Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes (if any).

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Sue Ransome.  No substitute member in attendance.

To sign and confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

With the agreement of the committee the Chairman signed the minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday 19 July 2016

To receive declarations of interests in respect of any item on the agenda.

A covering declaration of a personal interest was registered for all committee members in respect of Lincolnshire County Councillors Bob McAuley and Tiggs Keywood-Wainright both of whom were registered to speak during the meeting and who were known to the committee members.

Councillor Colin Brotherton and Councillor Yvonne Stevens both declared a conflict of interest in planning application B 16 0205 due to their individual family relationships with objectors to the application.  Both members confirmed they would absent themselves from the meeting for the duration of the deliberation of the item.

Councillor David Brown declared that the applicant for planning application B 16 0041 was known to him but no discussions had taken place between them in respect of the application.  Councillor Brown also declared he had been at the Parish Council Meeting when the application had been considered but he had taken no part in any discussion.

Councillor Stephen Woodliffe declared that he had received a telephone message from Mrs Edgoose an objector to planning application B 16 0206:  he confirmed he had in turn returned the call and himself left a message but no conversation had followed.  Councillor Woodliffe confirmed he had not realised who Mrs Edgoose was until he had seen the pubic speakers list on arrival at the meeting.

Councillor Jonathan Noble declared that on arrival at the meeting he recognised the applicant for planning application B 16 0205 as a former pupil he had taught over twenty years previously:  he confirmed that no communication had taken place between the applicant and himself in relation to the planning application.

Councillor Brian Rush declared that he had received a phone call in respect of planning application B 16 0205 but had refused to comment on the application with the caller. 

He made a further declaration in respect of planning application B 16 0041 in that the applicant who was known to him, had visited Councillor Rush at his place of residence in his capacity as a member of the Council but that no discussion had taken place in respect of the planning application.

Councillor Alison Austin declared that the applicant for planning application B 16 0041 was known to her as a Wyberton resident but she had held no discussions with him in respect of the application.

No public questions

Prior to moving into part 2 of the agenda the Monitoring Officer requested the committee’s agreement to continue the business of the day, should the meeting still be in progress at 5pm due to the volume of business on the agenda.  In line with the Council’s Constitution for meeting rules all committee meetings were scheduled for a 3 hour period:  thereafter a majority agreement was required by a committee for continuation of the meeting. 

Councillor Paul Skinner moved the continuation of the meeting which was seconded by Councillor Jonathan Noble:  the vote taken resulted in a majority vote to continue the meeting past the three hour limit should the need arise.

It is recorded that Councillor Colin Brotherton and Councillor Yvonne Stevens absented themselves from the meeting for the duration of the following Planning Application B 16 0205.

To answer any written questions received from members of the public no later than 5 p.m. two clear working days prior to the meeting.

Proposal:         Erection of 9 Houses

Site:                  Land off Robin Hoods Walk  Boston

Applicant:        Taylor Made Services

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and advised update information received following issue of the agenda. 

A further seven letters of objection had been received and the petition originally submitted had been extended from 130 signatures to 170 signatures.  

Committee were advised that the majority of the additional objections cited reasons already tabled, however new concerns noted that in line with the 173 houses being built in the nearby area the 9 proposed on the site would add to pedestrian and vehicle congestion.  The Guest House was concerned that access to their property could be blocked alleged that the site notice when issued had been placed in a location where residents could not see it. 

Furthermore the objectors had concerns in respect of the 12 year rule of the land ownership.  A request was made that the committee delay any decision making to allow the neighbours to consider the new information.

Confirmation was given that the submission of additional material in objection to the application had been distributed to all members of the committee in advance of the meeting.

Committee received representation in objection to the application which included:

The objector questioned the Committee’s consideration is respect of the definition of significant harm.  Highway safety and increased congestion and lack of parking were a major concern and would cause significant harm together with the residents concerns about overlooking; loss of light and amenity including a loss of green open space, together with serious concerns about damage to existing property boundaries and the risk of subsidence due to inadequate sewers and drainage. 

It was the opinion of the objectors that it was back-land development and a request for an official site visit was made.  Committee were referred to point 7.12 of the report which the objectors contested, with their opinion being that the impact would actually be extremely substantial on neighbouring residents. 

Referring to the existing traffic and footfall along Robin Hoods Walk committee were asked to note the volume of vehicles the Haven High School created; the existing residential homes and the Fire Station which could potentially also home an ambulance station. 

Noting that the Cemetery and Crematorium were also served by the road, the addition of a possible 18 vehicles accessing and exiting the site would cause serious problems both for pedestrians and drivers.

Further concerns included the lack of any traffic survey having been undertaken in such a busy area.

Committee were advised that there was no safe place across the frontage to put the rubbish bins on collection day and therefore it would impede pedestrians, including school children and result in them having to move off the pavements and onto the road.  

Committee were also asked to note the objection by Haven High School and to take seriously the concerns for the safety of the pupils.

Finally, the objectors voiced their disappointment and anger on behalf of all the residents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING

Proposed change of use of ground floor lounge area from dwelling to off licence and conversion of front garden to parking area.

The Gambles  Broadfield Street  Boston

Mr J Jankovskis

This application had been withdrawn by the applicant ahead of the meeting and no further action would be taken.

Proposed new residential property (revised description).

Streetway  Wyberton  Boston

Mr Evan Jenkins   Lincolnshire Firewood and Coal

Erection of a two storey dwelling (revised description)

The Plantation  Rowdyke Road  Wyberton  PE21 7AQ

Mr E Jenkins

Presented by the Development Control Manager committee were advised of an update to the report tabled in that the actual application site was not that noted within the report.  A visual presentation confirmed the application site.

The Development Control Manager noted that committee may wish, should it grant the application, to add a further condition which would not allow any permitted development rights on the site.

Committee received representation in support of the application which included:

Confirmation was provided of the history of the application in that it had been under consideration for nearly a year and had been expected to have been approved under delegated powers,  however the case officer involved had left the Council prior to the decision notice being produced. 

The applicant’s architect consequently submitted the application to the planning inspectorate for their decision, based on non determination of the application by the Council.

Subsequently the Development Control Manager, having been made aware of the situation, had liaised with the applicant to try to rectify the situation.  Fortunately as the appeal had not been registered at the Planning Inspectorate, the applicant had been able to withdraw it and return it to the Council.

Committee were asked to note that the essential needs test had been met in relation to the safety:  the site operated on a 24 hour 7 day a week basis and this obviously was not a one person operation.  It was an in-fill plot and not located in open country, but located between two existing houses and was designated as a part of a wood yard itself:  as such it would be used if required, for any of the day to day running of the business.

Members were asked to recognise there had been no letters of objection from neither the public nor the statutory consultees and to recognise the success of the business which had been set up by a local man: 

The applicant had complied fully with all the requests and conditions of the Council. Committee were asked to endorse the officer recommendation in order that the applicant could progress his successful sustainable green business and increase employment in the local economy.

It was moved by Councillor Brain Rush and seconded by Councillor Jonathan Noble that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the additional condition which would not allow permitted development of the site:

VOTE:      In Favour    12.        Against   0.        Abstention 0.

RESOLVED:     That the application be granted as per the officer recommendations and subject to the following conditions:

1.              The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this approval.

          Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.              The occupation of the dwelling hereby approved shall be limited to an employee of The Lincolnshire Firewood and Coal Company only.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Proposed garage extension and raising of the height of the roof to provide a hobby room above.

15 Mentmore Gardens  Boston  PE21 7TH

Mr C Dingwall

The Development Control Manager presented the report and confirmed that the application was a re-submission following an initial refusal under delegated powers.   Committee were advised that it was the opinion of the officer that the reasons for refusal had been addressed sufficiently to a reasonable extent for committee to reconsider the application.

Members were also referred to the additional information submitted by an objector following issue of the agenda, which had been distributed to all members ahead of the meeting.

Committee received representation in objection to the application which included:

The question was asked initially be the County Councillor for the ward as to when did a hobby become a business in a residential area?  The application was a gross over development of a small residential area with the capacity for a significant number of cars.  He noted the proposed extension was too large for the residential area and would be totally out of character.

Further concerns noted by an objector included confirmation that the applicant had stated in the first application that they were a member of the Kit-Car Company which built cars across the Country.  The company had an active web site which stated it had no overheads.

There was a possibility of up to 13 vehicles being parked on the site at any one time with room for 5 on the driveway along with 8 at the back plus room for a long wheeled unit.  The business would use a significant amount of pressurised gases / paint and other hazardous chemicals. 

Welding took place and could prove dangerous due to the possibility of both explosions and odour problems. Odour issues had already been experienced due to the fumes from paint spraying and neighbours had already experienced a lack of use of their gardens due to the strength of the fumes: there had been occasion’s when it had not been possible for young children to play in the garden.

Further issues included a loss of amenity due to a loss of light from the over shadowing; a loss of privacy with over looking from the gable end window and increased noise nuisance from the potential number of vehicle movements and noise generated from production and activity within the proposed new extension.

Committee were finally invited to visit the site to view the closeness of the business to the objectors’ home and see the detrimental effect it would have on the lives of the neighbours.

Officer’s provided a professional point of information confirming that the use of the proposed extension, as long as it was incidental to the enjoyment of the house, could not be a planning related matter:  any future change of use from the existing domestic use to a commercial use would require planning permission under a separate application.  Concerns relating to the use of the site in respect of environmental  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Application for the erection of 63.no residential dwellings with associated infrastructure.

Land off Station Road  Swineshead  Boston

Ashley King (Developments)

Application for the erection of 61 no. residential dwellings (revised down from 62) with associated infrastructure.

Land off Station Road  Swineshead  Boston  PE20 3NX

Ashley King (Developments) Ltd

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and confirmed one update to the report tabled:  a further objection had been received from Fairmont, Station Road, Swineshead citing objections in respect of substantial increased traffic activity and requesting that a secondary access road be developed through villa lane.

Committee received no representation in respect of this report.

It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Stephen Woodliffe that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation and subject to the conditions therein:

VOTE:      In Favour    12.        Against   0.        Abstention 0.

RESOLVED:   that the Planning Committee resolve that they are minded      to approve this application subject to conditions and:

a)    any permission is not released until the applicants have entered into a section 106 planning obligation with the Council relating to a necessary and directly related financial contribution of £124,040 for education, and the level of affordable housing which should not be less than 15% in accordance with the findings of the independent DVS report, and

b)  authority is delegated to the Development Control Manager to approve this application upon satisfactory completion of the planning obligation. If the obligation is not concluded within three months of instructions, the application will be returned to Committee.

CONDITIONS AND REASONS

1.            The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 

Reason:      Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.            The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

§  241.1079-100.P.01 ‘The Lock – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (1/18)

§  241.1080-100.P.01 ‘The Mere – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (2/18)

§  241.1770-100.P.01 ‘Plots 6, 13,  21 and 28 – Floor Plans and Elevations’  (3/18)

§  241.711-100.P.01 ‘The Welland – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (4/18)

§  241.870-100.P.01 ‘The Sparta – Floor Plans and Elevations ’ (5/18)

§  241.932-100.P.01 ‘The Coronation – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (6/18)

§  241.A732-100.P.01 ‘Plots 9, 10, 11, 29 and 30 – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (7/18)

§  241.DDG.P.01 ‘Garage Details – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (9/18)

§  241.K2S4B03-B.P.01 ‘Plots 14 and 15 – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (10/18)

§  241.K2S4B04-R.P.01’Plots 3, 12, 18 and 31 – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (11/18)

§  241.K2S4B05-R.P.01 ‘Plot 17 – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (12/18)

§  241.K2S4B02-R.P.01 ‘Plots 2, 16, 19, 20, 26, 32, 36, 37 and 51 – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (13/18)

§  241.LP.01 ‘Location Plan’ (14/18)

§  241.SL.01 Rev C ‘Site Layout’ (15A/18)

§  241.DSG.P.01 ‘Garage Details – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (16/18)

§  241.TSG.P.01 ‘Garage Details – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (17/18)

§  241.A902-100.P.01 ‘Plots 22, 23, 24 and 25 – Floor Plans and Elevations’ (18/18)

            And drawing no. 3829-02 A ‘Proposed Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy’ received 6 July 2016

Reason:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Tree Preservation Order affecting a single tree on the eastern side of Main Road, Benington

The Development Control Manager confirmed that a provisional Tree Preservation Order had been issued and committee were asked to confirm finalisation of the Order.

It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Colin Brotherton that Tree Preservation Order No. 5 be confirmed.

Vote:      11 in favour.   1 abstention.

RESOLVED:    That the committee confirm Tree Preservation Order No.5.

Report in respect of two appeal decisions:

B 15 0060   Yew Lodge  Wigtoft Road  Sutterton  Boston

B 16 0042   15 St. Mary’s Crescent  Swinshead  Boston

The Development Control Manager presented the appeal decisions in respect of the two applications noted within the report:  Yew Lodge Sutterton and St. Mary’s Crescent, Swineshead.

RESOLVED:   Committee noted the report.

Delegated Decision List for the period 04 07 16  until  29 07 16

Committee noted the Delegated Decision List.