Agenda and minutes

Cllr C Sherwood substituted for Cllr Wells, and Cllr Matthews substituted for Cllr Southern.

The following member declared a personal and prejudicial interest –

Member: Councillor C Sherwood

Minute Number: 2713 (PA/2021/2273)

Nature of Interest: Local Ward Member – Called-in Application to Committee

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Member: Councillor N Sherwood

Minute Number: 2713 (PA/2021/2273), 2717 (PA/2024/52), 2717b (PA/2024/817), 2721 (PA/2024/678), and 2723 (PA/2024/791)

Member: Councillor C Ross

Minute Number: 2714 (PA/2024/142), 2717 (PA/2024/52), and 2721 (PA/2024/678)

Member: Councillor J Davison

Minute Number: 2717 (PA/2024/52), 2717b (PA/2024/817), and 2721 (PA/2024/678)

Member: Councillor C Patterson

Minute Number: 2717 (PA/2024/52), and 2721 (PA/2024/678)

Member: Councillor M Grant

Minute Number: 2717 (PA/2024/52), and 2721 (PA/2024/678)

Member: Councillor M Bell

Minute Number: 2717b (PA/2024/817), and 2721 (PA/2024/678).

Member: Councillor D Robinson

Minute Number: 2719 (PA/2023/98)

Resolved – That, following a minor typographical correction to minute 2706,  the minutes of the meeting held on the 04 September 2024, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Chairman.

(Prior to consideration of the following agenda item, Councillor C Sherwood, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest, left the meeting room).

An objector addressed the Committee, stating that there were a number of valid reasons to refuse this application. The objector raised significant concerns about road safety and traffic disruption that would arise if the application went ahead, with a marked rise in the number of HGVs at peak times.  A second objector repeated these concerns, also raising issues around environmental impact, the adverse impact on nearby villages, and the potential for anti-social behaviour.  A third objector also raised similar concerns, stating that access roads were not wide enough to deal with large HGVs, with a potential for accidents.  In addition, the objector suggested that the facility could exacerbate the flood risk in an area with a history of drainage issues.

The agent for the applicant welcomed the planning officer’s report, stating that it was an excellent summary of the proposal and the benefits which arose from it.  The agent stated that the proposed siting of the lorry park near the M180 and Humber Bridge would have important strategic importance to the locality, leading to increased prosperity, economic growth and local jobs, all of which were key aims of the local authority. The agent noted that the proposal was supported by statutory consultees, and approval would lead to a substantial investment in North Lincolnshire.

The Chairman read a letter from the Leader of the Council, which raised a number of concerns about the impact of the proposal on the transport network, and unanswered questions about flood risk in an already vulnerable area.

Cllr Ross stated that the traffic issues in that area were very difficult, expressing concerns that the application would worsen the situation.  Cllr Ross believed that not enough information had been submitted on flooding, noting that there had been no flood risk assessment or drainage mitigation policy.  Cllr Ross suggested that the proposal would be against policies CS19, DS14 and DS16.

Cllr Grant stated that he had observed issues with traffic in that area, and was concerned that the proposal would worsen the situation. 

Cllr Bell echoed these concerns, stating that there would be an increased risk of congestion, accidents and an adverse impact on residents and motorists.

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

That the application be refused for the following reason.

1.    The submitted flood risk and drainage strategy fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would result in an acceptable method of surface water drainage disposal for the site due to inadequate information in relation to the provision of source features/SuDs on the site and lack of confirmation of infiltration rates to avoid groundwater interaction. It has therefore not been demonstrated that the proposed development would be safe from the risk of flooding or would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Subsequently, the proposal is contrary to policies DS14 and DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and CS19 of the adopted Core Strategy, and policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Motion Carried

(Councillor C  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2713.

Cllr Davison stated that the site visit was very useful, and noted that the property was largely derelict.

Cllr Bell agreed, stating that the application would improve the look and amenity of the area.

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

Cllr Davison stated that, following the site visit, he had no concerns about the application.  Cllr Davison believed that the proposed site was far enough from neighbours, and that there were no overlooking issues.  Despite this, Cllr Davison would favour an additional condition that the garage could not be subsequently altered into a dwelling.

Cllr Bell agreed with this summary.

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

That planning permission be approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, with the following additional conditions –

1. The garage hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 26 High Street, Burton upon Stather and shall not be used as a separate dwellinghouse.

Reason

To prevent the establishment of a separate unit of residential accommodation without appropriate standards of open space, access and parking space, which would be contrary to policies DS1 and T2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Motion carried

The agent for the applicant addressed the Committee, stating that Premier Equine International Ltd. was a prominent and growing local business in the Goxhill area, with a turnover of around £2m p/a, and employing around 30 people.  The applicant noted that the local authority wished to encourage such businesses, leading to jobs for residents.

The applicant stated that the proposed extension was important in order for the business to continue to grow, as the current infrastructure resulted in a range of logistical problems around stock.  The applicant stated that the proposed development would future proof the business, benefitting the local area.

The applicant noted the concerns around traffic in Goxhill, but stated that many of these issues were unrelated to the business.  The proposed development would on have a very modest impact, with around two deliveries a month, largely in the evening.

Cllr Davison stated that he could see both sides of the issue.  However, Cllr Davison noted that there may be continued issues with surface water caused by the development.

Cllr Bell stated that there was a need for an impact assessment on the proposal’s implications for local communities, balanced against the economic benefits.  Cllr Bell stated that there was a risk that the business could relocate, and that the difficulties for rural businesses were well-known.

It was then moved by Cllr Davison and seconded by Cllr Ross -  

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

Motion carried.

The Development Management Lead provided a verbal update on the application, including details of a letter from Nic Dakin MP outlining a number of concerns raised by residents.   The Lead officer stated that the issues were discussed within the report, and that the recommendation remained unchanged.

An objector stated that the lived on Newport Drive, which would be located in front of the proposed development.  The objector raised a number of concerns around overlooking, privacy and residential amenity, stating that there was a need to revise the application from two-storey houses to bungalows.  The objector also felt that further mitigations on screening, privacy and glazing should be considered.

A second objector echoed these concerns around privacy, visual impact, and overlooking, also raising concerns about community engagement.

The Chairman read the MP’s letter in whole, noting that the MP had requested that the Committee undertake a site visit to inform Members’ considerations.

Cllr Rowson addressed the Committee, repeating residents’ concerns around privacy, access and parking.

Cllr Matthews stated that they were uncomfortable with the proposed housing mix, stating that more bungalows would be beneficial.

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

That the application be deferred and considered at a future meeting to allow members to visit the site.

Motion Carried

Cllr L Foster addressed the Committee, stating that the amended proposal would not meet the local housing need.  Cllr Foster expressed his opinion that the developer had not considered the local authority’s position sufficiently.

Cllr Davison expressed a number of concerns about the development, stating that the proposal was sited on greenfield land, and that there were outstanding concerns around flooding and drainage.

Cllr Grant queried whether the S106 agreement had been progressed.

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

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

Motion carried.

Cllr Robinson addressed the Committee to state that he fully supported the application.

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

An objector spoke on the application, stating that the farm site was situated in a rural hamlet, with a history and practice of traditional farming methods.  The objector stated that since the farm had altered its business practices away from farming and towards motor vehicle repairs, there had been a huge increase in HGV and other heavy transport in the area, which was totally unsuited to the wide wheel bases on these vehicles.  The objector stated that there had been a rise in noise, and damage to the nearby hump-back bridge.

The agent for the applicant stated that this was a retrospective application, and that the previous change of business use had resulted in very little unusual activity in the area.  By its nature and rurality, the agent stated that the impact on residents was minimal, given that farming practices also included heavy vehicles travelling at certain times. The agent stated that the area would benefit from economic activity and growth as a result of successful businesses, such as this.

Cllr Reed spoke on the application, stating that the business had little consideration for residents, that a motor repair business was unsuitable for the site, and that recent activity had led to damage to the single track roads and other infrastructure.  Cllr Reed highlighted that damage to land and verges could lead to increased cost and flooding risk.  Cllr Reed also stated that the increase in HGV activity was impacting on residents’ right to peace and quiet.

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

That the application be deferred and considered at a future meeting to allow members to visit the site.

It was then moved by Cllr Bell and seconded by Davison, as an amendment –

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

Amendment carried

Substantive motion carried

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

That the application be deferred and considered at a future meeting to allow members to visit the site.

Motion Carried

The applicant addressed the committee, stating that they had always attempted to work with the local authority, making a number of alterations based on the council’s advice.  The applicant stated that their neighbours, who were previously opposed to the application, were now in favour. 

The applicant stated that their sole intention was to complete a property to live in for the rest of their lives, confirming that there were no overlooking concerns, and that the design is in keeping with many neighbouring houses in the area.

The Development Management Lead provided a short update to the Committee on the application, highlighting comments received from a recent consultation.

Cllr Bell queried the legal implications of recent amendments to the local plan.  The Development Management Lead confirmed the position and agreed to provide a further update prior to the next meeting.

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

That the application be deferred and considered at a future meeting to allow members to visit the site.

Motion Carried

The agent for the applicant stated that wished to address a number of concerns raised by residents.  The agent confirmed that there were no concerns around noise related to the site, that the statutory agencies had raised no concerns around sewerage and drainage, and that the site was smaller than previously envisaged.  The agent confirmed that there were no party wall issues related ot the application.

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.

There was no urgent business for consideration at the meeting.