Agenda and draft minutes

There were no substitutes.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied –

Member: Councillor N Sherwood

Minute Number: 2781 (PA/2024/740)

Member: Councillor D Southern

Minute Number: 2781 (PA/2024/740)

Member: Councillor J Davison

Minute Number: 2781 (PA/2024/740)

Member: Councillor C Patterson

Minute Number: 2781 (PA/2024/740)

Member: Councillor D Wells

Minute Number: 2781 (PA/2024/740)

Member: Councillor C Ross

Minute Number: 2781 (PA/2024/740)

Member: Councillor M Grant

Minute Number: 2781 (PA/2024/740)

Member: Councillor M Bell

Minute Number: 2781 (PA/2024/740)

Member: Councillor T Foster

Minute Number: 2781 (PA/2024/740)

Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings held on 22 January 2025, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Chairman.

The Development Management Lead submitted a written update to the Planning Committee.

Four objectors addressed the Committee in turn, stating that the current operation at the quarry was having a significantly detrimental impact on local residents. The objectors 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, and concerns were raised about the efficacy of previous environmental tests.

The objectors also 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 objectors raised concerns that, if the proposal went ahead, it would grant a long-term license, with the issues continuing for residents for many further years.

The objectors suggested that road weight limits (excluding farm vehicles) could be introduced in the local villages as a way of reducing the impact on residents.  Other restrictions on speed or greater use of signage or concrete blocks were also discussed, as was the perceived lack of enforcement.

The applicant stated that they were very open to any suggestions that would reduce the impact on residents, including weight limits and other measures, but that some of the allegations were not true, and could be evidenced by the use of the vehicle trackers. The applicant stated that they had engaged with ward councillors productively, and would be willing to continue working with North Lincolnshire Council to develop and agree a Transport Management Plan.

The applicant stated that the business employed a number of local residents, and provided valuable services which, if the business closed, would simply be provided by other local quarrying firms.  A description of the types of stone quarried at the site was provided, and the applicant stated that the council had never sought enforcement action against the company.

Cllr T Foster thanked the objectors for their contribution, confirming that he had had useful discussions with the applicant.  Cllr Foster stated that many HGVs did not use the haul road due to its poor condition, didn’t use the wheel wash, and that the HGVs often operated outside of the company’s allowed hours of operation. Cllr Foster’s view was that the large number of HGVs were having a material and detrimental impact on residents, and as such, it would be beneficial to refuse the application to allow the necessary plans to be agreed, before resubmission.

Cllr Davison stated that the site visit had illustrated to him that the haul road was in a very poor state, which led to HGVs using public roads.  Cllr Davison highlighted various issues, such as the poorly situated wheel wash, moveable concrete blocking, and potholes, before suggesting various measures that the business could take to reduce the impact on residents.

It was then moved by Cllr N  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2781.

An objector addressed the Committee, requesting that the application be refused.  The objector raised concerns about flooding and standing water risks, stating that these had not been investigated sufficiently.  The objector stated that Wroot was a small farming community, and had recently had significant quantities of new housing in the village.  Further developments would therefore not be in the interests of residents.

Cllr Ross stated that the application was for outline planning permission, and that conditions on drainage etc. could be agreed when an application was considered.

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

An objector stated that the application was not welcomed by residents, who suspected that this was a move towards the development of a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO).  The objector stated that the developers owned other HMOs, and had not denied that they wished to develop a HMO on the site.

The objector further stated that there were other material issues which should lead to refusal, such as concerns around traffic, privacy, anti-social behaviour, noise and safety issues, which would impact on residents.

The agent for the applicant stated that the building was in a poor state, had been left empty for some time, and required redevelopment.  Extensive efforts had been made to sell the site, but there was little market for care homes in North Lincolnshire.

It was then moved by Cllr C Ross and seconded by Cllr 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 the development was a private garage and workshop, which would be of benefit to the residents. The development was in keeping with the area, and there were no concerns around overlooking or shadowing, as reflected in the officer’s report.

It was moved by Cllr J Davison and seconded by Cllr C Patterson –

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

It was then moved by Cllr M Bell and seconded by Cllr M Grant as an amendment: –

That planning permission be approved –

Amendment Lost.

Substantive Motion Carried.

An objector stated that the application was a resubmission, which was situated directly behind their property.  The objector stated that the proposal was not in keeping with the area, and would lead to overlooking and a reduction in their house price.

The agent for the applicant disagreed that there would be any risk of overlooking, stating that the proposal was for a dormer bungalow. The agent stated that the plans were clear that the only window facing the objector’s property was a bathroom with obscured glass.  The agent also stated that the applicant was open to further conditions, such as on the preferred render.

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

A short update was provided by the Development Management Lead.

Resolved – That the application be deferred to allow officers to consider additional information received

The agent for the applicant stated that the proposal involved removing a condition from 2014, to recognise that the wedding business operated throughout the year.  The agent stated that this application would secure both a number of jobs and the future sustainability of a popular local business.

Cllr Ogg stated that he fully supported the application, and felt that approval would help ensure the success of the venue.  Cllr Ogg stated that the business was situated well away from the highway, and there were no other material downsides to the application. 

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

The applicant stated that the proposal was designed to help their family support an elderly relative.  There was no intention of turning the building into a HMO, and the applicant would prefer not to relocate, due to it being the family home.

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.