Skip to main content

Planning Committee Minutes – 1st November 2023

4:05 pm, Friday, 22nd March 2024 - 4 weeks ago

Present:       

Councillor Pettigrew (in the Chair)

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

Officers in attendance:

  • Martin Dixon (Planning Manager)
  • Holly Hall (Highway Asset Team Manager)
  • Lara Hattle-Fitzgerald (Senior Highway Development Control Officer)
  • Bethany Loring (Senior Town Planner)
  • Richard Limmer (Senior Town Planner)
  • Sophie Pickerden (Committee Support Officer)
  • Hannah Steer (Senior Solicitor)

Others in attendance:

  • Councillor Astbury (Immingham Ward Councillor)
  • Councillor Silvester (Park Ward Councillor)
  • Councillor Westcott (Park Ward Councillor)

There were 25 members of the public present and one member of the press.

P.39           APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

No apologies were received for this meeting.

P.40           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Pettigrew declared a pecuniary interest in P.41 Item 1 as he has a business relationship with the agent for the application who had provided the plans.

Councillor Hasthorpe declared a pecuniary interest in P.41 Item 4 as he is a trustee of Harbour Place.

Ms Hattle-Fitzgerald said that she would leave the room for P.41 Item 1 as she was friends with the applicant.

Mr Dixon said that he would leave the room at P.41 Item 8 as he had been consulted on the application as a resident.

P.41           DEPOSITED PLANS AND APPLICATIONS   

Councillor Pettigrew left the meeting at this point.

Ms Hattle-Fitzgerald left the meeting at this point.

COUNCILLOR HASTHORPE IN THE CHAIR

Item 1 – DM/0524/23/FUL Land Adj 64 Chapel Road, Habrough

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought permission for the erection of four dwellings with associated works to include a new access and parking. Mr Dixon explained that the application had been brought before the committee due to the number of objections received from neighbours and an objection from Habrough Parish Council. Mr Dixon stated that the site had previously been granted planning permission in 2016 but this had expired in 2020. He said that the proposed site was located within the development boundary of Habrough and was acceptable in principle. Mr Dixon said that the dwellings would sit normally in the street and would line up. He said that the development was not unusual for the area. Mr Dixon explained that there would be an acceptable degree of separation between the development and any nearby properties. He said that in terms of massing and dominance, it was not considered that there would be an undue impact on neighbouring properties due to the position, layout, relationship with the neighbour and the separation distance. Mr Dixon said that the proposed dwellings would be of a similar scale to other existing dwellings in the area and would have a cottage style appearance which would be in keeping with the surrounding area. Mr Dixon explained that the current state of the site had a negative impact on the character of the area as the site was unkept and the landscaping had overgrown. Mr Dixon said that the proposed development would represent a betterment to the site. He said that the materials proposed to be used for the development would be similar to materials used on nearby dwellings which would help maintain the character of the area. Mr Dixon stated that the existing trees would remain, and that the council’s trees and woodlands officer had not objected to the application. Mr Dixon explained that the council’s highways officers had visited the site and reviewed the proposal. He said that the highways officers felt that the visibility was acceptable and had not objected to the application. Mr Dixon stated that the council’s drainage officer had not objected to the application but had requested conditions be included with the application requiring information on surface water drainage methods and water reuse. Mr Dixon stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 22, 33 and 34 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and sections 5 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Mr Dixon said that the application was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Mr Nelson spoke as the agent for the application. He explained that the site had previously had planning permission which had expired in 2020. Mr Nelson said that the site had unfortunately not been built out in time due to the Coronavirus pandemic and the shortage of building materials during that time. Mr Nelson said that all he and his client sought was consistency in the planning process. He stated that there had been no technical objections to the application. Mr Nelson asked committee members to support the application.

Councillor Astbury spoke as Immingham Ward Councillor. She said that she was speaking on behalf of residents who could unfortunately not attend the meeting. Councillor Astbury stated that the site had been given planning permission in 2012 as well which included a condition about highway safety, to allow for adequate parking and highway safety. Councillor Astbury said her main concern was parking and eight cars driving on and off the site. She said that she would be happy with two or three dwellings if the parking was adequate. Councillor Astbury said that the development did not appear to be safe. She said that the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Transport shared her concerns.

Councillor Hudson said that he initially thought the application was pretty straightforward but after listening to the Ward Councillor, he now had doubts. He said that the proposed development did appear to look cramped on the site. Councillor Hudson said that he was surprised highways officers were not requiring that a turning circle be put in.

Ms Hall said that the reason a turning circle was not being asked for by highways officers was due to the road not being a classified road. She clarified that it was recommended that residents reverse into the site.

Councillor Hudson said that he was not sure that residents would do so. He commented that he thought having less dwellings on the site would be better, but he was struggling as the proposed development had previously been approved.

Councillor Lindley said that in an ideal world, people would reverse onto the site but that might not always be the case. He said were it not for the pandemic, the development would have gone ahead. Councillor Lindley said that the proposed scheme was similar to what had previously been approved. Councillor Lindley thought the proposed development would be an improvement to the area as the current state of the site was not good. He said that whilst the site was on a bend, it was not a major road. Councillor Lindley proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Goodwin queried how many trees would be lost due to the proposed development.

Ms Loring said that the trees would be retained.

Councillor Shutt said that he understood both the neighbour’s concerns and the argument that the site had been granted planning permission before. He queried whether it would be worth reducing the speed limit on the road.

Ms Hall stated that due to the low volume of traffic on the particular road, and that people did slow down at the bend, a reduction in the speed limit was not deemed necessary at the present time. She said that it would be unlikely people would go above 20mph at the bend anyway and that there was also street lighting in the area.

Councillor Croft sought clarification on the statement made by the Ward Councillor that the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Transport was concerned. She queried why the portfolio holder was concerned but the highways officers weren’t.

Ms Hall said that the assessment by the highways officer was done independently in accordance with the relevant planning policies. She commented that it had been determined by the highways officer that the proposed development would not have a severe impact on road safety.

The Chair stated that the portfolio holder had not requested to speak at the meeting.

Councillor Batson queried what would happen to the footpath.

Ms Hall said that would be dealt with in the final detail.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that she did have concerns about the application. She queried what would happen if the volume of traffic increased in the future. Councillor Aisthorpe commented that the planning permission granted in 2012 appeared to take into account the future, whilst it seemed that this had not been considered regarding the current application. Councillor Aisthorpe said that she was considering voting against the application.  

Mr Dixon stated that it was important to consider where the proposed development was situated in the village. He said that officers had to look at the current classification of the road.

Councillor Aisthorpe stated that not everybody was confident with reversing and that over time the traffic levels would change. She said that she had concerns that accidents could take place.

The Chair said that the specific area was a difficult area to develop in.

Councillor Holland said that he thought that people would not be reversing onto the site. He said that it was therefore important to balance that issue with the benefit that the proposed dwellings would bring. Councillor Holland commented that a lot of dwellings were not affordable for younger people and there was a need for affordable properties. He stated he was considering voting in support of the application.

Councillor Parkinson commented that he thought a turning space would be better. He said that it appeared to him that the proposed dwellings were closer to number 60 Chapel Road. He queried whether that was so they would be further away from the bend.

Ms Loring said that on the other side, there was a private access which might make it appear closer to number 60 in the plans.

Councillor Parkinson sought clarification on the issue of drainage and sewage mentioned by objectors.

Ms Loring said that the council’s drainage officer had considered the application and was happy with it.  

Councillor Goodwin seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Mr Dixon said that if committee members wanted a condition included regarding the protection of trees on the site, then that could be added.

Councillor Lindley and Councillor Goodwin agreed to this.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted 8 for and 2 against for the application to be approved.)

Councillor Pettigrew returned to the meeting at this point.

Ms Hattle Fitzgerald returned to the meeting at this point.

COUNCILLOR PETTIGREW IN THE CHAIR

Item 2 – DM/0833/23/FUL – 68 Brighowgate, Grimsby

Ms Loring introduced the application and explained that it sought permission for a change of use from a single dwelling to a house with multiple occupancy, with repairs and redecorating to the exterior including the formation of a secure cycle store. She said that the application had been brought before the committee due to the number of objections received. Ms Loring explained that the proposed development would have eight bedrooms, each having an en-suite provision. She said that there would also be a bin store on site. Ms Loring stated that the dwelling was located within the development area of Grimsby and the development was acceptable in principle. Ms Loring said that each of the rooms had been checked by the council’s housing officer who had reviewed the scheme and determined that it was acceptable in terms of size. She explained that the council’s highways officer had not objected to the application due to the location of the dwelling and its proximity to the Town Centre as well as the proposed cycle storage provision. Ms Loring said that there was also limited on street parking close to the site. Ms Loring stated that there had been a lot of neighbour objections received about the application. She said that it was acknowledged that there would be an increase in the comings and goings at the dwelling due to the change of use, but they were not considered to be unduly harmful. Ms Loring explained that as there would be no physical changes to the openings of the dwelling and as they would all remain as they are, the concerns raised regarding overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing were acknowledged but would not be detrimental to neighbouring properties. She said that the other concerns raised by neighbours such as anti-social behaviour were not controlled by the Planning Department. Ms Loring stated that the proposed development would require and be subject to a house with multiple occupancy licence which would be controlled through separate legislation. Ms Loring said that the dwelling was located within flood zone one and that a Sequential Test was therefore not required. Ms Loring stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 22, 33 and 39 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and sections 5, 14 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework. She said that the application was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Ms Miller spoke in objection to the application. She said that she was speaking on behalf of residents and those who visited the area. Ms Miller said that all of the neighbours she had spoken to had movingly talked about why they did not agree with 68 Brighowgate being developed into an eight-bedroom house of multiple occupancy. Ms Miller said that residents had expressed concerns about parking and a lack of garden at the property. Ms Miller said that everyone currently living in the area liked living there and spoke about purposely choosing to buy or rent there. Ms Miller stated that there had been some frustrations raised about some properties being neglected in particular with the area being a conservation area. She said that the cutting down of the mature trees at The Lodge opposite had also left residents frustrated and lacking in trust, following assurances from council officers that it would not happen. Ms Miller said that residents did not think turning 68 Brighowgate into an eight roomed house of multiple occupancy in such a position near the busy roads with no parking opportunities would at all benefit, let alone enhance the area. She explained that anti-social behaviour and the effect it had had on the residents lives was a major issue for all when the adjoining property to 68 Brighowgate was previously mismanaged. Ms Miller said that the issue had caused residents significant problems and lead to many feeling unsafe. She said that residents did not want to see a return to that situation. Ms Miller said that she also had her doubts that an absent landlord wanting planning permission for eight tenants to occupy a house of multiple occupancy thus maximising profit would have any interest in their tenants’ actions, interactions, and behaviours in Grimsby. Ms Miller stated that people matter, their views matter and we should care about where people live, what they live in and who they live alongside. She said that is what makes a community.  Ms Miller stated that she was proud to be part of such a community, hence the significant level of opposition to the application.

Councillor Silvester spoke as the Ward Councillor for the Park Ward. He said that he was speaking on behalf of all of the Park ward councillors. Councillor Silvester said that he was against the application and as were many of the residents. He said that the ward councillors and residents were all too aware of the recent history directly next door to the property, which was only split into two flats and the impact previously unvetted tenants had on the nearby community. He said that the application appeared to pay no attention whatsoever to existing parking concerns in the immediate area, particularly along Brighowgate. Councillor Silvester explained that as well as parking restrictions being already in place, residents were also impacted by visitors to the Grimsby town centre. Councillor Silvester said that one resident had initially enquired about purchasing 68 Brighowgate as a single dwelling, but the lack of a suitable driveway and subsequent parking concerns led to him looking elsewhere, yet the developer for the application was applying for eight dwellings. He said that the tenants in the two flats adjoining the property had no parking facilities at all and found themselves having to use Abbey Vets car park, which was on the opposite side of Bargate. Councillor Silvester stated that with the previous occupants at 113 Abbey Road, there were constant issues with anti-social behaviour. He said that should similar tenants occupy this proposed house of multiple occupancy, any unacceptable behaviour would not just affect nearby residents, but also staff and customers at Abbey Vets, along with parents, pupils and staff at St. James’ School. Councillor Silvester said that he did not wish to see properties vacant for any length of time and realised that this could also attract anti-social behaviour, but there were an alarming and increasing number of houses of multiple occupancy in Grimsby. Councillor Silvester stated that the Wellow Conservation area was there for a reason and remained one of the few areas in North East Lincolnshire where we have managed to preserve much of our proud heritage and most attractive properties. He said that he would like to see this remain. Councillor Silvester said that he would suggest and advise that the property either remained as one dwelling or a maximum of two, instead of yet another opportunity for an out of area developer to maximise their income.

Councillor Hasthorpe said that he would like to see eight people have a roof over their heads, but he also understood the concern raised by neighbours. He said that he would listen to the rest of the debate.

Councillor Hudson said that it was a difficult application to consider. He stated that there was a need for the type of accommodation a multiple occupancy house would provide. Councillor Hudson said that whilst you could have eight people in a family living in a property, he understood the concerns raised by residents. Councillor Hudson said that he was minded to support the objectors to the application.

Councillor Parkinson stated that houses with multiple occupancies had previously been problematic. He said that he thought there should be sound insulation installed. Councillor Parkinson commented that he also had concerns about there being only one kitchen and thought that something better should be arranged. He said that he had further concerns about parking. Councillor Parkinson commented that he did not think it was the best of plans.

Ms Loring said that some wall treatments had been proposed to be done due to the issue of sound. Ms Loring stated that the building next door did contain three flats. She further explained that for a house of multiple occupancy you have to be granted a housing licence. Ms Loring confirmed that a housing licence for this application would be granted.

Councillor Parkinson queried whether there would be sound insulation.

Mr Dixon stated that the issue of sound insultation was covered under building regulations.

Councillor Shutt queried whether planning permission was needed for a house of multiple occupancy if it was limited to five people.

Mr Dixon clarified that a multiple occupancy house for 6 people could be allowed under permitted development. He said that any more than that, then formal planning permission was needed. Mr Dixon stated that all houses of multiple occupancy must have a housing licence.

Councillor Shutt stated that he had received complaints about other houses of multiple occupancy that had been allowed under permitted development. Councillor Shutt said that he was torn regarding the application as whilst he did not think houses of multiple occupancy were necessarily good for the area, there was the issue of need.

Mr Dixon stated that issues regarding current houses of multiple occupancy were something the housing team would deal with.

Councillor Lindley stated that there was a need for houses of multiple occupancy in the area. He said that they were affordable. Councillor Lindley commented that sometimes the problems can be the landlords who operate the premises. He said that he was not averse to houses of multiple occupancy in principle but the people who live in them and the people who operate them would be the ones which determine whether there would be any issues. Councillor Lindley said that the committee had no control over that. He commented that he was undecided about the application. 

Councillor Goodwin said that there was a need for this type of accommodation in the area. She said that she felt like the minimum was being spent on the property and sympathised with the residents. Councillor Goodwin said that she had concerns about highway safety and the statement regarding the premises being close to the town centre. She said that just because the premises was located close to the town centre, did not mean people would live there who didn’t have cars or would not use any cars they did have. Councillor Goodwin said that people didn’t just use their cars to visit the town centre. She proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor Hudson said that anyone could have a bad neighbour and that was not just an issue with houses of multiple occupancy. He said that he had listened to the debate and was going to support the proposal of refusal. Councillor Hudson said that the developer would then have the opportunity to go away and re-consider the plans. Councillor Hudson stated that he had concerns regarding parking, impact on the highway network and the impact on neighbours. He seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that there were several houses of multiple occupancy in her ward. She said that she was not a fan of the type of accommodation and that a lot of the time, they could cause more problems, rather than help. Councillor Aisthorpe said that there was a need for accommodation for housing in the borough, but she did not believe houses of multiple occupancies were the answer.

Councillor Holland stated that he knew the area well and that the houses in the particular area were very expensive to maintain. Councillor Holland said that he had concerns about the impact on the conservation area. He commented that the conservation area was currently in good shape and that the area might start to go downhill. Councillor Holland stated that the conservation area was something the town could be proud of. Councillor Holland stated that he had concerns about parking in the area and the number of occupants. He said that he thought it would be better for the property to be divided into two, not eight.

Councillor Hasthorpe commented that members were elected to represent the people. He said that there were sufficient reasons to refuse the application and he would be supporting the proposal of refusal.

Mr Dixon outlined the reasons for refusal as stated by committee members.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused.

(Note – the committee voted 10 for with 1 abstention for the application to be refused.)

Item 3 – DM/0235/23/FUL – The Georgian House, Main Road, Barnoldby Le Beck.

Ms Loring introduced the application and explained that it sought permission for the erection of three dwellings with associated works and alterations to the existing vehicular and pedestrian access. She said that the application had been brought before the committee due to a call in from the ward councillor. Ms Loring stated that the proposed site was located outside of the development area for Barnoldby Le Beck and was located within the open countryside. Ms Loring said that policy 3 and policy 4 don’t allow for housing to be in the open countryside. Ms Loring stated that the council was now able to provide a five-year supply of housing and therefore the tilted balance consideration did not come into effect. Ms Loring explained that some exceptions can be made under policy 5 where certain criteria were met. She said that the proposal did not meet any of the relevant criteria. Ms Loring said that the development would result in a visual intrusion into the open countryside which would be detrimental to the character and value of the countryside. She said that the council’s trees and woodlands officer had not objected to the application but had requested conditions be included with the application requiring a detailed landscaping scheme and tree protection plan. Ms Loring stated that the council’s highways officer and the public rights of way officer were happy with the changes that had been proposed but had requested conditions be included with the application. She explained that the proposed site was located within an area of low flood risk and was therefore acceptable in flooding terms. Ms Loring said that the council’s drainage officer had requested conditions be included within the application in order to address the surface water drainage of the site. Ms Loring stated that there had been various objections raised about the application from neighbours citing concerns such as loss of privacy and overlooking. She explained that there had been some changes made to the initial plan to address these concerns and that in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy, those issues had been dealt with. Ms Loring said that the council’s heritage officer had requested that a Written Scheme of Investigation be submitted by the applicant as the site formed part of the medieval settlement of Barnoldby Le Beck. Ms Loring said that the issue could be dealt with through a planning condition. Ms Loring stated that the issue of principle of the development remained as it was located outside of the development boundary and in the open countryside. She said that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the rural character of the area and would not be a sustainable form of development. Ms Loring stated that the application was not in accordance with policies 3 and 5 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for refusal.

Mr Foreman spoke as the agent for the application. He explained that the application had been submitted following a positive pre-application process. He said that the plans were suitable for the area with soft and hard landscaping included. Mr Foreman explained that the application had been submitted prior to the new housing supply figures. He said that it took 14 weeks for the Planning Department to respond.

Mr Barford spoke as the applicant for the application. He said that the Planning Department’s delay in responding had hampered the position of the application due to the new housing figures being introduced in that time. He asked committee members to take that into consideration when making a decision on the application. Mr Barford said that he did not consider the site to be located within the open countryside. He said that he had tried to be proactive at every stage throughout the planning process. Mr Barford asked that committee members take into consideration that the change in the housing supply figures had negatively impacted the application. Mr Barford said that when he started the pre-application process last year, there had been no mention of the housing supply issue.

Councillor Hasthorpe said that the proposed site was located within his Ward. He stated that he had been contacted a lot about the development. Councillor Hasthorpe proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor Hudson said that he had called in the application as there had been a degree of confusion about the timing and delays with the decision. Councillor Hudson stated that the housing supply numbers had changed and that due to the proposed site being located within the open countryside, planning officers had recommended refusal of the application. Councillor Hudson said that had a recommendation been reached during the time of the previous housing supply numbers, the recommendation could have been different. Councillor Hudson commented that he understood the concerns raised by neighbours. He said that he had not yet made up his mind regarding the application.

Councillor Lindley said that the proposed site was outside of the development boundary. He said that the development boundaries were there to protect open spaces. Councillor Lindley seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

Councillor Parkinson commented that he was pleased that the housing supply numbers were what they were. He said that that he would support the proposal of refusing the application based on all the issues referred to the in the officer’s report. 

RESOLVED – That the application be refused.

(Note – the committee voted 10 for and 1 against for the application to be refused.)

Councillor Hasthorpe left the meeting at this point.

Item 4 – DM/0303/23/FUL – The Hope Centre, Hope Street, Grimsby.

Mr Dixon introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to erect a single storey independent living facility. He said that the facility would comprise of five-bedroom units with a shared kitchen facility and would provide up to five people with medium to long term accommodation. Mr Dixon explained that the application had been deferred by the committee at a previous meeting in order to allow for further public consultation to take place regarding the application. Mr Dixon said that lots of representations had been received with some supporting the application and some against the application citing concerns of anti-social behaviour and noise issues. Mr Dixon explained that the proposed site was located within the development area of Grimsby and was acceptable in principle. He referred to policy 16 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan which supported provision for specialised accommodation. Mr Dixon said that the proposed site was in a sustainable location. He said that there were no issues with the proposed design of the development. Mr Dixon explained that there had been concerns raised by committee members at the previous meeting regarding the existing night shelter. He said that members had to consider whether the specific facility being proposed would be detrimental. Mr Dixon said that since the previous meeting, discussions had taken place with the police and with Harbour Place regarding the concerns raised by residents and committee members about the existing night shelter and the potential for the proposed facility to exacerbate those concerns. Mr Dixon explained that Harbour Place had implemented further controls regarding the night shelter which were listed in the report and included measures such as gates on the south east of the site being permanently locked to reduce clients congregating and clear glazing being put in to allow for better monitoring by staff. Mr Dixon stated that Harbour Place had also engaged with the community and had put forward how they would manage the facility. Mr Dixon said that it was considered that the proposed development would not have a negative impact on the neighbouring amenities. He said that the council’s highways officer had not objected to the application. Mr Dixon said that the council’s drainage officer had requested conditions be included with the application requiring a sustainable drainage scheme to be submitted by the applicant. Mr Dixon stated that the proposed development would provide accommodation for a small number of more vulnerable people in the borough. He said that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 16, 22, 33, 34, 36 and 38 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.  

Mr Barr spoke as the applicant for the application. He said that the application had been previously deferred by the committee due to concerns raised by residents. Mr Barr said that residents had expressed concern about Harbour Place clients congregating outside as well as some other issues. Mr Barr said that there had been some disruptions for Harbour Place as well during the summer months which limited them to how many people they could have on the site. He said that Harbour Place was committed to engaging with the public and had held meetings with residents. Mr Barr said that Harbour Place was undertaking litter picking and was going to change the glass so staff could monitor what was happening outside the building. He stated that members of the Harbour Place team had met with the Police and would continue to do so moving forward. Mr Barr said that there had already been some positive results following the meetings. He said that the existing night shelter, which was what the concerns raised by residents pertained to, was seeing an increase in demand. Mr Barr stated that the new proposed facility would help to alleviate that issue. He said that the new proposed facility would be a separate site to the night shelter and was not going to be an additional night shelter. Mr Barr said that Harbour Place had clients that needed the new facility and the accommodation it would provide. He said that it would be for five people and would help them as they were vulnerable people. Mr Barr stated that Harbour Place was looking to enhance their CCTV provision on the site and that each resident at the new facility would have their own support worker. Mr Barr said that Harbour Place had significant experience in helping those who need it and in helping people become active members of the community. Mr Barr explained that the new facility would also enable Harbour Place to generate income. He said that there was a shortage of this specific accommodation in the area. Mr Barr stated that the new facility would support the people of Grimsby and provide those who need it with a safe place.  

Councillor Beasant spoke as the Ward Councillor for the East Marsh ward. He said that he would like to thank the committee for deferring the application to allow for ward councillors to speak with Harbour Place and other parties about the issues. Councillor Beasant stated that Harbour Place had engaged with the ward councillors and the residents and there had been progress in tackling the issues. Councillor Beasant said that ward councillors had asked for a meeting but that two had actually taken place since the previous planning committee meeting. He said that in the first meeting, residents were able to raise their concerns and one of the main concerns raised seemed to be the walkway at the back of Harbour Place. Councillor Beasant said that he was hoping to bring this issue to the Portfolio Holder for Safer and Stronger Communities to address. He stated that whilst there had been progress, there was still more work to be done. Councillor Beasant said that he was still uneasy about the application but in many ways supported it, but more work needed to be done to address residents concerns. Councillor Beasant stated that he welcomed the idea that more meetings take place and that engagement with the community would continue. Councillor Beasant said that ward councillors would actively engage in those meetings.

  Councillor Aisthorpe said that she had some reservations about the report presented by planning officers. She referred to a statement within the officer’s report which said that the issue of anti-social behaviour and drug use was experienced in the wider East Marsh area. Councillor Aisthorpe said that the statement made was misleading as whilst there were drug related issues throughout the borough, they vary from street to street. Councillor Aisthorpe stated that she and her colleagues were contacted about drug related issues on Hope Street more than anywhere else in the East Marsh ward. She said that was an indication of the severity of the issue on Hope Street. Councillor Aisthorpe stated that at the last meeting with Harbour Place, residents had told her that Harbour Place had taken positive steps to deal with the issues, but that the issues had not gone away. Councillor Aisthorpe said that she did not agree with another statement made in the planning officers report that said that many of the issues were not related to Harbour Place clients. Councillor Aisthorpe commented that the statement was not necessarily true and that the role of Harbour Place in the matter should not be underestimated. Councillor Aisthorpe said that Harbour Place were working with ward councillors and other parties and were exploring ways to help further. She said that the accommodation was needed. Councillor Aisthorpe commented that she would like to see the work continue to deal with the current issues. She proposed that the application be approved.  

Councillor Hudson said that he was pleased that consultation with residents and ward councillors had taken place. He said that he had no issues with the application. Councillor Hudson seconded the proposal to approve the application.  

Councillor Lindley stated that he had been in favour of the application when it had appeared before the committee at a previous meeting. He said that he thought that the accommodation would help the most vulnerable people in society. Councillor Lindley commented that more facilities like the one proposed, were needed. He said that he acknowledged the concerns regarding anti-social behaviour and that work with other outside bodies should take place to deal with that. Councillor Lindley stated that the application was for a vital facility, and he would be supporting the application.  

Councillor Shutt commented that he agreed with Councillor Lindley.  

Councillor Goodwin said that she would support the application. She commented that she was pleased to hear that the ward councillors were being listened to. Councillor Goodwin said that it was important that the work between the ward councillors, Harbour Place and the other parties continued.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

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

Councillor Hasthorpe returned to the meeting at this point.

Item 5 – DM/0600/23/FULA – 114 Humberston Fitties, Humberston.

Ms Loring introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to demolish the rear extension and shed. Ms Loring said that the application also sought permission to erect a single storey extension to the rear, alter the existing chimney, replace all windows and doors including the relocated entrance, the installation of decking to the rear, reclad existing walls and roof and erect a detached garden store with decking. She explained that the application had been brought before the committee due to an objection received from Humberston Village Council. Ms Loring stated the proposed site was outside of the development boundary but was located within the resort area and was within the Humberston Fitties Conservation Area. Ms Loring said that the proposed development was acceptable in principle. Ms Loring explained that the application had been amended following the council’s heritage officers comments. She said that alterations had been made to the chimney and that all of the UPVC windows would be replaced to timber. Ms Loring stated that the proposed design had followed the Humberston Fitties Design Guide. She said that the proposed changes were considered to be a significant betterment to the existing chalet and the council’s heritage officer was supportive of the application. Ms Loring said that there had been some neighbour objections, but no objections had been received from the adjoining neighbours. She explained that there would be sufficient separation between the chalet and neighbouring chalets and there would not be any issues of overlooking, overshadowing or dominance. Ms Loring said that the proposed site was located within a flood risk area but a flood risk assessment had been provided. She said that the council’s drainage officer had reviewed the details and a scheme had been agreed. Ms Loring stated that a further condition would be added to the application which limited the demolition. Ms Loring stated that the application was in accordance with policies 5, 22, 33 and 39 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and sections 12, 14 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework. She said that the application was recommended for approval with conditions.

Mr Deakins spoke as the agent for the application. He said that the current chalet represented a list of what you shouldn’t have when considering the Humberston Fitties Design Guide. Mr Deakins said that the materials that would be used were a deliberate choice. He said that he had tried to add variety to the street scene. Mr Deakins said that whilst the size of the extension was slightly more than the Humberston Fitties Design Guide allowed, he had tried to keep it in proportion. Mr Deakins said that the design included plenty of garden space and parking space. He said that his clients were happy with final design and the application was supported by planning officers.

Councillor Hudson said that the proposed development would be a betterment to the current site. He proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Holland said that there was a right way and wrong way to refurbish a chalet and the applicant and those involved had gone about it in the right way. He said that he was pleased that the council’s heritage officers had been listened to. Councillor Holland seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Goodwin said that she was pleased to see people working together. She commented that she would be supporting the application.

Councillor Parkinson said that he was in two minds about the application. He said that part of the attraction of the Humberston Fitties was the quaint designs. Councillor Parkinson stated that he had concerns that if every chalet was to be modernised, then the Humberston Fitties would look very different. However, Councillor Parkinson did think that the proposed changes would be an improvement.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

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

Item 6 – DM/0171/23/FUL – 49 – 51 Market Street, Cleethorpes.

Mr Dixon introduced the application and advised that it sought permission for a change of use from C1 (hotel apartments) to C4 (house of multiple occupancy) for the first and second floor. Mr Dixon said that the application also sought permission for a change of use of the ground floor from a nightclub to Class E (shops, offices, cafes and restaurants). He said that the application had been brought before the committee due to a call in from the ward councillor. Mr Dixon said that the building was located within the development boundary of Cleethorpes. Mr Dixon referred to policy 23 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan which supported residential accommodation being above ground floor commercial units. He said that the application was acceptable in principle. Mr Dixon explained that on the first and second floor, no alterations were proposed to take place other than to replace the windows. He said that there would be no increase in overlooking issues to consider. Mr Dixon said that there would also not be an increase in the footprint of the building, so there would be no issue of massing. Mr Dixon stated that the building was located within a busy area of Cleethorpes and that due to this and its current use of being a hotel, the change of use would not cause any adverse impacts in terms of people entering the building and leaving throughout the day. He said that the council’s highways officer had raised no objection to the application. Mr Dixon stated that whilst there might be some noise disturbance to future occupiers and to those in the surrounding area, it was not considered to be a problem in terms of changing the use as the current use of the ground floor was for a nightclub. Mr Dixon said that the applicant had done a lot of work with planning officers and the council’s environmental protection officer regarding the issue of noise. He said that a Noise Impact Assessment had been submitted by the applicant and was subsequently approved by the council’s environmental protection officer. Mr Dixon said that sound insulation would be required between the ground floor and the first floor, along with restrictions on the hours in which the ground floor commercial unit could be operated. Mr Dixon said that there would also be a bin storage area on the premises. Mr Dixon said that as long as conditions were adhered to, it was considered that there would be no adverse impacts on the future occupiers or neighbouring amenities. Mr Dixon stated that the application was in accordance with policies 2, 5, 15, 22, 23, 33, 36, 38 and 39 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Mr Drew spoke as the applicant for the application. He said that the application was for a change of use, and the proposal was to convert the existing nightclub into a different commercial unit. Mr Drew said that the existing nightclub had been the subject of numerous noise complaints and had also contributed to the vermin problem in the area. He said that the ground floor had now been refurbished and that the rooms of the first floor and second floor would be for tourists and short-term guests. Mr Drew stated that the premises were located near to similar premises that were also being used in a similar way. He said that the application had attracted positive interest and there had been no objections received. Mr Drew said that the scheme would encourage residents to move back into the Cleethorpes town centre and would contribute to the housing need for professionals. He said that he had engaged with the local community. Mr Drew explained that the application had been called in by the ward councillor as it was thought that the application would have been recommended for refusal due to concerns by the environmental protection officer. Mr Drew said that the concerns related to noise and that an acoustic survey had been undertaken. Mr Drew said that there were now no technical consultees in objection to the application. He said that by bringing the ground floor back into use, it would be a betterment to the area and improve the buildings reputation.

Councillor Hudson said that the application for a house of multiple occupancy was completed different to the earlier application for one. He proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Lindley said that the application was a clear example of where a house of multiple occupancy works. He said that he was pleased to see the unit be brought back into use. Councillor Lindley seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Goodwin queried what would happen if the applicant wanted to use the downstairs as accommodation.

The Chair said that if the applicant decided to do that in the future, they would have to submit a new change of use planning application. He stated that committee members had to consider the application as it was.

Councillor Shutt commented that it was a shame that not all houses of multiple occupancy fit into their areas as this one appeared to.

Councillor Parkinson said that he was surprised to see the downstairs not being let out as a bar. He said that he would be supporting the application.

Councillor Aisthorpe said that she was confused by committee members comments as members had voted on an earlier application based on the view that houses of multiple occupancy cause anti-social behaviour. She said that she understood that no objections had been raised by residents about the application but would be voting against the application. Councillor Aisthorpe said that the committee needed to be consistent.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted 10 for and 1 against for the application to be approved.)

Item 7 – DM/0927/22/OUT – Land at the Former YMCA, Peaks Lane, Grimsby

Mr Dixon introduced the outline application and explained that it sought permission to create a care village to include a residential care home for the elderly, an immediate care facility, independent living accommodation and ancillary facilities with all matters reserved. Mr Dixon said that residential care home would have up to eighty bedrooms, the independent care facility would have up to 30 bedrooms and the independent living accommodation would have up to 10 bedrooms. He said that the application had been brought before the committee as the application was a departure from the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan. He said that there had been no objections received regarding the application. Mr Dixon said that at the current stage, the existing building on the proposed site was being considered for re-use but was not a part of the current application. Mr Dixon stated that the proposed site was located within the development area for Grimsby. He referred to policy 6 and 16 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan which support developments of health facilities and specialised facilities for the elderly and other people with specific needs. Mr Dixon explained that the application was a departure from the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan as the site was allocated as a sport and recreation area. Mr Dixon said that loss of these types of areas can be permitted but only where there is a surplus of these areas or alternative provision is provided. He said that the site had not been used as a playing field for the last five years and that therefore Sports England were not a statutory consultee. Mr Dixon said that they were still consulted on the application. Mr Dixon stated that the council was not envisaging using the site for sports recreation and it should be noted that the site was not a part of the council’s Playing Pitch strategy. However, Mr Dixon said that officers had determined that a contribution should be provided by the applicant to mitigate the loss of the provision. He stated that the applicant had worked with Sports England who had initially objected to the application, and a contribution figure of £52,197 had been agreed. Mr Dixon explained that Sports England had now withdrawn their objection on the basis that a section 106 was completed to secure the contribution. Mr Dixon said that the proposed development would be in keeping with the existing area. He said that as it was an outline application, details of design were limited but the indicative layout showed that the proposed development could fit on the site comfortably. Mr Dixon said that the council’s trees and woodlands officer had not objected to the application but had advised on requirements which would apply at the reserved matters stage. Mr Dixon said that it was considered that there would be no issue of massing, overshadowing, or overlooking issues as the buildings would be sufficiently spaced away from the immediate boundaries. Mr Dixon stated that the proposed development was acceptable in terms of flood risk as it would be located within flood zone one which was sequentially preferable for this type of development. He said that the council’s drainage officer had required that a sustainable surface water drainage scheme be agreed prior to the development commencing. Mr Dixon said that this could be dealt with by a planning condition. He said that the council’s highways officer had not objected to the application. Mr Dixon stated that the council’s heritage officer had not objected to the application but had requested a condition be included with the application requiring an archaeological written scheme of investigation be submitted. He said that the council’s ecology officer had also requested conditions be included with the application. Mr Dixon stated that the application was recommended for approval subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement. He said that it was therefore recommended that the decision be delegated to the Assistant Director for Regeneration to allow for the agreement to be completed.

Councillor Hasthorpe proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor Hudson seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor Lindley said that he thought it would be an excellent facility and would help with the ever-increasing demand for adult social care services. He commented that he was more than happy to approve the application.

Councillor Shutt said that he thought it was a great use of the site. He queried whether the contribution would go towards sport in the borough and whether the committee would be informed of where it had been used.

Mr Dixon stated that the money received would go towards sport in the borough. He said that he could report back to the committee about where the money had been spent. Mr Dixon stated that with a section 106 agreement, the money could only be spent on what it was allocated for.

Councillor Croft said that she was happy to support the application and was pleased to see the site being brought back into use.

Councillor Goodwin stated that she agreed with Councillor Croft.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

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

Mr Dixon left the meeting at this point.

Item 8 – DM/0300/23/FUL – 33 Humberston Avenue, Humberston.

Mr Limmer introduced the application and explained that it sought permission to vary condition 8 as granted under DM/0858/16/FUL to amend the layout and appearance of the dwellings. Mr Limmer said that the application had been brought before the committee due to the number of objections received by neighbours. He explained that the principle of the development had been established through the previous permission. Mr Limmer said that the proposed changes included a first-floor side window being removed at plot 1 and a new opening being included in the design which would face the host garden area. Mr Limmer said that there were also some proposed changes for plot 2 on the site which included moving the plot further east and the garage now being adjoined to the side wall of the dwelling with the inclusion of a green wall to the side elevation. Mr Limmer explained that the access would also be altered following the removal of the turning area and the detached garages. He said that there had been some objections regarding the application from neighbours. Mr Limmer stated that the plans had been amended to mitigate the effects on neighbouring properties. Mr Limmer said that it was considered that with the amendments, there would not be any undue impacts to the neighbour in terms of massing, overlooking or loss of privacy. Mr Limmer said that the council’s highways officer had reviewed the changes to the access road and found the proposal to be acceptable. He said that the council’s highways officer had requested a condition requiring a Construction Traffic Management Plan and a condition requiring further detail on how cars could turn properly on the site be included with the application. Mr Limmer said that it was considered that the proposed changes were of an acceptable scale and nature and would not create significant additional impacts to neighbours. He stated that the application was therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Ms Thomas spoke in objection to the application. She said that she had originally had no problem with the previously agreed plans. Ms Thomas explained that the current plans now meant that the development would bring the building line forward and would decrease the amount of light at her property. Ms Thomas explained that the new plans also now meant that when the door of the proposed dwelling at plot one was open, people would be able to see into her property. She said that the amendments to the new plans had not alleviated her concerns. Ms Thomas stated that material weight should be given to the objectors. She said that she had concerns that a further planning application would be brought to the committee in the future. Ms Thomas said that she was happy for development on the land and had supported the 2016 plans. She stated that she did not support the current plans being proposed. Ms Thomas said that she was also concerned about the fact that plans had been submitted on the day of the committee.

Councillor Shreeve spoke as the Ward Councillor for the Humberston and New Waltham Ward. He said that Ms Thomas had been fully aware that there would be a development on the land and had bought her property knowing that there was extant permission. Councillor Shreeve said that the proposed plans were the problem as it would mean the development would be within two metres of Ms Thomas property boundary wall. Councillor Shreeve said that there were also concerns about the proposed height. He stated that the current application was not the first application to come before the committee. He explained that a previous application had been rejected due to concerns over density and character. Councillor Shreeve said that he was initially going to request a site visit take place, but that he had seen the impact the development would have and did not think a site visit was necessary. Councillor Shreeve asked committee members to support residents and refuse the application.

Councillor Hudson said that he found it unfair that the residents had to have the development so close to their property. He said that he did not understand why the plans had changed as the neighbours were happy with the previous plans and the parish council was as well. He commented that he found the application to be unfair to the residents. Councillor Hudson proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor Croft stated that she could not see what was wrong with the previous plans. She said that the new plans made the development look squashed on the site. Councillor Croft seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

Councillor Goodwin said that she thought it looked like the applicant might want to put another house onto the site. She said that she did not understand the reason for the change in the plans. Councillor Goodwin proposed that a site visit by the committee take place.

Councillor Parkinson said that it was a fairly rural area and there should be a nice separation between the properties. He said that he thought the plan was wrong. He queried whether the application could be deferred to allow for the applicant to reconsider the plans.

The Chair said that the committee had to consider the current application. He said that the applicant can re-submit an application with changes if they wanted to. The Chair said that was not a decision for the committee. He reiterated that the committee needed to consider the application as it was.

Councillor Shutt queried why the developer had not addressed the committee. He said that he would be supporting the proposal to refuse the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with conditions.

(Note – the committee voted 10 for and 1 against for the application to be refused.)

Mr Dixon returned to the meeting at this point.

P.42           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 21st September – 19th October 2023

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

P.43           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.44           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.45           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 12.26 p.m.