent addressed the committee and confirmed that the development site was the last existing detached property on the road to have an extension. Tee Lane consisted of large, detached houses which varied significantly in terms of scale and appearance. The impact that the north gable wall would have on the immediate neighbours was negligible. Granting the application would not impact on the street scene and no neighbouring properties would be overlooked or suffer from a loss of amenity.
Councillor E Marper, local ward member spoke against the application. The application would, in her opinion, have a detrimental impact on the street scene. The application would result in the site looking like a row of terrace houses. The extension was excessive and not in keeping with neighbouring properties. The application should be refused due to its height and scale. It would be overbearing and overshadow neighbouring properties. It was therefore contrary to policies DS1 and DS5.
Councillor J Davison confirmed that the site visit was extremely informative as it allowed members to view the property in its current state, as well as its proximity to neighbouring properties. The application was an improvement but needed to be more sympathetic and not as big.
It was then moved by Councillor Davison and seconded by Councillor C Sherwood –
That the application be refused for the following reasons –
1. The proposed extensions, by virtue of their height, scale and massing, and proximity to neighbouring properties, would result in unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impacts that would be detrimental to the residential amenity rights of adjoining neighbours, contrary to policies DS1 and DS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
Motion Carried |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: The applicants agent spoke in support of the application and stated that the site visit had shown that there was safe access to the site. There were no objections from any of the technical consultees and the application should be approved.
Councillor J Davison commented on the application.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the conditions contained within the officer’s report. |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: The applicant’s agent attended the meeting and spoke in support of the application. The development would allow the applicant to house his ill parents close to the family home. The applicant had worked closely with the council and parish council to ensure the application was sympathetic.
Councillor C Sherwood found the site visit useful, as it allowed members to see the size of the property and to ensure it didn’t overlook neighbouring properties.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the conditions contained within the officer’s report. |
|
Planning and other applications for determination by the committee. PDF 83 KB Minutes: 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 the applications. The Head of Development Management updated the reports orally where appropriate. Other officers attending gave advice and answered members’ questions as requested. |
|
Minutes: The applicant addressed the committee and spoke in support of the application. He acknowledged that the original brick design was workable and a logistical nightmare. The application was aesthetically pleasing and would positively enhance Roxby corner. No property looked directly on to the property and there would be no change on the residential impact of the development.
Councillor J Davison commented on the application.
Resolved – That planning permission be refused in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report. |
|
Minutes: Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report. |
|
Minutes: The applicant attended the meeting and addressed the committee. He stated that there was a good distance between the dwellings and would have a minimal impact on neighbouring properties. A number of neighbouring properties were much higher than the proposed application. It would be built out of stone and cladded when new. The council’s Highways department stated that the site was for caravan storage only and not vehicular access.
Councillor C Sherwood stated that he had no objections to the application. It would make the property look better.
Councillors J Davison and D Wells also spoke in support of the application.
It was then moved by Councillor C Sherwood and seconded by Councillor J Davison -
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: Proposed Plans 250 I 003 Rev A.
Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Motion Carried |
|
Minutes: The Group Manager – Development Management informed the committee that the applicant had requested that the application be deferred to allow them adequate time to consider the implications of the council adopting a Five-Year Land Supply Assessment and to be able to speak at a subsequent committee.
Resolved – That the application be deferred. |
|
Minutes: The applicant’s agent addressed the committee and spoke in support of the application.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report. |
|
Minutes: Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report. |
|
Minutes: An objector addressed the committee and shared her concerns about the application. Accessing the site was a major concern, with the additional traffic the development would generate a cause for concern. An eight-foot wide driveway would be shared with up to 17 cars and any visitors was unacceptable. No other property in the vicinity would be so close to the curtilage as the development. There were only two passing places for vehicles to pass on the site. A telegraph pole would also need to be re-positioned. Local residents were deeply concerned that landslides would be commonplace were the application approved. The whole street was unhappy about the application.
Councillor J Davison noted the parish council objection as well as the objections from local residents. He suggested that a site visit may be an appropriate course of action.
It was then moved by Councillor Davison and seconded by Councillor D Wells –
That the application be deferred to the next meeting to allow the committee to visit the site.
Motion Carried |
|
Minutes: 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.
Local Ward Member Councillor T Mitchell informed the committee that he was not fundamentally opposed to the application. However, he had reservations about the loss of amenity caused by the development and road safety concerns. An over spill car park with only three car parking spaces was not sufficient. The site was located on a very busy road which was a cause for concern. He also invited members to consider policies T2, S9 and T19.
Councillor D Robinson, Local Ward Member spoke against the application. He too was concerned over the lack of car parking. The A161 was a very busy road and not appropriate for a business of this kind. Members may wish to consider whether policy S9 had been adequately considered in the report. The application was also outside of the development boundary in the village.
Councillor J Davison shared the concerns of the speakers about parking.
It was then moved by Councillor J Davison and seconded by Councillor D Wells –
That the application be deferred to the next meeting to allow the committee to visit the site.
Motion Carried |
|
Minutes: Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report. |
|
Minutes: Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report. |
|
Minutes: The Group Manager Development Management and Building Control submitted a report outlining an application for reserved matters. |
|
Minutes: The applicant attended the meeting and spoke in support of his application. He confirmed that they had engaged in open and honest discussions with the Planning Officer on all aspects of the application. The application did, in his opinion, meet all the necessary planning requirements.
Resolved – That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report. |
|
Any other items, which the chairman decides are urgent, by reasons of special circumstances, which must be specified. Minutes: There were no urgent items for consideration at the meeting. |