Skip to main content

Planning Committee Minutes – 27th March 2024

4:22 pm, Friday, 26th April 2024 - 4 weeks ago

Present:       

Councillor Hasthorpe (in the Chair)

Councillors Batson, Aisthorpe, Croft, Dawkins (substitute for Pettigrew), Goodwin, Holland, Hudson, Lindley, Parkinson and Shutt.

Officers in attendance:

  • Hannah Steer (Solicitor)
  • Sophie Pickerden (Committee Support Officer)
  • Richard Limmer (Senior Town Planner)
  • Jonathan Cadd (Senior Town Planner)
  • Lara Hattle-Fitzgerald (Senior Highway Development Control Officer)
  • Adam Brockbank (Highway Development Control Officer)

There were 26 members of the public present and no members of the press.

P.75           APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received for this meeting from Councillor Pettigrew.

P.76           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest declared.

Ms Hattle-Fitzgerald said that she was a friend of the applicant for Item 3 and would therefore leave the room for that item.

Ms Steer stated that Councillor Pettigrew was referred to in the report for P.77 Item 3. She explained to committee members that they didn’t need to declare an interest.

P.77           DEPOSITED PLANS AND APPLICATIONS

Item 1 – DM/1052/23/FUL – Agricultural Land South View Humberston

Mr Cadd introduced the application and explained that it sought planning permission to erect ten detached dwellings with associated garages, driveways and access. Mr Cadd said that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to a call in from Ward Councillors. Mr Cadd stated that the proposed site was located within the development boundary of Humberston. He explained that the development was for ten dwellings and the adjoining site had planning permission for five dwellings meaning if they were built, the sites would be just two houses below the indicative capacity identified within the housing allocation, Local Plan Policy 13 (ref. HOU 082) which was seventeen dwellings. Mr Cadd said that the density of the development therefore would accord with the general density levels of arc settlements. He stated that the development was acceptable in principle. Mr Cadd said that the council’s education officer had determined that an education contribution from the applicant was not required as there was capacity in the nearby schools and equally affordable housing was not required due to the self-build nature of the development. Mr Cadd said that a cul-de-sac design was not unusual but what was unusual was that the development would be inward facing, and the rear of the proposed dwellings would be facing the properties on South View, a public street. He stated that this would detract from the character of the area and that it would be obvious the rear of the proposed dwellings was facing onto South View. Mr Cadd stated that with most developments the front of the dwellings was usually the attractive side with the rear of the dwelling being the least attractive. Mr Cadd said that by having the proposed development being faced inwards, it would differ to the current character of South View which had attractive housing frontages and gardens adjoining the street. Mr Cadd said that the proposed landscaping that would face onto South View would not be sufficient to alleviate the concerns with the design of the proposed development. Mr Cadd referred committee members to the National Design Guide and stated that the proposed development was not in accordance with the guide. Mr Cadd said that the side and rear gardens of the proposed dwellings would also adjoin the recently approved diverted footpath and would be in between it and the adjoining development with high fencing, forming a solid boundary, either side. Mr Cadd said that the footpath would be increased to be three metres wide. He stated that the council’s public rights of way officer had not objected to the application, but it was considered that there would now be an enclosed footpath screened from views instead of being open and overlooked with active frontages which would be more attractive and safer to use. Mr Cadd said that as such the scheme was a missed opportunity in relation to the footpath. Mr Cadd said that the scale of existing properties was modest, both in terms of footprint and height on South View whereas the proposed development was for significantly larger dwellings, in height and footprint. He said that the proposed dwellings would be dominating and out of character with the area. Mr Cadd said that the scale and layout of the proposed dwellings would impact the neighbour’s amenities of a number of houses including 3 South View to the north but also plot seven of the proposed development was to be located near to an outbuilding with a dormer window, directly facing the plot which would dominate the outlook from the building. He explained that whilst no one has a right to a view, the scale of the proposed dwellings and their proximity to the existing properties and the outbuilding would be detrimental to the neighbour’s amenities. Mr Cadd also noted that the house designs on two plots included side facing bedrooms where obscure glazed windows were proposed to protect neighbour’s privacy. He said that as these were the only windows to these rooms this would be detrimental to future occupiers’ amenities.  Mr Cadd stated that a number of dwellings also had balconies. He said that whilst the applicant had sought to address the issue through screening, there were still concerns about potential noise and nuisance. Mr Cadd said that the council’s highways officer had not objected to the application. He explained that the applicant had included in the layout, a bin pick up area near the site’s frontage as refuse vehicles should not access private driveways. Mr Cadd said that the highways officer had not objected to that plan and had not required the road to be adopted. Mr Cadd said that the applicant had worked with the council’s ecology officer, and it had been determined that the tree and hedge on the northern side be retained along with the native scrub belt at the south. Mr Cadd said that the council’s ecology officer had not objected to the application but had recommended conditions be included. Mr Cadd said that the council’s drainage officer had not objected to the application subject to the submission of a detailed drainage scheme being agreed. Mr Cadd explained that whilst the proposed site was allocated for housing, the design and layout of the proposed development, despite its low density would be out of character with the area. He said that the proposed development would detract from the appearance and character of South View in a dominant manner whilst being faced away from the street and reducing the safety and attractiveness of the public footpath. Mr Cadd stated that the application was therefore recommended for refusal.

Mr Hutton spoke in support of the application. He said that he was strongly in favour of the proposed development as a long standing resident. Mr Hutton said that he had a daughter who was wheelchair bound and had life shortening conditions meaning time was very precious. Mr Hutton said that he and his family had lost an entire summer of being able to sit in their front garden due to the anti-social behaviour taking place on the field in front of their home. He said that on one particular occasion a vodka bottle was thrown when he was helping his daughter into their van, and the bottle smashed beside her making her jump out of her skin and causing a seizure. Mr Hutton said as far as he was aware, no resident had complained about the way the properties would be facing. He said that as well as a large 12-foot hedge that acted as a screen, there was a dyke, a proposed wild garden strip and large gardens before you reach the proposed building line. Mr Hutton said that the proposed dormers look lovely and would be over 125 feet away from existing properties on South View, unlike the extension that was allowed on Walworth which towers over all of South View and is only a few feet behind the hedge. Mr Hutton said that the planning officer had mentioned plot seven being only 2.5 metres away from an outbuilding which would cause a loss of amenity. He said that this statement was misleading as it was only an outbuilding and not the main residence which was 66 feet away from plot 7 and was not on the same building line. Mr Hutton stated that he found it baffling that planning officers are saying that the proposed development was going to spoil the view and that, that was actually a personal view of the planning officer. Ms Hutton said that his daughter would benefit enormously from the proposed wildlife meadow. Mr Hutton said that were the planning officer to have his way, the proposed meadow would be replaced by an access road. He stated that he felt the proposed development was a great design with many positive benefits for everyone. Mr Hutton asked the committee to approve the application as it would put an end to anti-social behaviour and would be a vast improvement on what was waste ground that potentially could become a traveller site.

Mr White spoke as the applicant for the application. He said that the planning officers were recommending the application for refusal based on their opinion that the layout of the design was poor and that there would be a loss of amenity. Mr White stated that, that view was not supported by most of the consultees. He said that the outbuilding referenced as near plot seven was 66 feet away.  Mr White said that planning officers had also recently allowed a towering building to be passed under delegated powers. Mr White explained that a previous scheme which was supported by planning officers and put forward by NELC was for fifteen houses and would have been very close to the borders and most would have backed onto and overlooked South View, Sheraton Drive and Church Avenue. Mr White said that the proposed development would mean no one would be directly overlooked and none of the properties would back onto the near neighbours. He said that there would be a very large separation from the neighbouring dwellings, over 125 feet to South View and almost 300 feet to Sheraton Drive. Mr White said that the proposed development had generated a handful of objections with twice as many supporting comments. He stated that almost all the objections were based on the same falsehoods namely the road, wildlife & flooding, all of which had been completely refuted by the professional surveys that had been carried out by experts. He said that no one had objected to the actual design and layout of the scheme. Mr White said that planning officers had requested that he turned plots three – six, so the frontage would be facing the existing open field that the footpath runs across. He said that the footpath would not be redirected until full planning permission was granted on the adjacent land and therefore his opinion was based on something that doesn’t currently exist and might not happen. Mr White said that if the footpath diversion went ahead the council’s Rights of Way officer & Ramblers Society were happy with the design layout as proposed and there being a 3-metre section of footpath between fences. Mr White stated that he had, had a risk assessment conducted which had concluded that the proposed design layout was the best for the site. He said that he felt that by changing the layout and leaving the site open, it would encourage anti-social behaviour. Mr White stated that the proposed development was not out of scale with the Humberston area. He said that the proposed design and layout responded to the site constraints. Mr White asked committee members to support the application.

Councillor Shreeve spoke as the Ward Councillor for the Humberston and New Waltham Ward. He said that he was speaking in objection to the application on behalf of residents. Councillor Shreeve said that he would like to apologise to the Planning Committee as he would not have called the application in had he known it would be recommended for refusal. Councillor Shreeve said that whilst the site was in the local plan and would be developed, the proposed development would not succeed as it failed in a number of aspects. He said that the proposed development would be overbearing and the resident at number three would have a large house overlooking his property. Councillor Shreeve said that in terms of appearance and appropriateness, he would recommend the Planning Committee support refusal.

Councillor Holland said that the site had been referred to as agricultural land. He asked what grade it was designated as.

Mr Cadd said that the agent for the application had referred to the site as agricultural land. He explained that the site was previously used for grazing of horses and that committee members should not get too attached to the agent’s description of the site being agricultural land.

Councillor Holland said that he thought the proposed development was low density. He asked what density was recommended.

Mr Cadd responded that the indicative number for the whole site allocation within the local plan was seventeen. He said that if the proposed development was approved, and the existing housing approval on the adjoining site proceeded it would mean a total of fifteen houses on the wider site would be built which would be in accordance with the density outlined in the local plan. Mr Cadd said that density was not the issue, the design and scale of the individual plots in the development was.

Councillor Holland said that that had taken into account the other development at the other part of the site which had planning permission. He asked about the density for the specific part of the site.

Mr Cadd said that the density was approximately ten dwellings per hectare.

Councillor Holland asked if the site had been sold by the Council to allow for fast track development.

Mr Cadd said that he could not comment on the previous ownership of the site. He said that the Planning Committee had to focus on material planning considerations. Mr Cadd reiterated that the site was allocated for housing.

Councillor Holland referred to the Ward Councillor saying the site would be developed. He asked whether fewer vehicles would be accessing the site.

Ms Hattle Fitzgerald said that she could not predict whether there would be fewer vehicles accessing the site or not. She stated that the Highways Department was satisfied with the development.

Councillor Lindley said that he could remember when the development for the site adjacent was proposed and approved. He said that he had automatically assumed back then, that the current site would also be used for housing. Councillor Lindley said that he was surprised that there was a proposed refuse collection point at the entrance to the site. He said that in terms of overlooking, there was separation and plot seven overlooked an outbuilding. He stated that the committee had to be sensible, the plot did not overlook the residential property, just the outbuilding. Councillor Lindley said that the site could become overgrown if it was not built upon. He stated that the site was allocated for housing. Councillor Lindley said that having the site developed would improve the outlook. He said that he was minded to support approval but would listen to the debate. Councillor Lindley reiterated that the proposed site was allocated for housing in the local plan and that whilst the proposed development might need tweaking, he had concerns over what would happen to the site if it was not developed. He stated that he did not want to see the site become derelict.

Councillor Dawkins said that what the Council had previously proposed to be at the site was smaller properties, whereas the proposed development was for substantially larger ones. Councillor Dawkins said that in regard to the site becoming an eyesore in years to come, the site had already been empty for a long time. He said that there was no doubt that the site would be developed but the development needed to be right. Councillor Dawkins said that he was not keen on gated communities. He said that he would support local residents. Councillor Dawkins proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor Hudson said that the site was allocated for housing and was in a sustainable area so would be at some point built upon. Councillor Hudson said that whilst the density was low, the massing would be high. He stated that whilst the proposed dwellings would be substantially bigger, he was not sure that would be a problem due to the separation distances. Councillor Hudson said that he understood planning officers point that the rear of the dwellings would be facing outwards onto the street scene. He said that the obvious solution was to build two more dwellings on the buffer strip with them facing the street, but he did not think residents would want that. Councillor Hudson said that he was torn as could see both sides of the argument. He said that he would listen to the rest of the debate.

Councillor Shutt said that he understood the points raised by the other committee members. He said that he was undecided on whether to support the application or not. Councillor Shutt stated that the proposed development seemed like a nice fit for the site but would a different scheme be more acceptable. He asked what the consequences were with the road not being adopted.

Mr Cadd said that were the application to be approved, then planning officers would recommend a condition be added for a maintenance programme. He said that it would be up to residents to maintain the access road with it not being an adopted road.

Councillor Shutt asked why the road was not going to become an adopted road.

Ms Hattle Fitzgerald said that the Highways Design Guide outlined that any road that served more than five properties should be adopted. Ms Hattle Fitzgerald said that highways officers had spoken to the applicant who had wanted to keep the road private. She explained that the Highways Department were happy with this arrangement, in this particular instance.

Councillor Parkinson said that he did not think the overlooking of the outbuilding was a huge problem. He said that he initially thought the issue of the dwellings facing inwards was an issue, but he now didn’t think it was much of an issue. Councillor Parkinson said that he was unsure about the practicalities of people having to drag their bins down the street, particularly the brown bins which can be very heavy. Councillor Parkinson said that he would listen to the rest of the debate.

Councillor Holland said that everyone seemed to be in agreement that houses would at some point be built on the site. He stated that the fact that the houses would be quite far away from South View negated the issue of them backing onto it. Councillor Holland said that he would prefer looking out onto the rear of the properties, rather than someone’s front windows. He said that the fact that the properties would be self-built was a plus to him. Councillor Holland stated that he was minded to approve the application.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that she was undecided about whether to support the application but was leaning towards doing so. She said that she would prefer to view back gardens than the front of a house. Councillor Aisthorpe said that some private roads are not kept in the best condition. She asked what conditions would be put in place to make sure the private road was maintained.

Mr Cadd said that planning officers would seek to agree with the applicant a maintenance plan, but as it was a private road, the Council would not get particularly involved with the maintenance of the road as it would be up to residents.

Councillor Aisthorpe asked whether there would be any enforcement that could be put in place in case the road was not maintained.

Mr Cadd reiterated that the road would be a matter for the residents.

Councillor Goodwin said that she was initially undecided about the application. She said however that if the application was refused, more houses could be approved in a different application. Councillor Goodwin proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Holland seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Mr Cadd said that he understood comments made by committee members regarding the future of the site. He said that if the application was refused, we wouldn’t know what would be proposed in the future but that would be considered at that time. Mr Cadd explained that the site offered a number of opportunities regarding neighbouring amenity and in relation to the footpath which the proposed development had not taken advantage of. He said that the scale of the proposed dwellings would be very large and they would be visible over the hedge and dominating to neighbours. Mr Cadd said that committee members needed to consider that due to the scale of the houses, the nature and orientation of the development, the backs of the housing would be very evident in the area. He said that the situation with the footpath was not ideal and that whilst the council’s Rights of Way officer had not objected to the proposed development, a scheme should be achieved which addressed the issue of the footpath, making it attractive and safe to use. Mr Cadd said that the proposed development was not in accordance with the national design guide which was a professional document used to direct decision makers in terms of good design and concerns raised were not just that of individual officers. He said that the proposed development was a missed opportunity, and something better should be achieved. Mr Cadd reiterated that the scale of the properties and the issues with the layout would detract from the area, neighbour’s amenities and the attractiveness of the footpath to users.

Councillor Lindley said that he was a long standing member of the Planning Committee and it was important that members not make assumptions. He said that there was no guarantee that if the application was refused, that a more desirable application would be submitted. Councillor Lindley said the application could be refused and then no subsequent application be submitted, and the site would be left as it was. Councillor Lindley stated that committee members should not assume another application would be submitted that would satisfy everyone. He said that he would support the proposal of approval as there were good separation distances and whilst there might be some small issues, the proposed development would enhance the area.

Councillor Dawkins said that committee members should turn down an application if it was not right. He said that if the application was refused, then the site would stay empty until the right development was proposed. Councillor Dawkins stated that the majority of the local residents were against the application as well as the expert officers. He said that he stood by his previous proposal of refusing the application.

Councillor Croft said that the application was a difficult one to consider. She said that it was a nice development. She asked whether there would be fencing between the properties.

Mr Cadd responded that there would be fencing between the properties.

Councillor Croft suggested that a condition be added regarding hedgehog runs.

Mr Cadd stated that a condition for hedgehog runs could be added.

Councillor Goodwin said that she took on board the planning officer’s points about the proposed dwellings being large, but that when you consider that the house with the extension was approved under delegated powers, she couldn’t see why the dwellings could not be built.

The Chair asked Councillor Goodwin to outline the reasons she had for proposing approval of the application.

Councillor Goodwin stated that it was a nice development of only ten houses and low in density.

Councillor Holland said that he did not agree with planning officers that the design was poor.

Councillor Goodwin said that the proposed development could detract anti-social behaviour.

Mr Cadd outlined conditions to be included if the application was to be approved.

Councillor Shutt queried whether a condition was needed regarding the alleyway and the footpath.

Mr Cadd said that the footpath was not within the application site. He said that the footpath adjoining would be dealt with through the adjoining planning application approval conditions, so no conditions would be added to the application regarding the footpath.

Councillor Parkinson asked whether planning officers felt there was room for negotiations to take place if the application was deferred.

Mr Cadd said that planning officers had sought to negotiate with the applicant and therefore did not believe any further negotiations would result in changes.

Councillor Parkinson said that that might be different now as the applicant would have heard the Planning Committee’s opinions.

Mr Cadd said that it was possible that would be the case.

Councillor Holland said that the applicant had offered to have a three-metre section of footpath be open.

Mr Cadd stated that the applicant was in control of the application site and had an interest in the adjoining site and there was some flexibility there. He said that the footpath was not within control of this specific application.

Councillor Aisthorpe stated that there seemed to be more support for the application then objection from local residents.

As no committee member seconded the first proposal, the Chair took a vote on the second proposal.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted 8 for and 3 against for the application to be approved.)

Item 2 – DM/0250/22/FUL – Land At Station Road Stallingborough

Mr Cadd introduced the application and explained that it sought planning permission to erect twenty dwellings with an access road and associated works. Mr Cadd said that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to an objection from Stallingborough Parish Council and the number of objections received. Mr Cadd stated that the proposed site was allocated for residential development and had an indicative site capacity of twenty-five houses. He said that the application for twenty houses was therefore acceptable in principle. Mr Cadd said that the applicant had also agreed to make a contribution to meet educational needs and a full 15% affordable housing contribution, due to the previously developed and contaminated nature of the land, as required. Mr Cadd said that the applicant had worked hard to create a positive scheme and had been mindful of neighbour’s concerns. He said that the applicant had changed the design of the proposed development to ensure all houses fronted the highway in a positive manner and avoid issues of overlooking by having plots seven – twelve be dormer bungalows. Mr Cadd stated that the layout also sought to block noise from the railway. He said that the design of the proposed development was very positive and therefore acceptable. Mr Cadd said that despite neighbours and the Parish Council’s concerns over the proximity of the access to the level crossing neither Network Rail nor the Highways Team had not objected to the application. He said that it was deemed that the access was wide enough for two vehicles to pass and there were acceptable sight lines. Mr Cadd said that the council’s highways officer had raised no objections to the application. Mr Cadd said that a planning condition was recommended which would require a 2m high close boarded fence be erected due to the positioning of the access road, close to the rear garden of some houses. He said that the applicant had submitted a noise assessment which was deemed acceptable by the council’s environmental protection officer who had not objected to the application. Mr Cadd said that the main issue in delaying the determination of the application had been the issue of drainage at the site and under the rail line. He said that the applicant had worked hard to find a solution to the problem, with drainage colleagues and Network Rail, which had now been achieved. Mr Cadd said that further investigations were required regarding the issue of contamination at the proposed site. He said the application was in accordance with policies 4, 5, 6 22, 33, 34, 38, 39 and 41 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and it was recommended that the application be deferred back to the Assistant Director of Regeneration to allow for the signing of the section 106 agreement.

Mr Chaytor spoke as the agent for the application. Mr Chaytor read out a statement from the applicant Mr Punian. Mr Chaytor read that this was the second application that Mr Singh and Mr Punian had submitted to the local authority, and they were anxious to build more homes in Stallingborough. Mr Chaytor read that the application was for twenty houses and that they had taken the advice of the planning officers, highways officers and the flood risk team and had amended the scheme to address their concerns and the concerns of the local community. Mr Chaytor read that the council officers believed that the scheme addressed their concerns and residents’ concerns and had recommended approval.

Mr Chaytor said that throughout the process, he had, had good relations with officers who had put forward useful recommendations such as the amendment to include bungalows to deal with neighbour concerns. Mr Chaytor stated that the proposed development had taken time and was well thought out. He asked committee members to approve the application. Mr Chaytor said that the site was allocated for development, and this was the applicant’s second development in North East Lincolnshire and they wanted to continue developing but had taken time to do it properly by consulting with officers and the public.

Councillor Hudson said that it was a low-density development and ticked all the boxes. He said that he thought the bungalow was a good idea. Councillor Hudson proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Dawkins said that he agreed with Councillor Hudson. He seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Shutt stated that it was nice to hear that the developer had taken time to get the development right. He said that he was happy to support the proposal of approval.

Councillor Goodwin said that she was happy with the development. She asked whether the section 106 agreement had been agreed with the applicant.

Mr Cadd said that the applicant had put forward heads of terms for the s106 that meet policy requirements and that it was fully anticipated that the applicant would agree to the actual section 106 legal agreement.

Councillor Goodwin asked what would happen if the section 106 agreement was not signed.

Mr Cadd stated that the application would then be brought back before the Planning Committee for consideration.

Councillor Parkinson said that he was familiar with the site. He queried the statement in the report that the applicant had submitted a noise assessment but that there needed to be further reports to identify specific measures for each plot.

Mr Cadd said that the applicant had submitted an acoustic document which was acceptable in overall terms but that specific details and materials for each dwelling/ garden would need to be considered through a condition.

Councillor Parkinson stated that it was a nice scheme.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions subject to the signing of a S106 agreement.

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

Ms Hattle Fitzgerald left the meeting at this point.

Item 3 – DM/0099/24/CND – Ash Holt Waithe Lane Brigsley

Mr Limmer introduced the application and explained that it sought to discharge condition six pursuant to DM/0447/23/FUL. Mr Limmer stated that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to the number of objections received. He explained that condition six related to a construction management plan which had now been provided. Mr Limmer said that the application was to discharge a condition and the Planning Committee was not to consider the principle of the development as this was already established under the original planning permission. Mr Limmer said that the proposed number and types of vehicles was expected for the specific development and the hours for deliveries were considered acceptable as was the proposed parking provision. He said that there had been no objections from the council’s highways officer in regard to the Construction Traffic Management Plan, but concerns had been raised by neighbours. Mr Limmer stated that the construction management plan was acceptable and therefore it was recommended that the discharge of condition six be approved.

Ms Sutcliffe spoke in objection to the application. She said that she was speaking on behalf of a group of residents. Ms Sutcliffe stated that in regard to road safety, there is a sign on the A16 which indicated that Thoroughfare Lane and Waithe Lane are unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles. She said that the weight limit of this unclassified single track country lane (originally built for horse and carts) was unknown. Ms Sutcliffe stated that the Lincolnshire side of the lane was in a dreadful condition. She said that the weight limit of the small bridge was also unknown. Ms Sutcliffe said that she had been told by a CPC transport adviser that no HGVs should use the road or bridge until the weight limits were officially clarified otherwise serious structural damage could be caused to both the road and bridge which could take years to repair. Ms Sutcliffe said that from Louth Road, there were eight right angle bends. She said that the forty steel beams to be delivered were 37.5ft long and the lane was 9ft long which would leave only four inches either side. Ms Sutcliffe said that due to their enormous weight, the HGVs would be unable to go off road when they meet oncoming vehicles. She stated that the weights and dimensions of the HGV vehicles had not been provided. Ms Sutcliffe said that during the construction phase, there would be at least sixty-eight HGVs plus soil removal vehicles. She said that each lorry would drive two miles there and two miles back, totalling at least 136 trips down a country lane which was already at full capacity. Ms Sutcliffe said that there would be significant damage caused to the lane and it would have a detrimental impact on other road users. Ms Sutcliffe said that the likelihood of accidents occurring would increase. Ms Sutcliffe said that last month an incident occurred when a fully loaded HGV came through the village during rush hour time and veered off the road onto the verge at the bend, close to the applicant’s house, cutting a power cable and blocking the road for four – five hours. Ms Sutcliffe said that the Project Manager Councillor Pettigrew was present at the scene and would have been aware that this delivery was being done prior to any Construction Traffic Management Plan being agreed. She said that four hours later, a heavy duty recovery truck arrived through the village and was unable to pass the HGV and had to reverse down through the village and find an alternative route. Ms Sutcliffe stated that the incident caused damage to several neighbours’ trees and verges in the village. Ms Sutcliffe said that fortunately no one was hurt. She stated that the rules had been breached on previous occasions and no action was taken by the Council. Ms Sutcliffe explained that since the pandemic, there had been an ever increasing number of visitors to Brigsley using the lane for recreational purposes. She said that many walkers and cyclists used the NEL cycle route but as there were no footpaths, extreme caution was needed when meeting traffic. Ms Sutcliffe stated that the development was a large-scale commercial development in a residential area, and the two were not compatible. She said that the construction traffic was only the beginning as there would be more vans and lorries arriving to fit out the structure and service the enterprise. Ms Sutcliffe stated that the development was incompatible with the village. She asked committee members to refuse the application.

Ms Bonner spoke as the agent for the application. She said that planning permission had previously been granted for the development of the indoor school last year. Ms Bonner said that despite the numerous objections, the discharge condition was not about whether planning permission should be granted or not. Ms Bonner stated that there were two options available in order to access the site. She explained that you could access the site through the village of Brigsley or through the A16. Ms Bonner said that the parish council had made it clear, they didn’t want the site to be accessed by going through the village. Ms Bonner said that the submitted Construction Traffic Management Plan proposed that HGV’s access the site from the A16. She said that measures would be in place to make sure the site was not accessed by going through the village. Ms Bonner stated that the council’s highways officer had been consulted and had not objected to the plan. Ms Bonner said that council officers had received an email from suppliers confirming they will be delivering the materials using the specified route. Ms Bonner said that it was understood that an HGV had accessed the site prior to the Construction Traffic Management Plan being in place. She said that she apologised that this had occurred, but it did reinforce the need for a Construction Traffic Management Plan to be in place to ensure it would not happen again. Ms Bonner said that the issue with the power supply was due to an unrelated issue and had only temporarily affected the applicant’s electric. She stated that the proposed plan was the most suitable way for the development to go ahead. Ms Bonner said that the council’s planning officers and highways officer were in agreement with the plan. She said that if the Construction Traffic Management Plan was not approved, then the only other option would be for the vehicles to go through the village which no one wanted. Ms Bonner asked committee members to approve the application and allow works on the development which already had planning permission to commence. 

Councillor Jackson spoke as the Ward Councillor for the Waltham Ward. He said that he was speaking against the application. Councillor Jackson said that he could not recall a time previously where a Construction Traffic Management Plan had received objections and therefore had to be brought before the Planning Committee. He said that that showed the strength of feeling residents had in regard to the plan. Councillor Jackson stated that Ms Sutcliffe had set out the case clearly as to why the application should be refused. Councillor Jackson said that the incident that had occurred in the previous month when a vehicle had tried to access the site had been a disaster. He said that he would like to see some action taken in regard to that. Councillor Jackson stated that no plan was in place at that time and it should not have happened. He said that the vehicle blocked the lane and got stuck in the grass verge and a tow vehicle had to be called. Councillor Jackson said that what happened was a precursor of what would happen if HGV’s were going to be accessing the site. Councillor Jackson said that planning officers had said that accessing the site through the A16 was acceptable, but it was not as there is a sign saying the A16 was not suitable. Councillor Jackson stated that planning permission had been granted for the development, which was in his view the wrong decision. He said that access problems were mentioned at the time the application was being considered. Councillor Jackson said that just because the Planning Committee had approved the development, it did not mean they had to rubber stamp approve the Construction Traffic Management Plan. He said that he hoped committee members would look at the application as a separate application and refuse the plan.

Councillor Lindley said that he agreed with Councillor Jackson in that the Planning Committee should not rubber stamp approval any application just because initial planning permission was given. He said that had the Planning Committee been aware of this information when considering the initial application, the outcome could have been different. Councillor Lindley stated that he was not sure what the answer was as there was two access roads, both of which were unsuitable. He said that he was against the vehicles going through the village and the alternative road was also not appropriate and it had a sign outlining that it was not suitable. Councillor Lindley said that this issue should have been considered when the initial planning application was considered. He reiterated that neither road was suitable. Councillor Lindley proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor Hudson said that committee members were responsible for the current situation. He said that Councillor Jackson and residents had raised concerns at the time when the initial planning application was considered but the committee was assured by the Highways Department that it would be okay. He said that the fact the barn had been built meant that it can be done. Councillor Hudson said that the lane was dreadful but he was not sure what could be done. He said that he felt incredibly sorry for the residents, but we are where we are. Councillor Hudson said that any damage caused should be the responsibility of the applicant. He said that the incident that occurred should not have happened and better management was needed. He said that the route proposed was the route as the other one couldn’t be used. Councillor Hudson said that traffic would need to be stopped to allow lorries through but not sure how that would work. He said that if the application was refused, he was not sure what the solution would be. Councillor Hudson stated that he thought additional measures needed to be considered such as having someone escort the vehicles or having road closure conditions.

Mr Brockbank said that they were potential options that could be considered. He said that a previous Construction Traffic Management Plan for a previous application had involved the same route, and at that time it hadn’t been necessary to have extra conditions. He explained that no resident objections had been raised to the proposed route or Construction Traffic Management Plan as part of the previous application. Mr Brockbank said that, that Construction Traffic Management Plan had worked well and that there were no reported incidents.

The Chair asked if there had been any weight testing in relation to the bridge.

Mr Brockbank stated that as far as he was aware there hadn’t been any.

Councillor Dawkins said that if any damage was done to the bridge, the costs would come to the Council. He said that he wouldn’t want to drive an HGV on that road. Councillor Dawkins said that the road was unsuitable for HGV’s as the sign stated and the sign was there for a reason. He seconded the proposal of refusal.

Mr Brockbank stated that the sign was an advisory sign and present at either end of Thoroughfare. He explained that the HGV’s would only be using an initial short, straight 450m section of Thoroughfare, before proceeding on to Waithe Lane.  

Councillor Dawkins stated that when the road was constructed and the bridge put in, it would not have been constructed to be used by HGV’s.

Councillor Batson said that he was not sure why the Planning Committee were considering a Construction Traffic Management Plan.

Mr Limmer clarified that usually Construction Traffic Management Plans are decided under delegated powers but the specific plan had attracted objections and therefore it was a Planning Committee decision.

Councillor Shutt said that he felt for the residents, but the committee had made a decision at a previous meeting to allow the development to have planning permission. He said that the committee had allowed part A of the process which was granting planning permission and now there was part B which was the development being built. Councillor Shutt said that he thought the lorry accessing the site before a plan was agreed was human error but nevertheless should not have happened. He said that he believed the Planning Committee made the right decision at the previous meeting and would make the right decision now. He said that he would support the application.

Councillor Hudson said that the sign stated that the road was unsuitable for HGV’s not impossible. He said that Waithe Lane was the tricky part and that Thoroughfare Lane was not. Councillor Hudson said that he would like to see a condition added that there was to be an escort present to stop people until the lorries had gone. He said that he was not sure what would happen next if the application was refused.

Councillor Lindley said that it was not for the Planning Committee to put forward suggestions and that they were to consider the application that had been submitted. He said that there were two ways to access the site, and neither were suitable. Councillor Lindley referred to photos included in the supplementary agenda and said that the potholes in the road would not be filled anytime soon.

Mr Limmer stated that the sign near the road was an advisory sign. He explained that Waithe Lane was not subject to a Traffic Regulation Order and therefore HGV’s can drive down there.

The Chair proposed deferral to allow for further discussions to take place.

Councillor Hudson asked whether he could propose conditions.

Councillor Goodwin said that she agreed with Councillor Hudson.

Councillor Parkinson said that the Planning Committee made the decision to approve the initial planning application, and he now found it difficult the idea of them refusing the Construction Traffic Management Plan. He said that surely the loads could be split so they would not be so heavy. Councillor Parkinson asked whether a weight limit could be included as a condition.

The Chair said that he was not sure how that could be enforced.

Mr Limmer said that the number of deliveries being made was not particularly high.

Councillor Holland said that the Planning Committee should vote on the application as it was. He said that the proposed plan was not robust enough and that the Highways Department should liaise with the applicant and come up with a plan. Councillor Holland said that he thought better methods could be implemented that would alleviate some of the problems. He stated that he would support the proposal of deferral.

Councillor Shutt asked whether Waithe Lane was an adopted road.

Mr Limmer responded that it was adopted where the road was within the authority’s boundary. He said that the other part of the road was under Lincolnshire Country Council’s remit.

Councillor Shutt suggested that Ward Councillors liaise with officers about having the roads repaired. He said that it was important that a way forward was found.

Councillor Goodwin said that she agreed with Councillor Hudson about a condition to have an escort present. She seconded the proposal of deferment to allow for more consultation.

Mr Limmer said that conditions cannot be added to an application to discharge an existing condition. He said that the application would have to be deferred to allow for amendments.

Councillor Dawkins said that the Planning Committee was to vote on the application as it was.

The committee took a vote to refuse the application and upon a vote, 3 voted for and 8 voted against.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred.

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

Ms Hattle Fitzgerlad returned to the meeting at this point.

Councillor Batson left the meeting at this point.

Councillor Goodwin left the meeting at this point.  

Councillor Parkinson left the meeting at this point.

Item 4 – DM/0117/24/FULA – 7 Pamela Road Immingham

Mr Limmer introduced the application and explained that it sought retrospective planning permission for the erection of a 1.8-metre-high fence. Mr Limmer stated that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to an objection from Immingham Town Council.  He said that the site was located within the development boundary for Immingham and policy five does not preclude fence being built. Mr Limmer stated that the development was acceptable in principle. He said that the fence was prominent within the street scene but was not considered to have had a detrimental effect to the character of the area. Mr Limmer stated that no neighbour objections had been received in relation to the application and it was not deemed that the fence was detrimental to neighbouring amenities. Mr Limmer said that the council’s highways officer, drainage officer, heritage officer and environmental health officer had raised no objections to the application. He said that the fence was of a reasonable size, scale and appearance. Mr Limmer said that the application was in accordance with policies 5 and 22 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Councillor Hudson said that officers found the application acceptable, and that people are entitled to privacy. He proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Lindley seconded the proposal to approve the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

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

Councillor Parkinson returned to the meeting at this point.

P.78           LOCAL IMPACT PLAN

The committee received a report from the Executive Director of Environment, Economy and Infrastructure regarding the Immingham Green Energy Terminal development.

The committee were given the opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification on any matters.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P.79          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 February 2024 – 14th March 2024

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P.80           PLANNING APPEALS

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

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P.81           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.82           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 12:28pm.