Agenda and minutes

Cllr C Sherwood substituted for Cllr Davison.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Member: Councillor N Sherwood

Minute Number: 2746 (PA/2023/1218) and 2747 (PA/2024/742)

Member: Councillor M Bell

Minute Number: 2748 (PA/2024/757) and 2746 (PA/2023/1218)

Councillor C Ross

Minute Number 2746 (PA/2023/1218)

Councillor C Patterson

Minute Number 2746 (PA/2023/1218)

Councillor D Southern

Minute Number 2746 (PA/2023/1218)

Councillor D Wells

Minute Number 2746 (PA/2023/1218) and 2747 (PA/2024/742)

Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings held on the 30 October 2024, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the chairman.

An objector addressed the Committee, stating that there were a number of valid reasons to refuse this application. The objector raised significant concerns that the proposed development, in particular the noise and dust that would follow, was not in keeping with the local amenity in open countryside.  The objector also raised road safety and traffic disruption concerns if the application went ahead, due to the rise in the number of HGVs accessing the site.  The objector stated that the application amounted to manufacturing, rather than quarrying, and that there were valid concerns that any breaches of conditions may not be enforced.

Cllr T Foster agreed with the objector, stating that there was no need for such a business in the open countryside.  Cllr Foster highlighted the lack of a viable transport plan, or assessments on noise and environmental impact on nearby villages.  Cllr Foster also stated that there was a risk that such activity could make repurposing the quarry impossible in the future.

Cllr Garritt echoed these concerns, stating that currently, lorries used the public highway rather than the dedicated haul road, resulting in significant damage and traffic issues.

Cllr Poole highlighted that the original application on this site was intended solely to extract high quality stone, rather than aggregate.  Cllr Poole’s view was that there was no need for such a business on a rural site, there was no benefit for residents, and there was already a detrimental impact arising from the site, which would be worsened if the application went ahead.

Cllr Ross also stated that the existing haul road was not being used as intended, leading to damage to roads and verged.  Cllr Ross felt that there was insufficient evidence of mitigations submitted by the applicant.  Cllr Bell agreed with the views of previous speakers.

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

That the application be refused for the following reason.

The proposed development would have adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the area and open countryside. The proposals would result in the industrialisation of the open countryside by way of intensification of an existing site with additional operations. There is a lack of justification for the countryside location and additional environmental impacts by way of increased vehicle movements, noise and dust. Therefore, the proposals are contrary to policies CS1, CS2 and CS3 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Motion Carried

An objector stated that they were a direct neighbour of the applicant, and were not opposed to sympathetic developments in the local area.  Despite this, the objector raised concerns that the development would lead to a reduction in natural light, and an increase in shadowing, at their property.

The applicant stated that the planning officer’s report was clear that no other objections had been received, and the application met all local requirements.  The applicant stated that the angle and distance of the development would address concerns about light and shadowing, and that the development was intended to provide a retirement base for their parents.

Cllr Ross stated that they could not see any significant issues with the site or the boundary.  This view was also echoed by Cllr Bell, who stated that there was a real need for bungalows in this area.

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

An objector addressed the Committee, raising concerns about that risk of overlooking and the privacy of existing homes on Newport Drive, due to the proposed two-storey houses.  The objector felt that a concerning precedent could be set, where developers could alter single storey housing to two-storey. The objector also raised concerns about a lack of security measures, impact on wildlife, and a detrimental impact on local services such as roads, GPs, schools, etc.

The agent for the applicant stated that outline planning permission was already granted, the recommendation was to approve, and that significant efforts had been undertaken to consult with residents. The agent stated that no concerns had been raised by statutory consultees, and that they were content with the suggested conditions.

Cllr Rowson raised concerns that identified issues remained unaddressed by the developers, and that issues around privacy, change of design, and overlooking remained outstanding.

The Committee discussed the application, including the contributions of all speakers.

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

The agent for the applicant stated that the planning officer had recommended approval, and that there were no concerns raised by consultees.  The agent stated that the proposal was inside the development boundary, did not overlook other properties, and there were no other negative impacts.

Cllr Bell raised a number of concerns on behalf of Cllr Yates, including the impact on local amenity, drainage and services.

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

An objector stated that there were a number of concerns about the development, including risks around privacy, trespass and landscaping.  The objector stated that it remained unclear how the boundary would be managed, so concerns around overlooking remained.

A second objector stated that applications should improve the local area, but there was no evidence that this would be the case.  The objector felt that this would create an isolated ‘island’ of generic housing on a current greenfield site, with no facilities or amenities.  The objector requested the committee to visit the site.

The agent for the applicant stated that outline permission had already been granted, and that they had worked closely with the planning department to put together an attractive development, with a play area, open space, and biodiversity gains.

Cllr Garritt stated that they had a number of concerns about the development, which could not be mitigated later.  These included the siting of the play area, the impact on biodiversity and security, landscaping, and flooding.  Cllr Garritt echoed the request for a site visit, so the committee could consider how the development could be improved.

Cllr T Foster highlighted the expertise of the objectors, also raising concerns about the impact on wildlife and boundaries, noting that no drainage survey had been submitted.  Cllr Foster’s view was that the application would go ahead, but this needed to be in line with the expectations of the council and local residents.

 It was then moved by Councillor C Ross and seconded by Councillor M Grant –

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 the application was a private, non-commercial site, and was intended solely to replace the existing menage and to improve access.

Cllr Garritt raised concerns around horse boxes accessing the site on a busy road.  Cllr Garritt also stated that there were risks around flooding, which may be able to be addressed by further conditions.

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

The agent for the applicant stated that the characterisation by objectors was no correct, and that the proposal was a relatively minimal and attractive development.  The agent noted the over-supply of bungalows on the Isle.

Cllr Ross queried whether an additional condition could be added regarding the rear boundary, to ensure privacy and local amenity.  The Development Management Lead confirmed that it could.

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

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

The trees on the south-west rear boundary of the dwelling shall be kept to a minimum of 3m in height. None of the trees shall be wilfully damaged or destroyed, uprooted, felled, lopped or topped, nor any other works carried out which would cause damage to the root systems or otherwise threaten the lives of the trees. Any trees removed without consent, or dying or being severely damaged, or becoming seriously diseased, shall be replaced with trees of the same size and species unless the local planning authority has given written consent to any variation.

Reason

To protect the amenity of the neighbouring properties in accordance with policies DS1 and DS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Motion Carried

An objector addressed the Committee, stating that they were the next-door neighbour.  The objector stated that they had a sunroom at the rear of their property, which already suffered from a loss of natural light, due to the proximity of the housing.  The objector stated that the development would lead to further shadowing, reducing their quality of life and wellbeing, and asked the applicant to consider further modification of the proposed development.

The applicant stated that the application would have a minimal effect on overshadowing, whilst improving the amenity for their family.

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.