Planning Committee Minutes – 31st January 2024

Present:       

Councillor Pettigrew (in the Chair)

Councillors Batson, Aisthorpe, Croft, Goodwin, Hasthorpe, Holland, Lindley, Parkinson and Shutt.

Officers in attendance:

• Hannah Steer (Solicitor)   
• Sophie Pickerden (Committee Support Officer)
• Martin Dixon (Planning Manager)
• Bethany Loring (Town Planner)
• Lara Hattle-Fitzgerald (Senior Highway Development Control Officer)
• Adam Brockbank (Highway Development Control Officer)

There were 10 members of the public present and one member of the press.

P.61           APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received for this meeting from Councillor Hudson.

P.62           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest declared.

P.63           DEPOSITED PLANS AND APPLICATIONS

Item 1 – DM/1088/23/FUL – Thorpe Park Holiday Camp, Anthonys Bank Road, Humberston

Ms Loring introduced the application and explained that it sought prior approval permission to erect a 23.14m mast and associated ancillary equipment. Ms Loring said that the mast and all cabinets would be painted green. She explained that it had been determined that the development needed prior approval. Ms Loring stated that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to the number of objections received including a petition of 65 signatures and an objection from Humberston Village Council. Ms Loring explained that policy 35 of the local plan supported proposals for telecommunications development across the borough and set out criteria for permitting such development. Ms Loring said that the mast should be appropriate in terms of siting and appearance and should not detract from the character of the area. She stated that it was also required that the applicant demonstrate a sequential approach when selecting the proposed site in order to show that the development could not be accommodated elsewhere with less visual intrusion or on an existing building, mast or on a site that already had telecommunications equipment. Ms Loring said that the applicant had demonstrated that they had taken a sequential approach and had provided a supplementary statement which outlined why the site had been chosen. She said that the applicant had outlined that the nature of the 5G network meant that more new masts were needed for areas that were not covered and this was the case with the holiday park. Ms Loring said that the applicant had also proposed a central location for the mast in order to provide the best connection for the entire site and all of the occupiers. She said that the applicant had also stated that they had not been able to identify nearby sites that would be suitable or any nearby existing masts that they could use. Ms Loring stated that the application was therefore acceptable in principle and the proposed location of the mast was sequentially acceptable. Ms Loring explained that the applicant had provided the necessary statement from the Internal Commission of Non-Ionising Radiation Protection confirming that the telecommunications infrastructure individually and cumulatively accorded with the international emissions limit. She said that the Planning Committee could only consider the application on planning grounds and not on need for electronic communications systems. Ms Loring said that the proposed mast would not be slimline and instead would be wider but was a monopole design. She explained that the mast would be close to the mature trees on the site which would help to camouflage the mast even though the mast would be larger in height. Ms Loring said that some concerns had been raised by objectors citing the impact the mast would have on the Humberston Fitties Conservation Area, however, it was considered that the separation distance was adequate. Ms Loring said that whilst the mast would be visible it was not considered that it would detract from the character of the area or cause adverse visual impacts to the conservation area. Ms Loring stated that the council’s highways officer and ecology officer had raised no objections to the application. She explained that the proposed mast would be sited away from neighbours and there would be significant separation distance. Ms Loring stated that there would therefore be no issues such as massing or overshadowing. She said that the council’s environmental health team had also raised no objections to the application. Ms Loring stated that it was therefore recommended that prior approval be granted.

Mr Draper spoke in objection to the application. He said that the public relied on its elected councillors to represent them. Mr Draper said that the current application was not the first application of its kind and would not be the last. Mr Draper said that he wished to remind committee members of their duties. He said that the masts were harmful to humans, wildlife and birds. Mr Draper stated that the committee should consider what they want their legacy to be. Mr Draper said that there was no need for the technology and that the specific area was a beautiful area and the mast would stand out. He stated that the masts would have a detrimental impact on people’s health and would not bring peace and calm to the area. Mr Draper reiterated that elected representatives have a responsibility to represent the public.

Councillor Batson said the 5G network was only good in open air as it could not pass through trees, walls or caravans. He said that the 5G network was an open-air system and that further masts in the future would be needed to boost the proposed mast. Councillor Batson said that this would mean having small masts all over. He stated that everyone was still waiting on a report from the World Health Organisation regarding masts. Councillor Batson said that there would also be a public exclusion zone and he was not sure why that was the case if there were no health concerns. He said that he would be voting against the application.

Councillor Croft said that the application was a difficult one to consider, but it was important to note that communications were evolving, and people did want 5G. She said that she would listen to the rest of the debate.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that the proposed mast was not going to be slimline and would be wide and taller than the mature trees it would be near. She said that she did not think the proposal aligned with the local plan. Councillor Aisthorpe said that policy 35 of the local plan outlined that the mast should not detract from the area. She stated that the proposed mast would stick out like a sore thumb in the area. Councillor Aisthorpe said that she would not be supporting the application. 

Councillor Lindley said that he appreciated the concerns raised by residents as the proposed mast would stick out like a sore thumb particularly the top section. Councillor Lindley queried how companies decided where to put the masts as he was not convinced that the proposed location was the best place. He said that he did not think having a mast in the specific location was in keeping with the rest of area. Councillor Lindley said more evidence was needed as there was no firm evidence that the masts were harmful. He stated that technology did progress, but it was important that the masts be placed in sensible locations. Councillor Lindley said that he was reluctant to support a mast of the proposed height in the specified location. He said that he did not like the application and thought that what it would contribute would be minimal. Councillor Lindley proposed that the application be refused.

Mr Dixon said that need was not something the Planning Committee could consider. He said that the issue around health was also not a consideration against the proposal and reference was made to national planning advice. Mr Dixon stated that the applicant had provided a statement in which they had outlined why the proposed site was selected.

Councillor Goodwin asked whether the proposed mast would be higher than the one approved for Wybers Way.

Mr Dixon said that it would be as the one for Great Coates Road was more like 15 metres in height.

Councillor Goodwin stated that she thought the proposed mast would be intrusive.

Councillor Holland said that the mast would be twice the height of the trees. He said that it would have a visual impact and that he thought it was the wrong location for the mast. Councillor Holland seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that whilst residents were against the proposed location, they didn’t seem to be completely against it altogether just the location.

Councillor Shutt said that the committee could only consider the application in planning terms. He said that a statement was provided by the applicant which said that they had looked at other locations but there were none. Councillor Shutt said that he thought it would better if the applicant went away and considered other sites. He said that he would not be supporting the application in its current form. Councillor Shutt said that other options needed to be considered.

Councillor Parkinson said that the proposed mast was of a colossal size, and it would be seen no matter what colour it was painted. He said scientifically there was no evidence of any health issues regarding the masts. Councillor Parkinson said that he thought the public exclusion zone was there for safety purposes and keeping people away from the mast. He stated that he did not like the application. Councillor Parkinson asked whether the applicant could appeal any decision.

Mr Dixon said that the applicant could appeal any decision made by the Planning Committee.

Councillor Lindley said that the location of any proposed mast needed to be the right one. He said that just because the mast was proposed to be located outside of the conservation area, that did not mean it would not have an impact on it. Councillor Lindley stated that conservation areas were there for a reason.

Councillor Goodwin said that she thought the mast could be better located at the back of the holiday park.

The Chair said that if the applicant wanted to propose a new location for a mast, then he would have to submit a new application. He reminded Planning Committee members that they had to consider the application as it was.

Councillor Batson said that the reason the mast was to be so high, was it needed to be taller than the trees. He said that the signal could only travel 1km and that further smaller masts would be needed to increase the distance of that signal.

Mr Dixon sought clarification on the reasons for refusal. He asked Councillor Lindley and Councillor Holland to confirm it was visual intrusion, impact on character of the area and the impact on the setting of the Conservation Area.

Councillor Lindley and Councillor Holland confirmed the reasons as stated.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused.

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

Item 2 – DM/0353/23/CND – Land Off (Kia Cars), North Moss Lane, Stallingborough

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought to discharge a condition included in a planning appeal which had been allowed. Mr Dixon said that it was regarding condition one which related to the lighting units on the columns. Mr Dixon stated that the application had been called in by Councillor Stewart Swinburn. Mr Dixon explained that an enforcement notice had been served previously as the lighting at the time had caused a nuisance to neighbours. He said that the lighting columns were allowed on appeal but with the condition that the lightning only be switched on or operated once a scheme had been agreed with the local planning authority which reduced the impact of the lighting to the neighbouring residential properties. Mr Dixon said that following concerns raised by neighbours, the applicant had provided further lighting detail and mitigation. He explained that the updated information had been reviewed by the council’s environmental health team who had determined that the levels proposed would not cause detrimental harm to neighbouring residential properties amenities. Mr Dixon said that the council’s highways officer had raised no objection to the application based on the proposed mitigation. Mr Dixon said that the council’s ecology officer had also raised no objection to the application. Mr Dixon stated that the proposal was considered acceptable, and it was therefore recommended that the discharge of the condition be approved on the basis that the lights be installed in accordance with the detail provided. 

Mr Clawson spoke as the agent for the application. He said that planning permission had been granted for the columns with the condition that the lighting be agreed with the local planning authority. Mr Clawson said that he had worked with planning officers and had designed a scheme that would not negatively impact residents. He said that neighbouring residents had raised concerns about a particular light which had subsequently been de-commissioned. Mr Clawson said that in doing so he hoped that brought some comfort to neighbouring residents. He stated that the applicant was keen to continue to invest and create jobs in the area. Mr Clawson asked committee members to support the application and vote in accordance with the planning officer’s recommendation. He said that this would allow the site personal safety.

Miss Pickerden read out a statement on behalf of a ward councillor for the Immingham Ward, Councillor Stewart Swinburn.

Councillor Swinburn wrote in his statement that he was disappointed with the way that Kia Cars had conducted themselves throughout the application process. He wrote that they had disregarded planning advice by erecting lighting that was not on the original application, and then submitting a retrospective application. Councillor Swinburn felt that no consideration had been given for their neighbours by allowing the lights to transmit bright lighting into the resident’s property, even after planning enforcement had instructed them to stop this process. He wrote that this had been ongoing for the last three years. Committee members would see from the photographs submitted from residents that the company had been carrying on with the disregard of the community as recently as the last two weeks, only to say in response that they had been trialling the lighting system. He wrote in his statement that this was not the way that a major company like Kia Cars should be operating. Councillor Swinburn hoped the Planning Committee would take all the concerns into account when making a decision and make it clear to the company that this sort of activity was not acceptable and that the care of the residents should come first above everything else. He wrote that the type of lighting and positioning was having a detrimental impact on resident’s lives, the habitat, and the environment. Councillor Swinburn hoped the Planning Committee would see how this was having an impact on the lives of the residents to a point that it needed addressing urgently. Councillor Swinburn believed Mr Limmer had recently received a letter from a resident that said that Kia Cars was still pointing the lights outwards onto her property and land and was also pointing the lights onto the bird sanctuary and the main road.

Councillor Batson said that he thought it was a bad lighting design and not something he would support. He stated that the design spilled too much light into the environment. Councillor Batson said that it was important to consider the effect the lighting was having on people as it was affecting people’s wellbeing. He said that the lightning design made no sense in having blue lighting emanating from the site onto the bird sanctuary. Councillor Batson said that he had previous experience of doing lighting designs and there had been no spillages in those cases. He stated that it was a poor design that was affecting the people nearby and the wildlife. Councillor Batson said that he was disappointed that there were no comments received from the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

Mr Dixon said that enforcement action was originally taken, and an enforcement notice was served on the applicant based on information from the council’s lighting experts. Mr Dixon explained that the applicant appealed this, and the inspector allowed it on the basis that the structure did not cause intrusion. He said that the inspector allowed the structure but with the condition that an acceptable lightning scheme be agreed. Mr Dixon said that a lot of work had gone into the application and that the technical advice now received was that the proposed lighting scheme was acceptable. Mr Dixon stated that were the lighting to cause issues, then enforcement action would be taken again.

Councillor Batson said that the lighting did not need to leave the site, the scheme had just been designed badly. He said that were the lanterns to be changed, then the scheme would be better. Councillor Batson stated that he sympathised with the residents affected.

Councillor Lindley said that it had been acknowledged that the original lighting scheme was not acceptable, but changes had now been proposed. He said that the applicant was trying and that it might be the case, that no matter the lighting scheme, it might not make everyone happy. Councillor Lindley stated that Kia Cars was a business which supported the local economy and there had been no technical objections received regarding the application.

Councillor Lindley said that he thought the applicant had done what they could and had satisfied planning officers and organisations. He said that he would listen to the rest of debate but was minded to support the application.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that the current lighting was not appropriate. She said that there were no technical objections to the current application and if the applicant was to go against the proposed scheme if approved, then enforcement action would be taken. She stated that the new scheme should minimise the effects on residents.

The Chair said that light thirteen had been deactivated.

Councillor Holland said that there were no objections from the experts, but Councillor Batson also had experience and had raised some concerns. Councillor Holland said that he thought the decision should be deferred to allow for more time to consider the proposed scheme. He said that once it was done it was done so it needed to be the right lighting scheme. Councillor Holland said that he would also like the Planning Committee to have the opportunity to see the lighting at night and its impact. He said as Councillor Batson had said that the lighting could be kept on the site with no spillage, then that should be looked at as that would be in everyone’s interest. Councillor Holland proposed that the application be deferred.

The Chair said that a site visit could be tricky as the current lighting at the site was not the proposed scheme and he wasn’t sure how difficult it was to change it to the proposed scheme to show the Planning Committee.

Councillor Holland stated that he thought deferring the application was the correct way forward to allow for further consultation.  

Councillor Goodwin said that she thought that it had been mentioned that the applicant had been trialling the system so they might be able to show Planning Committee members what it would be like. She seconded the proposal to defer the application.

The Chair said that the current lighting at the site would continue to effect residents and that the lighting scheme proposed hoped to change that.

Councillor Shutt said that it would be useful for the Planning Committee to see the new lighting scheme so we could see if the neighbours were affected. He said that he was happy to support approving the application if a condition was added that it complied and that the Planning Committee could go and see the lighting.

The Chair said that the issue of compliance was an issue for planning enforcement.

Councillor Shutt asked whether planning officers could review the lighting once it had been changed to the new scheme.

Mr Dixon said that the application might have to be deferred if that’s what the Planning Committee wanted as he would have to see how it could be reviewed. He said that conditions could not be added to the application as it was a different type of application than a standard full planning application. Mr Dixon stated that it was important that committee members be clear on the reasons for the proposed deferment. He added that consultation for the application had already taken place.

Councillor Lindley said that he thought deferring the application would not offer much value. He said that he thought it was kicking a can down the road and that the Planning Committee should make a decision. Councillor Lindley said that he understood concerns raised that the mitigation might not be enough, but he thought the lighting scheme that was being proposed was reasonable.

Councillor Aisthorpe queried whether, if the application was approved as is and there were subsequent problems, how could it be enforced.

Mr Dixon said that if the scheme did not accord with what was proposed, then the planning enforcement officers would look into it. Mr Dixon stated that lighting was also now part of the Environmental Protection Act if it was causing a statutory nuisance.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that she would support the application. She said that it was important to see how the new scheme was going to be and if there were issues of spillages, then there were methods of enforcement to deal with it.

The Chair said that he thought deferment further prolonged the issue for neighbours. He said that if the application was approved, then the process of adjusting the lights could begin.

Councillor Holland referred to the wording in the condition from the Inspector that the local authority had to approve the scheme. He said that he was unsure how the local authority could enforce against a scheme it had approved if there were still issues of spillage. Councillor Holland said that he thought deferral would give the applicant and the relevant officers time to re-consider.  

Councillor Parkinson said that it was a rather unusual application to consider as it was proposing a theoretical solution to a problem, and we didn’t know that it would work. He queried how effective planning enforcement would be if the lighting scheme was not as officers expected. Councillor Parkinson said that he thought it was a shame that so much lighting was required for a few cars.

Mr Dixon said that lighting was a commonality and that planning officers had to listen to the technical advisors, and they had determined the proposed scheme was acceptable. Mr Dixon said that if the new scheme did not come out as expected, then it would not be in accordance with the condition and enforcement action would follow.

Councillor Batson stated that if the applicant changed the lantern, the scheme would be better. He said that the proposed new scheme would not get rid of the light spillages.

The committee took a vote on the proposal of deferral and upon a vote, voted 3 for and 7 against.

Councillor Shutt proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Lindley seconded the proposal to approve the application.

RESOLVED – That the conditions are complied with.

(Note – the committee voted 7 for and 3 against for the application to be approved.)

Item 3 – DM/0928/23/FUL Land Rear Of 37 – 39 Peaks Avenue, New Waltham

Ms Loring introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to erect a detached bungalow to include a driveway/parking area to the front with associated works. Ms Loring stated that the application had been bought before the Planning Committee due to a call in from Councillor Harness and Councillor Shreeve. She said that there had been some support from neighbours for the application as well as neighbours objecting, and an objection had been received from New Waltham Parish Council. Ms Loring stated that the proposed site was vacant and located within the development area of New Waltham. Ms Loring explained that the area was predominantly residential and that the proposed site bordered the rear of properties on Peaks Avenue. Ms Loring said that the proposed site used to have a tree on it which was subject to a tree preservation order. She explained that the tree was felled without permission and subsequent enforcement action was taken with the outcome being that a replacement tree be planted in a position which was considered acceptable. Ms Loring said that the original tree had had a significant impact on the area with the canopy spreading to 12m. She stated that the new tree needed time to grow and establish to scale to a similar size of the previous tree. Ms Loring explained that consideration must therefore be given to the tree when considering development. She said that it was important to consider any future pressure on the tree as a result of development and the impact the tree would have on those that would occupy the proposed bungalow development. Ms Loring stated that the council’s trees and woodlands officer had reviewed the details of the application and had concluded that the development would impact the ability of the replacement tree to fully establish, and it would be difficult for this to managed. Ms Loring said that nothing within the application demonstrated the growing conditions that would be around the cedar tree would be acceptable. She said that a tree planting plan had been included within the application which detailed some measures that would be put in place, but this had not provided the reassurance that the tree could successfully establish and develop. Ms Loring stated that the tree would dominate the proposed development which would cause anxiety for future occupiers and cause a loss of light. Ms Loring said that the tree could also be an inconvenience and a nuisance to future occupiers, and it was important to consider this when looking at developing the site. She explained that there was also the chance that the tree would be felled in the future if the issues the tree causes to residents, or a dwelling become to severe. Ms Loring explained that removal of the tree would be significant and would be detrimental to the character of the area. She stated that it was considered that development was therefore not justified due to the impacts on the tree. Ms Loring said that the design of the proposed dwelling would fit the character of the area and the materials proposed to be used would present a modern contemporary design which would include features that would reflect the existing character of the area. She explained that the application also included sufficient outside space including a driveway for parking. Ms Loring said that whilst the objection from the parish council was noted, the access had been deemed to be acceptable by the council’s highways officer who had raised no objections to the application. She explained that the council’s drainage officer had also not objected to the application but had asked for conditions to be included with the application. Ms Loring said that the site was currently bound by fencing which would be retained. She explained that due to scale of the bungalow, it was considered acceptable in relation to the relationship with the layout with the immediate neighbours and all of the openings would be screened by the existing boundary treatments. Ms Loring stated that the side elevations of the bungalow would be adjacent to the side and rear elevations of the neighbour’s properties. She said that it was considered that the impact of these openings would not negatively affect the neighbour’s privacy or cause overlooking given the separation and layout of the properties and boundary treatments. Ms Loring said that the development would also not cause any massing due to its low height. Ms Loring explained that it was not considered that the proposed site could be developed without compromising the replacement tree which was subject to a tree preservation order. Ms Loring stated that the application was not in accordance with policies 5 and 42 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for refusal.

Mr Standland spoke as the applicant for the application. He said that he was wanting to build a bungalow for himself to move into. Mr Standland stated that he had kept the land tidy and had appointed a garden service company. He said that they had felled the tree as it was leaning to one side. Mr Standland explained that the matter had been fully investigated. Mr Standland said that both of the direct neighbours supported his application as previously there had been anti-social behaviour on the site.

Mr Nelson spoke as the agent for the application. He said that the initial plan had changed and that the plan was now to build a bungalow of a contemporary design. He said that the proposed development would uplift the area. Mr Nelson said that the reasons for refusal were very narrow issues. He stated that there had been no objections to the application from the council’s highways officer. Mr Nelson said that the bungalow had been designed in consultation with a tree consultant. Mr Nelson stated that he was unhappy with the recommendation by planning officers. He said that his own officer did not think that the tree would have a negative impact. Mr Nelson said that the tree would have to be managed. Mr Nelson stated that the objection from the parish council regarding highways had not been founded by the council’s own highways officer. He said that the plans were sensible and would enhance the area. Mr Nelson said that the applicant was willing to agree to conditions about the tree. Mr Nelson stated that if the site was to be left vacant, then it would be a nuisance to neighbours as it had been previously.

Councillor Parkinson said that he thought it seemed like the perfect infill spot with the only issue being the tree. He asked whether the tree could be moved forward. Councillor Parkinson said that it seemed a lot to refuse the application based on a tree. He stated that it was worth looking at the tree being moved in order to get around the objection.

The Chair stated that it thought it would be unfair to move the tree forwards as there was a garage close by. He said that he did not want the tree to affect the neighbours.

Councillor Lindley said that the issue was the tree, but he could not see any benefit of refusing the application. Councillor Lindley said that if everything was moved back it would not be in keeping with the area and would take up the space of the garden. He stated that he could not see any future proposals coming forward for the site. Councillor Lindley said that the flat roof would not be in keeping with the area. He said that the site as it was, was an eyesore and was subject to anti-social behaviour. Councillor Lindley stated that the applicant was trying to bring a site back into use and it felt like they were being punished because of the tree. Councillor Lindley said that he would listen to the rest of debate.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that she sympathised with the applicant. She stated that she liked the design of the bungalow, however, the tree was protected for good reason. Councillor Aisthorpe said that she was pleased to see planning officers thinking ahead and she did not want to see the tree cut down in the future. She said that she was minded to refuse the application.

Councillor Goodwin stated that she agreed with Councillor Aisthorpe. She proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor Holland said he did not understand why the new tree was not put back where the old tree used to be.

Ms Loring stated that the original tree was located further into the site and was more central.

Councillor Holland said that as the new tree was located at the edge of the plot, it would not have the same span as the original tree.

Ms Loring said that was not necessarily the case. She said that the intention was for the tree to flourish, be established and give back that amenity value to the area.

Councillor Holland asked how far the new tree was from the boundary.

Mr Standland said that it was 2 metres from the boundary.

Councillor Holland said that if it was closer to the boundary, then it would be hanging over it.

Mr Dixon said that the tree would need managing and the worry was that by building a bungalow, it would put too much pressure on the tree.

Councillor Holland said that he would support the proposal of refusing the application.

Councillor Lindley queried what the history of the site was and how it had evolved to its current state.

Mr Dixon said that there had been previous applications which had been refused.

Councillor Shutt said that he thought there were a lot of inconsistencies. He said that an officer had told the applicant to put the tree in its current location and now the application for a bungalow on the site was recommended for refusal. He said that a different tree could have been put on the site which would not be as established. Councillor Shutt said that whilst he did not want to reward a tree being cut down, he would like to see the space used. He stated that he was undecided about the application.

Councillor Parkinson said that people did manage with trees.

The Chair asked whether further work with the applicant would help.

Mr Dixon said that the applicant had done lots of work and had worked to respond to the issue. He said that the design of the bungalow was good but that it was a very difficult site. Mr Dixon said that the council’s trees and woodlands officer had raised an objection but there were no other issues with the application.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that it would be great if the site could be developed. She said that she would ask the applicant to get professional advice on whether the development could work in another way if it was refused by the Planning Committee.

Councillor Shutt said that he did not think the new tree was the right tree for the site. He asked whether the new tree could be moved to another site and a different appropriate tree be put onto the site, so it was not detrimental to the development in years to come.

The Chair said that was a good suggestion.

Councillor Lindley said that he agreed with Councillor Shutt. He said that the tree was the crux of the issue with the application. Councillor Lindley said that if the application was refused by the Planning Committee, it was his opinion that in time, it would be approved. He stated that eventually somebody would develop the site and the tree would have to become secondary. Councillor Lindley said that he acknowledged the value of the tree, but it should not dictate the future of the site. He said that the application could be approved with a condition that the new tree on the site was moved to an appropriate location.

The Chair said that the Planning Committee needed to consider the application as it was.

Councillor Holland seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

The Chair said that the applicant could re-consider the application and submit a new application if he wanted to.

Councillor Shutt asked if the Planning Committee could defer the application to allow the applicant time to re-consider.

The Chair said that he thought the application would need to come back through submitting a new application.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused.

(Note – the committee voted 7 for and 3 against for the application to be refused.)

Item 4 – DM/1126/23/FUL – Rear Of 99 Queens Parade, Cleethorpes

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it was a resubmission of a previous application which was to change the use of a garage to a self-contained dwelling. Mr Dixon explained that the application included alterations to windows and doors and the installation of boundary treatments. He said that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to a call in from Councillor Brookes. Mr Dixon said that there had been no objections to the application received from neighbours. He stated that the proposed site was located within the development boundary of Cleethorpes. Mr Dixon explained that the proposal had been previously submitted and refused under application DM/0327/23/FUL. Mr Dixon said that the structure that would be used for the proposed dwelling was already built and was currently a garage for the host dwelling. He said that it was located within a residential area and the principle of a residential dwelling being located in the specific area would not be out of character. Mr Dixon explained that the proposed dwelling would be small, would have a heavily overlooked garden area with limited windows which would not demonstrate good design for the amenity for future occupiers. He said that the size of the floor area would also not meet the minimum requirement under technical housing standards guidance. Mr Dixon said that the council’s highways officer had noted that there was a lack of parking in the area, however the proposed dwelling would be located nearby to sustainable transport links. Mr Dixon stated that the council’s highways officer had raised no objections but had requested conditions included with the application. Mr Dixon said that the proposed development would not cause any issues regarding massing or overshadowing as the structure was already built and approved. He explained that as the area was already a residential area, the change of use from a garage to a residential dwelling would have minimal negative impacts. Mr Dixon stated that there would also be no issues with overlooking. He said that the issue of size of the dwelling remained, and it was considered to be too small and would not be of a good design or an acceptable living space for future occupiers. Mr Dixon stated that the application was not in accordance with policies 5 and 22 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for refusal.

Mr Nelson spoke as the agent for the application. He said that the application was a change of use application to change a garage to a one-bedroom dwelling. Mr Nelson said that the development had been sympathetically constructed. He stated that the application followed an initially refused application. Mr Nelson said that amendments had been made. He said that the ground floor area was going to be used as a cycle storage unit but would now just be open. Mr Nelson said that the dressing area on the first floor had also been removed and was now solely a bedroom space. He explained that the rear window had been removed to mitigate any overlooking. Mr Nelson said that the issue of overlooking in the courtyard already occurred and was not any worse than what you would expect in an urban area. He said that the development would offer more of an affordable provision and that there had been no technical consultees objecting to the application. Mr Nelson said that some letters of support for the application had been received. He said that whilst the development was small, the overall floor area was 64.5 metres which exceeded the minimum standards. Mr Nelson stated that additional windows had been added to allow in plenty of natural light. He asked committee members to support the application.

Miss Pickerden read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Brookes, Ward Councillor for the Haverstoe Ward.

Councillor Brookes wrote in his statement that whilst the proposal may be small, it was adequate and fitted in with the locality providing much needed accommodation in the specific area of the borough.

Councillor Parkinson said that the application did include significant changes. He said that the minimum size for a dwelling was 58 square metres, and the proposed dwelling would be 64 square metres. Councillor Parkinson stated that the bedroom was also considerably larger. He said that the space was well utilised and the development when completed would be a nice small property. Councillor Parkinson proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Lindley stated that he had seen smaller properties than what was being proposed be approved. He said that he thought it was not right to refuse the application due to it the proposed dwelling being too small. Councillor Lindley said that the proposed dwelling would suit someone who lived on their own and would be affordable accommodation. He seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Holland said that he had looked at the planning history at the site and a self-contained dwelling had previously been refused. He said that the current application would not offer any improvements to the site. Councillor Holland stated that he would support the planning officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Shutt said that he was torn regarding the application. He said that he understood Councillor Lindley’s point that smaller dwellings had been approved.

Councillor Parkinson said that he thought the application did include significant improvements.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that she was undecided on the application. She queried the statement in the officer’s report that the development would be harmful to future occupiers.

Mr Dixon said that the statement referred to the issue of the size of the development and the overlooking of the garden space area.

Councillor Lindley said that he always took into consideration neighbour objections, but there hadn’t been any objections received for the application. He said that the surrounding residents saw no issue with the application.

The Chair stated that it was a quirky development and if someone didn’t like it, then they wouldn’t live there.

Councillor Holland asked what technical housing standards were.

Mr Dixon said that it was guidance on technical standards. He said that the local planning authority did not have a policy that outlined that a house should be of a certain size. Mr Dixon said that the applicant had said that the development went above the minimum size outlined in the technical housing standards guidance. He stated that he was not going to challenge that statement. Mr Dixon said that the main concerns with the application was the overlooking, and the amenities for future occupiers.

Councillor Shutt said that the Chair had made a good point, that the dwelling would be marketable to someone. He said that he would support the application.

Councillor Goodwin asked how big the courtyard space was and whether you could walk down the side of the dwelling.

The Chair said that he did not think it would be possible to walk down the side of the dwelling to get to the courtyard area.

Mr Dixon said that the courtyard space was 32 square feet.

Councillor Goodwin asked whether the development was safe.

The Chair said that you would enter the courtyard by going through the property. He said that terraced houses are similar in that way.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that she was going to support the application. She thanked committee members for scrutinising the development. Councillor Aisthorpe stated that it was up to an individual if they wanted to live there or not. She said that she understood the point Councillor Goodwin had raised about safety. Councillor Aisthorpe asked whether there would be an escape room.

Councillor Parkinson said that the development would be similar to terraced houses in that, they don’t always have a side exit.

Councillor Croft stated that she thought the space being used for accommodation was better than its current use as a garage.

Mr Dixon outlined conditions which could be added to the application were it to be approved.

Councillor Parkinson and Councillor Lindley agreed to the conditions being added.

Councillor Aisthorpe asked whether there was another exit in the case of a fire.

Mr Dixon said that that issue would be addressed through building regulations. He said that with the specific type of property, it was not usually an issue.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted 7 for and 3 against for the application to be approved.)

Councillor Parkinson left the meeting at this point.

Item 5 – DM/0108/23/FUL – 17 Tetney Road, Humberston

Mr Dixon introduced the retrospective application and explained that it sought permission to erect a single storey extension to the rear of an existing garage to create a garden room with flue. Mr Dixon said that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to an objection received from Humberston Village Council. Mr Dixon said that the site was located within the development boundary of Humberston. He said that the works had now been completed as the applicant had not initially known that he needed planning permission. Mr Dixon said that a site visit had taken place to look at the extension and the flue. He explained that as the extension was located at the rear of the host property and was also single storey, it was therefore considered to be sympathetic to the host property and the character of the area. Mr Dixon said that whilst the flue was higher, it was not considered to be overly dominant or detrimental to the character of the area. He stated that the council’s heritage officer had raised no objections to the application. Mr Dixon said that the site was located within a residential area and no neighbour objections had been received. He said that there were no issues of overlooking, massing or overshadowing. Mr Dixon explained that this was due to the extension being single storey and its location. He said that whilst there was a visual change in the outlook, it was not considered detrimental. Mr Dixon stated that the council’s drainage officer had recommended an informative relating to the drainage which would be added to the decision should permission be granted. Mr Dixon said that the application was in accordance with policies 5,22, 34 and 39 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval.

Councillor Hasthorpe proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Goodwin seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Lindley said that the development was consistent with other buildings that were in gardens.

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.

Item 6 – DM/1175/23/OUT – Ingleside, Waltham Road, Brigsley

Ms Loring introduced the outline application and explained that it sought permission to erect a dwelling with access to be considered to the rear. Ms Loring stated that the application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to an objection from Brigsley Parish Council. She said that the proposed site was located within a residential area in Brigsley and that the proposed site was currently used as a residential garden. Ms Loring explained that policy five did not prohibit residential developments within existing gardens when the site was within the development boundary. Ms Loring said that the proposed site was also not located within a high flood risk area and was therefore sequentially preferable for development. She explained that as the application was an outline application, only the principle of the development and access could be considered, whereas other matters, such as design and neighbouring amenity, would be considered at the reserved matters stage if outline planning permission was granted. Ms Loring said that the indicative details show that one dwelling could be accommodated within the site. She said that the development was acceptable in principle. Ms Loring stated that one dwelling being built on the proposed site would not be seen as out of character as Waltham Road was diverse in density, design and appearance. Ms Loring said that the existing access point at the proposed site would be extended with a new access point also being installed to the front boundary which would serve the host property. She said that the council’s highways officer had raised no objections to the application but had requested conditions be included as part of the application regarding construction management. Ms Loring stated that the council’s drainage officer had not objected to the application but had requested a condition be included as part of the application regarding surface water drainage. Ms Loring said that some of the low-quality trees on the site would have to be removed to allow for the development, but this had been agreed with the council’s trees and woodlands officer who had raised no objections to the application. She said that the council’s trees and woodlands officer has said he would need more information provided during the reserved matters stage to consider tree protection and would also require an Arboricultural Method Statement. Ms Loring stated that some of the neighbours have objected to the application. She said that a condition was recommended that the proposed dwelling be single storey in order to protect neighbours from overlooking and a loss of privacy. Ms Loring explained that the indicative layout showed the dwelling would be located centrally on the site which would prevent massing issues to neighbours as well as provide sufficient space for future occupiers. She said that the indicative layout showed that the dwelling could be built on the site and be sufficiently separated from neighbours with landscaping features included for additional screening. Ms Loring stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 22, 33, 34 and 42 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Mr Snowden spoke as the agent for the application. He said that when the pre-application was submitted, it received positive feedback. Mr Snowden stated that the design of the property would be considered at a later date. He said that the parish council had commented about the concerns neighbours had. Mr Snowden said that he had worked with planning officers to address the concerns raised and it had been agreed that the property be a bungalow. Mr Snowden said that the applicant agreed to condition four. He said that there were no technical objections to the application and that the application had been fully consulted by planning officers.

Councillor Lindley said that he was happy there was sufficient distance between the property and neighbouring properties. He said that he was pleased to see condition four had been agreed. Councillor Lindley proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Hasthorpe seconded the proposal of approving the application.

Councillor Parkinson said that the development would ft in with the area and he was happy to support the application.

Councillor Shutt said that he thought the concerns raised by objectors had mostly been addressed. He 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.)

P.64           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 15^th December 2023 – 17^th January 2024

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P.65           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.66           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.67           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 12.45pm.