Agenda item

Applications deferred from previous meetings for a site visit.


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.


(i)             PA/2020/764 by Mrs Smith for planning permission to change the use of a paddock to a children's eco-nursery, including the erection of an office, teaching lodge and polytunnel, and other associated alterations at Field south-east of Catchwater Farm, Butterwick Road, Messingham, DN17 3PL.


An objector addressed the committee and opposed the application due to its adverse impact on providing local employment in the countryside.  Messingham was currently served by two children’s nurseries which were not at full capacity.  Allowing this application may result in the existing nurseries closing and local people becoming unemployed.  The proposed development would not add anything new or innovative to Messingham as the two existing providers could offer exactly the same facilities.  The proposed site was not in the village, there was no public footpath leading to the site and was not served by any public transport.


Councillor Poole, as local ward member, addressed the committee.  He too was concerned that the proposed site was not served by a public footpath.  Access to the site was off a national speed limit road and all users of the nursery had to travel to the site by car.  Councillor Poole also had serious concerns about the floor height of the development in relation to nearby fields.  It would only be 20 cm higher than the level of nearby fields.  There was also no statement on the application that stated the need for the development.  He respectfully requested that the application be deferred for further work to be carried out with the applicant on a number of the conditions.


Councillor T Foster also spoke as a local ward member.  He concurred with the representation made by Councillor Poole.


Councillor Evison agreed more work needed to be carried out on the travel plan, and further consultation with the application was required before making a decision.


Resolved – That the application be deferred to allow council officers to discuss the application with the applicant, with particular emphasis on conditions 7, 9 and 10 and the proposed floor levels of the development.


(ii)            PA/2020/1066 by Mr M Richards for outline planning permission for up to five dwellings and associated works with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for subsequent consideration at Butchers Arms, White House Lane, West Halton, DN15 9AZ.


An objector spoke on behalf of a number of residents raising concerns on the impact the proposal would have on the community as it would directly affect the public house.  He stated it was an essential community site, and this would reduce the viability of the pub.  He highlighted the number of family events, and outdoor socialising would be lost, and it was the only pub within the vicinity. There was also concerns for access to the pumping station on the site.


The agent spoke and indicated it was an application for outline planning permission and was for the principal of the development.  He indicated that the applicant had commissioned policy reports that addressed any concerns raise by consultees and was happy to see the Planning Officer was happy with it and recommended grant permission.  He also stated that the development would meet the council’s housing needs and any concerns about the future of the pub were confirmed in the officer’s report that there was no evidence the pub would close if the application was approved.


Councillors Ogg and Marper spoke on behalf of a number of their residents against the application.  They had various concerns with it including the fact that it was contrary to a number of policies. It was detrimental to the village and the community.  Issues with the sewage pumping station situated behind the development, and it was outside the development boundary.


Councillors Hannigan and Grant were also against the proposal having visited the site and listening to the objections and the concerns raised.


It was moved by Councillor Marper and seconded by Councillor Hannigan –


That planning permission be refused for the following reasons –




The proposed development was contrary to policy RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, policies CS2, CS3 and CS8 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework in that the site lied outside the defined settlement boundary of West Halton in the open countryside, and was therefore located in an unsustainable location, remote from local services and public transport.  In addition, no evidence had been provided to justify a special need for new dwellings in this location.




By reason of the relationship with the neighbouring properties along Walker Close and Water Lane, the proposed development would result in a significant intensification of the site which currently does not exist.  This would result in undue noise and disturbance from vehicular traffic and the general use to the detriment and quietude of the occupiers of the existing properties immediately to the west and south-west and was thereby contrary to policies H5 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and policy CS5 of the Core Strategy.


Motion Carried


Supporting documents: