The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control submitted a report containing details of major applications for determination by the committee, including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications.
(i) PA/2019/568 by Mr Mark Graves, Maltgrade Ltd for outline planning permission for up to 29 dwellings (a mix of houses and bungalows) with all matters reserved for subsequent consideration at land adjacent to Rogate, 30 Silver Street, Winteringham, DN15 9ND.
Three objectors addressed the committee and spoke against the application. They stated that the application was not sympathetic to the current layout of the village and the site was outside the development boundary of the village. The site was on open agricultural land and was subject to flooding. The original application was for 29 two-bedroom bungalows. The application was now for a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings. The application would likely increase the size of the village by 10 per cent. The village could not sustain a development of this size and would have an adverse impact on the village carbon footprint. Winteringham does not feature as a settlement designated for development in the local plan. The committee had also previously refused an application for a similar size development adjacent to the site in the village. Local amenities were at saturation point and could not support a new large development in the village. The site was prime agricultural land and contained a large number of species.
Councillors Marper and Rowson, local ward members spoke in support of the objectors to the application and respectfully requested that the committee refuse the application.
The council’s Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control informed the committee that the applicant had requested that the application be deferred to allow them to undertake the necessary fieldwork referenced in the holding objection by the council’s Archaeologist.
Resolved - That planning permission be refused in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.
(ii) PA/2020/1418 by Mr S Kapil, Rosemoor Developments for outline planning permission for residential development with all matters reserved for subsequent consideration at land to the rear of 36 Messingham Lane, Scawby, DN20 9BA.
Two objectors addressed the committee and spoke against the application. They suggested that the application and associated building works would destroy animal habitats at the proposed site. The development would result in a significant number of extra vehicle movements. The site was prime arable farmland and should be protected to allow crops to be grown. There was no medical practice in the village, the local school was oversubscribed and there was minimal public transport in the area. A similar application at the site was previously refused by the committee. The application would have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the open countryside. There were a number of dwellings which had recently been built in the village that had not been sold, therefore, was any further development in the area needed? The site was not in the North Lincolnshire Local Plan and was designated as an area of historical landscape interest.
Councillors T Foster and Poole, local ward members, spoke against the application. Road safety was a real concern for many local residents. There was no footpath close to the development site. Scawby was at capacity and could not sustain further development in the village. The application site was prone to flooding and was not appropriate for development. The resubmission of the application did not address any of the reasons why it was previously refused by the committee. The application site was outside of the existing development boundary and not included in the new North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
Councillor J Evison stated that it was a small rural community. The application was contrary to policy CS9 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy as there was a large amount of greenfield site already in this community. He was also concerned that the planning application was an attempt to urbanise a rural landscape and was contrary to policies CS8 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
Councillor J Davison believed that due to the 5-year housing supply issue the planning officer had to recommend granting the application. However, as a result of the application being on grade 2 agricultural land, the application should be refused.
It was moved by Councillor Evison and seconded by Councillor J Davison –
That the application be refused for the following reasons -
The proposal was located within the open countryside on grade 2 agricultural land and was considered unacceptable in principle. The applicant had failed to demonstrate that any material considerations exist that would justify a departure from the development plan. The proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the open countryside and was contrary to policies CS2, CS3, CS5 and CS8 of the Core Strategy as well as DS1, RD1 and RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
Insufficient evidence had been provided to prove that there was a demonstrable need for the proposed affordable housing to serve the settlement of Scawby. The proposal was therefore contrary to policy CS9 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy.
Insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in an increased risk of flooding to the site or adjacent land. In particular, the applicant had failed to demonstrate that a suitable drainage strategy, based on the principles of SuDS, can be achieved on site. The proposal was therefore contrary to policy CS19 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy, and policies DS14 and DS16 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan.
(iii) PA/2020/2028 by Modernistiq Harrogate Ltd for application for the modification of planning obligations attached to PA/2017/1975 at land off Westgate Road, Westgate, Belton.
Councillor Mitchell, local ward member addressed the committee. He stated that the planning application was opposed by the parish council and many local residents. There was concern as to the motives of the developer for wanting to modify the section 106 agreement.
Councillor Robinson, local ward member stated that it was disappointing to see this application to modify the section 106 agreement given the large community benefit it would bring. Unfortunately, the landowner would not move on the price of the site despite the fact that the 23 houses would generate significant profit.
Resolved – That the existing planning modification be modified in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report.