Planning Committee Minutes – 4th October 2023
12:05 pm, Wednesday, 15th November 2023 - 6 months ago
Present:
Councillor Pettigrew (in the Chair)
Councillors Aisthorpe, Batson, Croft, Goodwin, Hasthorpe, Hudson, Holland, Lindley, Parkinson and Shutt.
Officers in attendance:
- Keith Thompson (Lead Solicitor)
- Sophie Pickerden (Committee Support Officer)
- Martin Dixon (Planning Manager)
- Bethany Loring (Senior Town Planner)
- Lara Hattle-Fitzgerald (Senior Highway Development Control Officer)
- Adam Brockbank (Highway Development Control Officer)
Others in attendance:
- Councillor Jackson (Waltham Ward Councillor)
There were 30 members of the public present and one member of the press.
P.32 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
No apologies were received for this meeting.
P.33 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Pettigrew declared a pecuniary interest in P.34 Item 2 DM/0447/23/FUL as he is employed by the applicant.
Ms Hattle-Fitzgerald said that she would leave the room for P.34 Item 2 as she was friends with the applicant.
P.34 DEPOSITED PLANS AND APPLICATIONS
Item 1 – DM/0825/23/FUL Plot 176 Humberston Fitties
Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to erect a holiday chalet with associated parking and boundary treatments. Mr Dixon stated that the application had been brought before the committee due to the number of objections received and an objection from Humberston Village Council. Mr Dixon said that the plot was located within the defined resort area in the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan. He said that Policy 12 supported tourism related development. Mr Dixon said that the site was a well-established holiday chalet park. He explained that the application should be judged as a new build, but that acknowledgement should be given to a previous application granted by Cleethorpes Borough Council which allowed continued use of the land at the Humberston Fitties for holiday purposes in a 1992 permission, which included the plot. Mr Dixon said that legal counsel was sought by the Council regarding a previous application at Plot 80 in relation to the 1992 permission and this had confirmed that in planning terms, holiday purposes could include the use of land for the siting of a caravan which had been referenced within the application. Mr Dixon stated that with that information considered, the application was acceptable in principle. He explained that the proposed site was located within a high flood risk area. He said that, due to that, both the Sequential Test and Exceptions Test had been considered. Mr Dixon said that officers had worked with the Environment Agency regarding proposals for new chalets on the Humberston Fitties. Mr Dixon stated that the Sequential Test and Exceptions Test were considered to be passed for the reasons set out in the report and in terms of flood risk mitigation on the basis that conditions regarding occupancy and a 10-year permission had been included. Mr Dixon said that a lot of work had gone into the design of the chalet. He said that the chalet would be finished with wooden shingles and would have sheeting as a roof finish as well as a brick chimney. Mr Dixon said that the windows and doors would be timber as well as the decking. Mr Dixon stated that the applicant had adhered to the Humberston Fitties Design Guide and it was considered acceptable in terms of the Conservation Area. He stated that the council’s ecology officer and the council’s trees and woodlands officer had not objected to the application. Mr Dixon said that there would also not be a significant impact on the Humber Estuary due to the already established nature of the entire site and the small scale of the specific development. Mr Dixon said that the development would not harm neighbouring amenities and there would be no issues of massing and overlooking due to the separation of the proposed chalet from the neighbouring chalets. Mr Dixon said that an air source heat pump had been included in the application and would be placed in a noise reducing cover to minimise potential impact to the surrounding chalets. He stated that the council’s Environmental Protection Officer had not objected to the application but had asked for further information regarding the air source heat pump. He said that the council’s highways officer had not objected to the application. Mr Dixon said that the council’s drainage officer had also not objected to the application but had requested the addition of some conditions. Mr Dixon stated that the issue of the Humberston Fitties being a Community Asset had been raised by objectors. He explained that the main consideration in regard to the community asset designation was whether the development would negatively impact the social wellbeing or interests of the public. Mr Dixon said that it was not considered that the development would have a negative impact and would therefore not be detrimental to the Humberston Fitties as a community asset. Mr Dixon stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 12, 22, 33, 34, 39, 41 and 42 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.
Mr Bright spoke in objection to the application. He said that conservation areas exist to manage and protect the historical part of a place. He said that the Humberston Fitties had been given conservation status in 1996. Mr Bright commented that the conservation status should be the starting point of any decision made. Mr Bright said that local authorities have a statutory duty to assess conservation areas. He said that the guidance from Historical England was that conservation areas should be reviewed every five years. He said that the Humberston Fitties conservation appraisal had not been reviewed for 20 years. Mr Bright said that within that time there had been well over 100 planning applications. He queried how any planning decision can be made without the council knowing the current situation of the Humberston Fitties. Mr Bright stated that there were eleven plots in total, but they were being submitted individually. He said that the development was in fact a large development overall and that by them being considered separately, the scrutiny required for a major development was being circumvented. Mr Bright said that the flood risk assessment stated that no additional chalet should be built. He said that the council and the Planning Inspectorate had rejected flood mitigation measures and that the assessment concluded that evacuation methods would make things better. Mr Bright stated that planning permission should not be granted for the application. He said that there were existing chalets up for sale, so there was the opportunity to have a chalet on the Humberston Fitties without building a new one. Mr Bright asked committee members to listen to residents and the Civic Society.
Mr Deakins spoke as the agent for the application. He said that the site benefitted from permission and explained that lawfully the applicant could move a caravan onto the land for the full season. Mr Deakins said that that was not what his client wanted to do, and instead wanted a traditionally built chalet that would fit in with the area. Mr Deakins stated that the chalet was designed to follow the guidelines within the Humberston Fitties Design Guide. He said that all of the trees on the site would be retained. Mr Deakins stated that the site did not constitute as an open space and was indeed a vacant plot. He said that the site was used until recently as car park and was therefore not an open green space. Mr Deakins stated that the conservation appraisal was valid until it was replaced and that on page 15 of that appraisal, it was said that the vacant plots on the site should be developed as soon as possible. Mr Deakins said that furthermore within the appraisals action points, vacant plots being filled was included. Mr Deakins stated that the current gap and the plot being empty distracted from the street scene. He said that there were very few reasons in which to object to the application.
Councillor Lindley said that when he had looked at the plans, it looked to him that something had been on the plot previously. He commented that he did not think the plot being empty was in keeping with the area. Councillor Lindley said that the application had satisfied planning policies. He said that he was minded to support approval of the application but would listen to the rest of the debate.
Councillor Hudson stated that he agreed with Councillor Lindley. He said that the proposed chalet would be much nicer than a caravan being on the plot. Councillor Hudson thought the application was different to the application regarding plot 80. He commented that he would support the application unless someone convinced him otherwise. Councillor Hudson said that he would listen to the rest of the debate.
Councillor Parkinson queried the issue of the Humberston Fitties being a community asset.
Mr Dixon said that the issue around the Humberston Fitties being a community asset was detailed in the report. He said that the main considerations regarding that was the need to protect the social wellbeing of the public. Mr Dixon said that the officer’s conclusion on whether the application would undermine that, was that it wouldn’t.
Councillor Parkinson asked whether a caravan could be sited on the plot due to the permission granted in 1992.
Mr Dixon said that in planning terms it could be.
Councillor Croft stated that she would rather see a chalet on the plot than a caravan. She said that she would listen to the rest of the debate.
Councillor Goodwin said that she thought a chalet would be better for the site than a caravan. She commented that the applicant was invested into the Humberston Fitties as they already had a chalet there. Councillor Goodwin proposed that the application be approved.
Councillor Holland said that he had been reading through the reasons as to why the Plot 80 application was refused and he did not understand what the difference was between the applications. He said that it was important for there to be consistency. Councillor Holland said that the main aspect that had changed was that a caravan could be put onto the site and the committee would not have a say in that. Councillor Holland commented that it was almost a lesser of two evils scenario. He said that he would not be supporting the application as the reasons for the refusal of the Plot 80 application were still relevant.
The Chair said that it was different as the Humberston Fitties Design Guide had been adhered to with the current application.
Councillor Shutt said that he took on board the comments made by Councillor Holland, but he said that the application had to be considered on its own merits. He commented that whilst he had sympathy with the objectors, the committee did have to listen to officers. Councillor Shutt suggested to objectors to focus their energies on getting the conservation appraisal updated. Councillor Shutt said that he was leaning towards supporting the application.
Councillor Parkinson said that he did feel pressured on this due to the issue of a caravan potentially going onto the plot.
The Chair said that was something to bear in mind but that the application was to be decided on its own merits.
Councillor Hudson seconded the proposal to approve the application. He said that the chalet fitted in with the area.
RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.
(Note – the committee voted 9 for and 2 against for the application to be approved.)
Councillor Pettigrew left the meeting at this point.
Ms Hattle-Fitzgerald left the meeting at this point.
COUNCILLOR HASTHORPE IN THE CHAIR
Item 2 – DM/0447/23/FUL – Ash Holt, Waithe Lane, Bridgsley
Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to change the use of land from agricultural to equestrian use. Mr Dixon said that the application also sought permission to erect a detached indoor arena to include an attenuation pond, tree screening and associated works. Mr Dixon stated that the application had been brought before the committee due to the number of objections received as well as an objection from a ward councillor and Brigsley Parish Council. He said that whilst there had been some objections, there had also been some letters submitted in support of the application. Mr Dixon stated that the applicant was an aspiring Olympian who needed the facilities proposed to train. Mr Dixon said that the site was located outside of the settlement boundary and was therefore considered to be in the open countryside. He said that an equine facility needed to be located in a large area. Mr Dixon stated that the development was acceptable in principle as it met the criteria under Policy 5. He said that the proposed indoor arena would have an agricultural style like the buildings already on the site. Mr Dixon said that the trees and landscaping would provide a certain level of screening which would lessen the visual impact on the wider area. He said that the indoor arena would be a large building but would respond well to the nucleus of the area. He stated that whilst the development would be visible in the area, it would not harm the character of that area. Mr Dixon said that the council’s highways officer had determined that the development would not attract a significant increase in traffic movements as the facilities would only be used for personal use. He referred committee members to the supplementary papers where the applicant had stated that she would like the proposed building to be referred to as a private arena and not an indoor riding school as the initial report stated. Mr Dixon stated that the council’s highways officer had not objected to the application but had asked that a condition be included with the application requiring that a Construction Traffic Management Plan be submitted. Mr Dixon said that the site was located within a flood risk area. He said that the proposed indoor arena had passed the Sequential Test and that an Exceptions Test was not required. Mr Dixon said that the council’s drainage officer had reviewed the details of the drainage method being proposed and had found it to be acceptable. Mr Dixon stated that the council’s trees and woodlands officer determined that the application was acceptable. He said that the council’s ecology officer had not objected to the application but had required conditions be added. Mr Dixon said that the proposed development would be well separated from neighbouring buildings and due to that separation, there would be no adverse massing or overlooking. Mr Dixon stated that the application was recommended for approval with conditions.
Miss Pickerden read out a statement from Mr Sutcliffe in objection to the application.
The statement read that he was the owner of the property immediately neighbouring the applicant’s property. Mr Sutcliffe wrote in his statement that there had been a great amount of narrative outlining the applicant’s wish to become an Olympic competitor. Mr Sutcliffe wrote that whilst this was laudable it was not particularly relevant to the planning process. Mr Sutcliffe wrote that the application should be judged as any other application. Mr Sutcliffe wrote that it had been referred to in the application that the existing facilities could not be used all year round and that last year several months had passed where the conditions had caused the outdoor manège to be unrideable and frozen. Mr Sutcliffe wrote that the winter period of 2022 had not been particularly cold as evidenced by the Met Office. Mr Sutcliffe wrote that he also had concerns about the statement in the application regarding minimising harm to the wider landscape and making sure the development made a positive impact on the landscape. Mr Sutcliffe wrote that he could not understand how someone could genuinely describe building a manège of the proposed size as having a positive impact on the landscape. Mr Sutcliffe wrote that he also had concerns about potential traffic. He wrote that Brigsley was a small compact village in a rural setting and that the roadways were very narrow and can only cater for a limited number of people. Mr Sutcliffe wrote that the route into the village from Brigsley Road was narrow and windy as was the route into the village from Louth Road, with two particular sharp bends presenting blind corners. Mr Sutcliffe wrote that he also had concerns about large vehicles being too wide for the road and the issue that presented for pedestrians. He wrote that since the development began, vehicular traffic had increased, and it was now not uncommon to see large lorries and horseboxes accessing the village from Louth Road. Mr Sutcliffe presented four photographs which showed the issues. Mr Sutcliffe wrote that the road through to the village was also a designated cycle route. He also had concerns that whilst the development was described as being for sole use, it would be used as a business. He wrote that the proposed new building would be in the region of 1400 square metres and would have large viewing area, kitchen area and shower facilities. Mr Sutcliffe wrote that it had all the hallmarks of a business venture. He wrote that there had also been some Facebook posts on the applicant’s page regarding teaching horse riding. Mr Sutcliffe wrote that the applicant had also been using some of her designated agricultural land for equestrian purposes. Mr Sutcliffe wrote in conclusion that he hoped the committee would refuse the application based upon the concerns he had raised which are corroborated by the views of other respondents.
Ms Bonner spoke as the agent for the application. She said that she had worked for KWA Architects for 15 years and that the company specialise in equestrian developments. Ms Bonner said that her client competed for Great Britain and has the ambition to go to the Olympics. She stated that her client currently trains at the outdoor manège but that due to it being an outdoor facility, it was not appropriate all year round. Ms Bonner stated that her client had had to withdraw from numerous competitions due to not being able to train under the weather conditions. Ms Bonner said that a private indoor manège would allow her client to train all year round. She said that unfortunately there had been some confusion among the local community. She stated that the facility would be for her clients use only and was not going to be a public riding school. Ms Bonner said that the teaching referred to on her client’s social media was done at a different facility, not on the site. Ms Bonner stated that the outdoor manège would still be used by her client and that the proposed indoor manège would only be used when there was bad weather. Ms Bonner said that the horsebox would not be on the lane and that whilst there would be traffic during the construction period, it would only be temporary. Ms Bonner stated that the council’s highways officer had not objected to the application. She said that the viewing area and kitchen facilities would be used solely by her client and her family. Ms Bonner stated that the development would lead to a biodiversity net gain. Ms Bonner said that the size of proposed indoor arena being asked for was the minimum scale that can be used by an athlete. She said that the planning officer’s report made clear that the arena was suited for the site. Ms Bonner said that there had been no technical consultee objections and the planning officer’s report had made clear that the application was compliant. Ms Bonner stated that planning was about policy not politics.
Councillor Jackson spoke as the ward councillor for the Waltham ward. He said that whilst the applicant’s Olympics ambitions were laudable, it was not a material planning consideration. Councillor Jackson said that it was his view that the application if approved would lead to an overdevelopment of the site. He said that Brigsley Village Council objected to the application as well as local residents. Councillor Jackson said that whilst there had been letters of support for the application submitted, these came from people who did not live locally and therefore did not understand the local issues. Councillor Jackson stated that his main concern was regarding highways. He said that the village road was very narrow, and this had been acknowledged by the planning officer. Councillor Jackson said that there were no passing areas along the road, and it had lots of blind bends. Councillor Jackson stated that the road was unsuitable for the current amount of traffic that it received. He said that the proposed development would lead to more traffic, and he was amazed that it had been granted the approval of the council’s highways officers. Councillor Jackson stated that whilst the proposed development was to be for personal use only, he had seen conflicting Facebook posts which could indicate potential commercial activity. Councillor Jackson reiterated that this would lead to an increase in traffic on the road. He said that he was concerned about how the use of the facilities could be policed. Councillor Jackson stated that he hoped the Planning Committee could recognise the inappropriateness of the site in the specific location.
Councillor Hudson said that the application was a difficult one to consider as a large area was required for the facilities that would be needed. He said that the proposed new facilities would also need to be near the existing stables. Councillor Hudson said that he had drove down near the site and it was a narrow road. He said that he was shocked that the current buildings were there. Councillor Hudson commented that he wasn’t sure how much difference one more building would make. He said that he was undecided on which way to vote and would listen to the rest of the debate.
Councillor Lindley said that he agreed with Councillor Hudson. He said that whilst he applauded the applicant’s ambitions, that was not a material planning consideration. Councillor Lindley stated that he could accept that it was not a commercial enterprise but was still concerned about use. He said that the letters of support appear to be from people who do not live in the local area. Councillor Lindley said that he could not help but think that even if it was not used commercially, it could still be used by other people. He said that the access road to the site was narrow. Councillor Lindley said that he was undecided on the application. He commented that it could lead to an increase in traffic if it was used by others. Councillor Lindley said that he would listen to the rest of the debate.
Councillor Goodwin said that she was undecided on the application. She queried whether an application to change the use to commercial use would come before the Planning Committee in the future. She said that she did not think the committee should debate whether other people use it non-commercially. Councillor Goodwin said that as long as there was a guarantee that it would not be used commercially, then she thought the committee should support the application.
The Chair referred committee members to condition 9 in the report.
Councillor Goodwin asked how condition 9 could be policed.
Councillor Aisthorpe said that she was unsure how to vote on the application. She said that whilst she understood condition 9 was included within the application, she agreed with Councillor Jackson about the issue of policing that. Councillor Aisthorpe queried as to whether friends of the applicant would be able to use the facilities. Councillor Aisthorpe said that she was slightly leaning towards approval. She said that she thought the fact that the applicant was training to go to the Olympics was relevant as she would need the size of the building requested. Councillor Aisthorpe said that she would listen to the rest of the debate.
Councillor Shutt said that he agreed with the other committee members. He liked the aspiration of the applicant. Councillor Shutt said that if the applicant did, in future, decide to change the use of the site, it would have to come before the committee. Councillor Shutt said that he understood concerns raised by some members about highways, but if it was just for the applicant’s use, he did not think it would greatly impact the highway network. Councillor Shutt said that he was slightly moving towards voting to approve the application.
Councillor Goodwin proposed that the application be approved.
Councillor Shutt seconded the proposal to approve the application.
Councillor Parkinson said that he thought the site was within the right kind of area. He said that the road was narrow, but the facilities were not going to be used commercially. Councillor Parkinson said that if the applicant was to allow a few friends to use the facilities, he thought it would only be the odd time. He said that he was leaning to supporting the proposal to approve the application. Councillor Parkinson asked Mr Brockbank to explain the view of the Highways Department.
Mr Brockbank said that the Highways Department had no concerns with the use of the development, post completion. He said that it was fully appreciated that there would be some impact during the construction phase, but he added that a condition requiring a construction management plan had been included with the application. Mr Brockbank stated that the site was only for personal use, and had its own established access, and it was not thought that there would be an adverse impact on the highway network. Mr Brockbank said that the details provided in the Design and Access statement confirmed the proposal would not increase traffic movements to and from the site.
Councillor Parkinson said that he was struggling to find a solid planning reason to refuse the application.
Councillor Croft said that she was happy to support the application as long as condition 9 was adhered to.
Councillor Lindley stated that he applauded the applicant and he understood that athletes need the appropriate facilities, but he did have concerns regarding the highways. He said that the decision on highways had been determined based on current usage. Councillor Lindley said that he thought usage would increase from friends and family visiting or using the facilities. He said that he thought traffic would therefore increase. Councillor Lindley said that he would not be supporting the application based on the highways concerns he had.
Councillor Batson said that he understood both sides of the debate. He said that he was disappointed about highways not recommending anything for the area. He queried why highways hadn’t looked at the situation as there were concerns about safety. Councillor Batson felt that highways had not looked at the specific area. He said that it was a 30mph limit and then went up to 60mph. Councillor Batson commented that he was unsure which way he would vote but wanted highways to look at the specific area if they hadn’t already.
Mr Brockbank said that the site was accessed by an established access which was in a 60mph limit area, but no accidents had been reported as of yet. He said that based on the information the highways department had, it was determined that there would be no increase in vehicular movements.
Councillor Holland said that the objection from the parish council was regarding traffic during the construction phase, but he said that would be a temporary issue. Councillor Holland said that he was concerned about highways after the construction phase as well. He queried how condition 9 would be monitored and enforced if friends did use the facilities.
Mr Dixon clarified that there was a difference between a friend using the facilities and the facilities being used commercially. He said that he did not think it would even be possible to monitor the facilities to that level of detail. Mr Dixon stated that it would only be for private use, but that did not necessarily mean a friend could not use the facilities.
Councillor Holland asked what the punishment would be if the facilities were used commercially.
Mr Dixon said that it would be dealt with through the planning enforcement process.
The Chair referred committee members to the additional statement included in the Supplementary Agenda which stated what the use of the facilities would be.
Councillor Shutt said that Councillor Batson had raised a good point about the 60mph access road. He said that if the applicant wanted to change the use to commercial use, then it would most likely be refused due to highway concerns.
RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.
(Note – the committee voted 7 for and 3 against for the application to be approved.)
Councillor Pettigrew returned to the meeting.
Ms Hattle-Fitzgerald returned to the meeting.
COUNCILLOR PETTIGREW IN THE CHAIR
Item 3 – DM/0517/23/FUL – 22 Victoria Street, Grimsby
Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought retrospective permission to retain three security shutters with associated works. Mr Dixon said that the application had been brought before the committee due to a call in from a ward councillor. He said that the application was a resubmission of application DM/0661/22/FUL. Mr Dixon explained that the shutters were in relation to retail units at the Daniella Draper store. Mr Dixon said that there had been no objections raised but letters of support for the application had been received. Mr Dixon stated that the site was located within the development boundary of Grimsby and was also located within the Central Grimsby Conservation Area. He said that the development was acceptable in principle. Mr Dixon stated that the main issue regarding the application was the concerns regarding heritage. He said that the application was a tricky one to consider as security was important. Mr Dixon said that the applicant had submitted a Heritage Assessment and had outlined the security concerns she had. He said that the Heritage Assessment was considered by the council’s heritage officer who subsequently objected to the application on the grounds that the scheme would cause detrimental harm to a conservation area. Mr Dixon stated that a site visit had taken place and alternatives such as internal shutters had been suggested by officers. He said that the applicant had stated that these would not be sufficient in terms of addressing the security concerns. Mr Dixon said that if every premises had external shutters, it would negatively impact the local area. Mr Dixon stated that the application was not in accordance with policies 5, 22, 23 and 39 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for refusal.
Ms Draper spoke as the applicant for the application. She said that she had been involved in the retail industry for forty years. Ms Draper stated that she had found it heartbreaking to see the decline of the Top Town area. She said that she had spent a lot of money renovating the building. Ms Draper said that there were lots of people that work hard in the area that want to champion local businesses. She said that she had set up her jewellery business from her kitchen table and now had several stores all around the UK with the HQ being located in Grimsby. Ms Draper commented that she hoped her store would encourage other local businesses to be in the Top Town area. She said that she needed the shutters in order to get insurance and that indoor shutters were no good as people would still be able to look into the shop when closed. Ms Draper said that from a practical standpoint, indoor shutters are difficult to work with when you have window displays. She said that unfortunately people did not walk down Victoria Street to look at buildings. Ms Draper said that her staff felt unsafe locking up the premises at close. She stated that attempted robberies had taken place at neighbouring businesses and at jewellery stores. She said that she had been asked by the police whether she had internal shutters or external shutters and that when police knew she had external shutters, they were happy with that as they said they were safer. Ms Draper said that whilst she understood the importance of conservation, local councillors need to understand the security concerns of businesses. She said that it was important to support local businesses and that external shutters were more viable and far more secure. Ms Draper commented that without the shutters, she would not be able to operate her business at the specific location. Ms Draper stated that she wanted to make a difference in the area, but local businesses need the support of the council. She said that she was doing the best she could and without the shutters, she would have to close her store.
Miss Pickerden read out a statement of behalf of the Ward Councillor for West Marsh, Councillor Wilson.
Councillor Wilson wrote in his statement that he believed outside shutters should be allowed as it would encourage future businesses into Top Town. He wrote that there were anti-social behaviour issues within the Town Centre and that until these were sorted out, businesses should be allowed to protect themselves. Councillor Wilson wrote that the issue of outside shutters in the Town Centre was in his opinion not a heritage issue, other than the colour of them which should match the building. He wrote that compared to shop signs they were less intrusive. Councillor Wilson asked the committee to approve the application.
Councillor Hudson stated that he felt very strongly about the application. He said that the applicant had other stores in the UK and could have relocated, but instead had chosen to stay with Grimsby. He said that the shutters were not unattractive. Councillor Hudson said that the council had a duty to support local businesses. He commented that if he was to own a jewellery store, he would want shutters to protect the store as well. Councillor Hudson proposed that the application be approved.
Councillor Hasthorpe said that he agreed with Councillor Hudson. He seconded the motion to approve the application.
Councillor Lindley said that the company should be congratulated for all its work, and it was important to encourage retail to the Grimsby Town Centre. However, he said that the specific area was a conservation area. Councillor Lindley explained that he had raised issues with other shutters in conservation areas and therefore unfortunately could not support the application. He said that he hoped the business would not leave the area. Councillor Lindley said that the business had put Grimsby on the map, so it was with a heavy heart that he could not support the application.
Councillor Goodwin said that when she had previously worked in Freshney Place, she had witnessed anti-social behaviour. She said that she could not understand how heritage was being mentioned in regard to the shutters when the Daniella Draper store was opposite empty derelict buildings. Councillor Goodwin said that the jewellers nearby to the Daniella Draper store had to hire security guards due to security concerns. She said that having external shutters in the Grimsby Town Centre was different to having them in a residential area of Scartho. Councillor Goodwin stated that if the Council wanted to bring businesses into the Grimsby Town Centre, then we would have to let them have security.
Councillor Parkinson said that he was pleased at the success of business, but he did not think the external shutters looked good. He said that shutters could make an area look like a no-go area, particularly if every business had external shutters. Councillor Parkinson said that he understood the reason for the shutters but could not support the type of shutters that had been put up. Councillor Parkinson said that hammer glass would be preferable. He said that the Town Centre would look better if we got rid of shutters and looked at other alternatives.
Councillor Croft said that the shutters were there for security reasons. She stated that she would support the motion of approving the application.
Councillor Hasthorpe said that whilst he agreed that it was a sad indictment that a shop had to have shutters for security purposes, that’s where things were. He said that he would rather see shutters than an empty unit.
Councillor Holland stated that the applicant had said that they could not get insurance without the shutters. He said that it was therefore a question of do we want the shop to stay or not, as they could not operate without the shutters. Councillor Holland said that the business was a huge asset to the area, and that whilst he agreed the shutters used where not the nicest, the applicant would not have them if they were not required. Councillor Holland said that he would be supporting the application.
Councillor Aisthorpe said that she would be supporting the application. She said that it was important to support local businesses. Councillor Aisthorpe stated that whilst not having any shutters was a nice vision, it was not a reality. She said that the safety of staff and the shop was important and that the shutters were there for a reason. Councillor Aisthorpe commented that she did not think the shutters looked bad and that they looked a lot better than a smashed window.
Councillor Shutt said that he admired the diligence of the applicant. He said that he thought conservation had not caught up with current security measures. He commented that it was important that businesses succeed. Councillor Shutt said that he would like to see a consistent shutter policy. He said that he would be supporting the proposal to approve the application.
Councillor Hudson said that he agreed with Councillor Holland. He said that the applicant had said that the shutters were required for insurance. Councillor Hudson said the issue was not the shutters, it was the people that were doing the anti-social behaviour that were the problem.
Councillor Parkinson said that he would like to see the shutters improved to look better if the application was to be approved. He said that the shutters as they are did not look nice.
Councillor Lindley said that if the application was refused, he would feel aggrieved as there already were shutters in the Town Centre and they were fairly common to see. Councillor Lindley said that he was concerned about shutters being in conservation areas. He said that he thought the application would be approved. He stated that he would not be voting to refuse the application but would abstain from the vote. Councillor Lindley said that he supported the business, but as a ward councillor, there were issues with shutters in his ward.
Councillor Shutt said that shutters were a reality. He said that there needed to be discussions that took place with heritage officers regarding shutters. He said that a new shutters policy might be needed. Councillor Shutt suggested that businesses with shutters work with artists to create designs to make the shutters look better and fit in with the area.
Councillor Goodwin commented that the shutters would only be down at nighttime. She said that it would not upset people during the day.
Councillor Croft agreed with Councillor Goodwin and said that the shutters would be up most of the time.
Councillor Aisthorpe said that she would like to ask any member who was voting against the application, to think about the cost on local businesses to repair windows.
RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.
(Note – the committee voted 9 for and 1 against with 1 abstention for the application to be approved.)
Item 4– DM/0542/23/FUL – 130 Mill Road, Cleethorpes
Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to make alterations to the front boundary wall to include a new vehicle entrance with associated works. Mr Dixon stated that the application had been brought before the committee due to a call in from Councillor Parkinson. Mr Dixon said that the site was located within the development area of Cleethorpes and in the Mill Road Conservation Area. He said that the proposed development was acceptable in principle. Mr Dixon said that the proposal was to remove a section of the wall to allow for vehicular access. Mr Dixon stated that the council’s heritage officer had objected to the application as the removal of part of the wall within the conservation area would be considered harmful. He said that the boundary walls at the front were important to the specific area and that the removal of them or sections of them would undermine the character of the area and be detrimental to the appearance. Mr Dixon said that additionally the front garden being used as a driveway would be harmful as it would change the way the building was seen and its appearance. He said that the council’s highways officer had raised no objection to the application. Mr Dixon said that there would be no detrimental impacts on neighbouring properties as a result of the development. He said that it had been determined that the development would create an unsympathetic appearance to part of the street scene with the loss of the wall. Mr Dixon stated that the application was not in accordance with policies 5, 22 and 39 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for refusal.
Mr Pavone spoke as the applicant for the application. He said that there were twelve houses on Mill Road and eleven had driveways. Mr Pavone stated that the two pillars used to be a gate, and then an opening. He said that he had took the property on when no one else would and had invested a lot of money. Mr Pavone said that others didn’t want to take the property on as the cost versus return was not there. He stated that he owned several properties in the area and was passionate about the area and it being improved. Mr Pavone said that the driveway was needed as he could not get insured as his vehicle had been hit twice and the driveway was needed for safety reasons. He said that a driveway was also important to allow for an EV charger. Mr Pavone said that he would understand the heritage concerns raised if there was uniformity along the road, but there was not. Mr Pavone stated that all of the other eleven houses were different.
Councillor Parkinson said that he was impressed with the works that had been done. He said that the applicant had clearly spent a lot of money. Councillor Parkinson queried the plans which had been shown by planning officers as he thought the plan being shown was the wrong one. Councillor Parkinson proposed that the application be deferred to allow for a site visit.
Ms Loring stated that the agent for the application had confirmed the plan being shown was correct.
Councillor Parkinson said that the application should be deferred to allow for an amendment to the plans as he didn’t think the plan being shown was the correct one.
The Chair said that applicant had not said that the plan being shown was incorrect. He stated that the committee would proceed with the debate.
Councillor Hudson commented that the applicant had done a tremendous job. He said that all the houses were different, and that eleven out of twelve of them had driveways. Councillor Hudson proposed that the application be approved.
Councillor Lindley stated that it was important to judge the application as it was. He said that he agreed with Councillor Hudson that the property looked good with the improvements that had been made. Councillor Lindley commented that it was a narrow road, and with families sometimes having two or three vehicles, it can become congested. Councillor Lindley stated that the applicant should be applauded for the work he had put into the development. He said that if there was uniformity with the houses, then he would understand the concerns raised regarding heritage. He seconded the proposal to approve the application.
The Chair queried what the specific issue was regarding heritage. He asked whether it was because the wall would be lost or because the car would be in front of the property. He also queried the highways issue.
Mr Dixon said that both issues resulted in the objection from the council’s heritage officer. He stated that the loss of the wall was the first issue which would then cause the second issue of the car being in front of the property.
The Chair asked why those living in the property could not drive off the existing access.
Ms Hattle Fitzgerald said that the issue regarding the access was that it would serve more than one property and it was not wide enough for that. Ms Hattle-Fitzgerald stated that off street parking was preferred but only where it was appropriate.
Councillor Shutt said that all the properties were different. He said that he agreed with the applicant regarding EV chargers. Councillor Shutt stated that he liked the idea of retaining the pillars on each side and that some of the features would remain. Councillor Shutt said that we all had to learn to live with change. He commented that he would be supporting approval of the application.
Mr Dixon outlined conditions which would be included if the application was to be approved.
RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.
(Note – the committee voted unanimously for the application to be approved.)
Item 5 – DM/0623/23/LBC – Manor House, Cherry Cobb Lane, Barnoldby Le Beck
Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought Listed Building Consent to demolish an existing conservatory, erect a new conservatory with a slate roof, timber windows and associated works. Mr Dixon said that the application had been brought before the committee due to a call in from Councillor Hudson. Mr Dixon said that the main issue when considering a Listed Building application was the impact on heritage. Mr Dixon said that the scale and size of the conservatory was fine. He explained that the council’s heritage officer had raised concerns relating to the substantive glazing used to the elevations and the lack of glazing bars. Mr Dixon said that on that basis the council’s heritage officer had objected to the application as the proposed development would be harmful to the character of the listed building. Mr Dixon stated that the application was not in accordance with policies 5, 22 and 39 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 scheme proposed to replace an existing conservatory which was not energy sufficient. Mr Nelson stated that he had sought advice from two independent heritage consultants who had both concluded that the scheme would result in a betterment to the site. He said that the scheme proposed to use traditional materials. Mr Nelson said that the council’s officers had recommended refusal based on a narrow issue which related to glazing bars. He said that the council’s heritage officer had not objected based on concerns of scale or size. Mr Nelson stated that the parish council and civic society supported the application and there had been no objections raised by other residents. Mr Nelson explained that the glazing bars had been omitted from the design so they would not obstruct the view of the applicant’s garden. He asked committee members to support the application as the proposed new conservatory would be more sustainable and would allow the applicant to have a better view of their garden.
Councillor Hudson said that he had visited the site and had seen that something needed to be done regarding the conservatory. He commented that the proposed new conservatory would have the same footprint as the current one. Councillor Hudson said that the only issue was the glazing bars, but he said that they would spoil a beautiful view if included. Councillor Hudson stated that the council’s heritage officer didn’t like the application, but two independent conservation officers did. He proposed that the application be approved.
Councillor Croft seconded the proposal to approve the application.
Councillor Lindley commented that he was happy to support the application.
Councillor Hasthorpe said that the two consultants who liked the application had expressed an opinion. He said that in his opinion he did not see the difference. Councillor Hasthorpe stated that he saw no reason to object to the application.
Councillor Aisthorpe asked whether the host building was built during the Georgian era as the windows that had been used are from that time. She said that she thought it was important to preserve the history.
The Chair said that the current conservatory was built in 1998.
Councillor Aisthorpe said that she understood that, but she said the windows used were from the Georgian era, which was the time in which the host property was built.
Councillor Shutt said that he would be supporting the motion to approve the application.
Mr Dixon outlined conditions which would be included if the application was to be approved.
RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.
(Note – the committee voted 9 for and 2 against for the application to be approved.)
Item 6 – DM/0622/23/FUL – Manor House, Cherry Cobb Lane, Barnoldby Le Beck
Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it was a full planning application in relation to the works proposed under application DM/0623/23/LBC with highway safety and drainage considered. Mr Dixon stated that the council’s highways officer and council’s drainage officer had not objected to the application. He said that there was still the objection from the council’s heritage officer relating to the glazing and the harmful impact on the Listed Building. Mr Dixon stated that the application was not in accordance with policies 5, 22 and 39 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for refusal.
Councillor Hasthorpe proposed that the application be approved.
Councillor Hudson seconded the proposal of approval.
RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.
(Note – the committee voted 9 for and 2 against for the application to be approved.)
P.35 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 24th August – 20th September 2023
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
P.36 PLANNING APPEALS
The committee received a report from the Director of Environment, Economy, Environment and Infrastructure regarding outstanding planning appeals.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
P.37 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.38 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 12.13pm.