Skip to main content

Planning Committee Minutes – 6th September 2023

4:23 pm, Friday, 22nd March 2024 - 4 weeks ago

Present:       

Councillor Pettigrew (in the Chair)

Councillors Beasant (substitute for Aisthorpe), Croft, Dawkins (substitute for Hasthorpe), Goodwin, Hudson, Holland, Lindley, Shutt and Silvester (substitute for Parkinson).

Officers in attendance:

  • Keith Thompson (Lead Solicitor)   
  • Sophie Pickerden (Committee Support Officer)
  • Martin Dixon (Planning Manager)
  • Richard Limmer (Senior Town Planner)
  • Adam Brockbank (Highway Development Control Officer)

Others in attendance:

  • Councillor Henderson (Yarborough Ward Councillor)

There were 11 members of the public present and one member of the press.

P.25           APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received for this meeting from Councillors Aisthorpe, Batson, Hasthorpe and Parkinson.

P.26           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Dawkins declared a non-registerable interest in P.27 Item 6 DM/0163/23/FUL as his relative had submitted an objection to the application.

P.27           DEPOSITED PLANS AND APPLICATIONS   

Item 1 – DM/0470/23/OUT – Land, Field Head Road, Laceby

Mr Limmer introduced the application and explained that it sought permission for the removal of condition 5 from the outline permission DM/1133/17/OUT. Mr Limmer said that condition 5 outlined the requirement for a northern buffer strip due to potential odour from the nearby pig farm. He said that the removal of condition 5 would allow for the site layout to be amended but that the removal of the condition would not mean an increase in the number of dwellings on the development. Mr Limmer said that the amendments to the site layout were to be decided upon under a separate application, DM/0815/22/REM. Mr Limmer stated that the owners of Hazledene had objected to the application. Mr Limmer said that the principle of the development had been well established through previous permission being granted. Mr Limmer said that condition 5 had been agreed under the previous application DM/1133/17/OUT following an odour assessment report being submitted. He said that an updated odour assessment report had now been undertaken that used up to date methodology for assessing odour. Mr Limmer stated that the report had been undertaken by a reputable consultant. He said that the report outlined that there had been no neighbour complaints received by the Council in regard to odour from Hazledene. Mr Limmer said that the updated odour assessment report considered two different scenarios and the impacts they would have. He said that the first scenario considered the current number of pigs at the site which was 120-150 and the second scenario considered the maximum number pigs which could be at the site which would be 400. Mr Limmer stated that regarding the first scenario the report had found that there could be a slight adverse impact on one of the dwellings but that the impact on the rest of the site would be negligible. Mr Limmer said that slight adverse impacts were not considered to be significant. He said that the report concluded that with 150 pigs at the site, there was no reason why the development should not extend up to the northern boundary of the site. Mr Limmer stated that the report had found that regarding the second scenario there could be a slight adverse impact on two receptor locations of the site but that odour effects on all other receptor locations of the site were predicted to have a negligible effect. Mr Limmer reiterated that slight adverse impacts were not considered to be significant in terms of planning matters. Mr Limmer stated that the report concluded that in the unlikely scenario that 400 pigs were at the farm, that would not cause there to be a significant reason to not extend up to the northern boundary of the development site. Mr Limmer said that the council’s environmental health team had not objected to the removal of condition 5 and had agreed with the findings of the updated odour assessment report. Mr Limmer said that updated conditions had also been added to the application. Mr Limmer stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 22, 33, 41 and 42 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Mr Stockton spoke on behalf of Mr Starkey who had objected to the application. He explained that Mr Starkey had a pig farm on the land for years but was now under pressure from developers. Mr Stockton said that Mr Starkey had already been made unable to operate as he usually did. Mr Stockton stated that the planning committee had previously made the decision that there should be a buffer zone but he said that the developers now wanted to reduce the distance to increase development which would cause stress to Mr Starkey. Mr Stockton said that Laceby Parish Council had expressed their concern with the application. Mr Stockton stated that the development was originally accepted with the current condition, and he said that he found it to be unacceptable to change the conditions when they had already been agreed. Mr Stockton said that the current application was made with profit in mind.

Mr Whall spoke on behalf of the applicant. He said that the application was asking for the removal of condition 5 which related to potential odour. Mr Whall said that the report submitted was over hundred pages long and was conducted by experts. He stated that the report was based on facts and a wealth of experience. Mr Whall said that the report concluded that there was no justification for a 30-metre buffer zone. Mr Whall said that the applicant had agreed to a 10-metre buffer zone when asked by the Case Officer. He said that the area would have landscaping. Mr Whall said that the applicant was not increasing dwelling numbers on the site. He asked committee members to consider the facts when making their decision.

Councillor Dawkins said that he thought the bigger the buffer zone was, the better it would be. He said that if the wind was blowing in one direction and then another direction on another day, it could make a difference to how much the potential odour could be smelt. Councillor Dawkins proposed refusal of the application.

Councillor Hudson commented that he liked buffer zones and thought the bigger the buffer zone was, the better. Councillor Hudson said that he could see no reason to remove the buffer zone.

Councillor Holland stated that just because there had been no complaints previously, didn’t mean there wouldn’t be in the future. He said that he thought the buffer zone should be kept as is. Councillor Holland seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

Councillor Shutt queried whether the buffer zone area was maintained.

Mr Limmer said that there was landscaping to maintain.

The Chair queried the ownership of the land.

Mr Limmer said that were the application to be approved, the land would be maintained by the residents.

Councillor Shutt said that he was minded to support the motion of refusal.

Councillor Lindley said the buffer zone was there for a reason. He said that there would be some potential consequences in the future. Councillor Lindley said that the area worked as it was now and reducing the buffer zone would impact the owners of the farm and the residents. He said that he did not want to see the buffer zone chipped away at as it was there for a reason. Councillor Lindley stated that he would be supporting the motion to refuse the application.

Councillor Goodwin said that she would be supporting the motion of refusal. She commented that the buffer zone was there for a reason and that the parish council believed it should be kept. Councillor Goodwin said that she did not think the farmer deserved any more stress as it was hard enough working in agriculture.

Mr Dixon said that the need for the buffer zone was determined initially based on a professional report. He said that a new professional report had now been submitted which had concluded that there would be a negligible impact if the buffer zone was removed. Mr Dixon sought clarification on the reasons for the motion of refusal.

Councillor Dawkins stated that he was proposing refusal of the application due to the impact on neighbouring amenities.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused.

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

Item 2 – DM/0815/22/REM – Land, Field Head Road, Laceby

This matter was not taken forward for discussion given the decision on the previous item which meant it had to be refused. This was explained by Mr Thompson and Mr Dixon before the decision on Item 1 was taken.

Item 3 – DM/0677/23/FUL – 7 Great Coates Road, Grimsby

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought a partial change of use to mixed use from residential land to include a commercial garage for repair restoration and MOT testing for motorcycles with the erection of a detached coach house, a drive with a parking area and associated works. Mr Dixon stated that the application was a resubmission with a revised proposed access to the commercial motorcycle garage. He said that the current application was proposing to use one of the existing accesses as a commercial access and that in the previous application, this access would have only been used for the dwelling. Mr Dixon stated that the application had been brought before the committee due to a call in from a Ward Councillor. Mr Dixon said that following the committee’s decision to refuse the previous application, the council’s highways officers attended a meeting at the site to see if the highways issues could be resolved. Mr Dixon said subsequently, the application was resubmitted with the change regarding the access, which was considered to be acceptable by the council’s highways officer. He said that the council’s highways officer was now content that any impact on the highways could be mitigated through the use of conditions such as the introduction of an appointments system. Mr Dixon said that whilst the issues regarding highways had been resolved, there was still the issue of use and the principle of the development. Mr Dixon said that the proposed site was located within an area where there was an element of commercial properties, but the area was still largely residential. Mr Dixon stated that whilst following the pandemic, there had been more businesses operating from home, they were considered to be more low key, whereas MOT testing centres were classified as B2 general industry uses which suggested the incompatibility with the business operating from a residential plot. Mr Dixon said that the officers concern would also be that the change of use would be granted to the land and not the specific applicant. He stated that there were also nearby sites which had the potential to accommodate the type of business operation being proposed. Mr Dixon stated that the revised application remained unacceptable in principle and was in contrary to policy 5. Mr Dixon said that two letters of objection to the application had been received as well as several letters of support for the application. He said that the issues raised by objectors were in regard to potential impact on residential amenities, impacts on trees and highways as well as the issue of suitability for motorcycle repairs to take place at the proposed site. Mr Dixon said that the proposal would not result in adverse massing or overshadowing. He said that the council’s environmental health officer had reviewed the application and had determined that with mitigation in place, the application was acceptable. Mr Dixon said that whilst the comments made by the council’s environmental health officer had been taken into account, the application would still present the potential for harm to the character and amenity of the surrounding area due to it being an industrial operation in a residential area. Mr Dixon said that the council’s trees officer and council’s drainage officer had not objected to the application but had added conditions to the application. Mr Dixon said that a condition regarding contamination had been included with the application. Mr Dixon stated that whilst the issues regarding highways had been resolved, the issue regarding the change of use and the suitability of the business operating from a largely residential area still existed. He said that the application was therefore recommended for refusal.

Mr Gunster spoke as the applicant for the application. He said that he had initially submitted an application which had been refused regarding issues relating to impacts on residential amenities and highways. Mr Gunster said that following his application being refused by the committee, he met with the council’s highways officers who were now happy with the updated plans regarding the access. Mr Gunster said that the issue was now around the commercial use. He commented that previous owners had also had home businesses at the property. Mr Gunster said that he had worked at the property undertaking motorcycle repairs since September 2021 and had not had any complaints in that time. Mr Gunster said that he would protect residential amenity as he also lived there. He stated that he had spoken to his neighbours who had not raised any objections. Mr Gunster said that the development would not cause overshadowing or a loss of light. Mr Gunster said that one of his neighbours had commented that he preferred the idea of commercial use rather than what had been granted previously with extra houses proposed. Mr Gunster said that the specific area was a mixed-use area with a golf club, hotel and other home businesses close by. He said that motorcycle MOT’s were visual tests and not noisy. Mr Gunster said that he was confused by the suggestion of operating his business from a vacant station close by as being at that site would cause greater issues in regard to highways. Mr Gunster stated that he was not relocating his business, but that this was to allow him to work from home. He commented that tuning bikes was not noisy and that he would be using everyday tools. Mr Gunster asked the committee to consider a site visit if they had doubts about his application.

Councillor Henderson spoke as the Ward Councillor for the Yarborough Ward. He said that Mr Gunster had applied to build a coach house and from this building he wanted to run his business repairing vintage motor bikes, one at a time. Councillor Henderson said that in order to do this he needed a license. He stated that there were two issues to consider, the coach house and the change of use. Councillor Henderson said that the planning officer had not raised any objections to the coach house and that through a long process of negotiation and redesign Mr Gunster had complied with all the officer’s requests. Councillor Henderson stated that the building would be in keeping with its surroundings and would not cause any inconvenience to anyone.  He said that it had the support of many neighbours and the support of the Civic Society. Councillor Henderson said that the plan to build the coach house, if it weren’t for the use, would be approved. Councillor Henderson said that the other issue was the change of use and whether Mr Gunster could run his business from there. He said that many motorbike enthusiasts repair and maintain their own bikes in their own buildings, with many of them having more than one bike. He said that with this in mind the work they do was on a larger scale than Mr Gunster’s business.  Councillor Henderson stated that Mr Gunster had shown that his business was not going to be disruptive.  He said that Mr Gunster had shown how, for example, the noise he would create would be well within the parameters of a home. Councillor Henderson said that the planning officer could find no reason to say why the repair of vintage bikes, one by one, should be declined planning permission. Councillor Henderson said that the issue was the licensing of the plot for the operation of this business.  He said that the planning officer argued that running a business of this type, in a largely residential location, should not be permitted.  Councillor Henderson said, however, that the plot had historically been used for business where it had provided premises for a market garden, a vintner, a joiner, and a financial advisor. He said until recently it was home to a substantial engineering works and then derelict because of the Shell Garage’s petrol leak.  Councillor Henderson stated that Mr Gunster had brought the whole plot of derelict land back into use, including undertaking a sympathetic and costly restoration of the main house. He said that furthermore Mr Gunster’s house was on Toothill roundabout and the three sides of the roundabout contained a pub, the derelict petrol station which was now for sale for commercial use and his house.  He said that within a few yards of the roundabout there was a golf club, a nursing home and a hotel.  Councillor Henderson commented that the area was not just residential and was home to a few businesses. Councillor Henderson stated that there was a precedent for this development.  He said that in other areas of the town, similar businesses operated from similar sites using the legal precedent of sui generis. He said that this precedent allowed people to work from home and enabled, for example, automobile engineers to operate from houses within Yarborough Ward.  Councillor Henderson stated that there was no legal definition of permitted trades.  He said, however, there were enough legal precedents for Mr Gunster to potentially, successfully pursue his case to appeal, should the application be declined, since the scale of his operation was so small. Councillor Henderson said that this was Mr Gunster’s business and that he needs this project to be able to continue his work. Councillor Henderson asked committee members to approve the application.

Councillor Hudson said that he had supported the application at the previous meeting. He said that the concerns raised by committee members were in relation to highways and he said that these issues had now been resolved. Councillor Hudson said that the specific area was a built-up area and he hoped people would support the application. He proposed that the application be approved.

The Chair said that he had previously been concerned about the highways issue but was pleased to see a compromise reached. He said that his concerns had all been addressed.

Councillor Goodwin said that the application would not impact anyone. She said that there was a hotel, pub and nursing home nearby. Councillor Goodwin commented that people would not be in and out of the property. She said that she was pleased that the issue regarding the access had been dealt with. Councillor Goodwin seconded the motion to approve the application.

Councillor Lindley said that there used to be a 24-hour shell garage nearby which would have had bright lights and would have generated noise. He said that he could not see how the application posed a detriment to the area. He said that the development would be fairly close to the wall but was sure with some landscaping it would be okay. Councillor Lindley disagreed that the application would have a detrimental impact on the area. He said that he was happy to support the application.

Councillor Shutt said that he was reassured that the applicant had worked with the highways team and that he did not see a great reason to object. Councillor Shutt stated that he was happy to support the application.

Councillor Croft said that she would support the application.

Mr Dixon outlined conditions which could be included with the approval.

Councillor Hudson and Councillor Goodwin agreed to the conditions Mr Dixon suggested.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved.

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

Item 4 – DM/0598/23/PAT – Land At Cromwell Road, Grimsby

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought prior approval permission for the installation of a 15m high phase 8 monopole 6no. antennae, 2no. ground-based equipment cabinets, 1no. meter cabinet and ancillary development. Mr Dixon said that the application had been brought before the committee due to the number of objections. Mr Dixon stated that policy 35 of the local plan outlined the criteria which should be considered regarding telecommunications developments. Mr Dixon said that the policy outlined that applicants must show that the development could not be facilitated on an existing building mast which would cause less visual intrusion or on a site that already contained telecommunications equipment before new sites could be considered. Mr Dixon said that the applicant had outlined that due to the nature of 5G, more masts were needed. He said that no other sites had been identified and that the applicant had provided information that there was a lack of coverage in the specific area. Mr Dixon stated that the proposed location of the mast was therefore sequentially supported and was acceptable in principle. Mr Dixon stated that the applicant had provided a statement confirming that the proposal met with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection standards. Mr Dixon said that the mast would be 15 metres in height and along with the associated cabinets, would be painted green. He commented that the mast had also been designed to be slimline which would reduce its impact on the character of the area. Mr Dixon stated that the mast would be situated adjacent to commercial properties and that there would be a significant degree of separation between the mast and any residential properties. He said that the mast would not cause any adverse impacts in terms of massing and dominance and whilst it would be visible on the street scene, it would not detract from the character of the area. Mr Dixon stated that objections had been received citing health concerns but said that the applicant had addressed the National Planning Policy Framework requirements regarding health impacts. Mr Dixon said that the council’s highways officer had not raised any objection to the application. Mr Dixon stated that it was recommended that prior approval be granted.

Councillor Hudson proposed that the application be approved.      

Councillor Dawkins said that he thought it was a good location. He commented that none of the objectors lived close to the proposed mast. Councillor Dawkins seconded the proposal to approve the application.      

Councillor Lindley said that it was important that masts were put up in appropriate locations. He said that he was happy to support the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved.

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

Item 5 – DM/0224/23/FUL – 109 Carr Lane, Grimsby

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to demolish an existing garage and outbuildings. He said that the application also sought permission to erect a two-storey dwelling with a driveway, landscaping and associated external works. Mr Dixon stated that the application had been brought before the committee due to a call in from a Ward Councillor. Mr Dixon said that whilst the proposed site was located within the development boundary for Grimsby, it was also located within a flood risk area. Mr Dixon stated that the application would fail the sequential test due to the fact that there were other sites within the borough which would accommodate a single dwelling. He said that an exceptions test had not been undertaken as the sequential test had not been passed. Mr Dixon said that there needed to be some justification to pass the sequential test, but the application had not provided that justification. Therefore, the development was not acceptable in principle. Mr Dixon said that the Environment Agency had not objected to the application as the mitigation of raising the floor levels by 1.25m had been included within the application. Mr Dixon reiterated that the application still did not meet the requirements of passing the sequential test. Mr Dixon said that due to the position and size of the proposed dwelling, it would result in an overdevelopment of the site. There had been some objections received from neighbours citing concerns regarding massing and overlooking. Mr Dixon said that due to the proposed dwelling’s height and position along the boundary, it was considered that the proposed dwelling would be overbearing. Mr Dixon said that the proposed dwelling would not cause there to be a loss of privacy for neighbours or cause overlooking due to the position of the window openings. The council’s highways officer had not objected to the application and the council’s drainage officers had included conditions within the application. Mr Dixon said that the issue of the flood risk remained and that potential mitigation for this issue could negatively impact the street scene. Mr Dixon stated that the application was therefore not in accordance with policies 5, 22, 33 and 34 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for refusal.

Mr Snowden spoke on behalf of the applicant. He said that the applicant wanted a small house. He said that the site was within the development boundary. Mr Snowden said that low-cost affordable housing was in demand and that the specific area was a good size. Mr Snowden stated that throughout the application process, he had monitored comments and amended the plans. He said that the windows had been moved to avoid any potential overlooking. Mr Snowden said that whilst the proposed site was within a flood zone, other properties had been allowed in the area. Mr Snowden stated that the Environment Agency was happy with the application. He said that changing the garages into a house would benefit the area. Mr Snowden stated that the Ward Councillor supported the application.

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

Councillor Smith asked the committee to disregard the recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds of flood risk and to give due consideration as to whether one single property which would replace two large brick built garages that had stood there for many years and had probably the same roof area drainage of the new dwelling  which incidentally had never flooded and if this one dwelling was allowed it was going to have minimal impact on the drainage system in the area. If anything it may well help the issues of the near neighbour’s plight of poor running drains and help further flush the system. Councillor Smith wrote that it would not be a mass development in a back garden but would allow one lady of later years wishing to spend her remaining years in a home in an area where all of her family and friends resided, and she would not have the upkeep of the large residence in which she now lived to the front of the site. As a resident himself of the adjoining street, he asked the committee to disregard the mention of car parking issues as there had never been any issues there. He wrote that there had always been a double access to the site for all the years he could recall. Councillor Smith wrote that he had visited the site and did not believe that it would overshadow any of the neighbours. Councillor Smith urged committee members to pass the application and allow for the resident to continue to be live in the area she had enjoyed for many years. He added that several people in the area had voiced their thoughts to him saying that they would support the applicant in her request.

Councillor Dawkins queried whether the proposed site was in the local plan.

Mr Dixon stated that the site was within the development boundary for Grimsby.

Councillor Dawkins said that he thought the application would cause overshadowing to the neighbour at 107. He said that there were also sometimes issues with parking in the area and he did not want people parking on the path. Councillor Dawkins proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor Hudson said that he thought the application would cause massing on neighbours at property 107. He commented that the neighbour might lose light. Councillor Hudson said that he understood the reason for the floor levels being raised. He thought a development could work on the site, but that this was not the right development. Councillor Hudson seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

Councillor Lindley said that he did not think raising the floor levels would be in keeping with the local area. He said that the application did not meet the requirements of numerous planning policies. Councillor Lindley said that he would support the proposal to refuse the application.

Councillor Shutt said that he knew the specific area well. He said that whilst he had sympathy for the applicant, it was the committee’s role to consider the material planning considerations. Councillor Shutt said that he would support the proposal to refuse the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused.

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

Councillor Dawkins left the meeting at this point.

Item 6 – DM/0163/23/FUL – 6 Frobisher Avenue, Grimsby

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to erect a first-floor side extension on pillars with associated internal and external alterations. He said that the application also included the installation of CCTV and the installation of first floor rear windows. Mr Dixon said that a previous application had been refused and that the applicant had responded to issues raised and revised the application to reposition the works to the other side of the dwelling. Mr Dixon stated that the application had been brought before the committee due to the number of objections received. Mr Dixon said that the proposed site was located within the development boundary for Grimsby. He said that the development was acceptable in principle as long as there would be no adverse impacts caused. Mr Dixon said that in terms of design, these types of extensions were common in urban areas. He said that whilst the development would enlarge the property, it would be sympathetic to the host property. Mr Dixon said that the materials being proposed to be used would match the host property and the extension would not exceed the height of the main roof. Mr Dixon said that some objections had been raised citing concerns over overshadowing and loss of sunlight. Mr Dixon stated that site visits had taken place in response to the concerns being raised. He said that it had been determined that the development would not cause any detrimental impacts to neighbours in regard to overshadowing and overlooking. Mr Dixon said that the light would also not be significantly obstructed given that the works pertained to one side of the dwelling. Mr Dixon said that there was also an acceptable level of separation from neighbours, and so there would be no adverse massing as a result of the development. Mr Dixon stated that it had been determined that the CCTV would not cause any adverse visual design issue. Mr Dixon said that the council’s drainage officer had asked for a condition to be included regarding surface water. Mr Dixon stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 22, 33 and 34 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Councillor Hudson commented that he thought the extension would make the property look better and that it would sit better in the plot. He said that there was also still an appropriate separation between the property and neighbouring properties. Councillor Hudson proposed that the application be approved. 

Councillor Lindley said that there was a significant gap between the property and neighbouring properties. He seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Shutt commented that the amended plan was more sympathetic to the land. He said that he would be supporting the proposal to approve the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

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

Councillor Dawkins returned to the meeting at this point.

Item 7 – DM/0477/23/FUL – 1 Cumberland Avenue, Grimsby

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to demolish an existing garage and to erect a single storey detached outbuilding which would include a garage, games room and store with solar panels and associated works. Mr Dixon said that amended plans had been received which had reduced the height of the building and moved it further away from the neighbouring boundaries. Mr Dixon stated that the application had been brought before the committee due to the number of objections received. Mr Dixon said that the proposed site was located within the development boundary for Grimsby and was acceptable in principle. He said that there were no design issues regarding the application and that the materials that would be used for the proposed outbuilding would match the existing dwelling. He said that the outbuilding would be larger than other outbuildings in the immediate area but that the size of the plot could comfortably accommodate an outbuilding of the proposed size. Mr Dixon stated that the outbuilding would not be prominent in the street scene. Mr Dixon said that as the proposed outbuilding had been reduced in height to 4 metres and due its single storey design and separation from neighbouring properties, it was considered that there would be no adverse massing or overshadowing impacts. Mr Dixon stated that the applicant had agreed to make sure that the new windows were obscurely glazed. He said that a condition had also been added to the application which outlined that the outbuilding must remain ancillary. Mr Dixon stated that the condition had been added to alleviate any fears of neighbouring residents that the outbuilding could be sold. Mr Dixon stated that the council’s drainage officer had added a condition to the application regarding surface water. He said that the council’s tree officers had raised no objections to the application. Mr Dixon stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 22, 33, 34, 39 and 42 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions. 

Councillor Lindley said that he thought the application was a typical development for a back garden. He commented that lots of people had similar outbuildings done under permitted development. Councillor Lindley said that whilst the size of the garage was slightly larger than a typical outbuilding, he did not see there being any issue regarding potential over intensification. Councillor Lindley proposed that the application be approved.  

Councillor Hudson commented that he was happy that the height of the garage had been reduced. He seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Shutt said that he was happy to support the proposal to approve the application.

The Chair said that he thought most of the neighbouring concerns had been dealt with.

RESOLVED – That the application to be approved with conditions.

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

Item 8 – DM/0109/23/FUL – 184 Humberston Avenue (Rear Of 186) Humberston

Mr Limmer introduced the outline application and explained that it sought permission to erect a two-storey detached dwelling with a balcony, roof lights and associated works including a driveway parking area and landscaping. Mr Limmer said that the proposed dwelling would form part of a wider development of self-build properties at the site for which outline permission had already been granted. Mr Limmer stated that the application had been brought before the committee due to an objection from Humberston Village Council and the number of objections received. Mr Limmer said that the site was located within the development boundary for Humberston and was allocated for residential development. He said that the development was acceptable in principle. He said that concerns had been raised regarding potential overlooking, dominance and a loss of light. Mr Limmer said that the applicant had responded to those concerns by reducing the scale of the development. He said that whilst the proposed dwelling would be close to another plot, the impact would be minimised due to the existing dwelling’s design. Mr Limmer said that the applicant had communicated with the immediate neighbours who were content with the development. Mr Limmer said that there had been some concerns raised by neighbours opposite but that due to the separation distances between those properties and the proposed development, the impacts would not be unreasonable. Mr Limmer stated that the council’s highways officer had not objected to the application but had requested a condition be added regarding construction management. He said that the council’s drainage officer had also not objected to the application but had asked for conditions to be included within the application. Mr Limmer stated that the application was in accordance with the relevant policies of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Councillor Lindley said that the development was in keeping with surrounding areas. He said that the application was almost filling in a gap. Councillor Lindley proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Hudson said that he disagreed with Councillor Lindley. He said that he did not think the development would look good and instead would look cramped on the site. Councillor Hudson stated that he thought the development would cause an over intensification of the plot. He said that he would listen to the rest of the debate.

Councillor Dawkins said that he was minded to support the parish council. He proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor Shutt said that he agreed with Councillor Hudson. He commented that he did not think the development was sympathetic to the plot size. Councillor Shutt said that he would support the proposal to refuse the application.

Councillor Goodwin said that it was an infill application. She queried whether it was a self-build site.

Mr Limmer said that a person would buy the plot, and then the house would be built with a design they chose.

Councillor Goodwin seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Lindley said that similar applications had been approved by the planning committee before.

Councillor Dawkins said that whilst similar applications might have been approved before, the committee needed to consider school and doctors places.

Councillor Goodwin commented that the committee were to consider applications in terms of material planning considerations, and not their own preferences.

The Chair said that the objections raised by the parish council and by residents were very different. He queried whether the plots had previously had planning permission.

Mr Limmer said that the outline application permission had expired.

Councillor Shutt said that he did think the dwellings would be squeezed in.

Councillor Lindley commented that the committee should have been talking about overdevelopment about 30 years ago. He said that similar applications had been approved by the committee. Councillor Lindley said that the situation needed reviewing but that was not the remit of the planning committee.

RESOLVED – That the application to be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted 6 for and 4 against for the application to be approved.)

Item 9 – DM/0484/23/FUL – Land Adjacent To Blossom Avenue, Humberston

Mr Limmer introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to erect a two-storey mixed use building for office and B8 industrial use with access, parking and service areas and associated landscaping. Mr Limmer stated that no objections had been raised regarding the application but that the development was a technical departure from the local plan. He said that the proposed site was designated for housing in the local plan. Mr Limmer said that even though the development would mean a departure from the local plan, that did not mean that the development was unacceptable. He said that it was important to consider whether the type of development was appropriate. Mr Limmer stated that the proposed site was located in an area which had changed and now had commercial developments close by and that the housing allocation for the area had already been reduced by these commercial developments. Mr Limmer said that having housing on the proposed site would no longer be compatible or appropriate. Mr Limmer stated that the use that was proposed was acceptable. He said that the site had also previously had permission for commercial development which whilst that specific permission had lapsed, it still reiterated that commercial developments were acceptable for the site. Mr Limmer said that as the site was located within a flood risk area and as the site was not allocated for the use which the applicant was asking for, this had meant that a sequential test was required to be undertaken to determine if the development was acceptable in terms of flood risk. He stated that the agent for the application had provided information outlining that the proposed use would mean a lower risk development in terms of flood risk. Mr Limmer said the agent had also considered other sites, but they posed a higher risk of flooding. Mr Limmer stated that as the development had passed the Sequential Test as a less vulnerable use of the site, the Exceptions Test was not undertaken. Mr Limmer said that the building would be finished in grey panelling which would suit the industrialised character of the area. He said that the development would have little impact on amenity of surrounding neighbours. Mr Limmer commented that the development would not cause adverse impacts in regard to overlooking, massing or overshadowing. He said that the council’s environmental protection officer had requested conditions be added to the application. Mr Limmer referred committee members to their supplementary agenda which outlined a condition regarding the flood risk. Mr Limmer said that neither the council’s drainage officer nor highways officer had objected to the application. Mr Limmer stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 10, 22, 33, 34 and 42 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Mr Snowden said that he was speaking on behalf of his client Patterson’s Glass. He said that his client was a local company that employed twenty-six people. Mr Snowden said that the proposed development would allow the company to grow further. He said that the company had recently employed two new members of staff and would be able to employ more in the future. Mr Snowden stated that in the current climate, offering good job positions should be encouraged. Mr Snowden said that the application was supported by the technical consultees. He said that whilst the site was located within a flood zone area, that did not prohibit development as the development would be used commercially. Mr Snowden asked committee members to approve the application.

Councillor Dawkins said that he was pleased to see a local company doing well. He said the location was correct for the specific development. Councillor Dawkins proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Shutt said that he agreed with Councillor Dawkins.

Councillor Hudson said that the specific area was very important for the town. He said that he welcomed the application. Councillor Hudson seconded the proposal to approve the application.

The Chair said that the area was no longer suitable for housing. He commented that he was happy to support a local company.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

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

P.28           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 27th July – 23rd August 2023.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P.29           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.30           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.31           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 11.32 am.