Agenda item

The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control submitted a report containing details of a major application for determination by the committee, including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications.

A local resident addressed the committee raising her objections against the application.  She was concerned about building outside the development boundary, along with concerns regarding surface drainage and sewerage in the area.  She also felt the access road was inadequate and it would all be of detriment to the local residents if it was passed.

The agent highlighted the application was only for reserved matters and the finer details would come at a later date if approved.  He indicated that a great deal of work had been undertaken to take into consideration the access, drainage and sewerage and felt that suitable conditions attached to any approval would be sufficient.  He also felt that the development would fit in seamlessly next to the existing bungalows.

A letter of objection was read out from the local MP Holly Mumby-Croft.

Councillor Hannigan said they had to take into consideration the opinion of the residents within the community.  It was outside the development boundary and had no specific purpose in a rural location.  He said it was against a number of planning policies and could not support the application. 

Councillor Poole spoke as a ward member with several concerns regarding the application.  Mainly he was worried about the access, refuse vehicles being able to reverse into the development and an additional 16 vehicles he felt would cause chaos.  He also stated that flooding was a major issue in the village, and this would only add additional pressures onto the current systems.  He urged the committee to refuse the application as it was outside of the development line, was not in accordance with several planning policies, and felt that it would have a detrimental impact on residents.

Councillor Grant agreed and said he could not back the application as it was outside the boundary and against policies.

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

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons -

1.

The proposed development was contrary to policies RD2 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and CS2, CS3 and CS8 of the adopted Core Strategy, in that the site was located outside of a defined settlement boundary and was not for specific purposes associated with a rural location, which included agriculture, forestry or to meet a special need associated with the countryside.

2.

The proposed development, by virtue of the site being outside the defined settlement boundary for Messingham and the scale of development proposed, was considered to have a significant urbanising effect on the eastern edge of the settlement by introducing a significant level of built form into the rural landscape, to the detriment of its open rural character and appearance of the area.  Therefore, the development was considered contrary to policies RD2, H5 and DS1 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and CS2, CS3, CS5 and CS8 of the adopted Core Strategy.

                                                                                                Motion Carried.