Skip to main content

Planning Committee – 3rd January 2024

1:40 pm, Wednesday, 24th January 2024 - 1 month ago

Present:       

Councillor Pettigrew (in the Chair)

Councillors Batson, Aisthorpe, Croft, Hasthorpe, Hudson, Holland, Lindley, Patrick (substitute for Goodwin) and Shutt.

Officers in attendance:

  • Keith Thompson (Lead Solicitor)   
  • Sophie Pickerden (Committee Support Officer)
  • Martin Dixon (Planning Manager)
  • Cheryl Jarvis (Development Manager)
  • Lara Hattle-Fitzgerald (Senior Highway Development Control Officer)
  • Adam Brockbank (Highway Development Control Officer)
  • Matthew Chaplin (Public Rights of Way Mapping Officer)

There were 16 members of the public present and one member of the press.

P.53           APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received for this meeting from Councillor Goodwin.

P.54           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Pettigrew declared an other registerable interest in P.56 Item 10 DM/0992/23/OUT as he is a member of the Ashby Cum Fenby Parish Council.  

Councillor Pettigrew stated that he was a School Governor and had sought legal advice on whether he needed to declare an interest in P.56 Item 1 DM/0448/23/FUL. Councillor Pettigrew said that it had been determined that he did not need to declare an interest.

P.55           APPLICATION TO DIVERT PART OF PUBLIC FOOTPATHS 54 AND 55, HUMBERSTON

The committee received a report from the Director for Economy, Environment and Infrastructure seeking to divert part of Public Footpaths 54 and 55 in Humberston. Mr Chaplin said that the purpose for the diversion was to allow development to be undertaken in line with the outline planning application DM/0493/22/OUT which had been approved by the Planning Committee. Mr Chaplin stated that public consultation had taken place and two objections had been received. He said that one of the objections received had cited concerns that the diversion would result in a blind corner being introduced and lead to potential criminal activity. Mr Chaplin said that by diverting the footpaths it would improve the surface of the footpaths and make them more accessible to users. Mr Chaplin stated that if the diversion was approved by the Planning Committee, the works would only occur once the development had been built. He stated that the application was recommended for approval.

Councillor Hudson said that he thought the application was for a sensible diversion. He said that he had sympathy for the neighbour who would have a footpath now at the back of their property, but he could not see how the development could go ahead if the footpaths were not diverted. Councillor Hudson proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Shutt asked whether the private dwellings would have access to the footpath from their rear gardens.

The Chair stated that the planning application was for outline permission, but he assumed that the issue of access at the rear gardens would be looked at.

Councillor Shutt queried what fencing would be put in place.

Mr Chaplin stated that at present, the site was an empty field, but that a full planning application in the future would include that detail.

Councillor Patrick said that he was not comfortable with the application. He stated that footpaths were a vital amenity, and he was not comfortable with them being diverted to suit a housing development. Councillor Patrick said that whilst he did appreciate that it was not the end of the footpath, the committee had no duty to divert the footpath for a housing development. Councillor Patrick referred to page seven in the agenda papers and cited the importance of reputation. He said that it was important that the council acted with a balanced approach. Councillor Patrick stated that he was slightly concerned that developers could get a footpath diversion approved if they wanted. He said that he was minded to oppose the application.

Councillor Holland stated that he agreed with Councillor Patrick. He said that he did not think that that amount of diversion should be put in place for a housing development. Councillor Holland said that he would not be supporting the application.

Mr Dixon said that the outline planning application was granted permission and the issue regarding the footpath was discussed during a previous planning committee meeting. Mr Dixon stated that this was the next stage in the process for that application.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that whilst she remembered discussing the planning application, she had no recollection of there being a discussion about the footpath diversion. Councillor Aisthorpe said that had she of had that information during the initial discussion when the outline planning application was being considered she might have voted differently. She stated that she had concerns about potential anti-social behaviour. Councillor Aisthorpe said that she was minded to vote against the application.

Councillor Shutt stated that he had concerns regarding the lightning and that the alleyway would be fenced off on both sides.

Councillor Lindley said that it was important the committee recognised that the planning application was an outline application. He stated that he would reserve judgement for the full application as the detail had not yet been submitted. Councillor Lindley said that he saw no issues with the application as an outline application and was happy to support the application to divert the footpaths.

Councillor Patrick said that he would not recall the previous committee as he had not sat on that committee and was therefore not part of the original decision. He stated that the Planning Committee was not bound by a previous decision. Councillor Patrick said that Councillor Aisthorpe had raised a fair point and he asked why the issue of the diversion was not brought to the attention of the Planning Committee when the outline planning application was considered.  

Mr Dixon said that the issue of the footpath was taken into account. Mr Dixon explained that it had taken a long time for the planning application to be put before the committee and there had been a lot of work undertaken with different stakeholders.

Councillor Patrick asked whether the Planning Committee had been made aware of the footpath diversion when the planning application was considered.

The Chair stated that he remembered the issue of the footpath being discussed.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that whilst she could recall the Planning Committee discussing the footpath, the layout was not discussed.

Councillor Hudson said that it was obvious the footpath would be following the boundary. He said that a public footpath could not be on someone else’s land. Councillor Hudson stated that the detail regarding the fencing would be considered at a later stage. He said that the application to divert the public footpaths had come about due to the decision reached at a previous Planning Committee meeting. Councillor Hudson stated that the footpaths would have to be where proposed as you couldn’t divert the footpaths into people’s gardens.

Councillor Patrick said that he never spoke of diverting the footpaths into people’s gardens. He proposed that the application be refused.

The Chair said that there was a motion to approve the application that had already been proposed and he would deal with that proposal first if there was a committee member who wanted to second that proposal.

Councillor Patrick stated that, that was not the correct procedure, and the Chair should ask if any committee member wanted to second the most recent proposal which was his proposal of refusing the application.

Mr Thompson said that in respect of good governance, the Chair should ask if any committee members wanted to second the first motion that was proposed.

Councillor Patrick said that the Chair should proceed with his proposal and ask if there was any committee member who would second the proposal.

Mr Thompson stated that technically Councillor Patrick was correct, and the Chair should proceed with the second proposal as the initial proposal was not seconded by any committee member after it was proposed.

Councillor Aisthorpe seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

The committee took a vote and upon a vote, 5 voted for and 6 voted against the proposal of refusing the application.

Councillor Hudson proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Lindley seconded the proposal to approve the application.

RESOLVED –

  • That the making of the Order in accordance with Town and Country Planning Act 1990 be approved.
  • That the diversion Order’s be confirmed as made, subject to there being no objections, or in the event of objections which cannot be resolved and withdrawn, for the Order’s to be referred to the Planning Inspectorate for determination.

(Note – the committee voted 6 for and 5 against for the application to be approved.)

P.56           DEPOSITED PLANS AND APPLICATIONS

Item 1 – DM/0448/23/FUL – Land Off Sunningdale, Waltham

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to build a new primary school, to include the installation of a ventilation system, erection of fencing and gates and associated landscaping. Mr Dixon said that the application also sought permission for the creation of staff car parking, vehicular and pedestrian accesses from Sunningdale, pedestrian access from Archer Road, the creation of playgrounds, a playing pitch, an athletics track, a habitat area, cycle storage and associated works. Mr Dixon stated that the application had previously been deferred by the Planning Committee to allow for further investigation into the highways concerns raised by committee members. Mr Dixon referred committee members to policy six of the local plan which outlined support for developments for new public infrastructure including schools. He explained that the proposed site had also been allocated in the local plan as land to be used for educational purposes. Mr Dixon stated that the application was acceptable in principle. He explained that the proposed design responded well to the local setting and the school building would be low in height. Mr Dixon said that the application had been deferred by the committee at the previous meeting due to concerns raised around potential increases in the level of traffic and parking issues. He stated that as discussed at the previous meeting the applicant had provided a Transport Assessment and the council’s highways officer had determined that there would be no severe impact or any highway safety concerns. Mr Dixon said that following the committee’s decision to defer the application, the applicant had provided an additional document which outlined the mitigation measures considered in relation to highways and had explained the reasons why some of the measures were not considered to be viable. Mr Dixon said that pull-in laybys for parents to drop off their children and parking for parents were included in the additional document and were discussed during the application process but could not be accommodated on the site. He said that it was felt that having the provision for parents to drop their children off at the site was not safe to do. Mr Dixon said that on-site parking for parents was also ruled out as it was not something that generally occurred at schools and safety concerns had also been raised. Mr Dixon stated that whilst the committee members had raised valid points when the application was previously discussed, it had been determined that having parking for parents on the site or having pull-in laybys was not needed to make the development safe. Mr Dixon said that the wording of the condition for a Traffic Regulation Order had been amended to make it more definitive. He explained that whilst Traffic Regulation Order’s are determined by a separate process, the condition had been amended as outlined to be more specific. Mr Dixon said that the council’s highways officer had considered the application for months and did not feel there were any grounds to object to the application based on highways. Mr Dixon stated that following the deferral of the application, the applicant had reiterated in the additional document they provided, that the site was allocated for educational purposes. He said that the proposed school building would be separated from the residential properties by an appropriate distance and therefore there would be no issues of massing, overshadowing or overlooking. Mr Dixon said that a Noise Impact Assessment had also been submitted by the applicant and had been reviewed by the council’s environmental health officer who had raised no objections to the application but had recommended conditions. Mr Dixon said that a risk assessment had also been undertaken in relation to ball strikes following the issue being raised by Sport England. He explained that the risk assessment provided relevant mitigation, and this had been accepted by Sport England who had not raised any objection to the application. Mr Dixon stated that the council’s ecology officer and drainage officer had raised no objections to the application but had recommended conditions. He explained that a community use agreement had been agreed regarding the playing field with the support of Sport England. Mr Dixon stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 6, 22, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and sections 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework. He said that the application was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Mr Enderby spoke in objection to the application. He said that a new school was not necessary for Waltham as there was not sufficient people to populate the school. Mr Enderby stated that if all of the children in Waltham used the existing Waltham Leas School and East Ravendale School, there would still be a surplus of 101 places. Mr Enderby said that that whilst there might be some demand from the Scartho area, there was going to be a new school in Scartho so that demand might decrease. He stated that the proposed school would be populated by several children from outside the village and it could not be expected that they would all use bicycles or walk to school. Mr Enderby said that there would be a substantial increase in traffic if the school was built. He said that the site was in the wrong place for a school. Mr Enderby stated that the report submitted by Equans was disappointing and would raise concerns. He said that the undertone in the report seemed to him that the site was not the right place for a school. Mr Enderby said that the rejection from the applicant to have parking on site was also disappointing.

Ms Scott spoke as the applicant for the application. She said that whilst she understood the concerns raised, the council had a statutory responsibility to provide provision of school places. Ms Scott said that the proposed site was the only piece of land in Waltham owned by the council and had always been designated as educational land. She explained that parents do have a choice on where they send their children to school, so children don’t always go to schools in their catchment area and instead do travel to other areas. Ms Scott stated that Waltham was a growing village and there had been housing developments approved in the area and therefore critical infrastructure such as a School was needed. Ms Scott explained that the Waltham Leas School was over capacity and due to new houses being built, there would not be a sufficient provision of school places. Ms Scott reiterated the council’s statutory responsibility to provide school places for children.

Ms Perry spoke in support of the application. She said that the application had taken months to put together and in that time, there had been lots of work undertaken with various teams such as children services, the planning department and the environment team as well as others. Ms Perry explained that the design had been amended to suit everyone’s needs as much as possible. Ms Perry said that the team had tried as hard as possible to make the application work for all, but compromise was always needed.

Councillor Lindley said that he thought all the speakers had made interesting comments. He stated that the council had a statutory responsibility to provide school places. Councillor Lindley said that there had been suggestions that the proposed site was in the wrong place, but the site had always been provided for education purposes. He said that the footprint of the site had not shrunk since the decision was made for the site to be allocated as educational land. Councillor Lindley stated that whilst he understood there had been an increase in cars on the road since that decision had been made, there were existing schools in the area that were not located in remote areas and lots of them are locked in and located within residential areas. Councillor Lindley said that he was of the opinion that the proposed site was in the right location for a school to be. He said that he expected that the children that would attend the school from the nearby area would walk to the school and if it was to be situated in a more remote area, that would encourage people to drive their children to school. Councillor Lindley stated that there was a clear need for the school to be built and he did not want to lose the opportunity of a school being built altogether. He said that he appreciated the parking issues, but those issues would not be unique to the particular school as other schools in the borough have issues with parking as well. Councillor Lindley said that there had been attempts by the council to deal with those issues, but it never appears to solve the problems. He said that the answer however was not to build schools in remote areas. Councillor Lindley stated that it was important that more parents walk their children to school. He proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that Councillor Lindley’s reasoning that existing schools have issues with parking and traffic should not be a reason to support the current application. She said that she was of the opinion that the application was an example of planning without future proofing however the site had been earmarked as educational land. Councillor Aisthorpe said that the school was needed as nearby schools were full and by having a new school it could alleviate some of the issues of traffic at other schools.

Councillor Hudson said that he did not disagree that the school was needed but he was not sure that the school should be built on a site which was decided as educational land in the 1970s. Councillor Hudson stated that he understood that a lot of effort had gone into the application but he would have liked to see the proposed site sold and then another site purchased in an appropriate location. He said that he agreed with Councillor Aisthorpe as he was not sure why we would build a school in a location which would create the same issues experienced at other schools in the borough. Councillor Hudson stated that he would listen to the rest of the debate.

Councillor Shutt stated that he was not happy with the application when it was previously discussed at the last committee meeting. He said that the decision to allocate the site as educational land was determined in the 1970s and was suitable for that time, but needs had now changed. Councillor Shutt said that he thought Councillor Hudson had made a good point to sell the land and use the money to buy a different site, a site that would be appropriate.

Councillor Batson stated that he lived within an area where there were no issues with traffic at the nearby school as people predominantly walked to the school, but he did not think that would be the case with the proposed school. Councillor Batson said in 1976 people walked their children to school and did not drive them to school. He said that fifty years later the committee was being asked to make a decision about the site. Councillor Batson said that there were not enough footpath routes into the site. He stated that he was unsure about the application, but the site was not an ideal site for a school.

Councillor Holland said that the application was a difficult one to consider as there would be problems with traffic if it was built, but if the school was built elsewhere there could also be traffic problems. Councillor Holland stated that there was no easy solution. He said as the school would be in a central location it would allow some people to be able to walk to school. Councillor Holland said that it was important that parents be educated about dropping their children off further away so that they can walk in. He stated that on balance the application should be approved. Councillor Holland seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Lindley said that the site was a small site and therefore the school that would be built would be a relatively small primary school. Councillor Lindley said that the new school proposed for the Scartho area would eventually be locked in as there was seven hundred houses to go on Scartho Top. Councillor Lindley stated that there was a need for the proposed school.

Councillor Parkinson asked where the drop off points would be and if it was intended that parents would be able to drive in, drop their children off and drive out again.

Ms Hattle-Fitzgerald stated that there would be no drop off areas, parents would be able to pull up on the street, but a Traffic Regulation Order had been included as a condition within the application.

Councillor Parkinson asked whether there was a way people could be prevented from driving up the cul de sac.

Ms Hattle Fitzgerald stated that there would be cameras in place and that anyone not following the rules would be fined but there was no way for them to be physically stopped from driving up the cul de sac.

Councillor Parkinson stated that he understood both sides of the debate. His main concern was the potential traffic that would occur. Councillor Parkinson said that if the school was built in a remote area, then parents would drive their children to school. He stated that there must be a need for the school as we would not be considering building the school if there was not.

Councillor Hudson said that local people do walk to school, but the objector had said that people from out of the area would be going to the school as well and they would need to drive in. Councillor Hudson said that he was not suggesting a remote area but there are better sites in Waltham for a school.

Councillor Patrick stated that he was struggling with his decision as generally all schools have issues with traffic and the proposed site would not be fundamentally different. Councillor Patrick said that he did not think need was a material planning consideration. He said that the main issue seemed to be highways. Councillor Patrick stated that he thought the committee was deciding on the site due to failures of both planning and government in relation to developing education sites. He said that the site was certainly not a site he would look to develop as a school.

Councillor Lindley said that the Traffic Regulation Order was part of a separate process. He said that the committee needed to look at the plans as plans for a school and that whilst he does understand what Councillor Patrick was saying, there was no easy answer as to where schools should be built. Councillor Lindley said that if the school was proposed to be built on a different site, there would also be an argument for and against that site. He stated that the site was allocated as educational land, and it was always intended there would be a school built on the site. He said that whilst lots of children might not go to schools within their catchment, that could change in the future.

Councillor Shutt stated that seventy percent of children don’t go to schools in their wards, so they therefore have to travel. He said that whilst he understood cameras could be put in place, he was cynical that this would just lead to fines. Councillor Shutt stated that he would like solutions to the problems of traffic and parking at schools in the area to be considered.

The committee took a vote and upon a vote, 5 voted for and 5 voted against with one abstention.

The Chair referred the committee to the national planning policy framework which said that extra weight should be given to the need to create, expand or alter schools. The Chair stated that he would therefore support the application being approved.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted 6 for and 5 against for the application to be approved.)

Item 2 – DM/0507/23/FUL – Healing Wells Farm, Wells Road, Healing

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought permission for the construction of a free-range egg (poultry) unit including the erection of a building with associated feed bins, hardstanding’s, a drainage attenuation pond, an access road (to Wells Road) and associated landscaping. Mr Dixon said that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to the number of objections received. He said that there had been no objection from either Stallingborough Parish Council or Healing Parish Council. Mr Dixon stated that West Lindsey District Council had not objected to the application. Mr Dixon explained that the proposed site was located in the open countryside and that part three of policy five applied as the policy stated that development proposals that support a prosperous rural economy should be supported, particularly where they promote the development and diversification of agriculture. Mr Dixon stated that the application was therefore acceptable in principle. Mr Dixon said that the application was for the building and access and did not include the roaming area for the chickens as the roaming area would not constitute development and the fence that would perimeter the roaming area was considered to be permitted development. Mr Dixon stated that the proposed building and access would be well separated from all of the neighbouring residential properties and there would therefore be no detrimental impact to neighbours such as massing or overlooking. Mr Dixon said that the building would be large and would impact the visual character of the area but due to the building being low in height and it fitting in with the agricultural setting, the development would not have an undue impact to the visual character of the area. Mr Dixon stated that an odour assessment had been submitted by the applicant which had concluded that the development would not cause undue harm to the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties. He explained that a detailed noise assessment had also been conducted which was then considered by the council’s environmental health officer who had raised no objections to the application. Mr Dixon said that the council’s heritage officer had raised no objections to the application and had determined that no further archaeological assessments need to take place. Mr Dixon stated that the applicant had submitted an ammonia emissions impact assessment and both Natural England and the Environment Agency had raised no objections to the application. Mr Dixon said that the Environment Agency had stated that there was a requirement for the applicant to have a permit in order to operate the proposed development. Mr Dixon explained that the council’s highways officer had required mitigation in order to make the application acceptable from a highway’s perspective. Mr Dixon stated that the mitigation had been agreed and the council’s highways officer had determined that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety and amenity. Mr Dixon said that the council’s drainage officer and the council’s ecology officer had not objected to the application but had requested conditions be included within the application. Mr Dixon stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 6, 33, 39, 41 and 42 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Mr Pick spoke as the agent for the application. He said that the business was seeking to diversify due to current price volatility and weather issues. He said that the business was seeking to diversify into free range egg production as there was a strong demand in the UK. Mr Pick stated that UK supermarkets had recently banned caged egg production and wanted solely free-range egg production by the end of next year. Mr Pick said that there was a strong demand for the development and that the development would house 64,000 hens. Mr Pick explained that the proposed new development would help improve the sustainability of the current business as current fertilisation came from natural gas. Mr Pick said that the proposed new development would be enhanced by tree planting and that there would be twenty acres of trees around the new building. Mr Pick said that a permit was required from the Environment Agency in order to operate which was currently being considered. He explained that essentially the development would be covered by a two-tier control system as it had to be considered by council officers as well as the Environment Agency from an operational perspective. Mr Pick said that the proposed new development would represent a £3.2 million investment and would create jobs in the area. He stated that there were no objections to the application from any technical consultees. Mr Pick asked committee members to support the application.

Councillor Hasthorpe said that he had not received any phone calls about the application, and he normally would with a development of the proposed size. He said that no objections had been raised with him. Councillor Hasthorpe said that he thought the application seemed well thought out. He proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Croft said that she had no issues with the application and that the farmer owned the land surrounding the site. She seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Lindley said that the nearest objector lived a third of a mile away from the site. He said that the site was agricultural fields and there had been no objection raised from either the parish councils or West Linsdey District Council. Councillor Lindley stated that he thought that it was the right place for the specific type of development and was no way near residential dwellings. He said that he was happy to support the application.

Councillor Holland stated that he welcomed the investment and the creation of jobs the development would bring.

Councillor Patrick stated that he fully supported the application and supported free range farming.

The Chair referred committee members to condition twelve as there had been a slight change in the condition’s wording.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted unanimously for the application to be approved.)

Item 3 – DM/0864/23/FUL Grimsby Ice Factory, Fish Dock Road, Grimsby Docks, Grimsby

Ms Jarvis introduced the application and explained that it sought permission for restoration, extensions, alterations and the conversion of the north and south buildings to provide office, conference, events floorspace, leisure floorspace and food and beverage floorspace. Ms Jarvis said that the application also sought permission for the construction of a new internal access road with servicing and delivery provision and public realm works. She said that the application further sought permission for car, coach, and cycle parking facilities and associated and ancillary works. Ms Jarvis said that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to the nature of the development and its location on the dock. Ms Jarvis stated that the current building’s condition was declining and had been vacant since 1990. She explained that the building was a Grade 2* listed building and was on Historic England’s at-risk register. Ms Jarvis stated that the current application followed a number of previous applications and was the result of extensive negotiations. She said that the application had received overwhelming support from various heritage bodies, technical consultees, nearby businesses and members of the public. Ms Jarvis explained that the application was supported by various policies in the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan. She said that policy five applied to the application as there was nothing within the application that conflicted with the policy. Ms Jarvis said that parts three and four of policy seven applied as the policy supported port related uses on the operational port, and further stated that in section four, a diversification of uses would be supported where development was proposed on land that was surplus to port requirements and where the proposal use would accord with the development plan as a whole and would not conflict with port operations. Ms Jarvis said that ABP had sought to sell the site on the basis that it was surplus to their requirements. Ms Jarvis stated that the application did not conflict with policy seven. Ms Jarvis stated that policy eight of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan also applied as the proposed development would generate investment and create jobs. She said that policy ten of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan would also apply as the proposed development would offer regeneration benefit to the town. Ms Jarvis stated that policy twelve also applied as the development would encourage tourism and support the visitor economy. She explained that policy twenty-three applied as this typically directs retail and leisure uses in particular into town centre locations. Ms Jarvis stated given the regeneration benefits the application was acceptable in principle. Ms Jarvis said that in terms of design it was important to protect the existing building and the developer had put a lot of focus on retaining as much as possible. She explained that some of the equipment at the site was salvageable and that retaining as much of the machinery as possible was a priority of the application as this would allow a full end to end of the ice making process to be showcased at the site. Ms Jarvis said that the proposed extensions were appropriate in scale and design and the external changes to the elevations were well considered and proportionate. Ms Jarvis stated that the council’s heritage officer, Historic England and the Victorian Society had raised no objections to the application. Ms Jarvis said that the application had been widely supported by the public. She explained that as the site has been vacant for many years, the development would mean an increase in footfall and noise but due to the location of the development on an active dock, this was not considered to be harmful to neighbouring amenities. Ms Jarvis said that an events management plan was included as a condition within the application which would help to limit disturbance that any large-scale events would cause. She stated that a construction management plan was also included as a condition to limit any potential disruption during the construction phase. Ms Jarvis said that access to the site was through the dock and that this was currently done via a security control point on Murray Street. Ms Jarvis stated that there would be 149 car parking spaces at the site. She explained that a transport assessment had been submitted by the applicant and that the council’s highways officer had not objected to the application. Ms Jarvis stated that a flood risk assessment had been undertaken due to the site being located within flood zone three. She explained that a sequential test had not been required as the application was a change of use application. Ms Jarvis stated that mitigation measures had been agreed and the Environment Agency had not objected to the application. Ms Jarvis said that a drainage strategy had been agreed in principle and that both the council’s drainage officer and Anglian Water had not objected to the application. Ms Jarvis explained that due to the site’s close proximity to the Humber Estuary, a habitat regulations assessment had been provided which had been reviewed by the council’s ecology officer who had raised no concerns but had recommended conditions which had been included within the application. Ms Jarvis stated that Natural England had requested further information about recreational disturbance, which had now been obtained and planning officers were awaiting their response. Ms Jarvis stated that planning officers were also awaiting confirmation of the HSE’s position following the revocation. Ms Jarvis said that there had been ongoing discussions about security with the Police and counter terrorism officers in order to identify security principles that would work for the site. She explained that an air quality assessment had also been provided and had concluded that the levels relating to air quality were acceptable. Ms Jarvis stated that it was therefore recommended that the application be approved with modified conditions but that the final decision be delegated to the Assistant Director for Regeneration to secure Natural England’s final response and also to receive confirmation on the HSE position following the revocation.

Mr Shutes spoke as the applicant. He said that he had previously presented to the committee, the initial plans for the Ice Factory. He said that since then a lot of work had been undertaken. Mr Shutes stated that he was grateful to everyone who had supported the application, as he had received a significant number of letters of support and received no objections to the application. Mr Shutes stated that the application represented the Ice Factory reimagined as a new centre for the present day.

Mr Hall spoke as the agent for the application. He said that he had worked closely on the application with Historic England and throughout the pre-application process, the feedback had been very positive. Mr Hall stated that there had been no objections to the application from members of the public or technical consultees. He said that the building was an historically important building which was currently in poor condition. Mr Hall said that the application sought to secure the building’s future.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that she was delighted that the application was being proposed as it aimed to bring new life and sought to preserve local heritage. She said that she would like commitment that the development starts as soon as possible. Councillor Aisthorpe stated that she would like the discussions around security to go ahead in order to create a welcoming atmosphere. She proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Croft seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Hudson said that he was happy to support the application.

Councillor Lindley stated that he was happy to have been on a site visit with ABP and had enjoyed listening to the proposed plans. He said that he thought the people of North East Lincolnshire would be delighted with the application. Councillor Lindley said that he was happy to support the application.

Councillor Holland said that he hoped the development moved forward as quickly as possible. He said that it was clear that a lot of work had been done by the planning department and he commended them on their work.

Councillor Parkinson said that it was tremendous opportunity for the town, and he was pleased that someone had taken the project on. Councillor Parkinson stated that he would have liked to see more than three EV chargers at the site as three might not be enough. He said that the application was fantastic however and he was happy to support.

Ms Jarvis stated that policy 38 requires a minimum of three EV chargers to be included but there could potentially be more on the site.

Councillor Shutt said that he agreed with Councillor Parkinson about the need for more EV chargers. He stated however that he fully supported the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted unanimously for the application to be approved.)

Item 4 – DM/0865/23/LBC – Grimsby Ice Factory, Fish Dock Road, Grimsby Docks, Grimsby

Ms Jarvis introduced the application and explained that the application sought listed building consent with the plans being the same as the previous application. Ms Jarvis stated that the only consideration for the Planning Committee to consider for a listed building consent application was the impact the development would have from a heritage perspective. Ms Jarvis stated a heritage assessment had been undertaken which assessed the building’s significance. She explained that there had been extensive discussions between the applicant, planning officers, the council’s heritage officer and Historic England due to the importance of the asset. She said that the council’s heritage officer and Historic England had raised no objections to the application. Ms Jarvis stated that the application was fully supported by various heritage groups. She said that it was felt that the application was respectful and sympathetic to the historical significance of the building. Ms Jarvis referred committee members to the amended conditions in the supplementary agenda papers. She stated that the application was recommended in line with the previous application and that the final decision be delegated to the Assistant Director for Regeneration to secure Natural England’s final response and also to receive confirmation on the HSE position following the revocation.

Councillor Hasthorpe proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Hudson seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Shutt stated that he fully supported the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted unanimously for the application to be approved.)

Item 5 – DM/0769/23/FUL – Land at Auckland Road, Grimsby Docks, Grimsby

Ms Jarvis introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to erect a five-storey hotel with associated public realm works, car parking and various associated works. She said that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to the nature of the use and its link to the planning applications for the Ice Factory. Ms Jarvis stated that the application had received no objections from members of the public. Ms Jarvis explained that the application was supported by various policies in the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan. She said that policy five applied to the application as there was nothing within the application that conflicted with the policy. Ms Jarvis said that parts three and four of policy seven applied as the hotel would not sit in isolation and was designed to support the wider diversification of the dock. Ms Jarvis stated that policy eight applied to the application as the proposed development would create employment. She said that policy twelve also applied as the proposed development would encourage tourism. Ms Jarvis stated that the design of the proposed hotel had been amended over time. She said that the hotel was a simplistic design and the council’s heritage officer and Historic England had raised no objections to the application subject to the finalising of materials that would be used. Ms Jarvis stated that the proposed development would mean there would be an increase in noise and footfall, but it had been determined that this would not be harmful to neighbouring amenity as the development would be located on an active dock where activity and footfall was expected. Ms Jarvis said that a construction management plan had been included as a condition to limit disturbance during the construction phase. She explained that a transport assessment had been submitted by the applicant which had been considered by the council’s highways officer who had agreed with the conclusion that the development would not have a severe impact on the highway network. Ms Jarvis said that the development would have forty car parking spaces which was deemed acceptable by the council’s highways officer. Ms Jarvis explained that the proposed site was located within flood zone three and that the applicant had provided a flood risk assessment. She said that a sequential test and an exceptions test had  been required for the development and it had been determined that the development had passed the sequential test as it would bring benefits to the area such as employment opportunities. Ms Jarvis stated that the environment agency had recommended conditions be added to the application to mitigate the flood risk. She said that as the development was considered part of a regeneration scheme, the benefits that the development would bring outweighed the flood risk and therefore the development had also satisfied the requirements of the exceptions test. Ms Jarvis stated that a drainage strategy for the development had been considered by the council’s drainage officer who had raised no objections to the application but had recommended conditions be added to the application. She said that Anglian Water had also not raised any objections to the application. Ms Jarvis said a habitat regulations assessment had been provided which had been subsequently reviewed by the council’s ecology officer who had raised no concerns but had recommended conditions which had been included within the application. Ms Jarvis stated that Natural England had requested further information about recreational disturbance, which had now been obtained and planning officers were awaiting their response. Ms Jarvis stated that planning officers were also awaiting confirmation of the HSE’s position following the revocation. She said that an air quality assessment had been undertaken and had concluded that there were acceptable levels relating to air quality. Ms Jarvis explained that a noise assessment had also been undertaken which had made recommendations to mitigate against any impact. Ms Jarvis said that the recommendations in the report had been included within the application as conditions. She said that both the council’s environmental health officer and Network Rail had raised no objections to the application. Ms Jarvis stated that it was therefore recommended that the application be approved with conditions but that the final decision be delegated to the Assistant Director for Regeneration to obtain Natural England’s final response and also to receive confirmation on the HSE position following the revocation.

Mr Hall spoke as the agent for the application. He said that the application was to build a hotel on a brownfield site. Mr Hall said that the design of the hotel had been sensitively considered in that it would complement the Ice Factory. He stated that the hotel application was critically important and would support the regeneration of the Ice Factory and the wider docks. Mr Hall said that the hotel would bring employment opportunities and would be a positive design to add to the area. Mr Hall said that the hotel would provide a more sustainable opportunity for those travelling in and would benefit existing local business with people staying in the area as they would use other services more. He said that the hotel would also serve to re-establish a consistent frontage with the Ice Factory. He said in conclusion the hotel would secure the restoration of the ice factory. Mr Hall asked committee members to support the application.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that she welcomed the application and that it worked well with what was proposed at the Ice Factory. She commented that the application worked well with the rest of the docks, would see a brownfield site developed and would create jobs. Councillor Aisthorpe proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Lindley said that the hotel was key to the exciting plans taking place at the Ice Factory. He seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Shutt said that he would like EV chargers to be available at the hotel.

Councillor Holland asked how advanced the discussions had been regarding security.

Ms Jarvis stated that she could not say too much but that discussions were ongoing about making the site more accessible.

Councillor Parkinson said that he thought the hotel application went hand in hand with the previous applications.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted unanimously for the application to be approved.)

Item 6 – DM/1022/22/FUL – Anne Askew House, South Marsh Road, Stallingborough

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it retrospectively sought permission for the variation of condition two and four pursuant to DM/0745/19/FUL with the revision including a 1m retaining wall and raised ground levels of plot one, the installation of a 1.8m high boundary fence to the side of plot one and to amend the type of stormwater barriers. Mr Dixon stated that the application had been brought before the committee due to an objection from Stallingborough Parish Council, neighbour objections and due to the fact that the applicant was Foresight which two North East Lincolnshire councillors have an interest in. Mr Dixon said that the application had previously been deferred by the Planning Committee to allow for further consultation due to the boundary fence being higher 1.8m high not 1.6m. Mr Dixon said that there was also a separate application which sought to change the type of flood defences on the properties. He stated that the applications had been subsequently combined. Mr Dixon said that it had been determined that the application was acceptable in principle through the granting of permission of the full planning application DM/0745/19/FUL. Mr Dixon explained that the increase in the ground floor levels of plot one had resulted in a retaining wall being required along the boundary to keep the land secure. He said that due to the raised levels, the 1.8m high fence was in effect a 0.8m high boundary which would not offer the neighbours the same level of privacy. He said that the applicant had sought to address the issue and had installed an additional 1.8m high fence within the site boundary. Mr Dixon said that the combined fence height was unusual but did improve privacy for the neighbours. He said that the fence was clearly visible, but it was not considered that it caused undue massing or dominance. Mr Dixon said that neighbours had raised concerns about the amendments affecting the drainage in the area. He explained that the council’s drainage officer had reviewed the amendments and had confirmed that the amendments would not increase the risk of flooding on the site. Mr Dixon said that the council’s drainage officer had raised no objections to the application. Mr Dixon said that the applicant had also not installed the approved flood proof doors and was instead seeking to install de-mountable flood boards. Mr Dixon said that the Environment Agency had raised no objections to the change. Mr Dixon stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5 and 33 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Councillor Hasthorpe said that he could see no other way of doing what was being proposed. He proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Hudson seconded the proposal of approving the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted unanimously for the application to be approved.)

Item 7 – DM/1049/23/FUL – 109 Carr Lane, Grimsby

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to demolish an existing garage and outbuildings, erect a single storey dwelling with driveway, landscaping and associated external works. Mr Dixon stated that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to a call in from Councillor Smith. Mr Dixon explained that a previous application for the site had recently been refused by the Planning Committee. He said that the current application was an amended version of that previous application. Mr Dixon said that the proposed site was located within the development area for Grimsby and was also located within a flood risk area. Mr Dixon stated that to build in high flood risk areas, there needed to be justification and it was not felt that there was justification for the development. He explained that the application would fail the sequential test as there were other sites in the borough where there was a lower risk of flooding which could accommodate a single dwelling. Mr Dixon said that the application did not have regeneration benefits. He said that in terms of the exceptions test the application would fail part one of the test as the proposed development would not result in any overriding wider sustainability benefits to the community. Mr Dixon explained that part two of the exceptions test was to consider mitigation needed to reduce the flood risk. He said that the Environment Agency recommended that the finished floor levels be raised to 1.25 metres above the external ground level, in order to address concerns. Mr Dixon stated that this has been included in the plans and the Environment Agency had now raised no objections to the development in terms of mitigation, but they had referenced the need for the development to pass the sequential test which it did not. Mr Dixon stated that the application was not acceptable in principle. He said that the agent for the application had worked hard to reduce the impact the development would have on the street scene. Mr Dixon said that the dwelling was now proposed to be single storey and the design included the raising of floor levels as requested by the Environment Agency. Mr Dixon said that in doing so, the design did not fit in with the character of the area and would not look right in the street scene. He stated that the proposed position of the dwelling would result in a cramped layout. Mr Dixon said that due to the proposed development’s height, scale and position along the boundary, it was not felt that the development would be overbearing to neighbouring properties. Mr Dixon said that the council’s highways officer had raised no objections to the application. He stated that the council’s drainage officer had also raised no objections to the application but had recommended conditions which had been included. Mr Dixon said that due to the issue of flood risk and the mitigation proposed which would result in a poor design, the application was not in accordance with policies 5, 22, 33 and 34. He said that the application was therefore recommended for refusal.

Mr Snowden said that a similar application had been brought before the Planning Committee which had been for a two-storey dwelling. He said that at that time committee members had suggested that a single storey bungalow would be more appropriate. Mr Snowden stated that the previous objections the committee members had raised such as overlooking had been addressed. He said that the environment agency had not objected to the application and that the application was supported by the Ward Councillor. Mr Snowden said that he thought the design of the dwelling would fit in with the street scene. He explained that the applicant wanted to remain in the area. Mr Snowden stated that the council’s highways officer was content with the application as was the council’s drainage officer. Mr Snowden said that the impact the development would have on neighbours had been fully considered. He stated that conversions and new homes were acceptable in flood zone areas where there was no objection from the Environment Agency.

Miss Pickerden read out a statement on behalf of the Ward Councillor for the Heneage Ward, Councillor Smith.

Councillor Smith wrote in his statement that he had supported the application in the past. He wrote that he believed the applicant had gone to great lengths to get the application approved and appease the objections raised. Councillor Smith wrote that the application was a unique opportunity for the property owner to downsize from her existing dwelling whilst still being able to live in and enjoy the area where she has made many friends. He wrote in his statement that whilst he was fully aware that, that was not a fundamental reason under planning criteria, he hoped common sense would prevail and permission would be granted for the application.

Councillor Hudson said that he had previously not agreed with the idea of having a two-storey dwelling on the site. He said that the application was now for a one storey bungalow, and he thought it was a nice development. Councillor Hudson stated that it was a shame that the floor levels needed to be raised, but he understood why that had to be done. He proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Lindley said that he agreed with Councillor Hudson. He said that the current design was far more pleasing than what was originally proposed. Councillor Lindley said that he disagreed with the planning officer’s conclusion that the development would not fit in well with the other properties in the area. He said that whilst he thought it might be a bit tight, the committee had approved similar site sizes for infill development. Councillor Lindley said that there was also a parking space which was a bonus. He seconded the proposal of approving the application.

Councillor Patrick said that the site was located within his ward. He said that there were bungalows in Carr Lane and that was unique and should be protected. Councillor Patrick stated that the developers had made an effort in regard to issues of overlooking, but the flood risk issue remained. He said that infill development tended to happen in less dense areas. Councillor Patrick said that he could not support the application.

Councillor Parkinson asked if the materials used would be of a similar colour to the existing properties on the street.

Mr Dixon said that it could be conditioned for purposes of uniformity.

Councillor Parkinson said that it would be tight to fit the dwelling onto the site. He said that he would listen to the rest of the debate.

Councillor Aisthorpe stated that she had sympathy for the applicant but planning officers had cited concerns regarding flood risk and the impact on the area. She said that whilst Councillor Lindley was correct that similar applications had been approved, there had also been similar applications which had been refused by the committee. Councillor Aisthorpe said that the committee needed to be consistent. She said that she would support the planning officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Holland said that he did not see how the issue of flood risk had changed since the previous application. He said that he was going to stand by the original decision which was to refuse the application.

Mr Dixon said that the issue of flood risk remained. He said that the Environment Agency had not objected but they do not consider the sequential test that planning officers do.

Councillor Batson said that he was surprised the operator of the substation had not raised concerns about the development.

Mr Dixon said that they had been consulted and had raised no objections to the application.

Councillor Shutt said that he remembered the previous application. He said that from an aesthetic point of view, the development was not bad. Councillor Shutt said that the flood risk was a concern. He stated that he understood the applicant wanting to remain in the area, but that does not outweigh concerns about flooding.

Councillor Parkinson queried whether the flood risk had been mitigated against.

Councillor Patrick said that he did not see any planning benefits the application would bring. He said that he did not think the development would contribute to the area as a whole.

Mr Dixon said that the flood risk mitigation proposed was to raise the floor levels. He said that flood risk was not just about water getting into a home. Mr Dixon said the planning department considered the sequential test which was where the applicant must outline what is the benefit the application would bring, and what is the justification for the development.

Mr Dixon outlined the conditions for the application if it was to be approved.

The committee took a vote and upon a vote, 4 voted for and 7 voted against the application being approved.

Councillor Patrick proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor Hasthorpe seconded the proposal that the application be refused.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused.

(Note – the committee voted 7 for and 4 against for the application to be refused.)

Item 8 – DM/1078/23/OUT– 146 North Sea Lane, Humberston

Ms Jarvis introduced the outline application and explained that it sought permission to demolish two outbuildings and to erect one dwelling with a garage and provision of new access with all matters reserved. Ms Jarvis stated that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to an objection from Humberston Village Council. She said that the site was located within the development boundary for Humberston and that policy five did not preclude the erection of additional dwellings within defined development boundaries. Ms Jarvis explained that the site was also located within flood zone one which was sequentially preferable for housing developments. She said that the proposed development was acceptable in principle. Ms Jarvis said that whilst the design of the development would be considered at the reserved matters stage if the outline application was granted permission, a dwelling being located at the proposed site was considered acceptable as the site was already used for residential purposes. Ms Jarvis stated that infill development was also well established in the specific area. Ms Jarvis said that it was considered there could be a dwelling on the site which would not cause detrimental harm to neighbouring amenity as long as the dwelling had the right design and scale. Ms Jarvis stated that specific design elements would be considered at the reserved matters stage if outline planning permission was granted. She said that the council’s highways officer had recommended conditions which had been included within the application. Ms Jarvis said that the council’s heritage officer had raised no objections to the application. She said that the council’s drainage officer had recommended a sustainable drainage condition which had been included in the application. Ms Jarvis stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 22, 33 and 34 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan. She said that it was recommended that the decision be delegated to the Assistant Director for Regeneration to allow for the site notice to expire on the 4th January 2024 and subject to there being no new issues raised within that time. 

Mr Deakins spoke as the agent for the application. He said that he was disappointed that the application had to be brought before the Planning Committee. Mr Deakins said that the applicant doesn’t use the specific area and it was surplus to their requirements so they wanted to look at other opportunities. Mr Deakins stated that there had been no objections from neighbours but that the issue of windows had been raised which would be addressed at the reserved matters stage. He said that the application was a good infill scheme and he hoped that committee members would support it.

Councillor Lindley said that he had no issues with the application. He proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Parkinson stated that the proposed site was located within his ward, but he had, had no concerns raised with him by residents as he had for similar applications. He seconded the proposal of approving the application.

Councillor Patrick said that he was happy to support the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted unanimously for the application to be approved.)

Item 9 – DM/0944/23/FUL – 209 Corporation Road, Grimsby

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought permission for a change of use from a café at the ground floor with living accommodation to two self-contained flats to include internal and external alterations. Mr Dixon stated that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to a call in from Councillor Wilson. Mr Dixon said that the site was located within the development area of Grimsby and was also located within flood zone three. Mr Dixon explained that flood zone three was an area where there was a high probability of flooding. He said that the Environment Agency had objected to the application on the grounds that the risk to life and property from tidal inundation would be unacceptable if the development were to be permitted. Mr Dixon stated that if the applicant was to raise the floor levels, then the Environment Agency would not object, but the applicant had stated that they could not raise the floor levels. He said that the applicant had spoken to the Environment Agency but their objection to the application remained. Mr Dixon said that the development would bring regeneration benefits to the site, but it was not considered that these benefits would outweigh the flood risk. Mr Dixon said that there were no design issues with the application as there would only be minor alterations to the exterior of the building. Mr Dixon stated that the council’s highways officer had not objected to the application. Mr Dixon said that the application was not in accordance with policies 5 and 33 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and sections 5, 12 and 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework. He stated that the application was therefore recommended for refusal.

Miss Pickerden read out a statement on behalf of the Ward Councillor for the West Marsh Ward, Councillor Wilson.

Councillor Wilson wrote in his statement that the café stood empty and lowered the tone of the area, in which houses do not fetch a good price when sold. He wrote that the fact that houses are cheap, in the area made any investment difficult to justify and therefore if the council wanted to reinvigorate and regenerate certain parts of the towns, then planning needs to be considered. Councillor Wilson wrote that he had called the application in so that the Planning Committee could show leadership, common sense and a commitment to make all areas a better place to live. He wrote that the property sits in a flood zone, which basically barred any first-floor dwellings, but getting a return on investment was very difficult and having two dwellings would enable this. Councillor Wilson wrote that the council was investing in improving the public realm on Beeson Street and Armstrong street corner and he had, had assurances that the junction of Boulevard Avenue, Corporation Road, Pyewipe and Gilbey Road would be improved in the spring, so an improvement to the dwelling would be most welcome. He wrote that whilst he did not know of any flooding in the specific area, both in his memories and research, he did respect any research or mathematical modelling that the Environment Agency or indeed the Council had done. Councillor Wilson wrote that council policies reflect this and should be a guide to any decisions the committee make, but surely there was mitigation that could be installed. He wrote that a flood barrier around the property could be installed or a hardwired flood alarm system that would give people time to evacuate or even an escape window in the bedroom if all else failed. Councillor Wilson wrote in his statement that there was a flood risk, but he was of the opinion that life could be preserved with the right mitigation and planning controls without raising the living area.  Councillor Wilson wrote that he believed that with the right controls and conditions the committee should approve the application. He wrote that this would give the committee it’s leadership role, fulfil a more common-sense pragmatic planning decision and send a wider signal that we would allow the regeneration of the town. Councillor Wilson wrote that this would therefore open up not only this property for regeneration but potentially many more across all of the borough that are affected by flood risk.

Councillor Lindley said that he agreed with Councillor Wilson. He said he thought refusing the application would not be good for the area. Councillor Lindley stated that it was important to recognise that the West Marsh needed development. He said that if we use flood risk as a reason to refuse the application, that could be applied for all of the West Marsh and we would therefore never see any development there. Councillor Lindley said that the area would fall further into decline. He proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Hudson said that he agreed with Councillor Lindley and Councillor Wilson. He said that the application was an opportunity for someone to make something of the property rather than it being left as is. He seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Parkinson said that he agreed with the planning officer’s recommendation. He stated that he thought it would be dangerous if the development went ahead. Councillor Parkinson said that he could not remember there ever being a ground flood flat approved in a flood risk area. He said that he did not think the development could be made safe. Councillor Parkinson proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor Patrick said that he was familiar with the area and could see that there were grounds to support the application. He said that some of the applications discussed at the meeting, were not pertaining to areas that were struggling. Councillor Patrick said that he supported investment into the area and that whilst if the site was an empty plot of land, he might think differently, he thought there were exceptional circumstances in which to support the application. 

Councillor Holland stated that he would support the application with the conditions included regarding the flood wall. He said that the building would remain empty if nothing happened. Councillor Holland said that were it to be viable to return the building to a singular residential property, then it would have already been done. He stated that regeneration was important, and he would support the application.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that whilst she sympathised with the reasons Councillor Wilson had stated in which to support the application, the regeneration proposed needed to be the right kind. She said that having two flats within the one building would make more money than one, so perhaps that is why two flats was being proposed. Councillor Aisthorpe stated that whilst there might not have been a flood in years, they do come out of nowhere. She said that she wanted to support the application, but it was important that the Planning Committee upheld standards around flood risk. Councillor Aisthorpe said that she would be voting against the application.

The Chair said that he was leaning towards supporting the proposal of refusal. He suggested that the applicant reconsider the application and look at having all sleeping accommodation on the first floor.

Councillor Shutt stated that the area does need investment, but it was important to consider the future as well. He said that he did not want a precedent to be set that other properties in flood risk areas could follow. Councillor Shutt said that the application had to be right and safe. He said that he could not support the application.

Councillor Lindley said that by refusing the application, the building would remain empty. He said that developers do want a return on their investment and having two flats would be beneficial to them. He said that he did not think having the building as one dwelling would be financially viable. Councillor Lindley said that he thought it was sad if the application was refused as the building could become derelict and be a target for arson and other anti-social behaviour.

Councillor Hudson said that he did not want to see properties empty. He said a developer had come forward and wanted to develop the building and the committee should allow them that opportunity. Councillor Hudson said that previous ground floor flats had been approved.

Councillor Parkinson said that he could not recall any ground floor flats in flood risk areas being approved by the committee. Councillor Parkinson said that he did not think the building would be a target for arson. He asked whether it was possible to defer the application.

Councillor Croft asked whether an estate agent would have to inform tenants of the flood risk.

The Chair said that that was outside of the Planning Committee’s remit.

Councillor Patrick queried whether the applicant owned the first floor flat. He said that having all of the sleeping accommodation on the first floor would only work if the applicant owned the first floor as well.

Mr Dixon stated that the applicant owned the first floor flat.

Councillor Holland asked whether the flood wall could be added to the application as a condition.

Mr Dixon said that conditions would be considered if the application was approved.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that arson did occur on the East Marsh but it was mainly wheelie bins being set alight. She said that she did not think there would be too many concerns of that with the specific building. She said that she understood committee members concerns that they do not want to miss the opportunity of the building being developed but the developer might re-consider and submit another application with a different plan. Councillor Aisthorpe reiterated that it was important that the Planning Committee upheld standards.

Councillor Lindley said that in the photos it showed a window smashed at the back of the building. He said that he had concerns that, that would happen to the rest of the building. Councillor Lindey stated that there was no benefit to refusing the application.

Mr Dixon outlined conditions if the application was to be approved. He said that if the Planning Committee were to approve the application, the application should be referred back to the Environment Agency.

The committee took a vote and upon a vote, 4 voted for and 7 voted against the application being approved.  

Councillor Hasthorpe proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor Croft seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused.

(Note – the committee voted 7 for and 4 against for the application to be refused.)

Councillor Aisthorpe left the meeting at this point.

Item 10 – DM/0992/23/OUT – Humber View, Barton Street, Ashby-Cum-Fenby

Mr Dixon introduced the outline application and explained that it sought permission to demolish Humber View and erect two dwellings with access to be considered. Mr Dixon stated that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to a call in from Councillor Pettigrew. Mr Dixon explained that the site was located outside of the defined development boundaries on the local plan and that whilst there was several dwellings and the Willow Lakes complex around the site, the site was considered to be in the open countryside. Mr Dixon stated that the council can demonstrate a housing supply in excess of five years and as such the titled balance was not in effect. Mr Dixon said that the application sought to replace one dwelling with two dwellings and whilst a replacement dwelling may be acceptable in terms of policy five, the additional dwelling would not be. Mr Dixon explained that the site was not in a sustainable location as there is poor access to sustainable transport and services. He stated that the application was therefore not acceptable in principle. Mr Dixon said that as it was an outline application, the impact to neighbours would be considered at the reserved matters stage if the outline application was granted permission. He said however that it was considered that two dwellings could be built on the site without having an undue impact on neighbouring amenities. Mr Dixon stated that it was considered that the proposed development would cause harm to the character of the area as it would reduce the gap between properties and Willow Lakes. Mr Dixon said that the council’s highways officer had raised no objections to the application. Mr Dixon stated that the application was not in accordance with policies 5 and 42 and was therefore recommended for refusal.

Mr Collis spoke as the agent for the application. He said that he understood from the planning officers’ point of view that the site was located within the open countryside, but it was not in his opinion as there was houses next to the site as well as a holiday park. Mr Collis stated that to the left of the property, there are five townhouses and that the existing property on the proposed site was out of character having been built to the building control standards of the 1970s. He said that the property had been added to over the years and did have a conservatory, but the building was a mismatch. Mr Collis stated that the building would require substantial investment. Mr Collis asked that committee members took into account that no objections had been raised and that a recently approved planning application near Laceby round about, whilst initially recommended refusal was approved by the Planning Committee. Mr Collis stated that the development would not harm the local area. He said that if the committee were to approve the application, it would allow sustainable homes to be created in an area people can be proud of and would complement the existing townhouses.

Councillor Hudson said that whilst the development was technically located in the open countryside, he thought the development would be an improvement. Councillor Hudson stated that the parish council had not objected to the application. He proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Patrick said that he thought the application was an example of urban creep and he did not think the application was about improving the environment. Councillor Patrick stated that he would not be supporting the application.

Councillor Holland stated that if the site was vacant, then he would not be supporting the application, however he did think the development would be an improvement. Councillor Holland said that under the specific circumstances, he was minded to support the application.

Councillor Shutt commented that he liked the look of the proposed development but understood the point raised by Councillor Patrick. He said that he thought the proposed development would benefit the area and he was minded to support the application.

Councillor Hasthorpe seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Parkinson said that he was happy with the application.

Mr Dixon outlined the conditions for the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted 9 for and 1 against for the application to be approved.)

P.57           PLANS AND APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

The committee received plans and applications determined by the Director of Economy, Environment and Infrastructure under delegated powers during the period 15th November – 14th December 2023

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P.58           PLANNING APPEALS

The committee received a report from the Director of Economy, Environment and Infrastructure regarding outstanding planning appeals.

Councillor Lindley said that he had concerns with decisions being made regarding planning applications going to appeal. He said that the application DM/0719/22/FUL was dismissed at appeal, but DM/0285/22/FUL was allowed at appeal which was confusing.

Councillor Holland asked the Chair to raise concerns with the Planning Inspectorate about the decisions being made.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P.59           EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded for the following business on the grounds that its discussion was likely to disclose exempt information within paragraph 6 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

P.60           ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

The committee considered any requests from any member of the committee to discuss any enforcement issues.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

There being no further business, the Chair closed the meeting at 1:41pm.